Political Crossfire Forums

learn to swim

GUILTY!

learn to swim · Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 3:48 pm Post subject:

Quote: Feb 15, 12:32 PM (ET)

By BRUCE SMITH

CHARLESTON, S.C. (AP) - A 15-year-old boy who claimed the antidepressant Zoloft drove him to kill his grandparents was found guilty of murder Tuesday.

Christopher Pittman could get 30 years to life in prison after a jury rejected his claim that he was involuntarily intoxicated by the drug.

The trial has been billed as the first case involving a youngster who says an antidepressant caused him to kill, and it comes at a time of heightened scrutiny over the use of antidepressants among children.

Defense attorneys urged the jury to send a message to the nation by blaming Zoloft for the killings. They said the negative effects of Zoloft are more pronounced in youngsters, and the drug affected Pittman so he did not know right from wrong.

"We do not convict children for murder when they have been ambushed by chemicals that destroy their ability to reason," attorney Paul Waldner said.

But prosecutors called the Zoloft defense a smokescreen, saying the then-12-year-old Pittman knew exactly what he was doing three years ago when he shot his grandparents, torched their house and then drove off in their car.

Story Link

Yellow · Joined: 12 Jan 2005 Posts: 66

Thank god hes not getting away with it.

juggernaut · Joined: 26 Aug 2004 Posts: 145 Location: NEW JERSEY

THE KID WAS 12 YEARS OLD!!!

How can you call this justice????????

In our country we have set many legal generalizations on age (17 to join military; 17 to drive; 18 to purchase tobacco; 21 to purchase alchohol etc. etc. etc.) I have protested many of these generalizations in the past because they are unjust, however it can be argued that they are placed for a reason: Kids are not mature enough to make their own decisions. With that statement summarizing the general logic of the federal and state legislatures which have placed these restrictions, IT IS CLEARLY A DOUBLE STANDARD TO TRY A 12 YEAR OLD BOY AS AN ADULT.... DUH. THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!

As one of our most reveared and forgotten forefathers once said, "GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME DEATH!!"

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

COL. TOFU wrote: Thank god hes not getting away with it.

Yeah and we criticize the mullahs in Iran for doing the same thing! God, why did you make so many hypocrites?

nascar46 · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 14 Location: California

That kid knew what he was doing, even though I particularly don't trust drug companies/drugs. He had to have known what he was doing. This is a good example of a "twinkie defense".[/b]

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

nascar46 wrote: That kid knew what he was doing, even though I particularly don't trust drug companies/drugs. He had to have known what he was doing. This is a good example of a "twinkie defense".[/b]

Wasn't he 12 years old when he committed the crime? I don't know if you can fully hold him responsible!

EightyEight · Joined: 09 Sep 2004 Posts: 3531

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: nascar46 wrote: That kid knew what he was doing, even though I particularly don't trust drug companies/drugs. He had to have known what he was doing. This is a good example of a "twinkie defense".[/b]

Wasn't he 12 years old when he committed the crime? I don't know if you can fully hold him responsible!

Twelve year olds know what they are doing.

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

EightyEight wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: nascar46 wrote: That kid knew what he was doing, even though I particularly don't trust drug companies/drugs. He had to have known what he was doing. This is a good example of a "twinkie defense".[/b]

Wasn't he 12 years old when he committed the crime? I don't know if you can fully hold him responsible!

Twelve year olds know what they are doing.

But can they legally be held responsible like an adult? Can they make choices like an adult?

lord_jim69 · Joined: 16 Feb 2005 Posts: 73 Location: Gotham City

"Twelve year olds know what they are doing"

Really? So would you let a 12 year old decide if it was the right time for them to have sex? Or go out drinking?
Would you let a 12 year old drive or run for office?
No, of course you wouldnt.
We (as a scoiety) dont even let 12 year olds choose what types of shows they can watch or music they can listen to.

So why then, should they be treated the same as us in a criminal court?

The point is, 12 year olds are not as aware of thier actions as a fully grown and matured adults. He may have "known what he was doing" but that still doesnt mean he can or should be held responsible for his crimes in the same way you or I should.

Societies as far back as the Helenisitc era (proly before that, too) have recognized that minors must have different treatment under the law, and that if your very young you cant be held to the same standard as when your older.

