Summary

A 15-year-old boy was sentenced to life in prison for fatally stabbing a stranger, Muhammad Hassam Ali, after a brief conversation in Birmingham city center. The second boy, who stood by, was sentenced to five years in secure accommodation. Ali’s family expressed their grief, describing him as a budding engineer whose life was tragically cut short.

  • barsoap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Your position is therefore undemocratic.

    If your position was to kill all people of a particular skin color then my position would be the same. Democracy cannot work if fundamental rights are not protected from onslaught by people who, ultimately, would abolish democracy itself. Because that’s where your path leads: Towards a failure to regard other people as people.

    comprehend the rightness and wrongness of murder

    You still fail to acknowledge that that’s not what it’s about. It’s about executive control. If an adult has an intrusive thought they have a very good grasp on blocking it, youth doesn’t. If everything works well then they’re simply exploration happy, like stupid bands, invent new makeup styles and re-invent the shopping cart race. If society messed them up at a fundamental level then things like murder can bubble up, and might not be stopped by the weak frontal cortex. That does not mean that they’ll regret it, though: They’re already perfectly capable of rationalising, and will do so to maintain a consistent self-image of themselves.

    Did you understand anything of what I just wrote. Please rephrase it in your own words (“So you’re saying that…”) so I know we won’t continue to talk past each other, there.

    More generally speaking, there’s an African saying: If a kid does not feel the warmth of the village they will find the warmth they deserve by setting it ablaze.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Because that’s where your path leads: Towards a failure to regard other people as people.

      No. Life, liberty, rights, and privileges can - and should - be deprived upon conviction of a crime. The appropriate deprivation of rights and privileges as a sentence for murder is life imprisonment. Nothing of my opinion disregards any person as a person.

      Your position, however, disregards the victim’s rights as a person. Further, you have advocated for stripping me of my rights to participate in governance based solely on your dislike for my opinion.

      You have justified fascism.

      It’s about executive control.

      I summarily reject your suggestion that a 15-year-old is so lacking in their capacity for executive control that they can be excused of murder.

      If an adult has an intrusive thought

      This wasn’t an intrusive thought. This was a deliberate act.

      If a kid does not feel the warmth of the village they will find the warmth they deserve by setting it ablaze.

      By all means, be warm to the kid. Until he starts setting people on fire.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Life, liberty, rights, and privileges can - and should - be deprived upon conviction of a crime.

        Life can and should be deprived? That’s barbaric. Every civilised country has abolished the death penalty. Heck even parts of the US managed to abolish it.

        I summarily reject your suggestion that a 15-year-old is so lacking in their capacity for executive control that they can be excused of murder.

        So you reject reality. Which explains a lot.

        By all means, be warm to the kid. Until he starts setting people on fire.

        And what if noone was warm to him, who is at fault when the village burns? I’d say the adults are. Punishing the kid is just them trying to cover up their own failures. A convenient scapegoat for their own failure to foster wholesome interactions.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          And what if noone was warm to him, who is at fault when the village burns?

          Him.

          It’s a pretty simple concept. He is the one who performed the act. He is responsible.

          I’d say the adults are.

          Unless you can show the adults deliberately taught him to murder, I’d say no. If you can show they did that, they can join him in prison forever. But he doesn’t get a pass.

          I’m perfectly happy to blame the adults for a kid becoming a little shithead asshole. Not so much when the kid deliberately decides to murder someone.

          You argued that 4-year-olds don’t need supervision. Now you’re arguing that 15-year-olds are incapable of being responsible for their own, deliberate actions; that their parents, guardians, or other individuals charged with supervising their behavior are responsible.

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            It’s a pretty simple concept. He is the one who performed the act. He is responsible.

            So if someone calls up an assassin to murder another person, the one who ordered the kill gets off scott-free?

            Unless you can show the adults deliberately taught him to murder, I’d say no.

            Adults have a duty to raise kids well, just as they have a duty to file their taxes. If they cannot do so on their own, they have the right to be helped along by the rest of society. And, really, even if not there’s that other (more famous) African saying: It takes a village to raise a kid.

            Consider the alternative, or, rather, that really seems to be what you’re implying: That children are responsible for their own upbringing. Next up: Babies are expected to grow their own food. Your potted petunia is responsible for its own watering.

            You argued that 4-year-olds don’t need supervision.

            If they have shown signs of being violent to their peers, yes of course they need supervision. And so does our 15yold. But that doesn’t mean that we pre-emptively supervise every kid that way they’d never learn independence, and thus never truly become adults, they’d just spinelessly bow to the next random person who passes as an authority figure.

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Consider the alternative, or, rather, that really seems to be what you’re implying: That children are responsible for their own upbringing.

              His upbringing isn’t relevant to the issue. His deliberate actions are. He is generally responsible for his deliberate actions, regardless of how shitty a hand he was dealt.

              We can give him some leniency on issues like contract law: He might not have the cognitive ability to understand an important legal document. He might not understand the value of money. He might not have the capacity for complex abstract thought, and should be protected from those who would exploit that and defraud him.

              But Murder isn’t an abstract concept. It’s pretty simple. He isn’t owed any societal protections for deciding to kill someone.

              • barsoap@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                His upbringing isn’t relevant to the issue.

                Why? Because it would put blame on the adults? Because you want to, at all cost, deflect responsibility from the ones in the position to provide warmth without there being a burning village?

                I call that spineless.

                He isn’t owed any societal protections for deciding to kill someone.

                Why, then, are the adults owed social protections for deciding to turn him into the kid he became? And yes I used “decided” deliberately here: If he decided to become a murderer, then the adults can’t claim that “it was an accident”, “we didn’t mean to” when it comes up to turning him into a murderer.

                • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Because it would put blame on the adults?

                  I have no problem throwing the adults in prison with him, if you can reasonably show they are responsible. Go ahead and blame them all you want. But understand that the blame they carry does not in any way excuse him from responsibility for his actions, nor the consequences of those actions. They can be blamed also, not instead.

                  Murder is too simple an idea to suggest that a 15-year-old can’t be held responsible for committing it.

                  • barsoap@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 months ago

                    Please, again, read up on developmental psychology, and what the prefrontal cortex does. The alternative, for you, is to effectively have zero empathy for anyone younger than the early 20s. Whether they murdered or stole a cookie or broke a toy.

                    I’m out of here lest sounding like a broken clock.