Reported hazing incident involving Damascus High School JV Football team

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

omg - enough with this bs!

NORMAL children do not RAPE other children. Again, too few of you dingdongs aren't placing yourself in the role of the victims' parents. How often must I ask this question? HOW forgiving would you be if your son had been sodomized with brooms by these vile young men?

Being 15 doesn't mean you're necessarily naive.

Correct. Being 15 does, however, mean that you're 15. And 15-year-olds are not adults.

Seems that we are questioning how the term "adults" as defined in court in the state of Maryland. Whether it's "right or wrong" to charge these kids as adults in this case is subjective. However the prosecutor is, and should, use the law fully to represent his/her clients wishes.

We are the prosecutor's clients. We, the people.

And when you find yourself involved in the judicial system, I'm sure your attorney with represent your wishes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the reasoning for trying them as adults instead of as juveniles?

The State's attorney said that by law 1st degree rape is always transferred to adult/criminal court. The attorneys for the defendants can request a waiver to have it sent back to juvenile court.

The attorneys for the defendants HAVE requested a waiver to have it sent back to juvenile court.

That courtroom is going to be filled to the brim. Can’t wait for the names to be released.

Names?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the reasoning for trying them as adults instead of as juveniles?

The State's attorney said that by law 1st degree rape is always transferred to adult/criminal court. The attorneys for the defendants can request a waiver to have it sent back to juvenile court.

The attorneys for the defendants HAVE requested a waiver to have it sent back to juvenile court.

That courtroom is going to be filled to the brim. Can’t wait for the names to be released.

Names?

Names of the perpetrators is already in the news. The names and identity of victims should be protected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

PP is correct. 15-year-olds are not adults. But that's not the point, since the charges are first-degree rape, and MD charges as adults for this crime.

Yes they are correct in that statement and I'm guessing that they are the poster that keeps rebutting with 'but they're not adults' despite the fact that's not really the argument here. They are being tried as adults, not because of their age, but because of the heinous act they committed and because it (first degree rape) carries a maximum punishment of up to life in prison. I think everyone knows that 15 year olds are 15 year olds. It does not bear repeating. It's tiresome.

The point is that 15-year-olds, not being adults, should not be charged as adults. And also should not be sentenced to life in prison.

It's Maryland law. If you don't like the law, advocate to change it.

Yes, I support organizations that do that.

[Anonymous]

I still want to hear more on the defendants claims that this has happened before. That "brooming is a tradition at DHS".

I hope that's still under investigated, and not overlooked.

[Anonymous]

^under investigation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

omg - enough with this bs!

NORMAL children do not RAPE other children. Again, too few of you dingdongs aren't placing yourself in the role of the victims' parents. How often must I ask this question? HOW forgiving would you be if your son had been sodomized with brooms by these vile young men?

Being 15 doesn't mean you're necessarily naive.

Correct. Being 15 does, however, mean that you're 15. And 15-year-olds are not adults.

Seems that we are questioning how the term "adults" as defined in court in the state of Maryland. Whether it's "right or wrong" to charge these kids as adults in this case is subjective. However the prosecutor is, and should, use the law fully to represent his/her clients wishes.

We are the prosecutor's clients. We, the people.

And when you find yourself involved in the judicial system, I'm sure your attorney with represent your wishes.

Defense attorneys represent the defendants. Prosecutors represent the government.

[Anonymous]

What are the real, practical reasons for charging them as adults? Other than, "it was a heinous crime," or "that's the procedure we follow for certain felonies," what outcomes are expected to be different if they are not charged in juvenile court?

Is it so they get due process that they would not get in juvenile court?

Is it strategic, so they can hang a life sentence over their heads to get a plea bargain for 20 years?

Is the idea that they are beyond redemption so they can be denied the education and treatment or mental health services they would get in a juvenile facility (even though they will probably eventually be released from prison)?

Or would they go to a juvenile facility anyway, and this ensures they will then be transferred to a regular facility when they age out to finish their sentences?

What is it about the juvenile justice system that can't handle children that commit serious crimes, even when we know that children are very capable of serious crimes and that some children are very disturbed people.

Just curious about the practical reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are the real, practical reasons for charging them as adults? Other than, "it was a heinous crime," or "that's the procedure we follow for certain felonies," what outcomes are expected to be different if they are not charged in juvenile court?

Is it so they get due process that they would not get in juvenile court?

Is it strategic, so they can hang a life sentence over their heads to get a plea bargain for 20 years?

Is the idea that they are beyond redemption so they can be denied the education and treatment or mental health services they would get in a juvenile facility (even though they will probably eventually be released from prison)?

Or would they go to a juvenile facility anyway, and this ensures they will then be transferred to a regular facility when they age out to finish their sentences?

What is it about the juvenile justice system that can't handle children that commit serious crimes, even when we know that children are very capable of serious crimes and that some children are very disturbed people.

Just curious about the practical reasons.

In a nut shell, actions have consequences.

[Anonymous]

^unhelpful

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the real, practical reasons for charging them as adults? Other than, "it was a heinous crime," or "that's the procedure we follow for certain felonies," what outcomes are expected to be different if they are not charged in juvenile court?

Is it so they get due process that they would not get in juvenile court?

Is it strategic, so they can hang a life sentence over their heads to get a plea bargain for 20 years?

Is the idea that they are beyond redemption so they can be denied the education and treatment or mental health services they would get in a juvenile facility (even though they will probably eventually be released from prison)?

