PDA

View Full Version : Should Age be considered



Shy
06-28-2005, 07:35 PM
Many would hv known abt this case. She back in media again as her sentencing is scheduled this week.. For those unaware here you go


An Idaho teen faces life in prison when she is sentenced this week for the premeditated murders of her parents in September 2003 because they didnt accept/like her boyfriend. :00:

Sarah Johnson, 18, will stand before her family and a judge in court for the first time since a Boise jury found her guilty in March of the shooting deaths of Diane and Alan Johnson in their quiet suburban home in Bellevue, Idaho.

The panel heard six weeks of testimony and deliberated for three days before convicting the high school volleyball player of two counts of first-degree murder for shooting her parents at point-blank range with a high-velocity rifle when she was 16 years old.

Testimony from members of her family will play a key role in the sentencing in Blaine County, just as it did at trial.

In trial testimony, the defendant's older brother, aunts and uncles characterized the defendant as a selfish and greedy teen, and described her "bizarre" behavior after the murders that led them to suspect her.

Sarah Johnson's aunt, Linda Vavold, said she and other relatives had prepared victim impact statements to be read in open court.

"I think all of us would be really happy if she were sorry for what she did and if she would accept it. That would be great," said Vavold, the owner of a Christian bookstore near Boise and Diane Johnson's sister. "But I don't know if that's going to happen."

Blaine County prosecutors accused the 16-year-old of killing her parents because they disapproved of her romantic relationship with a 19-year-old undocumented Mexican immigrant and threatened to press charges against him.

Johnson's defense team stuck to her claims that she was awoken by the shootings and ran out of the house before she saw anything. They argued that, if she had been the shooter, investigators would have been able to produce stronger forensic evidence linking her to the bloody crime scene.

Police who responded to the scene at 6:30 a.m. found Diane Johnson still under the covers, dead from a single gunshot to the head. Alan Johnson was shot as he emerged from the shower and was still wet when he was discovered naked on the floor of his bedroom.

Sarah Johnson will return this week to the case's original jurisdiction in the hillside town of Hailey, Idaho. A judge moved the trial to the capital city of Boise, about three hours away, after roughly 75 percent of potential jurors were dismissed due to financial hardship or bias associated with pretrial publicity.

By Idaho law, Johnson will receive an automatic life sentence, but the judge has wide discretion in determining when, and whether, she will be eligible for parole. State law mandates at least 10 years in prison for first-degree murder before being eligible for parole, but Fifth District Judge Barry Wood could increase that minimum.

Wood once commented in open court that evidence linking Sarah Johnson to her parents' murders was as strong as "a 40-acre field of garlic in full bloom" as he rejected a post-conviction defense motion for acquittal.


Because shes 18, death penalty is ruled out and prosecutors are looking for life in prison. isnt this ridiculous..one cant kill their own parents , let alone for silly reasons like this... max 10 years after which she will be eligible for parole.. whats in that... by 28 she will be out and enjoying her life again... unakku vaalkai koduthavangalai kodumaiyaa konuttu eppadi she can be freed after some few years in jail :evil: :evil:

I say age shudnt be considered :evil:

Let me know ur thoughts :)

Shy

rsivaraman
06-28-2005, 07:56 PM
this... max 10 years after which she will be eligible for parole.. whats in that... by 28 she will be out and enjoying her life again... unakku vaalkai koduthavangalai kodumaiyaa konuttu eppadi she can be freed after some few years in jail

I say give her a strict sentence..but parole is something of a must..the role morgan freeman plays in the moive swashank redemption reminds me of this.. keeping her in prison for life will not give back the life of her parents. in time ppl realise thier mistakes and if they do, they should be given a second chance, atleast that way you don't allow another life to go waste.

-Siva

vaalu2005
06-28-2005, 08:02 PM
Shy......
good question...
Assume a guy at 10 yr old kills their parents would u still sentence him the same way as a 25 yr old is sentenced? same punishment?

Now what im trying to say is....noone can really say when a person actually becomes sesible to think...10 yrs is too young for a boy to know what right whats wrong.....but u might argue 16 yrs is old enough then what about 15 yrs/ u wud say old enuff?
14?13?12?11?
there has to be some definte age for this differentiation in punsihing..So 18 i think is fair enough.

and so age shud be considered for punishment.....5 yr old or 10 old or 25 yr old...each have different maturity to think what is good what is not.....Its universally accepted that 18 is a age where usually (generally) peopel get matured enough to think what is right or whats wrong...

