California Does *NOT* Execute Juveniles. Period.

[paulcs]

San Diego's District Attorney, Paul
Pfingst, has stated that the death penalty in the Santee case was not considered.

The State of California does not execute 15 year olds, even if they are charged as adults.

It appears that the post I am responding to has been deleted. It was filled with factual errors and distortions about California law. I just didn't want people in Europe and Canada who may have seen the post to get the wrong impression about the state because someone outside of California (and the US) decided to present a fictionalized account of our criminal code.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[Joel]

I also posted and stated the same thing in the thread that got deleted. And NO I did not delete it. Just another case of someone overseas putting mouth into motion before making sure brain is fully engaged when talking about something related to America.

Joel

[This message has been edited by Joel (edited 08 March 2001).]

[Jorden]

Though I didn't see what it was all about, I wonder what a high school student would get, after shooting 2 others dead?

And what does a female teenager get in Pensilvania when she starts shooting at, and wounding another teenager in her school cafeteria?

Jord.

[Kruzin]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The boy cannot be given the death penalty because of his age, said prosecutor Kristin Anton. But if convicted on all charges, he could be sentenced to 500 years in prison.</font>

These charges include 2 murder, 13 pre-meditated attempted murder, assault and various weapons charges.

[Jorden]

Wow...

Who's gun was it, btw? If his dad's, does he face charges as well?

[paulcs]

Jorden, state law does not permit the death penalty or even, I believe, life sentences without parole for juveniles. However, as Kruzin points out, because the DA's office can charge this guy with so many crimes, he could spend the rest of his life in prison.

I think the gun was his mother's boyfriend's. (Strangely enough, I think his mother lives on the East Coast, and the kid lives with the boyfriend here in California.) I don't think he has been charged with anything yet.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[This message has been edited by paulcs (edited 09 March 2001).]

[Joel]

Hey Guys and Gals,

Ponder this for a minute.

"High school shooting and car massacre: Ultimate proof of media's anti-
gun bias?

WASHINGTON, DC -- The media's anti-gun bias is showing loud and clear this week as the latest high school shooting (two dead in California) is plastered all over every front page in America -- while last week's murderous college car rampage (four dead in California) was virtually ignored, charge Libertarians.

"A disturbed 15-year-old California high school student kills two classmates with a gun, and it's front-page news and around-the-clock TV coverage," said George Getz, the Libertarian Party's press secretary. "Last week, a disturbed 19-year-old California college student kills four classmates with a car, and it's a minor blurb in newspapers and a 10-second clip on the news.

"What's the explanation for this, unless journalists are almost 100% opposed to the Second Amendment -- and eager to jump on any opportunity to demonize guns and exploit gun-related tragedies, while
ignoring other, equally horrific, crimes?"

On Monday, a 15-year-old boy opened fire on his classmates in Santee, California, killing two and injuring 13 others at the Santana High School.

The suspect, Charles Andrew Williams, was described as a "scrawny" kid who had been picked on by bullies. Over the previous weekend, he had joked about shooting up his school.

The story made the front page of almost every major American newspaper, was the lead item on the nightly network news, and is generating around-the-clock discussion on cable TV networks. The crime
also prompted new demands to restrict or outlaw guns.

Meanwhile, on February 26, a 19-year-old student at the University of California at Santa Barbara plowed his car -- traveling
at 60 miles an hour -- into a crowd of college students in Isla Vista, killing four and critically injuring one.

The suspect, David Attias, shouted, "I'm the angel of death!" as he was taken away from the scene. He was described by fellow students as troubled, and was known in his dormitory as "Crazy Dave."

That story was relegated to the inside of most newspapers, and generated scant attention on network or cable news shows. The crime prompted no demands to restrict or outlaw automobiles.

Why was one a major story in the eyes of journalists -- and the other an afterthought? The only plausible explanation is media bias, said Getz.

"Journalists are taught to revere the First Amendment, but most appear to scorn the Second Amendment," he said. "So they use their First Amendment rights to slant and distort the news to attack the
Second Amendment.

"As America rightfully mourns the two dead students in Santee while unfairly ignoring the four dead students in Isla Vista, that media bias is on display for everyone to see."

Unfortunately, the Santana High School coverage isn't the only example of the hostility the media has towards gun rights, said Getz.

In January, the Media Research Center released the results of a two-year study examining how the four major networks covered gun-related news stories.

The study, "Outgunned: How the Network News Media are Spinning the Gun Control Debate," analyzed 635 stories on gun policy by ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC. It found that stories with an anti-gun perspective
outnumbered pro-gun stories by 357 to 36 -- a 10-to-l ratio. Another 260 stories were classified as neutral.

Such a pattern is troubling -- not just for the Second Amendment, but for the First Amendment, too, said Getz.

"Libertarians are distressed by the media's anti-gun bias, but we recognize journalists' right to broadcast whatever they want," he said. "However, journalists need to understand that when they attack
one basic right, they attack all rights; when they give politicians more power in one area, they give politicians more power in all areas.

"In the long run, the media's hostility to the Second Amendment - and the exploitation of tragedies like the one at Santana High School - -- will help undermine the right they hold most dear: The First
Amendment. That's a lesson journalists need to learn before it's too late."

Personal I never did hear or see anything about the car killings.

Joel

[KvHagedorn]

To any of those still listening, if you think putting a "scrawny 15yo kid" in an American prison for life is less harsh than the death penalty, you just aren't paying attention. He will probably be killed there, after suffering more "bullying" (I won't make the other reference again, but it certainly comes under the "cruel and unusual" umbrella imho) than he ever could have imagined in High School. If he had been smart, he would have turned the gun on himself after killing the others.

The gun itself is not what made this happen. The boy is responsible for his actions, but if he'd had some hope, he might have cared about that more. The negligence of the boy's parents, coupled with school tolerance of bullies was the fertile ground that nurtured this crime. The money going to feed and house evil, worthless scum for life in the prison system could have paid for better teachers and principals in that school, or even counseling for neglected kids.

Prison should not be an opportunity to socialize with worse people than yourself and adopt the mindset of these evil thugs. Prison sentences should be shorter, but more restrictive. Solitary confinement only. The prisoners are forced to watch "The Waltons" and "Little House on the Prairie" every day. They also have the option of listening to Glen Campbell, Amy Grant, or John Denver for music. This will be their only input. If, upon release, they continue to offend, put em up against the wall and shoot them. We have no more resources to waste on these guys.

It is in the interests of no one but the naive and the criminals to create this cesspool of hatred and mindless thuggery and buggery called prison, and so promote more evil behavior. And btw,why do we buy prisoners weights to bulk up with? So when they get out they can beat, rape, and intimidate anyone they happen to meet more effectively? What utter stupidity.

[impact]

Joel: maybe because cars are primarily meant as a means of transportation from place A to place B but guns are made to kill?

Yes it is possible to use a car as a devastating weapon, but just because of that, you can not ban all cars because *potentially* they could be used by mad psychos to kill people. If this was to happen, what about other things? Baseball bats, knives, furniture, bricks... just because one can throw bricks and kill people with them do we have to make our houses from wood (you can kill with wooden log too...).

You just can not believe everything you read, especially when it's wriiten by someone who still lives in the 17th century.

[SCompRacer]

It always amazes me how some parts of the constitution gets more respect than others. When it comes to second amendment rights, many think it's open for debate. "Oh, they couldn't possibly have meant that."

As far as the media goes, they sure don't play stories about the presence or use of a gun preventing harm to a law abiding individual, now do they. The media controls what stories are put out by their own political agenda.

People kill people, and if they don't have guns they will use whatever, including cars, to do it. It is a social problem, trouble is how do you really fix it. "Take all the guns away" is a diversion to identifying and solving the real problem.

[impact]

But would the boy assault, wound and kill so many people if he haven't had so many guns readily avaiable? Do you really think he would take a car, drive to his school and started running students over or something?

[Schorsch]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by SCompRacer:
It always amazes me how some parts of the constitution gets more respect than others. When it comes to second amendment rights, many think it's open for debate. "Oh, they couldn't possibly have meant that."

</font>

Constitutions aren't perfect. A constitution is not made to stay unchanged for all eternity and of course parts of it can be open to debate. We aren't talking about the Ten Commandments here (and I'd even rank some of the Ten Commandments higher than others). If women were deprived all human rights by your constitution, wouldn't you agree that it should be changed? Of course, this also means that people can try to attack any part of a constitution.

For example, the German constitution guarantees asylum to everyone who is persecuted and tortured by the regime of his home country. There are quite a lot of politicians who try to undermine this right (and to some extent they've already been successful). The ballot box is the place to stop such activities.

I won't comment on the second amendment - that's your business, not mine...

[SCompRacer]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by impact:
But would the boy assault, wound and kill so many people if he haven't had so many guns readily avaiable? Do you really think he would take a car, drive to his school and started running students over or something? </font>

Thats a question we could only speculate the answer to. Fact is something drove him to the point of wanting to kill and that is the problem.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Schorsch:Constitutions aren't perfect....</font>

I am well aware of that. Get them changed or amended if you can get the support.

[paulcs]

I believe there is plenty of room for interpretation as far as the Second Amendment goes. I believe in gun control. In fact, I believe in an outright handgun ban. However, if stronger gun control laws would require an amending the Second Amendment, and therefore the Bill of Rights, then I'd find myself opposed.

Schorsch, the first ten amendments to the US constitution are considered sacrosanct. Any part of our constitution can be amended, although the framers made the process both difficult and time consuming. However, there are very strong political and psychological barriers against amending any of the first ten.

I'm going to take this a little close to home for you. Please do not take offense, as none is intended. The Weimar Constitution was suspended very easily. It's fall resulted in catastrophe for almost the entire world and for Germany in particular.

The framers of US Constitution made it extremely difficult to make changes to avoid tyranny. Broad political change in the US takes place very slowly -- by design! -- to avoid tyranny. The first ten amendments were given such a lofty name and high status to avoid tyranny.

Amending any of the first ten amendments would be a shocking precedent, an affront to our national character. It hasn't happened once in 224 years. Not once. If you think about it, that's a long time of maintaining the status quo.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[SCompRacer]

This is a long winded rant, but I feel it's pertinent to the post.

I have first hand experience with an adolescent that was capable of such a horrific crime. I was also a Federally Licensed Firearms Dealer with a Class III (fully automatic weapons) license at the time. I do not consider myself an authority but my wife and I know the sacrifice, effort and precautions it takes to save a messed up kid.

Once upon a time, I was a rising star at a major corporation. On loan to the United Way one quarter, I visited agencies like the Ronald McDonald house, handicapped workshops and adoption agencies. Saw a beautiful 9-year-old girl there desperate for a home. She was the oldest of 6, all by a different father with all the siblings in different foster homes. Rose was of Mexican-German descent and entering her 18th foster home. My wife and I were childless, and since she couldn’t carry anymore we decided jointly to adopt her. The official recommendation was “younger parents in an only child setting.”

Only after the adoption are you allowed full disclosure; you can then read all the formerly blacked out areas of the numerous state reports. Rose was born while her mother was in jail for bearing false witness for a drug dealer. She was physically abused in the worst ways by some of her mothers numerous boyfriends. She was so full of rage, and it didn’t take much to set her off in a violent tyrade at school or at home. Anything handy became a weapon. Other than the kicking, hitting, biting, the worst times was when she tried strangulating my wife on two different occasions while she was sleeping. Both times I was away for the company on business.

Fortunately my wife is a degreed Physical Therapist with a minor in Psychology. She is also the most loving and caring person I have ever met in my life. She used her training to break out of these holds, would restrain the child, calm her down and still love her afterwards. I eventually learned these holds as well as picking up the pieces afterwards. All this time my guns were locked in safes, and I never showed her how to use them though she often asked.

We supported her teachers, and got support for ourselves. Not just State provided help, this kid was far beyond an apprentice or overworked, well-intentioned social worker. She could split and manipulate the best. My wife located and secured the best Phychologist and Psychiatrist she could find, and they are not cheap. A small fortune was spent over a period of nine years. She set a record for the longest stay, 5 months, in a locked down hospital unit specializing in drug, alcohol and behavior headed by our Psychiatrist. I eventually left my job and got a less demanding one so I could be home more.

Happy to say she is 25 now, been on her own for a few years. Finally attending college after a bunch of dead end jobs and low life, scumbag, dead beats for boyfriends. She started therapy again on her own, as she cannot maintain relationships with decent guys for long. Fortunately she never got pregnant, and she drinks and clubs less now.

Some say too much sacrifice, but that is the path we chose to take. Yet some parents don’t even know what is going on in their kid’s life, and that’s why these unfortunate things happen.



[This message has been edited by SCompRacer (edited 09 March 2001).]