A 15 year old girl killed a nine year old girl to see what it was like.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Ok along comes this girl. She planned the murder. She had even dug the childs grave before the murder. The nine year old victim had done nothing to the 15 year old. The older girl killed her to see what it felt like.

Do we know this for a fact?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Unfortunately, we (as in, humanity) have no clue how to rehabilitate a sociopath. We tried for example, appealing to their human side, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be one. We tried psychotherapy, but they just learn to hide it better. The only thing that seems to work _sometimes_ is to convince them that they have more to gain with stuff that won't land them in jail. But even that's basically hit and miss, and depends on a lot of other factors.

 

[commandlinegamer]

Is age completely irrelevant? A three year old whacked another of the same age with a metal pole in the UK; the victim's parents received compensation recently.

http://gulfnews.com/news/world/uk/payout-for-boy-beaten-with-metal-bar-by-toddler-1.527133

Should the perp be in jail? If age isn't an excuse let's get him locked away.

 

[Ryokan]

How are they determined?

I really have no idea, I assume it's determined by psychiatrists or similar in service of the court.

There's one pretty famous case where the perpetrator was sentenced to 'containment' (Thanks to Wikipedia for giving me the correct English term!):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baneheia_case

So as you can see, there are ways to lock away people for life also in Norway, but it's very unusual.

Looking this up, I also found a Wikipedia article describing Norway's maximum sentences:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_(Norway)

But to get back to the topic, I believe that every person should be attempted to rehabilitate and reintegrated into society.

 

[Dragoonster]

I would think that if this girl hasn't figured out what right or wrong is by the time she is 15, she isn't going to figure it out. I am not talking about how it is wrong to hit people, or to steal, this is murder! Is there a possibility that this girl ISN'T a psychopath? What is the rehabilitation rate for those? Lock up the parents is what I say.

When I was about 15 I shoplifted a box of baseball cards from Walgreen's with a friend of mine because we didn't have money but wanted baseball cards, and didn't think we'd get caught. We knew what society considered right from wrong, just as most criminals and murderers do. We just decided to not follow that, weighing risk vs. reward. I don't see any reason why this girl should be considered a psychopath just because her fulfilled criminal desire was to kill someone instead of my desire to get a Fred McGriff rookie card.

 

[Ryokan]

With all due respect to the fine people in Norway that maximum punishment is too lenient. In a case like this girls premeditated murder I feel that she should never be released from prison. Your countrys policy of not holding a young person liable for their crimes no matter how odious is also too lenient.

Either people are adults and should be considered adults in all things, or they are children and can't be held responsible for their actions in the eyes of the law. Determining when you're a child and when you're an adult in such matters can be a very tricky business, but my country has set the line at 15.

I think such a hard line is better in this case then what seems to me to be the very arbitrary system of the US.

 

[Dragoonster]

Is age completely irrelevant? A three year old whacked another of the same age with a metal pole in the UK; the victim's parents received compensation recently.

http://gulfnews.com/news/world/uk/payout-for-boy-beaten-with-metal-bar-by-toddler-1.527133

Should the perp be in jail? If age isn't an excuse let's get him locked away.

Age is indeed completely irrelevant imo, only mental capacity matters. Age is only interesting in that most 3 or 15 year olds aren't as mature as most 30 year olds. But actually deciding charges/sentencing based on mosts is just dumb. It makes sentencing decided more by demographics and generalities than specifics to each case. That 3 year old should be evaluated, 99.9% of the time I'd reckon he wouldn't have understood why what he did was wrong. But he might have, and if so he should be punished.

 

[AWPrime]

Sure, anyone can be. It should be a completely separate issue from punishment (including sentencing) though. Every criminal should be rehabbed, and every prison safe, but these are considerations after punishment has been meted.

I don't think that every criminal can be rehabilitated, some are just too warped. And the sad fact is that some of them are like that from birth.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

With all due respect to the fine people in Norway that maximum punishment is too lenient. In a case like this girls premeditated murder I feel that she should never be released from prison. Your countrys policy of not holding a young person liable for their crimes no matter how odious is also too lenient.

You Norwegians are civilized and I appreciate that but one day some serial killer will be released from your prison and will kill more people when he or she gets out.

Lets say a 21 year old killed five innocent people for the fun of it. Ok whats to keep him from starting where he left off when he or she gets out?

Some crimes are so odious that the perpetrator should never be released.

And yet according to that poster the result of the approach is less crime and less people killed.

Is the point of sentencing to reduce the number of murders or simply to punish people? It seems that there is some evidence that lenient sentencing is leading to reduced murder rates and saving lives.

More study would be needed but if that proved to be the case then would the need to be seen to be punishing wrongdoers trump the effectiveness of the policy?

 

[AWPrime]

Unfortunately, we (as in, humanity) have no clue how to rehabilitate a sociopath. We tried for example, appealing to their human side, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be one. We tried psychotherapy, but they just learn to hide it better. The only thing that seems to work _sometimes_ is to convince them that they have more to gain with stuff that won't land them in jail. But even that's basically hit and miss, and depends on a lot of other factors.

QFT

 

[dtugg]

And yet according to that poster the result of the approach is less crime and less people killed.

Is the point of sentencing to reduce the number of murders or simply to punish people? It seems that there is some evidence that lenient sentencing is leading to reduced murder rates and saving lives.

More study would be needed but if that proved to be the case then would the need to be seen to be punishing wrongdoers trump the effectiveness of the policy?

