Sacrifice to the Slender Man

[Spekio]

The girls each face up to 60 years in prison if convicted as adults, although their attorney could request the charges be brought to juvenile court instead.

I hope he fails. Protecting their identities means people are going to let their guard down around them, which is precisely the weapon they used in this attempted murder. Con artists do not deserve anonymity.

Grumman, you really believe they need to be stuck in a prision and literally have no future in the ripe old age of 12? If so really hope you are not involved in law in any form.

Sentences have to be proportinonal to the crime and the circunstances pertaining to the crime, and need to serve two functions: resocialization and punishment. Do you really believe a 12 year old commiting a crime equals an adult commiting the crime? Because they are not. They don't have the cognition an adult have.

Were the attorney sucessfull, I believe in minor court they could have the psychological help they obviously need.

As per revealing their identities, don't be stupid. I say that because I have studied more than one publicized case to know this is detrimental to justice.

When public opinion is in court, judges and prosecutors do fell pressure to prove themselves. I remember one trial where the judge held a lawyer of the defendant in contemp, once the lawyer pointed out one of the principles of law, the judge said this principle didn't exist (and it did), and the lawyer said the judge needed to study more.

[Broomstick]

Do you really believe a 12 year old commiting a crime equals an adult commiting the crime? Because they are not. They don't have the cognition an adult have.

While a 12 year old is not an adult a normal 12 year old has sufficient moral agency to know that murder is wrong and you're not supposed to kill people, or stab them, much less multiple times. Thus, we have the problem of apparently two extremely dysfunctional young teens. If they are guilty (and in this case this looks fairly certain) what are we to do with them? These two are clearly a danger to others.

[Spekio]

While a 12 year old is not an adult a normal 12 year old has sufficient moral agency to know that murder is wrong and you're not supposed to kill people, or stab them, much less multiple times. Thus, we have the problem of apparently two extremely dysfunctional young teens. If they are guilty (and in this case this looks fairly certain) what are we to do with them? These two are clearly a danger to others.

Not sticking them in jail for 60 years and seeking psychological help for both of them might help make them functional members of society. I'm not saying they shouldn't be punished, but rather we need to punish and ressocialize them.

[SCRawl]

There are two possibilities here:

1. The perpetrators can be salvaged through some means, and eventually rejoin the population at large.
2. The perpetrators can not be salvaged, and will have to be warehoused for the remainder of their lives for the protection of the population at large.

One of these is true. But even if #1 is true, it is still difficult, and #2 is much easier to implement, and a safer choice. If #1 is true, though, a just society would implement it.

[Replicant]

While a 12 year old is not an adult a normal 12 year old has sufficient moral agency to know that murder is wrong and you're not supposed to kill people, or stab them, much less multiple times. Thus, we have the problem of apparently two extremely dysfunctional young teens. If they are guilty (and in this case this looks fairly certain) what are we to do with them? These two are clearly a danger to others.

Not sticking them in jail for 60 years and seeking psychological help for both of them might help make them functional members of society. I'm not saying they shouldn't be punished, but rather we need to punish and ressocialize them.

Okay, we put them in some hospital and 5 to 10 years from now they are determined to be "cured". Shall we have them move in across the street from you?

[Spekio]

Okay, we put them in some hospital and 5 to 10 years from now they are determined to be "cured". Shall we have them move in across the street from you?

[sarcasm]That is one cunning argument you got there, buddy.[/sarcasm]

Law is not emotion-based, luckly. And if the State gives in to knee jerk reactions it becomes a tyrant.

EDIT: You want me to point out the right to health is a second generation human right that the U.S recognizes and failure to provide mental health is the State failing it's own people?

[Replicant]

Okay, we put them in some hospital and 5 to 10 years from now they are determined to be "cured". Shall we have them move in across the street from you?

[sarcasm]That is one cunning argument you got there, buddy.[/sarcasm]

Law is not emotion-based, luckly. And if the State gives in to knee jerk reactions it becomes a tyrant.