Or would they go to a juvenile facility anyway, and this ensures they will then be transferred to a regular facility when they age out to finish their sentences?

What is it about the juvenile justice system that can't handle children that commit serious crimes, even when we know that children are very capable of serious crimes and that some children are very disturbed people.

Just curious about the practical reasons.

In a nut shell, actions have consequences.

DP. Well, yes, obviously. But why did THESE actions have THESE consequences?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are the real, practical reasons for charging them as adults? Other than, "it was a heinous crime," or "that's the procedure we follow for certain felonies," what outcomes are expected to be different if they are not charged in juvenile court?

Is it so they get due process that they would not get in juvenile court?

Is it strategic, so they can hang a life sentence over their heads to get a plea bargain for 20 years?

Is the idea that they are beyond redemption so they can be denied the education and treatment or mental health services they would get in a juvenile facility (even though they will probably eventually be released from prison)?

Or would they go to a juvenile facility anyway, and this ensures they will then be transferred to a regular facility when they age out to finish their sentences?

What is it about the juvenile justice system that can't handle children that commit serious crimes, even when we know that children are very capable of serious crimes and that some children are very disturbed people.

Just curious about the practical reasons.

It is Maryland law that 1st degree rape requires filing a criminal case and charging defendants as adults. This was stated by the State's Attorney in the press conference yesterday. It is a statutory decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the real, practical reasons for charging them as adults? Other than, "it was a heinous crime," or "that's the procedure we follow for certain felonies," what outcomes are expected to be different if they are not charged in juvenile court?

Is it so they get due process that they would not get in juvenile court?

Is it strategic, so they can hang a life sentence over their heads to get a plea bargain for 20 years?

Is the idea that they are beyond redemption so they can be denied the education and treatment or mental health services they would get in a juvenile facility (even though they will probably eventually be released from prison)?

Or would they go to a juvenile facility anyway, and this ensures they will then be transferred to a regular facility when they age out to finish their sentences?

What is it about the juvenile justice system that can't handle children that commit serious crimes, even when we know that children are very capable of serious crimes and that some children are very disturbed people.

Just curious about the practical reasons.

In a nut shell, actions have consequences.

DP. Well, yes, obviously. But why did THESE actions have THESE consequences?

This was (or at least seems to be with the information gathered thus far) a premeditated violent crime. This isn't smashing a mailbox. This is sodomy of a child. If you can't distinguish between the two, that's fine... and you can live in your own little bubble with your anonymous internet opinions. But the law clearly states otherwise. No one should have to explain the law to you. And your opinion isn't any more valid because you disagree. Try using the Google.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the real, practical reasons for charging them as adults? Other than, "it was a heinous crime," or "that's the procedure we follow for certain felonies," what outcomes are expected to be different if they are not charged in juvenile court?

Is it so they get due process that they would not get in juvenile court?

Is it strategic, so they can hang a life sentence over their heads to get a plea bargain for 20 years?

Is the idea that they are beyond redemption so they can be denied the education and treatment or mental health services they would get in a juvenile facility (even though they will probably eventually be released from prison)?

Or would they go to a juvenile facility anyway, and this ensures they will then be transferred to a regular facility when they age out to finish their sentences?

What is it about the juvenile justice system that can't handle children that commit serious crimes, even when we know that children are very capable of serious crimes and that some children are very disturbed people.

Just curious about the practical reasons.

In a nut shell, actions have consequences.

DP. Well, yes, obviously. But why did THESE actions have THESE consequences?

This was (or at least seems to be with the information gathered thus far) a premeditated violent crime. This isn't smashing a mailbox. This is sodomy of a child. If you can't distinguish between the two, that's fine... and you can live in your own little bubble with your anonymous internet opinions. But the law clearly states otherwise. No one should have to explain the law to you. And your opinion isn't any more valid because you disagree. Try using the Google.

People literally make a living off of explaining the law to people. Stop being a dolt for someone asking a question. Why use Google, when the case is being discussed here and now.

Be nice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the real, practical reasons for charging them as adults? Other than, "it was a heinous crime," or "that's the procedure we follow for certain felonies," what outcomes are expected to be different if they are not charged in juvenile court?

Is it so they get due process that they would not get in juvenile court?

Is it strategic, so they can hang a life sentence over their heads to get a plea bargain for 20 years?

Is the idea that they are beyond redemption so they can be denied the education and treatment or mental health services they would get in a juvenile facility (even though they will probably eventually be released from prison)?

Or would they go to a juvenile facility anyway, and this ensures they will then be transferred to a regular facility when they age out to finish their sentences?

What is it about the juvenile justice system that can't handle children that commit serious crimes, even when we know that children are very capable of serious crimes and that some children are very disturbed people.

Just curious about the practical reasons.

It is Maryland law that 1st degree rape requires filing a criminal case and charging defendants as adults. This was stated by the State's Attorney in the press conference yesterday. It is a statutory decision.

Their hands might be tied in this case and they are required to try them as adults. (Assuming they meet the requirements of first degree.) But why is that the law? They didn't pull it out of a hat. There has got to be a practical reason.

What are the different possible outcomes and scenarios if they charge the children as adults as opposed to children as far as treatment, education, length of sentence, rehabilitation, etc?

Does the juvenile justice system not allow for them to be punished or transferred to a regular prison when they turn a certain age?

Do we decide that if a child does something bad enough, they are no longer children and are sent to an adult prison and all that entails? Maybe that's the answer.