Do You Think Age Should Be Taken Into Account When A Minor Commits Murder?

Question

This is the story of Josh Phillips. he was sentenced to life without parole at 14 years old for killing one of his playmates; storing her under his bed. He is 22 now.

Do you think Josh should ever see freedom again? Should age be taken into account for sentencing minors; even those who commit serious offences?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcs3oKbYDak

Answer 1

At 13 one should clearly know murder is wrong. With exceptions of self-defense, the punishment for a 13 year-old murderer should be the same if dealing with a 20 year-old murderer.

Answer 2

Of course.

At 14 he knew it was wrong, no doubt about it.

But it has been proven that the descision making and emotional response parts of our brain aren't fully functioning until the mid-twenties.

At 14 he didn't have the awareness of an adult, however he still knew what he was doing.

I don't know too much about that, so I can't comment on when or if he should be freed.

But if at 60 he is fully repentant, and able to become a functioning member of sicuety, posing no danger to anyone... well he might be an asset.

Answer 3

Murder is murder no matter what age that person is.  14 is old enough to know what he did was wrong and storing the body away proves he knew what he did was wrong, if it had been accidental or in self defense he could have reported it straight away.

How does anyone know that if he was released he wouldn't do it again.

Here in England 2 boys from Liverpool took away and killed a boy of 3 on a railway line, they were about 8 or 9 at the time and they have been released on society and they are in their 20's now.

Why should they be able to have freedom when that poor child's mother has to live everyday knowing that scum like that is able to enjoy what her son never got to grow up and see.

Answer 4

It's hard to say honestly. But I do know someone from my area that was murdered and the person that did it was 34 years old and only got five years in jail.

http://www.radioowensound.com/news.php?d...

Answer 5

Even at 14 I think that him storing her body away is an indication of something major going on with this child mentally. If he is capable of that at such a young age, imagine what he could do at 22.

Answer 6

Personally, this is a tricky situation.

At 14, I do think that people know the difference from right and wrong. BUT I am not completely convinced that they would understand the consequences fully.

BUT with that said, I dont think that a 14 year old should be considered an adult when in a trial. The only reason I think that is because if you are 14, your considered a minor, if looked at through any other perspective. You cant drive yet, drink alcohol, smoke, get into bars, etc...

Why should the law be able to change the age when they want to? These are CHILDREN, and can still be taught something completely different. A lot of children act the way they are taught.

I know this probably is a touchy subject, but if you think about it, why is the law that people under 18 are considered minors, but then when they break the law at that age, the law can change, and they can be considered adults? Doesnt make a lot of since to me.

Answer 7

This is tricky. On one hand you have him sentanced to life at 14, but then the 15 year old who asked R Kelly to pee on her "didn't know what she wanted and couldn't make rational decisions".

Personally I think at 14 kids know what they want. They know if they want to be peed on by R. Kelly or if they want to murder a classmate. If you don't want to kill a peer, don't do it. If you don't want to be peed on, move out of the way.

However, at that young age, rehabilitation is optimal. Their brains are impressionable, and I don't think it is fair for him to receive life without parole. Children make mistakes. They know what they want at that time, but they don't know what they want in the future. They don't anticipate the consequences to themselves or to others. He may have wanted to kill his classmate then, but right now he's probably thinking he was pretty stupid. You have to give them the chance to make up for their mistakes. If they fail at that, then life in prison is perfectly fair.

If he is 22 and feels no remorse for her death and wouldn't change it for the world, then he is simply a heartless person and life in prison is for the best. If at that age he is willing and desperate to reform himself and make up for what he did, he should be given that chance.

however, I do feel strongly about "no third chances". If he fails to reform and commits more crime (even petty crime), he shouldn't be given a 3rd chance. This isn't a situation of "limitless opportunity" this is simply saying "If you mess up once its a mistake, if you mess up twice its a habit."

After watching the video, it is perfectly clear that he is sorry, and the circumstances surrounding her death, as well as his behavior now, aren't typical of a malicious killer.

Answer 8

i think at 14 he was well aware of what he was doing-age shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not someone gets parole

Answer 9

Nope if you want to take another persons life you can deal with the consequences.

Answer 10

Murder is murder, regardless of age.

Answer 11

Yes, murder is murder. BUT I don't think he completely understood the concept of what he was doing. Although most 14yo can grasp reality, for him to hide it under his bed, screams he is still a child to me. That's where my toddlers hide things. You see other murders hiding the body's in bush and well really hiding them.

I think the boys should be rehabilitated and he should eventually be allowed out of jail. BUT he should be kept under a very watchful eye by the law enforcement.

AND in note where I live a few years ago there was a serial killer who went on a killing spree in Port Arthur, Australia. He is currently is serving a life sentence, for killing multiple people. It was pre-meditated.

I watched that video, and that boy was sorry. You could see it. I recently read a newspaper article about how he was (the Port Arthur Killer). He wasn't regretful, he was happy. Sickening happy.

What's wrong with the system, if they don't at least try in helping people??

Answer 12

It's not like he accidently murdered her. In my mind, it's if you do the crime, do the time. I don't think age should be taken into account, because even at the young age of 14, anyone sane knows that murdering is wrong! If he can't tell whether or not it was wrong, then he should be in a mental institution.

Answer 13

Yes.

If adolescents had the same sense of judgment as adults, then we would allow them the privileges of adulthood. The reason that we don't allow 14-year-olds to vote, drive, drink, leave school, work without special dispensation, and so forth is because we do not believe that they yet have an adult's judgment, agency, or capacity for responsibility.  By the same token, they should not be treated as adults in the judicial system.

Can't have it both ways, folks.

Answer 14

he should be in a hospital for the criminally insane ..not prison

Though if it was my daughter ..he'd be dead and I'd be in prison..fair trade to me