Did this kid deserve to die?

[Anonymous]

Usually the death of a child under 12 is sad but what about in this episode:

The 10-11 year-old kid lied about being abused at camp, faked tears, inflicted tiny burns on his arm himself and murdered a father's son for thrills. He was smirking at the father. The dad grabbed a gun and shot him to death. The dad claimed the kid would've killed again and again once he turns 18.

That was an inhumane being with no feelings nor empathy the body of a child. The kid had no innocence in him.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=MZ4p4L0iRuM&si=HnWyllimmO1uvb0L

Yes

No

[Kaneki05]

Either I have a really wrong interpretation of the American law systems or this episode is by far the most unrealistic one to ever exist in any show.
Surely a jury can't just say not guilty, to a guy who clearly murdered someone in front of multiple wittiness's with gun in a court house with also a polices gun. The amount of evidence he did it is not even questionable so how the hell can a jury go "not guilty." whether they find his act sympathetic or not by all evidence he clearly was guilty.

I've seen people sent to prison for killing their rapist and no jury just said "not guilty" to let them be okay. When I am sure if you asked a jury they would all personally not mind such an action.

Anyway besides the logistics of this episode annoying me.
My personal morals say if a person is willing to kill they should be willing to be killed therefore this is okay.

[Asker]

I believe the jury saw he was a grieving father that was getting rid of a future serial killer. The father did said the kid would continue to kill after he turns 18. That kid was already a danger to society.

[Kaneki05]

Whether they see that or not, I am pretty sure that's not how American legal system works. Not saying a system of voting based on the circumstances would be bad but I am saying that's just not how it works.
In real life I am pretty sure he would of been deemed guilty by the amount of evidence that he obviously did it, and it would still be classed as murder because vigilantism is not legal.

Many killers have there good reason for doing it but they aren't just let go because jury goes ah we sympathise.

[BoopBoopBeep]

Legally you can claim diminished capacity, and a jury always has the ability to nullify an indictment for any reason or no reason.

[Kaneki05]

@BoopBoopBeep That would be omission of guilt and would only lessen the sentence not just completely wipe it. Otherwise a lot of killers could claim that and roam free.
No way do jury just get to say yeah it's fine with that much evidence.
The law exists to protect those from committing crimes whether they thought it was just or not, it does not really care about personal reasons. Many cases have people been put away where I can look at and go that's unfair. Like who on earth cares to lock up someone who killed there rapist that's only a good thing, yet many are put away for it.

Many are put away from what majority of people see as self defence yet again a jury didn't just say no it's fine and they got away with it.
Just seems way out of reality.

[BoopBoopBeep]

Respectfully, I am not sure you fully understand the affirmative defense of diminished capacity or how jury nullification works in the U. S. system. That can actually result in an acquittal, not just a lesser sentence. I'm in federal law enforcement. My partner is a former federal prosecutor and currently a state one.

I'm also not fully sure you understand all the nuances of jury nullification. The first paragraph on the wiki page is succinct and does no worse a job that I would:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

"Jury nullification (US/UK), jury equity[1][2] (UK), or a perverse verdict (UK)[3][4] occurs when the jury in a criminal trial gives a not guilty verdict regardless of whether they believe a defendant has broken the law. The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust,[5][6] that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case,[7] that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant.[8] Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses.[9]"

I agree with you that "The law exists to protect those from committing crimes whether they thought it was just or not"... but jury nullification exists to protect those from unjust laws, and in the U. S. system, 12 people (or however many in that jurisdiction) are the sole arbiters of whether a law and the application of it is just or not.

[BoopBoopBeep]

Cornel Law School also has a good explanation of it:

"Jury nullification refers to a jury's knowing and deliberate rejection of the evidence or refusal to apply the law either because the jury wants to send a message about some social issue that is larger than the case itself, or because the result dictated by law is contrary to the jury's sense of justice, morality, or fairness. Essentially, with jury nullification, the jury returns a “not guilty” verdict even if jurors believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant broke the law. This can occur because a not guilty verdict cannot be overturned and jurors are protected regardless of their verdicts."

Available here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_nullification

[Kaneki05]

@BoopBoopBeep I find it extremally hard to believe if a school shooting happened or something alike a jury can just go "Not guilty" and that shooter gets away with it.
Sounds completely unrealistic nor explains any of the cases I've seen of people been found guilty on doing things that normal people would probably throw out and be understanding about.