Its same like why shud only ppl above 18 shud vote? why not a 10 yr old? why not a 15 yr old...Their votes no point...coz they dont know whats good whats wrong..

Vaalu...(Shy thinking.,,,,ippdi ellal vaalu pesumnu munnamee theirnjirutha when i was 17 ...pottu thalli irupen..inneram velila vandhirupenu...hehehehe) venaaam adhellam nallaa ennam ilaaa

anainar
06-28-2005, 08:10 PM
I say age shudnt be considered

I dont understand your point. Are you trying to say she should be sent to the chair or should serve life time in prison?

I dont know the exact details but I do know that teenage is pretty volatile stage here in the US. Whether she actually killed her parents is highly debatable. The evidences are more of circumstantial than bullet proof. Under these circumstances, she deserves the benefit of doubt i would say.

Wheter age should be considered while punishing, sure. If the age is such that one cannot decide what he is doing or know the consequences of his action, they definitely need consideration. That is why we have juvenile courts and juvenile laws.

Cheers

ns80
06-29-2005, 01:55 PM
I feel 18 is'nt a mature enough age to overcome your anger. such angry reactions tone down only after you become completely independent and gain enough exposure to think from their side. a first degree premeditated murder deserves a maximum of 20 years in prison, perhaps might even need a psychological treatment. but not the whole life in prison or electric chair. i would'nt say the same thing if it were a 25+ year old working class. For a high school level exposure if I were a judge I would defenitely consider her age for the severity of the sentence.

Shy
06-29-2005, 11:19 PM
Shy......
good question...
Assume a guy at 10 yr old kills their parents would u still sentence him the same way as a 25 yr old is sentenced? same punishment?


Yes. Dont talk me wrong.. explain panraen..


Now what im trying to say is....noone can really say when a person actually becomes sesible to think...10 yrs is too young for a boy to know what right whats wrong.....but u might argue 16 yrs is old enough then what about 15 yrs/ u wud say old enuff?
14?13?12?11?
there has to be some definte age for this differentiation in punsihing..So 18 i think is fair enough.


My first question is, how could a so young kid at 10 be so volient, that hes even able to kill someone? Antha vayasu appadi oru ennam eppadi varum sollunga.. dont you think at the very young age, you dont know that hurting someone is bad... its not just killing, you wont believe whats happening in here.. last year, a 12 year old kid, molested--sexually, then mutiliated a 8 year old kid... and u know what, there wasnt any insanity on that kids part.. he was perfectly fine.. he just want that small kid to suffer and be gone. Do you think that the 12 year old will ever change... But why shud any such people be given a chance, when the victim wasnt given one. We always think abt the murderer's rights, we forget to think abt the victim and how they would have suffered. So if you get caught on such terrible things, i dont think we shud give them any chances...


and so age shud be considered for punishment.....5 yr old or 10 old or 25 yr old...each have different maturity to think what is good what is not.....Its universally accepted that 18 is a age where usually (generally) peopel get matured enough to think what is right or whats wrong...


Maturity cant be an excuse for the killings one has done. How badly u hate them, if you one sec think of killing them and if u do it.. thats it.. I know that 18 is the perfect age and all that.. but i personally feel that 18 is a "rendaan-ketaan" vayasu.. giving them liberty at that age is too bad.. 21 is the best age.. person would be mature enuf to take decisions on their own..


Its same like why shud only ppl above 18 shud vote? why not a 10 yr old? why not a 15 yr old...Their votes no point...coz they dont know whats good whats wrong..

I wont compare voting with killing vaalu... for Voting, you shud think abt urself and the country.. murder is something thats insane whatever age u do.. just because u do it at 10 or 20 doesnt make any difference.. it hurt someone, thats all matters.

Shy

Shy
06-29-2005, 11:27 PM
I dont understand your point. Are you trying to say she should be sent to the chair or should serve life time in prison?

Yes.


I dont know the exact details but I do know that teenage is pretty volatile stage here in the US. Whether she actually killed her parents is highly debatable. The evidences are more of circumstantial than bullet proof. Under these circumstances, she deserves the benefit of doubt i would say.

No Anainar. I was home yesterday. I saw her trial in Court Tv, live. there are many things that was disturbing.

(1) Its bulletproof evidence.. knowing that shes going to be tainted with parents blood, she had put her bathrobe and then shot them. DNA proved it.
(2) She was drenched with blood in her hair and face. If someone else has shot and she was away in other room, how could have this happened.
(3) She had confessed to her cellmate that she had killed them

More than all this, you know during the trial, she wasnt showing any remorse, not that she killed them or anything, but her parents are dead. Athuku kuuda oru feelings or reaction ellai..

everyone saw this.. When her brother was in questioning.. she made notes and passed it to the lawyer to ask, whats going to happen with the insurance money and other money??

