Arizona 8 Year Old Allegedly Murders Dad and Friend

[BobG]

I know not all children are on the same level. But the fact that he is 8 means either:

1. [If he did it] He will be treated as a juvenile and the confession will be tossed.
2. [If he didn't do it] He will be treated as a juvenile and the confession will be tossed.

There is no need for an insanity diagnosis/plea.

I agree. The confession is meaningless. The case is going to depend on physical evidence.

The videotapes of parts of the confession really throw this into question regardless of the legal details (need for legal guardian being present, etc). In the middle of his confession he pops up with the question, "Shot who?" The confession will never be seen in court, but probably still shouldn't have been shown on TV if there's a chance this case will ever go to court.

Supposedly, the police had responded to calls about domestic violence in the home in the past, although they didn't have any idea how recently when asked by reporters. The boy knew how to use the gun. That's about the extent of the case as far as has been released to the public.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/08/national/main4586103.shtml

 

[leopard]

Yes, it does matter what it's called and it does matter what evidence the police provide.

I said he did not shoot them because there are no facts to support the claim that he did. If you want to make a claim you have to support it. The null hypothesis is that the event did not happen. If you are going to put forth an alternative hypothesis, you need to have facts. You do not have these facts to support your hypothesis.

This is why its so important to understand the concept of presumption of innocence.

So if it was called "Guilty until proven innocent", the boy would have been guilty even if he didn't kill?

You're the one making unsupported claims here. All I claim is that nobody knows except the boy himself. The null hypothesis is an hypothesis, not necessarily an accurate description of reality. Either he killed them or he didn't. There is no difference between a killer who is proven guilty and a killer who is not. They are both killers.

 

[tribdog]

One of the murder charges has just been dropped.

 

[tribdog]

Nobody knows why it was dropped. The boy's lawyer thinks if may be so that the state can bring it back up when the boy is a little older.

 

[Cyrus]

So if it was called "Guilty until proven innocent", the boy would have been guilty even if he didn't kill?

Legally, yes.

You're the one making unsupported claims here. All I claim is that nobody knows except the boy himself. The null hypothesis is an hypothesis, not necessarily an accurate description of reality. Either he killed them or he didn't. There is no difference between a killer who is proven guilty and a killer who is not. They are both killers.

I agree with your second sentence with the caveat of 'at this point in time'. The police will find out soon enough though. The point is, let's not all bandwagon against someone until there is some evidence.

 

[leopard]

Legally is another matter. I care about what is true. But I think we agree after all.

 

[OAQfirst]

Looks like it's over.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29284614

ST. JOHNS, Ariz. - A 9-year-old boy accused of methodically shooting his father and his father's roommate to death last fall pleaded guilty Thursday to one count of negligent homicide, settling the case that shocked the nation.

...

The boy has not yet been sentenced. He could be sent to the county juvenile system, which would keep him close to his relatives. Apache County Attorney Michael Whiting wants the boy to undergo extensive mental evaluations and treatment, an option allowed by the plea agreement.

 

[Gokul43201]

I wonder if someone maintains statistics of the demographic make-up of convicted felons by year. It sure seems like I'm hearing about a lot more murders committed by pre-teens than before, and I'd like to know if such a trend is real.

Here's the most recent one I came across:

WAMPUM, Pa. -- An 11-year-old boy is charged in the shooting death of a Lawrence County woman who was eight months pregnant with her third child.

http://www.wpxi.com/news/18760897/detail.html#-

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Are juvenile offenders getting younger? The American public often hears policymakers and justice practitioners assert that young people are committing crimes at younger and younger ages. Is this true? This analysis explores this question by examining data collected by law enforcement agencies across the country. It tracks juvenile crime patterns from 1980 through 2006 and finds that the age profile of juvenile offenders has not changed substantially in 25 years. Crime rates among children under age 13 have generally followed the same crime patterns exhibited among older youth. In a few offense categories, however, increases in preteen crime have outpaced increases among older juveniles, particularly sexual offenses, assaults, and weapons possession (not necessarily firearms). The fact that school authorities and family members often report these offenses suggests a possible hypothesis to explain increases in some preteen crimes: The juvenile justice system today may be dealing with child behavior problems that were once the responsibility of social welfare agencies, schools, and families.
http://www.issuelab.org/click/downl...rends_in_preteen_crime/ChapinHallDocument.pdf

http://www.issuelab.org/research/arresting_children_examining_recent_trends_in_preteen_crime

 

[Gokul43201]

Thanks for the reference, Ivan.