EDIT: You want me to point out the right to health is a second generation human right that the U.S recognizes and failure to provide mental health is the State failing it's own people?

Nope, it is just a question. Do you want a "cured" child murderer living across the street from you.

[Purple]

Okay, we put them in some hospital and 5 to 10 years from now they are determined to be "cured". Shall we have them move in across the street from you?

[sarcasm]That is one cunning argument you got there, buddy.[/sarcasm]

Law is not emotion-based, luckly. And if the State gives in to knee jerk reactions it becomes a tyrant.

EDIT: You want me to point out the right to health is a second generation human right that the U.S recognizes and failure to provide mental health is the State failing it's own people?

Nope, it is just a question. Do you want a "cured" child murderer living across the street from you.

You don't? If so why not?

[Spekio]

If they got the appropriate care, wich you are implying they won't , I sure wouldn't mind.

I would, however, question if you'd argue they have this much agency and self determination if they were seduced by an adult.

[TheFeniX]

I doubt that this would have really made a difference, but adults: this is why you need to put on child-filters and talk about what your children are seeing on the internet. Creepy-pasta is not for 12-year olds.

I had access to the Internet at that age at a level my parents couldn't comprehend. So did a lot of children. Even more so today. Sure, there were AOL "safe" zones, but in 1994: there was still loads of fucked up stuff on the Internet. I could find pretty much anything I wanted and so could anyone else. And we found that stuff and it was pretty fucked up. The only difference today is that content downloads faster and comes in HD.

But even with all the evil D&D stuff, mature novels and other media, nor crazy shit on the Internet made me any more capable of committing violence than playing CoD makes me better equipped to pick up a rifle and deal with the horrors of shooting actual people.

Violent/creepy media doesn't make you violent and/or creepy. The only reading I've found related to this was that over-exposure to violent fiction desensitizes you.... to other violent fiction. All these cases of "good kid who was the best kid evar, but played/read/watched X and became violent" are bullshit.

[mr friendly guy]

You don't? If so why not?

Replicant is testing whether Spekio believes in the society's capability to "cure" (reform might be the better word) these kids. Obviously if one doesn't believe then they wouldn't be comfortable living next to these kids. If you do, then it should be no problem.

In an ideal world they would be cured. In the next best thing, those who do believe the kids are reformed should get them living near them, while those who do not can live away from them. That way people literally live or die for their belief (just in case the kids weren't cured). Obviously the logistics of getting those people who share similar views to live in the same neighbourhood makes this a thought experiment only.

[Spekio]

Replicant is testing whether Spekio believes in the society's capability to "cure" (reform might be the better word) these kids. Obviously if one doesn't believe then they wouldn't be comfortable living next to these kids. If you do, then it should be no problem.

In an ideal world they would be cured. In the next best thing, those who do believe the kids are reformed should get them living near them, while those who do not can live away from them. That way people literally live or die for their belief (just in case the kids weren't cured). Obviously the logistics of getting those people who share similar views to live in the same neighbourhood makes this a thought experiment only.

Okay, how low has this community fallen when a blatant appeal to emotion is considered a "valid thought experiment"?

EDIT: If we are going to segregate them for the major part of their lives, why not just kill them? You are de facto giving perpetual punishment to someone the State does not trust to handle their own bedtimes.

[Broomstick]

Okay, how low has this community fallen when a blatant appeal to emotion is considered a "valid thought experiment"?

Er... not sure where you're getting this from. I thought the question was whether you had sufficient confidence in the ability of society to fix such problem children that you'd be willing to live next door to such a person. How is that an appeal to emotion? It seems a valid question to ask.

EDIT: If we are going to segregate them for the major part of their lives, why not just kill them?

How do you justify killing them?

Is being confined somehow inherently worse than death?

You are de facto giving perpetual punishment to someone the State does not trust to handle their own bedtimes.

If they are declared insane (which argument I expect will be made) then it's not a matter of punishment, it's a matter of keeping everyone else safe. I'd argue for the least confining circumstances possible, but society does have an obligation to protect citizens.