Why shud she be given a benefit of doubt.. One second, does the parents deserve this. You shoud see the family fotos.. Shes only daughter.. Her father and mother had made many compromises like mom leaving work to raise her, father moving work near home to be with her.. all these stuff and she has given them nothing, but just pain.. shes troubled kid from start.. drugs.. obsessed with guys and having so many BFs etc... Why shud one be given a benefit of doubt.. because shes 16 :evil: :evil:


Wheter age should be considered while punishing, sure. If the age is such that one cannot decide what he is doing or know the consequences of his action, they definitely need consideration. That is why we have juvenile courts and juvenile laws.

There shud be juvenile courts and laws Anainar.. But not for everyone.. insanity or abused kids panra thappukku avangalukku irukalaam.. but normal kidskku i dont think they shud be given that..

Shy

ns80
06-30-2005, 01:21 AM
Shy, what would you sentence that girl to :think:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From what you summarized about the case, I can understand that the girl had executed a well-planned murder of her parents expressing her anger over the parents disapproval to her romantic relationship.

One thing I learnt from the American movies and soaps is that kids here are more violent, more angry than what we used to get when we were in childhood. This girl is one extreme version of it. From the profile of what Shy says, the girl seems to be a potential runaway and may have been adviced by the guy who is having affair with her to murder her parents and get the insurance money. In a country where the Discovery Channel, Court TV show programs about murder investigation, insurance murders, serial killers in programs like Medical Detectives, New Detectives, Forensic Files. I don't find it hard for a 16 year old to know that she would get her share of insurance money, if her parents die. So that seems to be the primary motto behind the murder. Apart from this, her parents might have brought her back home after she tried to runaway or something. So the angered 16-year old, would have shot her parents trying to cover her tracks in crude ways like putting the bathrobe around her, so that blood doesnt spatter on her. Though all this description above sounds circumstantial, these are just my thoughts (from the ideas inspired by Medical Detectives in Discovery Channel :ee:).

The above being true, defenitely deserves punishment. But hey wait a second, she is just a 18-year old screwed up teenager, not a Theodore Robert Bundy (or shortly Ted Bundy) the infamous serial killer who are psychos deep down and would never reform. This teenager doesnt look like, if she had serial killer characterestics she would've been in juvenile prison long back. What she needs is a short harsh treatment that she would never ever forget in her life and a relatively long jail term.

Talking about spoiled teens like Sarah Johnson reminds me of Frank Abagnale("Catch Me if you can" fame). He was a guy who was disturbed by the seperation of his parents and the way his father's financial status and resorted to crooked ways of getting money, starting from his father's gas card to airline companies, banks. The con artist was toned down during his 6 months at Perpignan (details of which can be found reading the "Catch Me If You Can" book). Like Frank Abagnale, Sarah Johnson also needs to be taken to her breaking point, she can't be stubborn like the way she is in trial room after a treatment like that.

So if her crime gets proved beyond doubt, she should face a year(in actual it is less, 1 year is just for sentence sake, scaring her off) of complete isolation, complete dark, without seeing a single human during her entire stay, she just gets less food and water during that stay, she would be monitored during that period. And then spends about 15-20 years(after the 1 year experience, I dont think even 15 years is needed) in a federal high security prison. This would be my verdict :ee: sounds horrific eh ;) don't worry she'll live. She'll live a clean life after she gets released :D. I am not giving a 100% to this, but this will work, she is a woman, she can't be stubborn after all these.

coolian
06-30-2005, 01:34 AM
Shy, I can see your point of view, but the fact is, you'll have to take age into consideration at some time. Some months back I read about this 6 (yes, 6) year old boy who took his dad's shotgun and killed his baby sister. Now, you'd probably say, "Come on, he was a kid - he definitely didn't know what he was doing!!" Or would you want to sentence this kid to life in prison?

ns80
07-02-2005, 12:18 AM
The verdict finally is...

[web:acdeb589f9]http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2002 354098&zsection_id=2002111777&slug=webidahoteen30&date=20050630[/web:acdeb589f9]

Shy
07-02-2005, 04:13 AM
its ok... Now she has her lifetime to think abt what she did to her parents who didnt deserve this....

thanks pa narayanan

Shy