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
    ·
    3 hours 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
      ·
      3 hours 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
        ·
        3 hours 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 hours 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.