Sacrifice to the Slender Man

[Korto]

I'm troubled with them being charged as adults.

Firstly, what does that mean? What is the actual difference between being charged as adults, and as juveniles?

But mostly, why are they being charged as adults? Do they believe that a pair of twelve year olds are as emotionally and intellectually mature as adults? Or is it some thought that the seriousness of the offence means they're not children? Because that seems a bit of a non sequitur to me, and evidence of desire for vengeance overriding due process.
We go on about how children are emotionally and intellectually immature, we don't let them vote, drink, drive, etc, but as soon as they do something shocking that this immaturity could have some responsibility for, we declare them as responsible for their actions as adults?

[Raw Shark]

I'm troubled with them being charged as adults.

Firstly, what does that mean? What is the actual difference between being charged as adults, and as juveniles?

But mostly, why are they being charged as adults? Do they believe that a pair of twelve year olds are as emotionally and intellectually mature as adults? Or is it some thought that the seriousness of the offence means they're not children? Because that seems a bit of a non sequitur to me, and evidence of desire for vengeance overriding due process.
We go on about how children are emotionally and intellectually immature, we don't let them vote, drink, drive, etc, but as soon as they do something shocking that this immaturity could have some responsibility for, we declare them as responsible for their actions as adults?

It's more of a strategic decision on the part of the prosecution than a statement that they believe allegedly committing a brutal murder means that a kid has officially graduated to adulthood. Big Reason: (In the USA) It means that a conviction can send the defendant(s) to Real Deal Prison instead of juvie, for a full sentence instead of automatic release and sealed records at the age of 18. Little Reason: It may also be a ploy to influence the jury, who are probably more likely to be merciful to someone described as a child than someone described as an adult.

[Hillary]

I'm troubled with them being charged as adults.

Firstly, what does that mean? What is the actual difference between being charged as adults, and as juveniles?

But mostly, why are they being charged as adults? Do they believe that a pair of twelve year olds are as emotionally and intellectually mature as adults? Or is it some thought that the seriousness of the offence means they're not children? Because that seems a bit of a non sequitur to me, and evidence of desire for vengeance overriding due process.
We go on about how children are emotionally and intellectually immature, we don't let them vote, drink, drive, etc, but as soon as they do something shocking that this immaturity could have some responsibility for, we declare them as responsible for their actions as adults?

Well said! You have articulated my views on this subject perfectly. They are children; we cannot hold them to the same standards as adults.

[Grumman]

But mostly, why are they being charged as adults? Do they believe that a pair of twelve year olds are as emotionally and intellectually mature as adults? Or is it some thought that the seriousness of the offence means they're not children? Because that seems a bit of a non sequitur to me, and evidence of desire for vengeance overriding due process.

They are emotionally and intellectually mature enough. This was not a crime of negligence, for which a child might be forgiven when an adult would not. This was a deliberate plot to lure an innocent girl into an ambush and stab her to death. Even if they had somehow reached that point by normal childish stupidity, they would not have kept stabbing her.

We go on about how children are emotionally and intellectually immature, we don't let them vote, drink, drive, etc, but as soon as they do something shocking that this immaturity could have some responsibility for, we declare them as responsible for their actions as adults?

You just shot down your own argument. We let 17 year olds have sex like adults, but we don't let them vote. We let 19 year olds vote like adults, but we don't let them drink. We let 22 year olds drink like adults, but we don't let them use heroin. Different responsibilities are easier or harder for a young person to grok, and "don't stab anyone to death" should be one of the easier ones.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm troubled with them being charged as adults.

Firstly, what does that mean? What is the actual difference between being charged as adults, and as juveniles?

Legally, the reasoning is that juveniles are:

1) Too young to fully understand the consequences of their actions or make binding decisions for themselves without a responsible adult involved,
2) More likely to straighten out their lives and act properly in the future if they are handled carefully at this stage, and
3) Too vulnerable to be mixed in with the general population of the adult prisons and judiciary process.

All those arguments apply or are likely to apply here.