[Spekio]

Er... not sure where you're getting this from. I thought the question was whether you had sufficient confidence in the ability of society to fix such problem children that you'd be willing to live next door to such a person. How is that an appeal to emotion? It seems a valid question to ask.

This is no different question I get when I say that I don't aprove prision rape for the rapists. "What if it was your wife/daughter/mother?". Lawmaking and enforcing should not be emotional in nature.

And as for confidence, I am not a psychologist and I can not and will not do some "armchair" psychology. I won't, however, decry them as monsters who need to be kept from society without evaluation. If there is a possibility they could function in society at large then society benefits.

Is being confined somehow inherently worse than death?

I'm reducing to the logical conclusion. To keep someone locked so long is detrimental to the common good, as we are taxing on public money for no reason. Why actually botter if we are skipping one of the functions of the penal sentence? Killing them fills the punishing part and it is cheaper.

The penal judicial process has a finality and that finality has not been public revenge for hundreds of years now.

If they are declared insane (which argument I expect will be made) then it's not a matter of punishment, it's a matter of keeping everyone else safe. I'd argue for the least confining circumstances possible, but society does have an obligation to protect citizens.

In brazilian law, being declared insane and being convicted are two different things. Punishing and ressocialization is only to the convict.

I'm not sure why you are so keen on discrediting psychology, to be honest.

[Broomstick]

Er... not sure where you're getting this from. I thought the question was whether you had sufficient confidence in the ability of society to fix such problem children that you'd be willing to live next door to such a person. How is that an appeal to emotion? It seems a valid question to ask.

This is no different question I get when I say that I don't aprove prision rape for the rapists. "What if it was your wife/daughter/mother?". Lawmaking and enforcing should not be emotional in nature.

Well, then "no, I'm against rape whether it's prison rape or some other form of rape" seem like a perfectly rational response to me.

And as for confidence, I am not a psychologist and I can not and will not do some "armchair" psychology. I won't, however, decry them as monsters who need to be kept from society without evaluation. If there is a possibility they could function in society at large then society benefits.

On the other hand, if they can't be trusted to function in society then society does NOT benefit by them being at large, does it?

I agree with your reservations regarding armchair psychology which is why I prefer to leave it to the courts and actual psychologists/psychiatrists to evaluate such defendants.

Is being confined somehow inherently worse than death?

I'm reducing to the logical conclusion. To keep someone locked so long is detrimental to the common good, as we are taxing on public money for no reason. Why actually botter if we are skipping one of the functions of the penal sentence? Killing them fills the punishing part and it is cheaper.

Actually... no, it's NOT cheaper in the US due to the appeals process and all the safeguards that are supposed to ensure only the most guilty are sent to death.

Also, I am opposed to the death penalty on ethical grounds for the most part (the sole exception would be if we could not safely contain someone who is a threat). That doesn't mean I believe in torture or isolation or unnecessary restrictions. I favor imposing such restraints that are necessary to protect everyone, not simply heaping more punishment on someone highly dysfunctional even if they are dangerous.

If they are declared insane (which argument I expect will be made) then it's not a matter of punishment, it's a matter of keeping everyone else safe. I'd argue for the least confining circumstances possible, but society does have an obligation to protect citizens.

In brazilian law, being declared insane and being convicted are two different things. Punishing and ressocialization is only to the convict.

I'm not sure why you are so keen on discrediting psychology, to be honest.

I'm not discrediting psychology so much as recognizing its limitations. We do not have perfect predictive powers when it comes to human behavior.

[Dragon Angel]

I doubt that this would have really made a difference, but adults: this is why you need to put on child-filters and talk about what your children are seeing on the internet. Creepy-pasta is not for 12-year olds.

Oh please, Jack Thompson. Talk to them, sure, but banning Creepypasta won't do anything. When you talk to them and you educate them on the finer points of Internet bullshittery, then they learn from it. Banning just prevents them from knowing about this, and you end up shielding them unnecessarily from the world.

