Reported hazing incident involving Damascus High School JV Football team

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK. Is everybody who is charged with a premeditated violent crime charged as an adult, regardless of age?

And, like the PP, I'm a bit baffled by "No one should have to explain the law to you". Of course nobody has to. If you don't want to, then don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not being unfriendly, but the conversation has gone like this:

Why are these kids being tried as adults??

Because the law says so.

But they are kids!

And the law says first degree rape cases are to be tried as adults, regardless.

But they are 15. 15 isn't an adult.

Yes, and the law says they will be tried as an adult for this crime.

But why these kids?

Because the law.

They are 15!!!!

We know. Violent crimes and all that.

But they are not adults!

Right. Confirmed. Law.

But why not try them as juveniles?

Law.

You're unhelpful!

Ok. Still the law.

They are 15!!!

*boggle*

[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.

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.

I am one who agrees with them being charged as adults.

Would charging them as juveniles mean that any convictions are sealed, so that if in a few years they want to, say, volunteer as a youth program coach they would be able to do so, even as convicted rapists, because the charges would not appear on their background search? Would charging them as juveniles give these violent rapists a clean slate in 2.5 years when they turn 18?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not being unfriendly, but the conversation has gone like this:

Why are these kids being tried as adults??

Because the law says so.

But they are kids!

And the law says first degree rape cases are to be tried as adults, regardless.

But they are 15. 15 isn't an adult.

Yes, and the law says they will be tried as an adult for this crime.

But why these kids?

Because the law.

They are 15!!!!

We know. Violent crimes and all that.

But they are not adults!

Right. Confirmed. Law.

But why not try them as juveniles?

Law.

You're unhelpful!

Ok. Still the law.

They are 15!!!

*boggle*

You keep asking why and the answer is because it's the law. What else do you want??? You can advocate in Annapolis to have the law changed, you can look through old legal documents to find out why the law was passed in the first place.

When your question is "why" you will keep getting the answer "because it's the law" because that is the answer to the question you are asking. If your question is actually WHY is it the law, or how can it stop being the law, those are different questions.

[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.

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.

I am one who agrees with them being charged as adults.

Would charging them as juveniles mean that any convictions are sealed, so that if in a few years they want to, say, volunteer as a youth program coach they would be able to do so, even as convicted rapists, because the charges would not appear on their background search? Would charging them as juveniles give these violent rapists a clean slate in 2.5 years when they turn 18?

The available consequences for youth charged in juvenile court varies a lot from state to state. I am more familiar with Virginia, where for certain crimes a judge can impose a "blended sentence" which has a juvenile portion (while the offender is a juvenile) and an adult portion (when the offender turns 18 or 21). In practice, this often means that the child convicted of a very serious offense receives a juvenile commitment (which is indeterminant in length but cannot exceed the 21st birthday) and a suspended adult sentence so that if they violate probation as an adult after being released from juvenile commitment, then they face adult prison time for the violation. In Virginia, a child who is tried as an adult receives a modified sentencing process if it is their first time in adult court where the judge can impose a juvenile sentence, an adult sentence, or a blended sentence. I don't think MD has blended sentences, so I think that if a case is kept in juvenile court then the maximum punishment would be incarceration until age 21 but if they go to adult court then the punishments imposed are adult punishments. But I am not really sure.

[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.

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.

I am one who agrees with them being charged as adults.

Would charging them as juveniles mean that any convictions are sealed, so that if in a few years they want to, say, volunteer as a youth program coach they would be able to do so, even as convicted rapists, because the charges would not appear on their background search? Would charging them as juveniles give these violent rapists a clean slate in 2.5 years when they turn 18?

Those are good questions. I would hope that we have a juvenile justice system that can balance the needs of the child with the safety of the community. That would mean no automatic get out of jail with a sealed record when you turn 18 card. The juvenile system should be able to handle troubled people and people who committed violent crimes. The adult system sure can't.

But what's best for society, having the kids get somewhat of an education, even a vocational education along with counseling and mental health oversight (assuming they get those things) in juvenile detention and then be released in several years, or for them to be with adult prisoners being raped for several years (or in an isolation ward going insane), with no education, no real mental health services, and then being released at age 25 into society.

It doesn't look good either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those are good questions. I would hope that we have a juvenile justice system that can balance the needs of the child with the safety of the community. That would mean no automatic get out of jail with a sealed record when you turn 18 card. The juvenile system should be able to handle troubled people and people who committed violent crimes. The adult system sure can't.

But what's best for society, having the kids get somewhat of an education, even a vocational education along with counseling and mental health oversight (assuming they get those things) in juvenile detention and then be released in several years, or for them to be with adult prisoners being raped for several years (or in an isolation ward going insane), with no education, no real mental health services, and then being released at age 25 into society.

It doesn't look good either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Brooms up the @$$?!?!?

Heads better roll and if any of them show up in MCPS ever again more heads will roll.

This will be multiple lawsuits, and costly.unf the taxpayers may have to pay to defend MCPS unless it demands a fee carveout. Then union pays.

[Anonymous]

I think the fundamental question that we as a society have to consider is are there crimes that are so deplorable that one might consider a person virtually unredeemable or not worthy of such an effort? Is justice about punishment or redemption?