If anything, it's the rehibilitation that leads to less crime than the leniant sentences. For most criminals, I don't have a problem with this approach. But murderers, nope. If you ask me, first degree murder should be at least automatic life without parole unless there are extreme midigating factors. They deserve to spend the rest of their lives in prison. And while many murderers could be rehibilitated and wouldn't ever commit a crime again, it's impossible to know for sure if they are. On the other hand, we know for a fact that they won't repeat their crimes (at least not against anybody on the outside) if they are in prison.

 

[Dragoonster]

I don't think that every criminal can be rehabilitated, some are just too warped. And the sad fact is that some of them are like that from birth.

You're right. I'm not sure where this girl fits though, her killing the 9-year old doesn't necessarily means she's clinically psycho.

 

[Careyp74]

When I was about 15 I shoplifted a box of baseball cards from Walgreen's with a friend of mine because we didn't have money but wanted baseball cards, and didn't think we'd get caught. We knew what society considered right from wrong, just as most murderers do. We just decided to not follow that, weighing risk vs. reward. I don't see any reason why this girl should be considered a psychopath just because her fulfilled criminal desire was to kill someone instead of my desire to get a Fred McGriff rookie card.

Do you have any evidence to the assertion that is bolded here? (deleted the "criminals and" as it does not have any relevance to the discussion)

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

If anything, it's the rehibilitation that leads to less crime than the leniant sentences. For most criminals, I don't have a problem with this approach. But murderers, nope. If you ask me, first degree murder should be at least automatic life without parole unless there are extreme midigating factors. They deserve to spend the rest of their lives in prison. And while many murderers could be rehibilitated, it's impossible to know for sure if they are. On the other hand, we know for a fact that they won't repeat their crimes (at least not against anybody on the outside) if they are in prison.

Yes but the argument is that the lenient sentences mean that rehabilitation has to be taken seriously rather than an after-thought.

The rest of the argument seems to just be a restatement of the original assertion that murder is too serious a crime to apply this thinking to.

Again, if (and the question still needs to be answered) less murders are commited with lenient sentencing and rehabilitation over tough sentences then does the argument that murderers deserve to be punished carry more weight than the reduction in crime? If so, why?

 

[Careyp74]

You're right. I'm not sure where this girl fits though, her killing the 9-year old doesn't necessarily means she's clinically psycho.

Look at the motive? she wanted to know what it felt like. Your motive was wanting baseball cards, hers was less materialistic.

 

[dtugg]

You're right. I'm not sure where this girl fits though, her killing the 9-year old doesn't necessarily means she's clinically psycho.

She's probably a psychopath. That doesn't excuse her in the eyes of the law. Psychopaths know what they are doing is wrong, they just don't care.

 

[Ryokan]

But murderers, nope. If you ask me, first degree murder should be at least automatic life without parole unless there are extreme midigating factors. They deserve to spend the rest of their lives in prison. And while many murderers could be rehibilitated and wouldn't ever commit a crime again, it's impossible to know for sure if they are. On the other hand, we know for a fact that they won't repeat their crimes (at least not against anybody on the outside) if they are in prison.

Norway's most notorious murderer served 16 years in prison, one of the longest sentences served in modern times. One of the reasons for the long prison terms was because he tried to escape during one of his vacations away from prison.

You'd think a lot more didn't show up after being sent home unsupervised for the weekend, but it's pretty rare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varg_Vikernes

ETA: Sorry for hijacking the thread to rant about how we do things in Norway, but I'm convinced that society is better served with trying to rehabilitate than to punish. It's better for society in the long run. I seriously doubt Varg Vikernes now poses a threat to society in any way.

 

[Uzzy]

That sounds like classic Psychopathic behaviour. You can't treat Psychopaths. Naturally, you'd need a court appointed expert to diagnose her, but seriously, some people you just can't help. She sounds like one of them.

 

[Morrigan]

I've always thought the fact that Norway actually had "prison vacations" to be both hilarious and disturbing, but hey, it does have low crime...

That said, releasing Varg was a stupid idea. Varg is not remorseful at all of his crime (he still claims it was self-defense, when Euronymous, ******* though he might have been, was stabbed 27 times!) and, as you said, even tried to escape and they found weapons and other military supplies in his car! The only reason Varg is unlikely to re-offend is because he's overly famous now and probably wants to lay low.

 

[dtugg]

Yes but the argument is that the lenient sentences mean that rehabilitation has to be taken seriously rather than an after-thought.

That's fine for less serious crimes.

The rest of the argument seems to just be a restatement of the original assertion that murder is too serious a crime to apply this thinking to.

I think that I gave a very good reason why.

Again, if (and the question still needs to be answered) less murders are commited with lenient sentencing and rehabilitation over tough sentences then does the argument that murderers deserve to be punished carry more weight than the reduction in crime? If so, why?

If it could be proven that lenient sentencing and rehabilitation of murderers over tough sentences (and I think sentences in the US are often not tough enough) led to less murders, I would change my position. I think that the primary role of the justice system is to protect innocent people from criminals, so obviously if lenient sentencing and rehabilitation of murderers led to less murders, we should do that. I seriously doubt this is the case. Because, as I said before, a murderer who is in prison cannot murder anybody (on the outside), while a released murderer certainly could even if he was supposedly rehabilitated.

And it is also certainly possible that lenient sentencing and rehabilitation of criminals besides murderers leads to less murders. You might have criminals who would have killed somebody when they got out if not for the rehabilitation.