That's pretty black and white there though isn't it? Is that an opinion or an assertion? it surely is not a 'fact'. There are many people who have been abused when young but it didn't necessarily erode their empathy. So reaching a definite conclusion from that starting point is as black and white as you accused Katsumoto for.
It's based on the fact that statistically a vast majority of people in the criminal justice system (or death row) had been physically or sexually abused as children. (for serious crimes)
A clear causal relationship exists - this is a fact, not opinion.
Punishing a child for being the product of a bad environment (which involved abuse) is hardly what I'd call a fair moral system.
Do I need to point out that this is not the same thing? Not the same thing at all. It reads as if your conclusion, based on exactly the same evidence that the rest of us have, is somehow more mature and superior to have come to with such certainty.
Do I need to point out I didn't say they were the same thing.
I used it as a comparison, it's comparable - not identical.
In both situations the end result was either a deficit in mobility or a deficit in moral awareness/empathy.
I'm happy to wager that smashing a baby's head up a wall is somewhat difficult to do with a strong sense of empathy, if they did have empathy & did it anyway then I'd be pressed to find grounds to say they were in full control of there actions while they did it.
Because even monsters, or animals without human logic, can tell the difference between right and wrong, pain and pleasure.
This is clearly false.
We obtain our values from our surrounding, in some cultures murder (of certain people) isn't considered moral - if you take into account how our own morality has changed over the last 1000 years (and will continue to) do you really want to use morality as the cornerstone of your argument?.
Being immoral and having suffered violent doesn't suddenly eliminate your brain capacity to tell the difference between smashing someone's head on a shelf and not doing it.
Yes it can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Childhood_and_adolescent_precursors
So, while we don't expect them to act within the rules, we do expect everyone that is not certifiably mentally disabled to have a basic grasp of what is acceptable and what is not.
It depends on how you define "mentally disabled" - an abused child is very likely to develop a myriad of psychological conditions, many of which could erode empathy.
As far as we know the boy has not been found mentally ill (although he may be, not a wild chance given that a lot of mental illnesses appear at early teenage years and given his background he could well be susceptible to one).
America recently executed somebody had an IQ which in most states is considered to low to be of sound body & mind.
You seem to think they have a good track record with this kind of thing.
As above, the whole issue with dealing with this boy lies in how do you apply a penalty to him. It's obvious you have to do something with him and the court/law has to take into consideration the degree of responsibility, given his history and mental capacity and..and..and.
You see, that's what I have a problem with.
You have a broken human being, who acted in accordance to his upbringing & what's been decided is how to penalise him.
That's not saying that incarceration may not be required (he may now be a danger to the public) - but the key focus should be on,
1. Protecting the public.
2. Rehabilitation the criminal.
3. Addressing any underline mental disorders.
It read as if you dismissed it because it didn't fit your point of view, not because it didn't have depth. All you have put forward is your conclusions, more empathetic I'll give you that, that you based on what you think is the 'right thing'.
Not really, I'm not just adding in the additional element of human ego into the debate.
Humans are animals, we act out according to how we are raised & treated like any species.
I don't blame a badly made house for falling down, you blame the builder - more to the point you don't punish the house.
The same logic applies to this child.
He shouldn't be tried as an adult, but unfortunately he is an outlier. The justice system is not really designed to handle such unusual cases, so they will need to apply whatever is best for him and the public's safety.
I agree in this part, but the modern western justice system (which the exception being the Nordic regions) is based on the concept of "punishment/justice" which are not linked to the reality of the situation or backed by evidence as being the best method of reducing crime/re-offending.
To make any progress as preventing this kind of tragedy occurring again in the future the first step is understanding the causal links & not simply whitewashing it off as "he made a choice, he get's punished" - it's a useless label on the behaviour with no value whatsoever.
Trying him as a teenager and releasing in 5 years, in my opinion, is not good enough. I feel there is no way he can be rehabilitated in 5 years. In such a case you try him as an adult and hand him a life with X years till parole, so you can try to rehabilitate him while giving him a chance to get out in a decade or longer.
He should be released when he is cured & no longer a threat to the public, that I agree with.
As far as culpability, abuse and barbaric application of the law, well, most criminals can point to some abuse in their past that could affect their calpability. Does that mean the penalties handed to them are barbaric? By the same logic they should be to some extent, perhaps minor but still.
In some cases yes.
If environmental factors A, B & C are guaranteed to created X amount of killer per 100,000 what kind of stupid society would ignore those factors then punish (key word, not detain) the people who go out & murder?.
Btw, why doesn't anyone mention the mother getting 30 years or so? Isn't she exactly at the same position as her son? She was equally abused while young one could say. However that didn't really diminish her responsibility (following the assumption that if you have been so abused when young you can't really grow up right then she should have some mitigatory circumstances taken into account?). She didn't know any better and still doesn't.
Most of the western justice system is a crock, the reason why some (myself included) will be focusing on the child in this case is that you can get the average "joe public" to at least recognise the causal links (which hopefully given time they may start to fit the dots together & recognise a few basic patterns).
Basically in most cases, garbage in - garbage out.