But mostly, why are they being charged as adults? Do they believe that a pair of twelve year olds are as emotionally and intellectually mature as adults? Or is it some thought that the seriousness of the offence means they're not children? Because that seems a bit of a non sequitur to me, and evidence of desire for vengeance overriding due process.

I quite agree.

But mostly, why are they being charged as adults? Do they believe that a pair of twelve year olds are as emotionally and intellectually mature as adults? Or is it some thought that the seriousness of the offence means they're not children? Because that seems a bit of a non sequitur to me, and evidence of desire for vengeance overriding due process.

They are emotionally and intellectually mature enough. This was not a crime of negligence, for which a child might be forgiven when an adult would not. This was a deliberate plot to lure an innocent girl into an ambush and stab her to death. Even if they had somehow reached that point by normal childish stupidity, they would not have kept stabbing her.

My problem is that they are old enough to know they shouldn't kill people... but they're also old enough to know fictional characters aren't real. Arguing that their maturity justifies holding them accountable as adults for the killing, when their development suggests that they haven't grasped the "Slenderman isn't real" concept, seems pretty questionable to me.

[Mr. Coffee]

Honestly, I'm gonna side with the "let the psychologists have them" camp. I remember what I was like as a twelve year old (Yes, we had indoor plumbing and electricity back then, ya goddamn whippersnappers), and some of the crazy/stupid/outright insane ideas I had in my head back then. The difference between me and these girls is I just had much better impulse control and parents that took a very proactive role in raising me and my brothers.

Maybe they are terminally fucked and there's no hope for them, blah blah blah. But the bottom line is they're fucking twelve years old, so tossing them in a cell and chucking the key or killing them is just not an option (seriously, whichever one of you said that needs to have their fucking skull examined), otherwise we've compounded the failures of their parents, their teachers, and every other adult in their lives by failing them as a society.

[TheFeniX]

The difference between me and these girls is I just had much better impulse control and parents that took a very proactive role in raising me and my brothers.

But this isn't really about impulse control. Shit, even now I get random flashes (albeit rarely) like "maybe I should just punch this guy in the face, you know, because" and it freaks me out because it comes out of nowhere. Even then, shit happens that pisses me off and maybe I should react with violence, except I don't because I'm a grown man and that's not how you handle problems. That's impulse control.

I expect kids to be lax in this. Say some kid knocks over their drink, they may react with violence before they've considered "I shouldn't do that." They may blurt out the dumbest, bigoted, or just plain rude shit because they don't know any better. Ideas enter their mind and they act on them without considering the consequences. That's lacking impulse control.

Planning out a murder over the course of months is not lacking impulse control. If anything, that shows a considerable level of control, even if they don't fully understand the ramifications of their crime. Further, they didn't seem to have leaked anything about this to anyone. I've got no kids, but plenty of nieces or nephews I see on and off and they fucking blab about everything. Like, literally everything. It's because they have no impulse control: it comes into the brain, and out the mouth.

I don't think we should toss these kids in juvie/jail and throw away they key either. But this isn't just a case of kids doing incredibly stupid shit on a whim. This is dedication, a fairly adult level of dedication, to brutally murder another child.

[Simon_Jester]

I think "impulse control" is, yeah, a bad choice of word, but who cares? The point is, adult humans have (or should have) all sorts of little auto-censors in our brains. Some of them are there to stop us from doing violent or immoral things on the spur of the moment. Others are there to stop us from being tactless in public. Still others are there to tell us that no matter how appealing the idea may seem, it's fundamentally, profoundly wrong to commit murder or some other grave offense.

These kids may not be missing the autocensor that stops them from blabbing about their criminal scheme, but they're sure missing the one that tells them killing is wrong. And blaming that on their profoundly immature and childish minds may be partly or even wholly true. Especially since supposedly at least one of them believes that a fictional character is real, which is hardly the sign of a fully developed mind.

[TheFeniX]

I think "impulse control" is, yeah, a bad choice of word, but who cares?

The Justice System for one. It speaks to the state of mind of the perpetrator. There's a world of difference in the mentality of someone who reacts in the moment and one who plans something out and we generally respond more harshly to people who, when given time to think about the situation, still go through with a crime.

