How young is too young to charge a child with murder

Murder has to have a premeditation

Nope, to be charged with murder the person has to have had intent - in most states the fundamental characteristic of murder is - INTENT.

Premeditation may indicate intent, but a person can be charged and convicted of murder whether they plan it ahead of time (premeditate) or not.

If I am at a family gathering with a relative who drives me mad (now of course there is absolutely no reason I picked this situation, TOTALLY random.....LOL.....) and I stand up and yell, 'DIE!' and prick them to death with a salad fork close at hand....I can be charged with murder.

No previous planning, no premeditation - murder.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
Sure, lots of murders are committed spur of the moment on not premeditated. Did someone say it has to be premeditated to count as murder?? Definitely not.
 
Quote:
Well the article states that the kids had baths earlier and the tub was just left full. And the article also says that the child would harass the neighbors dog by throwing sticks and rocks at it, so she did apparently already have some hostility issues. I don't know the answer to the other questions, but I still think 5 is too young to have full comprehension and understanding of what she did and I certainly don't think there was any premeditation involved.

I think the poor kid needs loads of counseling, not murder charges. Whoever the adults are who are responsilble for allowing this to happen needs to be the one facing charges.
 
I find it very surprising, that so many people seem to understand so little about how our laws and courts work.

I can recommend a couple quick-to-read books on 'your legal rights' and 'how our court system works'. I'll go dig those books out and provide title and author later.

It is really, really important to understand our laws, our court system and our judicial system overall. First of all, we never know when we might be called upon to be a juror. Secondly, we don't know when either ourselves or a loved one or friend might need our support during a legal matter. Thirdly, if we don't know how the system works, we don't know our rights. And when we don't know our rights - we get taken advantage of - by incompetent or greedy people - lawyers, officials, anyone can take advantage of us. So it's VERY important to understand our judicial system. Not from sensationalistic news articles, and not from TV shows - but for real.

As far as people observing this trial goes and why we should understand this trial (again, for real, not according to sensational headlines or tv), is that we can avoid expending an awful lot of energy getting upset over something that we don't need to be upset about.

Again, to be charged with murder, the person has to show a clear intent to kill a person. Premeditation or pre-planning is NOT required.

Again, the public seems to think 'murder' means 'killing someone'. That's not how it works. 'Murder' is a legal term for a charge that requires very, very specific conditions.

Murder is an extremely specific charge. You have to read the law very, very, very carefully to see what each charge really means. And in some situations in court, you have to have a very in-depth knowledge of how previous legal cases went - to understand what will happen in court. There are really two parts of our laws - one is 'Black Letter' law - just as it's written in the books. The other is 'common law' - how previous cases went. 'Common Law' can have a big, big effect on how a court case goes.

Murder does NOT require premeditation.

However, it is true in a very general sense, that the law - and I'm saying 'law' in the most vague, general sense possible - gives lesser punishments to impulsive behavior. That dates from our Wild West days in which alcohol, guns and very sudden hot tempers were very, very common...but it isn't really meant as a pat on the back for the impulsively angry - I think it pertains more to the difficulty of determining who started it, and exactly what happened.

Law school students spend a big part of their criminal law classes, learning about how to take the facts of the case, and figure out what charges should be made.

If a person is charged with the wrong crime, they may go scott free. They may wind up with a mistrial or an appeal that gets them off.

Prosecution is far, far better off choosing the charges that fit the facts to a T - otherwise they risk having the person go scott free. And a person can't be charged twice for the same action. Prosecution gets one chance to do it right and that's that.

The key to it all is reading the Law. What is the definition of the charge - EXACTLY. As we all know, Legalese sounds like absolute gibberish -but there is a reason it sounds like gibberish - the authors were trying very, very hard to be VERY specific and to not leave an ambiguity that anyone could use to wiggle out of things.

If a person can't actually be charged with murder, not to despair - there are a great many other charges they can use.

With more and more states backing away from the death penalty (either using it less overall, or creating circumstances under which they won't use it, or abolishing it altogther) it is not always a matter of 'gee, if we can get him charged with murder the death penalty is back on the table, Oh Goody'. The death penalty is not a given even with a murder conviction.
 
Last edited:

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom