Live Q&As

Well said, whcih is another way of saying that we agree.  Of course the kid's state of mind is the whole issue -- at least in terms of establishing his guilt.  And while you summarize the issue well, you avoid taking a position on that critical issue.

Of course, the judge will make his finding in due course, but based on what we know, what do you think, and how d you come to that position?

Personally, it seems that this child was engaged in all kinds of violent behavior from an early age, was punished because of it and therefore knew it was wrong -- at least as far as the "world" was concerned -- and therefore the "my dad was a Nazi" defense should fail.

So your point is that his having been abused by his father justifies his cooling discussing the shooting with his father the day before, then going to the closet and getting the weapon, and shooting the sleeping man?  Do you really think that? 

To be sure, there is no acceptable justification for child abuse, but it just doesn't seem that even the boy's defense lawyer claims that his father was so abusive that it could have justified the kid's behavior.  Could it be that many of us, simply find it hard to believe that a 10 year old child could be so twisted as to murder his dad?

It sounds like you would be okay with shooting him if he was a "real" Nazi i.e. one who advocated genocide, but if he "only" supported civil war and the creation of a racist country in a section of the United States, that would be n big deal.  I hope I have that wrong, but I think I read you loud and clear.

Clearly, this case is going to surface some very interesting ideas about what constitutes not only murder, but the very definitions good parenting and the purpose of the United Sates of America.

Actually,according to the law, to some extent it does.  If this child truly did not appreciate that what he was doing was wrong, at least according to the law of the land, if not his own moral compass, then he would not be guilty of murder.  That said, it seems that he was aware, but that is what the trial will be about.

Your claim that we must all agree to live by certain norms is the key, especially as the "we all" does NOT mean that each person must agree in order for the social contract to be binding.  The "we" is collective, and one cannot simply opt out because they don't share the dominant view.  So we agree, that nobody gets a pass simply because they happen not to agree with the law.

The age issue is AN issue here, but the the only issue here.  In fact, the age issue has already been addressed, one could argue, by the fact that the boy is NOT being tried as an adult.  Were he found guilty, the most they could do is incarcerate him until he turns 23.  Personally, I worry about the implications for society when he gets out -- assuming that he is found guilty and goes in.

The question of punishing youthful offenders vs rehabilitating and educating them is not an easy one.  In fact, I think we too easily and too often like to pretend that we are doing both, when we often fail to do either with real effect.

Your point about the difference between what constitutes a legitimate defense and an appropriate case of mitigating, but not justifying, circumstances is a great one.  While people can disagree about guilt and justification, they should not forget that thinking in such starkly dichotomous terms is often unwise, and certainly not legally necessary.

Seems to me that we would all do better if those who are quick to see guilt were a bit more ready to consider mitigating circumstances when it comes to punishment, and that those who see nothing but mitigating circumstances were a bit less timid about assigning guilt.

Or, we should put him away for een longer because he so damaged that he will never be fit for civil society.  I am not suggesting that be the response, but you have to admit that precluding it, especially given your view of how messed up teh kid is, means that you simply want to justify not locking him up.

You are right about how young he is and about how troubling that makes this whole story.  You are right that the evidence points to a child with serious problems which predate any claims related to abuse by his father.  Given that, are there any circumstances under which you would say that without proof that he has somehow changed, he may never be able to function normally?

Again, I am not saying that is the case, but if that is not considered, then how seriously should one take the calim that the child is ill?  Is it just that he should be viewed as sick enough not to incarcerate, but not so sick as to lock down until there is real proof that he is no longer sick?

So there is hope, but no accountability?  Why can the two not co-exist?  Why is it that the "hope people" never argue for real punishment, and the "justice people" imagine that the future can never be different?

By the way, I am curious -- on what basis do you assume that with enough counseling, a child who shot his sleeping father, could be "fixed"?  Whose hope are you really arguing for, yours or the child's?

I agree with everythign you wrote!  Thank you.

You are simultaneoulsy sensitive to the fact that we are dealing with a child, and unflinching about the horror of his alleged crime.  You accept that both the "nature crowd" and the "nurture camp" know much less than either side admits.  And finally, you embrace the notion that no decent society can either overlook crimes in teh present, or give up on the possibility that the future, especially for kids, may be different.

Just tell us how that is not exactly what neo-nazis are teaching their kids about people like you and me! Have you heard of the rule of law, of due process, or any other principle which defines ur society?

Describing other human beings as a cancer?  You mean the way Nazis described Jews, Gypsies, gay people, etc.?  If you are serious about what you wrote, then you have demonstrated that with the best of intentions, even decent people can come to support the most indecent actions.  In fact, that is the how the original Nazis built their base of support 70 years ago.

Yes, no, and certainly for the time being at the very least.

By definition, if one is defending themselves then it is not murder.  Killing and murdering are not the same.  And while we are at it, thereine lies a vast distinction in how one understands the Ten Commandments.  The Hebrew original bans murder, not killing.  There are times when taking a life is justifiable, both according to the Hebrew Bible and American law.

The defense is NOT arguing that the child was defending himself, as in a "battered wife" defense.  They claim that having been raised by a vilent father, he didn't know that shooting someone was really wrong.  Make of that what you will.

And finally, whatever happens with this case, there is plenty of evidence that this little boy is, at least for the time being, unfit for what yu call normal society.  It's awful and it hurts to admit such things, but he chocked his teacher with a phone cord when he was only 5 years old!  It's hard not to wonder if a stronger response then, could not have saved the kid, let alone his father, from what he faces now.

Right you are.  I think that one of the most distressing and unproductive aspects of this case, and all such cases, is that they are litigated between forces that want one extreme or the other -- an aquital or a maximal conviction.  To some extent that cannot be avoided, but when dealing with a case in which both the crime and the one who allegedly committed it are so unusual, it seems that there should be a more sophisitcated way to respond.