I and many other 12-year-olds lived well enough with the knowledge of these things' 90's equivalents. Children are no different today.

I hope he fails. Protecting their identities means people are going to let their guard down around them, which is precisely the weapon they used in this attempted murder. Con artists do not deserve anonymity.

Okay, we put them in some hospital and 5 to 10 years from now they are determined to be "cured". Shall we have them move in across the street from you?

I really don't like this thinking because it relies on the belief "once a criminal, always a criminal". This is part of the reason halfway houses are hard to build and recidivism is so high. "Would YOU want to live near a convicted murderer?" Why are we so quick to assume that these 12-year-olds will always be cold-blooded animals through the rest of their lives?

Speaking as a person who can be often lumped with murderers thanks to societal stigma caused by my brain condition and casual use of words like "psychotic", this is bullshit. And you know what? If those two have been deemed fit by years, or decades, of doctors? Why the hell not?

[SCRawl]

In Canada we have what seems to me a sensible solution. You get convicted, you go to prison. Your sentence is done (or you get parole), you leave prison.

You can, however, be declared a "dangerous offender", meaning that you are too dangerous to be allowed to roam free. In such a case you will be detained until you no longer have this declaration, even if doing so keeps you in prison past the end of your sentence.

[Spekio]

Well, then "no, I'm against rape whether it's prison rape or some other form of rape" seem like a perfectly rational response to me.

That is what I am saying. There is a reason why judges cannot try a case pertaining to their family, friends, etc.

On the other hand, if they can't be trusted to function in society then society does NOT benefit by them being at large, does it?

I'm not arguing for their release if they are deemed unfit to function in society.

Actually... no, it's NOT cheaper in the US due to the appeals process and all the safeguards that are supposed to ensure only the most guilty are sent to death.

I fail to see how that is so. Unless they have extra appeals or some such, but that is besides my point.

I'm not discrediting psychology so much as recognizing its limitations. We do not have perfect predictive powers when it comes to human behavior.

We don't, but it is the best way to assure the common good while respecting the individual in this particular matter.

[Grumman]

I hope he fails. Protecting their identities means people are going to let their guard down around them, which is precisely the weapon they used in this attempted murder. Con artists do not deserve anonymity.

I really don't like this thinking because it relies on the belief "once a criminal, always a criminal". This is part of the reason halfway houses are hard to build and recidivism is so high. "Would YOU want to live near a convicted murderer?" Why are we so quick to assume that these 12-year-olds will always be cold-blooded animals through the rest of their lives?

Because they have tainted the means by which they could demonstrate they aren't cold-blooded animals in the future. It's like The Boy Who Cried Wolf - you would be releasing them on the basis of evidence of trustworthiness that they have already faked once.

[Dragon Angel]

Because they have tainted the means by which they could demonstrate they aren't cold-blooded animals in the future. It's like The Boy Who Cried Wolf - you would be releasing them on the basis of evidence of trustworthiness that they have already faked once.

I'll rely on professional doctors and investigators to make that decision, rather than your or another person's armchair psychology.

[Simon_Jester]

Because they have tainted the means by which they could demonstrate they aren't cold-blooded animals in the future. It's like The Boy Who Cried Wolf - you would be releasing them on the basis of evidence of trustworthiness that they have already faked once.

Do you mean to tell me they've passed examinations by competent boards of psychologists? Have they faked that? I wouldn't expect it, because in real life nobody bothers to routinely interview twelve year olds on the assumption that they're becoming mentally unstable cultists dedicated to a fictional character.

I mean, Grumman, I seriously think you're being irrational here. There is often very little correlation between the actions of the twelve year old child and the actions of the adult they grow into. Rehabilitation prospects here are a damn sight better than they would be with an adult cult-killer, so shrieking about how these two are EVIL BAD SEED and should be locked up for the rest of their natural lives is absurd.

Especially since they've shown a clear inability to draw clear distinctions between fantasy (believing that a fictional character watches them and has supernatural powers) and reality. Honestly, you could make a damn good case for the insanity defense.