Im glad he didnt get off scot free, and I kinda doubt his Zoloft defense (but since im no doctor im not saying it might not be true) But I do think that 30 years for something he did when he was 12 is a gross miscarriage of justice.

think on my own · Joined: 11 Jul 2004 Posts: 193

juggernaut wrote: THE KID WAS 12 YEARS OLD!!!

How can you call this justice????????

In our country we have set many legal generalizations on age (17 to join military; 17 to drive; 18 to purchase tobacco; 21 to purchase alchohol etc. etc. etc.) I have protested many of these generalizations in the past because they are unjust, however it can be argued that they are placed for a reason: Kids are not mature enough to make their own decisions. With that statement summarizing the general logic of the federal and state legislatures which have placed these restrictions, IT IS CLEARLY A DOUBLE STANDARD TO TRY A 12 YEAR OLD BOY AS AN ADULT.... DUH. THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!

As one of our most reveared and forgotten forefathers once said, "GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME DEATH!!"

That is right, give me liberty or give me death, you should remember that when thinking of the liberties this boy took away from his grandparents. This isn't about having rights to buy cigarettes, alcohol, or drive; it is about a person who murdered his grandparents, burned their house, stole their car. He then told the police at first that he was "kidnapped" by a black man who killed them. Later he told the police that they "deserved" it. Come on with all the killings that "children" have been committing at sometime they have to be held accountable. You're right this isn't rocket science, this is two counts of Homicide. This wasn't an "accidental" death or anything else, the boy was tried for the crime he committed. If you look at different states they all have rules as how to try a "minor". They all point out that in certain circumstances, homicide being one of them, a juvenile can be tried as an adult. I fail to understand how we could say or anyone could say that because of his age he should be sent to a psych ward, juvenile detention center, or just have his hand slapped. This would be more of an insult than anything else. We cannot keep coddling these children and brush off everything they do because they are "children".

nascar46 · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 14 Location: California

lord_jim69 wrote: "Twelve year olds know what they are doing"

Really? So would you let a 12 year old decide if it was the right time for them to have sex? Or go out drinking?
Would you let a 12 year old drive or run for office?
No, of course you wouldnt.
We (as a scoiety) dont even let 12 year olds choose what types of shows they can watch or music they can listen to.

So why then, should they be treated the same as us in a criminal court?

The point is, 12 year olds are not as aware of thier actions as a fully grown and matured adults. He may have "known what he was doing" but that still doesnt mean he can or should be held responsible for his crimes in the same way you or I should.

Societies as far back as the Helenisitc era (proly before that, too) have recognized that minors must have different treatment under the law, and that if your very young you cant be held to the same standard as when your older.

Im glad he didnt get off scot free, and I kinda doubt his Zoloft defense (but since im no doctor im not saying it might not be true) But I do think that 30 years for something he did when he was 12 is a gross miscarriage of justice. When I was twelve, I knew what I was doing, and, as a rule, most parents can hold there twelve year olds responsible for thier actions. Unless there was a severe lack of morals/discipline in the household, I believe he should be held accountable. If anything, he should have gotten life. In my opinion, he would have alot of time to think about it.

lord_jim69 · Joined: 16 Feb 2005 Posts: 73 Location: Gotham City

nascar46 wrote: lord_jim69 wrote: "Twelve year olds know what they are doing"

Really? So would you let a 12 year old decide if it was the right time for them to have sex? Or go out drinking?
Would you let a 12 year old drive or run for office?
No, of course you wouldnt.
We (as a scoiety) dont even let 12 year olds choose what types of shows they can watch or music they can listen to.

So why then, should they be treated the same as us in a criminal court?

The point is, 12 year olds are not as aware of thier actions as a fully grown and matured adults. He may have "known what he was doing" but that still doesnt mean he can or should be held responsible for his crimes in the same way you or I should.

Societies as far back as the Helenisitc era (proly before that, too) have recognized that minors must have different treatment under the law, and that if your very young you cant be held to the same standard as when your older.

Im glad he didnt get off scot free, and I kinda doubt his Zoloft defense (but since im no doctor im not saying it might not be true) But I do think that 30 years for something he did when he was 12 is a gross miscarriage of justice. When I was twelve, I knew what I was doing, and, as a rule, most parents can hold there twelve year olds responsible for thier actions. Unless there was a severe lack of morals/discipline in the household, I believe he should be held accountable. If anything, he should have gotten life. In my opinion, he would have alot of time to think about it.