Especially since supposedly at least one of them believes that a fictional character is real, which is hardly the sign of a fully developed mind.

It looks more like someone (or their parents/lawyer) desperately looking to shift blame away from themselves or someone who is completely out of touch with reality. But it's certainly not a lack of impulse control and that's an important distinction.

[Simon_Jester]

My money's on "out of touch with reality," but when your delusion is that an outright fictional character who didn't even exist a few years ago wants you to kill, it's... let's call it an extra-delusional delusion. The kind that seems much more plausible in a child who still isn't entirely convinced there's no such thing as Santa.

[Korto]

But mostly, why are they being charged as adults? Do they believe that a pair of twelve year olds are as emotionally and intellectually mature as adults? Or is it some thought that the seriousness of the offence means they're not children? Because that seems a bit of a non sequitur to me, and evidence of desire for vengeance overriding due process.

They are emotionally and intellectually mature enough. This was not a crime of negligence, for which a child might be forgiven when an adult would not. This was a deliberate plot to lure an innocent girl into an ambush and stab her to death. Even if they had somehow reached that point by normal childish stupidity, they would not have kept stabbing her.

Is this a thought that it's harder to stab someone 20 times than just once? How do you know that? Maybe it's the first one that's really hard, but once you build up the fury for that. the momentum just keeps you going without thought. In which case, the fact they kept on stabbing her means nothing.

We go on about how children are emotionally and intellectually immature, we don't let them vote, drink, drive, etc, but as soon as they do something shocking that this immaturity could have some responsibility for, we declare them as responsible for their actions as adults?

You just shot down your own argument. We let 17 year olds have sex like adults, but we don't let them vote. We let 19 year olds vote like adults, but we don't let them drink. We let 22 year olds drink like adults, but we don't let them use heroin. Different responsibilities are easier or harder for a young person to grok, and "don't stab anyone to death" should be one of the easier ones.

Hmmm. I see seventeen, nineteen, and twenty two. You know what I don't see there? Twelve. There's a bit of fucking difference between a twelve year old and a seventeen year old.

I agree that "impulse control" in this could be a red herring, but you know something else about kids? They're much easier swept away by the romance of something, they get caught up in a fantasy world, and they're less able to think things through to the implications. There's a reason batman capes come with a warning that the cape doesn't enable the user to bloody fly. Caught up in some cool "Slender Man" fantasy, the fact they were killing someone may not have really registered. They're kids, and the crime they committed doesn't change that. They need to be evaluated to find the level they're at, and not have it decided by fiat by an angry populace and some prosecutor with an election to win.

[Spekio]

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.

It's more inneficience and red tape, it seems.

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.

I'm morally against it myself - but we are veering outside of the scope of this thread.

[Spekio]

so tossing them in a cell and chucking the key or killing them is just not an option (seriously, whichever one of you said that needs to have their fucking skull examined), otherwise we've compounded the failures of their parents, their teachers, and every other adult in their lives by failing them as a society.

Please read my previous posts before questioning my sanity, please.

[Grumman]

They are emotionally and intellectually mature enough. This was not a crime of negligence, for which a child might be forgiven when an adult would not. This was a deliberate plot to lure an innocent girl into an ambush and stab her to death. Even if they had somehow reached that point by normal childish stupidity, they would not have kept stabbing her.

Is this a thought that it's harder to stab someone 20 times than just once? How do you know that? Maybe it's the first one that's really hard, but once you build up the fury for that. the momentum just keeps you going without thought. In which case, the fact they kept on stabbing her means nothing.

Sure, for some people it gets easier after the first time. These are the people we need to keep locked up. If you can stab an innocent little girl - or hold her down so someone else can stab her - hear her screaming and your reaction is not something to the effect of "Oh God, what have I done?!" the soft touch will be wasted on you.

[Simon_Jester]

Grumman, I'm not sure it's that simple. There are far, far too many high-multiple stabbings out there, for it to simply be "if you do this you're an incurable sadist or something."

To me, and the following is opinion:

It seems as though repeatedly stabbing a person rapid-fire with a knife is a human reflex. Even when we think we are defending ourselves, once we start stabbing someone, it's hard to stop. The brain doesn't go "Ah, yes, I have stabbed someone. Let me step back for a few seconds and consider the wisdom of a second stab." Instead, there is an almost convulsive use of the knife repeatedly to make multiple wounds.

This might actually be an evolved instinct; humans have had knives for a million years or more.

Even people who sincerely think they are defending themselves against an attacker may freak out and stab the 'attacker' repeatedly in the chest, because of a hysterical fear that they'll get up and resume the fight. It's bullshit, but it's common human bullshit, not just a defense used by sociopaths.*

You seem to be modeling each stab as a separate action, divided from the next one by a pause for contemplation. That is unrealistic.
________________________

*Also not a defense accepted in court, but the point is that people actually do think this way sometimes.

[mr friendly guy]

Fuck, Slenderman may have struck again.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z34XKRsBDk

13-year-old Ohio girl stabs mother in 2nd ‘Slenderman’ attack

An Ohio teen attacked her mother with a knife in the second stabbing linked to the fictional horror character “Slenderman.”
A Hamilton County mother, who asked to not be identified, told a local NBC affiliate that her 13-year-old daughter became obsessed with the Internet meme before she stabbed her.
PHOTOS: Best concealed carry handguns
“I came home one night from work, and she was in the kitchen waiting for me, and she was wearing a mask, a white mask,” the mother told the station. “She was someone else during the attack.”
The mother suffered multiple minor injuries, including a puncture wound on her back. The girl is facing charges as a juvenile.
The attack comes after two, 12-year-old Wisconsin girls brutally stabbed their friend 19 times as a sacrifice to the mythical character. The mother said after hearing of the Wisconsin attack that she began to suspect her daughter was under the same influence, the NBC affiliate reported.
“We found things that she had written and she made reference to Slender Man. She also made references to killing,” the mother said. “She even created a world for Slenderman in the game Minecraft.”
A spokeswoman for Slenderman creator Eric Knudsen and an administrator for creepypasta.wikia.com, where the meme was published, have apologized since the first attack and said Slenderman does not teach children to be violent.
“I am deeply saddened by the tragedy in Wisconsin, and my heart goes out to the families of those affected by this terrible act,” Mr. Knudsen said in a statement, the Associated Press reported.
PHOTOS: Hand cannons: The world's most powerful handguns
Creepypasta administrator David Morales said the site clearly states the stories there are fiction and its rules bar use by anyone under 13.
“We are not teaching children to believe in a fictional monster, nor are we teaching them to be violent,” Mr. Morales said, AP reported.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z34fAOr7Rj
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[Iroscato]

Messed-up kids have been projecting their mental issues onto fictional monsters for as long as we've had imaginations. This is nothing new, it's just a different medium being misused. I have a feeling this will become the new hysteria for the media quite soon, however.

[Grumman]

You know what? I'm just going to go ahead and make a creepypasta and name it "A. Scapegoat". It will make things so much easier.

[mr friendly guy]

Update

linky

Doctors Say One 12-Year-Old 'Slender Man Stabbing' Suspect Isn't Competent To Stand Trial

Doctors have said one of the two 12-year-old Wisconsin girls who allegedly stabbed her friend to please the fictional internet character Slender Man is mentally incompetent to stand trial, the Associated Press reported Wednesday.

Two doctors concluded the girl’s medical evaluations showed she was mentally incompetent to proceed in her defence, her lawyers said.

The court still has to decide whether the girl can stand trial. Judge Michael Bohren ordered another competency hearing for the girl on August 1. He also ordered an examination that would focus on her mental state at the time of the alleged stabbing, her defence attorney Anthony Cotton said, according to wire reported cited in the Chicago Tribune.

Cotton said he thinks the case should be moved to juvenile courts, away from media attention.

In the state of Wisconsin, all attempted homicide cases involving suspects who are at least 10 years old must start in adult courts. Then, lawyers can ask for the case to be moved to a juvenile court. If convicted for attempted homicide as adults, the girls face up to 60 years; if convicted as juveniles, they could be put in jail until they’re 25.