[mr friendly guy]

Okay, how low has this community fallen when a blatant appeal to emotion is considered a "valid thought experiment"?

How so? I am not the only one who interpreted that statement to see how confident people are of society's ability to rehabilitate (see Broomstick's reply). As for the thought experiment part, its simply recognising that its not possible for those who are confident these people are reformed, and for those who are not, to live in neat little suburbs where we can locate these people near one group and away from another, which is a win win situation.

Whilst Replicant's reply might have been an appeal to emotion in the way its phrased, there is clearly a valid question behind it.

BTW - until I see recedivism rates I have no idea how good we are at rehabilitating such people, and I suspect given how infrequent children commit murder, statistics are going to be sparse.

[Broomstick]

Actually... no, it's NOT cheaper in the US due to the appeals process and all the safeguards that are supposed to ensure only the most guilty are sent to death.

I fail to see how that is so. Unless they have extra appeals or some such, but that is besides my point.

In the US there really is a lengthy appeal process that typically takes years to go through before an execution can take place and the convicted party is guaranteed legal representation, usually at the state's cost. So, in addition to housing the convict all those years there are typically a couple decades of legal actions to pay for, with the state usually paying for both prosecution and defense.

And we still have a problem with convictions in capital cases being overturned, indicating that the originally convictions and sentences were in error. In Illinois the situation was bad enough a governor simply eliminated the death sentences, with something like half of death row being acquitted based on appeal or new evidence and the rest commuted to life in prison.

Which is yet another reason I want an end to the death penalty in the US. We can't seem to do this right so we shouldn't be doing it at all.

[Dark Hellion]

The worry being expressed is a very real one that behavioral scientists have been pointing out for something like 40 years: that true psychopaths are exceptionally good at faking normalcy and sanity. Especially when all they have to fool is an overworked parole board and an underpaid staff shrink who has a caseload in the thousands and doesn't have the time to strip away the facade and see that monster lurking beneath. The thing with a true psychopathic killer is that the killing is not motivated by what normal people think; it is not about jealousy or rage or greed. The killing is a compulsion. In the same way that a germophobe worries obsessively about the dirt on the objects they touch the psychopath obsesses about the kill. Some can find a way to displace this urge with drugs or booze or sex or some type of risk taking behavior, but the compulsion is always there. The feel of the blood, the dying gasp, something about the kill is the ultimate high and once they've tasted it, nothing else compares.

We have come a long way in rehabilitation and the American Justice System often fails to utilize the advances made. But once someone is truly broken there is no way to put humpty-dumpty back together again.

The fear is that there are people in the world who are very truly evil. That thing deep down inside us that makes the rest of us decent human beings simply doesn't work right. Sometimes they were born this way, sometimes they were made it, but something in the "soul" of these people is dead and society has not figured out how we deal with this.

[Simon_Jester]

The worry being expressed is a very real one that behavioral scientists have been pointing out for something like 40 years: that true psychopaths are exceptionally good at faking normalcy and sanity. Especially when all they have to fool is an overworked parole board and an underpaid staff shrink who has a caseload in the thousands and doesn't have the time to strip away the facade and see that monster lurking beneath.

Fair enough. On the other hand, it's hard to point to a twelve year old who believes in a fictional character and say that they're psychopathic, as opposed to delusional. For that matter, maybe one of them is delusional (believes this fictional character exists and gives her orders) and the other is a psychopath (was going along with it for the sheer evilness of it).

I doubt anyone who doesn't have access to privileged information about their psychological state could say.

The fear is that there are people in the world who are very truly evil. That thing deep down inside us that makes the rest of us decent human beings simply doesn't work right. Sometimes they were born this way, sometimes they were made it, but something in the "soul" of these people is dead and society has not figured out how we deal with this.

I don't actually dispute this. At the same time, though, it's kind of grotesque when the logic is applied to twelve year old children, in a case where all we literally know about them comes from a few Associated Press quotations or whatever.