[Anonymous]

Nyc tried a case like this for state hockey. Father was abusing kid and kid went raging on teammate. Kid and father in jail. Kid get free therapy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the fundamental question that we as a society have to consider is are there crimes that are so deplorable that one might consider a person virtually unredeemable or not worthy of such an effort? Is justice about punishment or redemption?

Justice is about punishment of the offender and/or restitution for the victim.

Redemption is a construct of the establishment. You can mandate punishment. You can't mandate rehabilitation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Right. And does that suggest that any of the sophomores were themselves victims of this when they were freshmen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the fundamental question that we as a society have to consider is are there crimes that are so deplorable that one might consider a person virtually unredeemable or not worthy of such an effort? Is justice about punishment or redemption?

Justice is about punishment of the offender and/or restitution for the victim.

Redemption is a construct of the establishment. You can mandate punishment. You can't mandate rehabilitation.

Do we have a responsibility as a people to try to facilitate and provide rehabilitation or no? (not trolling, just thinking this out) If we don't have a moral obligation does it just make financial sense to do so?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Right. And does that suggest that any of the sophomores were themselves victims of this when they were freshmen?

Didn't one of the young men attend a different school though?

[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.

Here is a description of the MD Juvenile Law System:
https://www.peoples-law.org/juvenile-system-juvenile-courts

Note that this document is available from other sources, but this was the most complete and the best format to quote from, which is why I used this copy. From the document:

The Purpose of the Juvenile System

- To provide care, protection, and wholesome mental and physical development of children found delinquent by the juvenile court;
- To balance the public safety and the protection of the community while holding the child responsible to the victim and the community for the offenses committed and to help the child become a responsible and productive member of society;
- To provide a program of treatment, training, and rehabilitation that fits with the child's best interests and the public interest;
- To preserve and strengthen the child's family ties and separate a child from the family only when necessary for the child’s welfare or in the interest of public safety;
- To hold parents responsible, where possible, for working on the issues that required the court’s intervention;
- If necessary, to remove a child from home, providing the child a living situation as close as possible to the custody, care and discipline that should have been given by the parents; and
- To provide children in State custody with a safe, humane and caring environment and access to needed services.
- - Read the Law: MD Code Cts. & Jud. Proc. §3-8A-02

I've underlined one of the important lines of the purpose of the Juvenile system. The most serious offenses are referred to the adult court system due to issues of public safety. While they are minors, these are particular egregious and violent criminal acts that even the most basic concepts of right and wrong should deter individuals from committing these felonies. For an individual to have such a lack of moral compass to commit these acts, they are a danger to the greater society and should be referred to the adult criminal court system. This does not mean they will necessarily be tried as a adult, but that a judge in the adult court system needs to review the case and determine whether it stays in the adult criminal court system or can be referred to the juvenile court system.

Continuing on, whether a case gets referred to adult court system or can be referred back to the juvenile system:

Will you be treated as an adult? Will adult rules and punishments be used in your case?

You will most likely go to juvenile court, unless you commit a very serious crime. If you have committed a serious crime, the regular Circuit Court will hear your case and determine whether you will be tried or sentenced as an adult, including going to jail or other adult punishment.

If your case falls into any of the following categories, it may be handled in adult criminal court:

If you are 16 years or older at the time of the offense, and you are charged with any of the following offenses:
carjacking;
abduction;
kidnapping;
second degree murder (or attempt);
manslaughter, except involuntary manslaughter (or attempt);
second degree rape or sex offense (or attempt);
third degree sex offense;
robbery with a deadly weapon (or attempt);
first degree assault;
using, wearing, carrying, or transporting a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime; or
use or possession of a firearm.
If you are 14 years or older at the time of the offense, and you are charged with committing a crime punishable by life imprisonment:
first degree murder or attempted first degree murder
first degree rape or attempted first degree rape
first degree sex offense or attempted first degree sex offense
If you are 16 years or older and you are charged with possession, transportation, or use of a handgun (includes all crimes arising out of the same incident.)
Waiver Up: If you have reached the age of 15, the juvenile court may send the case to adult criminal court where adult penalties apply.
Waiver Down: If you are automatically charged as an adult, you have the right to ask the adult court to send the case to juvenile court. Even if you are tried as an adult, you may still ask the court to send you to juvenile court for rehabilitative care instead of imposing an adult sentence. If you are 16 or 17 years old and charged with murder, you are not eligible for waiver down.
Read the Law: MD Code Courts & Jud. Proc. § 3-8A-03
"Waiver": You could also end up in adult criminal court by a process known as "waiver." There are two types of waiver: "waiver up" and "waiver down."
The judge considers the following factors when deciding whether to waive you up or down:

Your age;
Your mental/physical condition;
Whether you will agree to treatment and will benefit from treatment in a juvenile facility or program;
The nature of the crime committed and how much you participated in it; and
The public safety.

Why is this first degree rape?
https://codes.findlaw.com/md/criminal-law/md-code-crim-law-sect-3-303.html
The MD Code of Criminal law defines first degree rape to include:

(iv)?commit the crime while aided and abetted by another; ?or

So any rape that involves two more more assailants is first degree rape.