So while I 100% I have no clue how the law works over and such laws may exist it's just odd I have never seen that happen in real cases. Nor does that actually make logical sense and would actually make vigilantes legal.
As I could go around kill only pedo's call myself a hero and the jury could just keep acquitting me.

Ignoring evidence of a clear crime seems like misjustice, and seems very arbitrary. Plus what does a judge do in these courts nothing? I thought judges where the ones to hand verdicts lol.

[BoopBoopBeep]

What do you think the likelihood is of 12 people chosen from the community to actually do that? Under what conditions would 12 people nullify a charge on a school shooting? CAN it happen? Yes, and that's perfectly legal, but you can also win the lottery while being attacked by a shark who was stuck by lightenting, it's just really not likely to happen. It IS unrealistic in that getting 12 people to agree to that when I can't even get 12 people to agree on pizza toppings or puppies for that matter seems pretty unrealistic, but it IS very much legal if they do.

The Goetz shooting was largely jury nullification (on all but the illegal possession of a weapon charge) as was at least one Dr. Kevorkian trial.

I'm not saying it happens every day. I'm not even saying it's common, but it IS quite legal and considered one of the bedrocks of our system. Slavery was quite legal. Returning a runaway slave to their "master" was required under law. Quite a few juries decided not to convict the slave because the law was wrong. There have been, in the 20th century quite a number of small town cases where juries were like "nope... had it coming" when somebody just got their ass whooped up on for being a jackass.

Could that essentially let a vigilante off the hook? Sure. As soon as you can convince 12 strangers to do so. It doesn't matter what YOU call yourself, it matters what the jury calls you. In the mid 1980s they called Gary Plauche was called a hero when he killed, on camera, his child's rapist and killer. He got a suspended sentence and community service after pleading guilty to manslaughter. The prosecutor accepted such a light sentence BECAUSE of the very real fear that jury nullification would have let him walk and send the message that vigilantism is okay.

[Kaneki05]

@BoopBoopBeep So judges are useless in your courts and do nothing? I didn't know that.
And why would anyone with a just cause take a charge if they can just get it nulled. It's 12 strangers sure but they are human so if what you did was morally right more often than not people are going to agree. You might get a odd couple who just go nah murder is always bad but a lot are going to understand vote not guilty.

And yeah the school shooting one people aren't going to but the fact people could is a insane gap of logic in the law in the first place.

[Kaneki05]

Also jury just could be heavily bias and all sorts of arbitrary reasons for wanting to lock you that hardly seems fair. What if some are racist and your black? How does that work?

[BoopBoopBeep]

Judges don't get to decide matters of fact, only matters of law. For the most part they can't question a witness or participate in the responses ("could you speak up?" and the like is allowed). If a lawyer does something questionable and one side objects, the judge is there to arbitrate on the legality of what was done with regards to the practice of the law, not the application of it to the facts. THAT is soley up to the jury.

So in your example, where that odd couple says nah muder is always bad, you get a hung jury and have to go through it all over again. Lawyers are expensive. Not everyone can afford to restart and not everybody psychologically want's to do that. "I can plead to this and do community service or roll the dice and get the death penalty... AND be done with all this tomorrow." Well... a lot of people are going to take that plea bargain.

[Kaneki05]

@BoopBoopBeep Hmm why even have a lawyer? One can defend themselves right and would actually be way more easy to gain sympathetic votes and show your humanity by speaking to them and telling your account.
And it costs you money? What they do if you have no money just not give you a jury and lock you up without a trail that seems unfair?

Eh I've for sure seen judges hand out verdicts to guilty people, and given them time. There was a judge in a documentary I watched who actually got investigated because his verdicts were often seen as to harsh and bias.
He was retired though so the investigation seemed pretty pointless, and he just went on record saying yeah my verdicts were harsh because they were criminals and deserved it lol.
So no jury there to save the day.

I don't know I think I would always take my bets on people, plus people are fairly easy to manipulate especially if you were a really good manipulative sociopath.

[BoopBoopBeep]

There's a saying that a man who represents himself has a fool for a client. I could take out a bullet and stitch myself up if I had to. I'd rather a surgeon do it. Real lawyers cost money. If you have no money you can get a public defender, but most of them are the C-students from law school.

