Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2023 11:32:03 GMT -5
youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-9pu1SD4_lce6VEQUDh59bZ_CfkwIJFX&si=8Uegw-Wu7Z1xlRLA
This is a 10 video playlist of all the interrogations in the case of the Summerfield 6. A group of teens who committed the premeditated murder of 15 year old Seath Jackson.
I'd like to have a serious conversation about whether minors should be charged as adults or not.
This is the case I chose to use for three reasons.
First is The heinous nature of the crime.
Second is The fact that the perpetrators are all teenagers. Three are 18 & therefore adults. The other two are 15 & 16 & therefore minors.
Third is because the interrogations in these videos IMO clearly show the reason minors have an huge disadvantage compared to adults when it comes to understanding the system & defending themselves.
After watching these videos objectively I believe one thing will be indisputable.
None of them have a clue how the system works, what's going to happen to them, their levels of responsibility in the eyes of the law, what options are available to help them and most importantly competency to aid in their own defense.
Its clear not q single one has a clue , but as the law stands 18 is and adult so those three are shit out of luck.
So lets focus on the two who by law are minors.
16 year old KYLE who participated in the murder & disposal of the body.
15 Year Old Amber who was SEATHs ex girlfriend and lured him to his death with a lie about meeting to bury the hatchet after fighting for over a year after their breakup. It's also believed that Amber was either the mastermind & ringleader of the entire plot or at the very least going along with her boyfriend Mike step by step.
But when it comes to charging them as adults how much should the crime factor in.
Does the crime make them qualify as an adult in every other aspect?
This is a cut and paste from a criminal defense website explaining what it means to be Competent to aid in your own defense.
Federal and state law require that a person must be competent in order to stand trial for a criminal charge. Competency means that a defendant understands the nature of the court process. This includes a grasp of the charges and parties involved. Competency ensures that the criminal defendant can rationally assist in their own defense.
This is a 10 video playlist of all the interrogations in the case of the Summerfield 6. A group of teens who committed the premeditated murder of 15 year old Seath Jackson.
I'd like to have a serious conversation about whether minors should be charged as adults or not.
This is the case I chose to use for three reasons.
First is The heinous nature of the crime.
Second is The fact that the perpetrators are all teenagers. Three are 18 & therefore adults. The other two are 15 & 16 & therefore minors.
Third is because the interrogations in these videos IMO clearly show the reason minors have an huge disadvantage compared to adults when it comes to understanding the system & defending themselves.
After watching these videos objectively I believe one thing will be indisputable.
None of them have a clue how the system works, what's going to happen to them, their levels of responsibility in the eyes of the law, what options are available to help them and most importantly competency to aid in their own defense.
Its clear not q single one has a clue , but as the law stands 18 is and adult so those three are shit out of luck.
So lets focus on the two who by law are minors.
16 year old KYLE who participated in the murder & disposal of the body.
15 Year Old Amber who was SEATHs ex girlfriend and lured him to his death with a lie about meeting to bury the hatchet after fighting for over a year after their breakup. It's also believed that Amber was either the mastermind & ringleader of the entire plot or at the very least going along with her boyfriend Mike step by step.
But when it comes to charging them as adults how much should the crime factor in.
Does the crime make them qualify as an adult in every other aspect?
This is a cut and paste from a criminal defense website explaining what it means to be Competent to aid in your own defense.
Federal and state law require that a person must be competent in order to stand trial for a criminal charge. Competency means that a defendant understands the nature of the court process. This includes a grasp of the charges and parties involved. Competency ensures that the criminal defendant can rationally assist in their own defense.
This requirement is protected by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The amendment guarantees a fair trial to everyone charged with a crime. Incompetency is deemed unfair to a defendant because an incompetent person lacks the fitness to stand trial and would not be able to help in defending charges against them.
At one point one point three of the teens are talking and the KYLE the 16 year old is asked if they should talk to a lawyer.
He answers
"We can't pay for a lawyer. "
The 18 year old says
"They give us a free one"
He responded
"Yea .... That's for court. They'll give us one for the trial."
He seemed to think the lawyer was only there to do the trial stuff & had no idea his right to have a lawyer with him during interrogation.
Not only that ... they all originally came in for an interview which turned into an interrogation.
The detective interrogating the 16 year old used the normal tactics.
Of course she never said the words but what she said manipulated the 16 year old into believing that she could help him but only if he was completely honest & told her everything.
She tricked him completely. Then put him into a room with the other minor & one 18 year old where he told them that the detective would help them all if they all told the truth and confessed. They also had no idea that even tho no detectives were there everything they said was recorded and would later be used in court. BTW the 15 year old wasn't even mirandized until her third interrogation and had already confessed.
Look. If an adult is mirandized & they fall for the tricks criminalizing themselves..... oh well .... that's the nature of the game.
BUT minors are NOT adults.
They are charged as adults because the crime they commit is of a particularly heinous nature but does that make them mentally equal to adults when it comes to understanding how to defend themselves? Or is this a case of Commit an adult act , pay an adult price.
Is that fair?
So if a 15 year old is the oldest child of negligent parents and they basically raise themselves and their younger siblings they are acting like as the adult in the situation. So does that mean they are now mentally on equal footing & capable of having a sexual relationship with some 40 year old? Or should they be allowed to go to the bar & drink all night? Be drafted into the army? ....etc.
You get my point.
Id really like those who can remove emotion from the equation to weigh in on this.
At one point one point three of the teens are talking and the KYLE the 16 year old is asked if they should talk to a lawyer.
He answers
"We can't pay for a lawyer. "
The 18 year old says
"They give us a free one"
He responded
"Yea .... That's for court. They'll give us one for the trial."
He seemed to think the lawyer was only there to do the trial stuff & had no idea his right to have a lawyer with him during interrogation.
Not only that ... they all originally came in for an interview which turned into an interrogation.
The detective interrogating the 16 year old used the normal tactics.
Of course she never said the words but what she said manipulated the 16 year old into believing that she could help him but only if he was completely honest & told her everything.
She tricked him completely. Then put him into a room with the other minor & one 18 year old where he told them that the detective would help them all if they all told the truth and confessed. They also had no idea that even tho no detectives were there everything they said was recorded and would later be used in court. BTW the 15 year old wasn't even mirandized until her third interrogation and had already confessed.
Look. If an adult is mirandized & they fall for the tricks criminalizing themselves..... oh well .... that's the nature of the game.
BUT minors are NOT adults.
They are charged as adults because the crime they commit is of a particularly heinous nature but does that make them mentally equal to adults when it comes to understanding how to defend themselves? Or is this a case of Commit an adult act , pay an adult price.
Is that fair?
So if a 15 year old is the oldest child of negligent parents and they basically raise themselves and their younger siblings they are acting like as the adult in the situation. So does that mean they are now mentally on equal footing & capable of having a sexual relationship with some 40 year old? Or should they be allowed to go to the bar & drink all night? Be drafted into the army? ....etc.
You get my point.
Id really like those who can remove emotion from the equation to weigh in on this.