The other girl charged in the stabbing case appeared in court on Wednesday, and her case was set for August 1 as well.

According to their peers, the girls were both good friends with their victim, and planned the murder attempt for many months. They reportedly told investigators they planned to go live in a Wisconsin forest with Slender Man after the stabbing.

Its a time to point out that just because one is mentally ill, doesn't necessarily mean they can't function, ie plan something. Consider L Ron Hubbard ran the church of Scientology all the while fighting the evil forces of Xenu.

I am predicting one for the psychs.

[Channel72]

Growing up, we had all kinds of silly horror legends, like Bloody Mary, or whatever bizarre malevolent entity you can invoke by repeating it's name in a mirror or something... At the age of 12, the idea that supernatural evil might be in some sense real, dangerous, and actualized via various urban legends, isn't completely out of the question.

The differerence, I suppose, is that there was never the sort of constant exposure and reinforcement of these legends that an Internet forum provides. I'm sure that sort of thing can have a powerful effect on the developing mind of a 12 year old.

[Grumman]

The differerence, I suppose, is that there was never the sort of constant exposure and reinforcement of these legends that an Internet forum provides.

Santa Claus doesn't ring any bells?

[Iroscato]

The differerence, I suppose, is that there was never the sort of constant exposure and reinforcement of these legends that an Internet forum provides.

Santa Claus doesn't ring any bells?

Totally different league altogether. Santa Claus is a fairly vague, mythological figure invoked by parents to get their kids to behave in the run-up to chistmas.
He's mentioned in real life pretty infrequently, by speech and shown on some advertisements. But a lot of children these days, a lot of them still quite impressionable, can go on a forum or website and read page after page about these urban myths, watch videos that (at least according to their under-developed minds) reinforce the stories, read about supposed first-hand accounts of the monsters.
Hell, I first read about Slenderman a few years back, and it made me a bit uneasy. I've always had a fairly active imagination, and the 12 year old me would have been freaked the fuck out by it if he'd read what 18 year old me had read. Couple that with what seems to be an underlying mental fragility for at least one of these girls...

[Lagmonster]

Hell, I first read about Slenderman a few years back, and it made me a bit uneasy. I've always had a fairly active imagination, and the 12 year old me would have been freaked the fuck out by it if he'd read what 18 year old me had read. Couple that with what seems to be an underlying mental fragility for at least one of these girls...

People have been spinning yarns about horrific monsters since as far back as people could tell stories. Hell, you should see some of the shit we read to kids when I was young and to previous generations. I remember as a youth when I first saw Stephen Gammell's illustrations in "Scary Stories". Didn't sleep well for a week. Point is, I don't think you can get by with blaming the media involved when reinforcing monstrous urban legends is what communities tend to do for fun.

[Channel72]

The Internet tends to take this shit to an entirely different level. Telling children scary stories under adult supervision is one thing. But the Internet provides an unprecedented level of community reinforcement which a child can absorb while alone, without the presence of an adult to help draw boundaries between insane and normal behavior.

It's useless to "blame the media Internet" - parents are responsible for adapting to changing technologies - but I think it's also naive to discount the influence of technology on the human brain.

The differerence, I suppose, is that there was never the sort of constant exposure and reinforcement of these legends that an Internet forum provides.

Santa Claus doesn't ring any bells?

Santa Claus never asked me to kill anyone. Unless we're talking about Robot Santa Claus.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Hell, I first read about Slenderman a few years back, and it made me a bit uneasy. I've always had a fairly active imagination, and the 12 year old me would have been freaked the fuck out by it if he'd read what 18 year old me had read. Couple that with what seems to be an underlying mental fragility for at least one of these girls...

Tell me about it. Anytime I read any of that creepypasta stuff, even when I know it is incredibly fake and stupid and not even remotely believable, they still have a tendency to freak me out. The formula for scaring people is pretty simple, and it is amazing how well certain specific tokens (like shadowy figures in the dark or what-have-you) can immediately induce fear no matter how ridiculous it is.