Of course he knew what he was doing, and of course he shouldnt get a slap on the wrist. No one is saying that.

But you have to realize that when you were 12 you did not have the full spectrum of intellect, rational thought, self control or maturity. You could not make rational decisions for yourself, and your parents didnt let you make important rational decisions for yourself. Neither did the Government.

If no one made you go to school in grade 1-8, would you have?

Of course you wouldnt, because children are inherently diferent than adults, they think differnt act and react different. And as such should not be held up to the same scale and standard as adults.

Innoova · Joined: 16 Nov 2004 Posts: 867 Location: Joliet, Illinois

Ditching school is slightly different than:

A. Firing a gun at least twice.
B. Setting a house on Fire.
C. Stealing a car.

SLIGHT differences..

The kid got what he deserved.

If not less.

lord_jim69 · Joined: 16 Feb 2005 Posts: 73 Location: Gotham City

Innoova wrote: Ditching school is slightly different than:

A. Firing a gun at least twice.
B. Setting a house on Fire.
C. Stealing a car.

SLIGHT differences..

The kid got what he deserved.

If not less.

Children are not as responsible as adults, this is a fact. They dont know whats best for them, they dont know what they are doing most of the time.
If as a 6th grader you had the option to stop going to school, you would.
This is because as a twelve year old you would not be mature or responsible enough to make the decision that would be in your best interest. Even though it is in your best interest to attend school you wouldnt go, why? Because your twelve years old.

The Government realises this, that is why children are required by law to go to school. Government realises twelve year olds are not mature enough to be looking at adult images, so they impose an age limit on pornography. Government realises that twelve year olds arnt responsible enough to know when to start having sex, which is why we have statutory rape laws.

The point is, children DO NOT have the full capacities of a full grown adult, neither mentally, physically or emotionally. Therefore to judge them as if they did have the full capacities of an adult is highly unfair. I dont know if I can think of ANYTHING a child could do that would warrant a 30 year jail sentence.

And on a related note, if you really believe children "know what thier doing" you should have no problems at all with organizations such as NAMBLA, gettting rid of the age limits on porn,voting,drinking and smoking and getting rid of statutory rape laws.

Gryff1nd0r · Joined: 12 Nov 2004 Posts: 2430 Location: Cambridge, MA

No, kids cannot be held responsible for many decisions they make, but the decision to kill to people, burn their house, and steal their car is obvious to any kid old enough to wipe his own ass. He has no respect for human life, and I do not believe that an anti-depressant, while it may have had some effect on him, could have driven him to kill two people (and then try to LIE about it!). It is a poor excuse for a kid with some serious issues that NEEDS to be locked up. I wouldn't want my kid to live in a neighborhood or go to school with him.

lord_jim69 · Joined: 16 Feb 2005 Posts: 73 Location: Gotham City

I never said he shouldnt be held responsible, I just said that its not right to hold him as acountable as you would a fully grown adult, and 3o years for something he did as a child seems pretty unfair.

Gryff1nd0r · Joined: 12 Nov 2004 Posts: 2430 Location: Cambridge, MA

Its hard to define "fair". I bet he will be out earlier than that.

Lennox · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 134

Wasn't the Columbine High School killers on SRI Drugs?

I understand this stuff is being played down how many times people that do these type things are taking SRI drugs. I heard on the news yesterday that at one time on the Zoloft or Prozac web site the makers had claimed that they did not even know how it worked. I personally think there is something to it. My friends son just got a life sentance for killing another kid at a party and he had been taking zoloft and being a college kid, he had been drinking.

In fact what is also being kept quiet is the cases where the drug companies are losing damage claims because of this stuff.

EightyEight · Joined: 09 Sep 2004 Posts: 3531

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: EightyEight wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: nascar46 wrote: That kid knew what he was doing, even though I particularly don't trust drug companies/drugs. He had to have known what he was doing. This is a good example of a "twinkie defense".[/b]

Wasn't he 12 years old when he committed the crime? I don't know if you can fully hold him responsible!

Twelve year olds know what they are doing.

But can they legally be held responsible like an adult? Can they make choices like an adult?

Yes, they can.