[BoopBoopBeep]

Oh at the time that judge was sentencing, the jury had already come back with a verdict of guilty. That's typically done in different phases of the trial.

[Kaneki05]

@BoopBoopBeep Well if I was a good manipulator I think I would have a better chance of manipulating a jury than a lawyer who's maybe a hard study of law but not a manipulator.
As at that point it becomes a game of just trying to manipulate a jury of humans it don't matter what the evidence is or the legal jargon.

I see so that's after. Weird over here I can tell you from my own experience of when I went to court. I got 3 judges who looked over the evidence, took my account, took others accounts and then they decide if I am guilty or not and whether I am lying or not. Then they serve you a punishment depending on what they thought.
The judges themselves are the jury and there ain't a group of random strangers who saw my case or even knew about it.

[BoopBoopBeep]

@Kaneki05
A lot of good manipulators have tried. Bundy was one of them. Doesn't always work out as easily as they thought it would. There are a lot of nuances to the law on what you can and can't admit, what must be excluded, what is objectionable material. If you don't do it for a living you're not going to know the subtleties... like an accountant. I COULD do my own taxes, but I pay a guy to do them because my returns are complicated and he knows the tax law better than me.

Our system, at least on paper, portends to be more concerned about "what is right" than "what is legal" because we accept that our laws are inherently flawed because they're written by people who couldn't possibly have considered all potential situations and outcomes, so they are guides as to what we'd (society) would like the outcome to be. The jury is there to determine how the law should be applied in THIS case. That's why a prosecutor will charge different overlapping crimes, felony murder in a bank robbery along with manslaughter, so the jury can determine what the particulars of this death were. Was it an accident? Intentional? Incidental?

[Kaneki05]

@BoopBoopBeep From my experience I think ours is way more focused on just what is legal or not, and whether you would reoffend.
Because it mostly comes down to them proving you broke the law not why you broke the law.
When it comes to why the only thing that seems important is if you lied about it. As they know to be suspicious of you reoffending or not learning from this so we give you a much harsher sentence. So this guy would 100% be locked up for shooting this kid as there is clear proof he's guilty but he would get a much less sentence due to very unlikely of a re-offense and he ain't trying to lie about it not that he could lol.

Surprised to hear's US ain't focused on what is legal then again that's also not a surprise.

[BoopBoopBeep]

The law is always secondary to justice, and it is merely a convenience of fact when they both coincide ;)

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

I went with "no" just because I have no idea what the rehabilitative potential is for a psychotic child like this. It seems to me like he has severe brain abnormalities in frontal cortex so he might permanently be a danger to society, but I just don't know much about a case like this at all. Also the justice system failed if they released him back in a way where he became a repeat offender.

[Asker]

That's the issue. There is no cure for psychopathy and the kid would've grown up with that mindset but likely continue being a danger to society as an adult.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

I'd like to re-examine the justice system in those cases as well as seeing a tighter integration of criminology and neuroscience. I might be too soft and lenient but I tend to err against execution in most cases, although I'm not against the death penalty (being in favor of the death penalty to me is not the same as being in favor of execution, since defendants plea bargain away execution sentences).

[HawkPerception]

Yes absolutely deserved to die. This does reflect real life and it's another reason why nature is greater than nurture. You can have a great family around you, but the way your brain is wired since birth dictates what kind of person you'll ultimately become.

I'm a true believer of justice. If someone commits murder in cold blood they deserve to die. The father should not even go to jail in this case.

[JacobJordan]

I recall that story the dad was absolutely justified and the kid did deserve to die. If it is the one I am remembering they later found a bunch of trophies from dead animals along with several dead animals on the property

[Asker]

Sadly there are kids under 12 like that in real life. There is no cure for psychopathy and not sure what's the use of rehabilitation if the kid won't ever be normal nor develop feelings ever.

[BoopBoopBeep]

I couldn't get it to load at first. If I was on the jury I'd acquit. Jury nullification is one of the most important rights we have.

[jshm2]

This is why there is a legal system. You can't turn fucking vigilante and kill people because you think them bad.

[exitseven]

Yes, the father got the justice that the bleeding heart liberals in the courts would never have the stones to do. He should get a medal.

[Lliam]

Yup. I'm totally cool with that.

[Asker]

The scary thing is kids that him exist. A kid like that is too far gone by then since there is no cure for psychopathy.