Anonymous wrote:The 13 year old is the one with the prior car jacking arrest.

Sweet Jesus.

Anonymous wrote:Anybody who thinks these two “people” can be rehabilitated is utterly delusional.

The Washington Post, which sat-in on the virtual hearing for the two juveniles held on Wednesday, reports that the prosecutor had told the judge they were expecting to give attorneys plea bargain offers in the "next day or two."

Many scrutinizing this case continue to call for the teens to be charged as adults.

FOX 5 DC turned to D.C. Criminal Defense Attorney Nikki Lotze, with Lotze and Mosley LLP, to learn more about the circumstances around juvenile cases.

"In all kinds of way in D.C at least, juveniles are treated differently," said Lotze, explaining that District laws around juveniles are very different and operate under the presumption that a juvenile can be rehabilitated in ways the adult system may not be set-up to support.

D.C. Police Commander Ramey Kyle told FOX 5 they were investigating one of the suspect’s involvements in another carjacking in January. The Commander said in a Zoom interview, an arrest has been made.

FOX 5 confirmed through sources, this involved the younger suspect, who may have been involved in more than one previous crime.

D.C. laws prohibit a 13-year-old from being tried as an adult. At 15-years-old, the D.C. Attorney General’s Office could petition for a case to be transferred to the adult court system. Court sources told FOX 5 that usually happens during the first hearing.

The Washington Post reported there was no indication the prosecutor was planning to do so following the second hearing.

The teens have reportedly pled the juvenile version of "not guilty."

"If you were to reach a plea agreement, then the juvenile would admit involvement," said Lotze, who also said the agreement could include, "… potentially being in a youth shelter involvement, which is similar to a jail but for juveniles. Or could involve being on home detention or being on probation."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How would that be eugenics?

Eugenics was the science/belief in creating the "healthiest" humans possible, healthy babies support healthy families that support healthy society. The movement also believed that most of society's ills (lawlessness, alcoholism, disabilities, mental disorders, inability to keep jobs, being poor) were inheritable traits and ran in families. So if you prevent those families from reproducing, there will be less of those traits being inherited and less people with those traits, and therefore the rate of alcoholism will go down, poverty will decrease, crime will go down, etc., by fact of those with the undesirable traits being unable to pass the traits along because they aren't having children.

Sanger wanted birth control in the hands of poor people, not because she was a huge believer in women taking control of their own healthcare and reproductive health, but because she believed in the eugenic theory of a stronger society will occur if the poor people stop having poor babies who will then turn into poor adults.

Sangers's views on birth control are not a secret or her views on eugenics.

+1. She was pretty vile.

I bet Mr. Anwar would still be here if the perpetrators parents had taken birth control. Maybe Sanger was on to something.

Yes, to play devil’s advocate, can anyone explain why this line of thinking is “vile”... (I’m not saying it is or is not, but what is the counter argument?)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well the truth is there a plenty of people who are unfit to be parents and they cross all demographics.
Given what we know about the earth’s population and climate change I think everyone should be on mandatory birth control (boys too), from the age of 9-21. If you want your birth control device removed you must pass a series of psychological and common sense tests (that are culturally sensitive to the region/ country/ village the citizen is in). If you turn out not to be a sociopath then it gets removed. If you prove to be a problem or violent burden to society, the device stays.

WTF?

DP - at first glance PP’s idea seems incredibly, horrifyingly dystopian, but... humans are an effing infestation on the planet at this point. There are too many GD people already, so I don’t think it’s worth outrage at the thought of some barriers to reproduction being implemented to try to keep the absolute dregs from reproducing...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well the truth is there a plenty of people who are unfit to be parents and they cross all demographics.
Given what we know about the earth’s population and climate change I think everyone should be on mandatory birth control (boys too), from the age of 9-21. If you want your birth control device removed you must pass a series of psychological and common sense tests (that are culturally sensitive to the region/ country/ village the citizen is in). If you turn out not to be a sociopath then it gets removed. If you prove to be a problem or violent burden to society, the device stays.

WTF?

Anonymous wrote:Well the truth is there a plenty of people who are unfit to be parents and they cross all demographics.
Given what we know about the earth’s population and climate change I think everyone should be on mandatory birth control (boys too), from the age of 9-21. If you want your birth control device removed you must pass a series of psychological and common sense tests (that are culturally sensitive to the region/ country/ village the citizen is in). If you turn out not to be a sociopath then it gets removed. If you prove to be a problem or violent burden to society, the device stays.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How would that be eugenics?

Eugenics was the science/belief in creating the "healthiest" humans possible, healthy babies support healthy families that support healthy society. The movement also believed that most of society's ills (lawlessness, alcoholism, disabilities, mental disorders, inability to keep jobs, being poor) were inheritable traits and ran in families. So if you prevent those families from reproducing, there will be less of those traits being inherited and less people with those traits, and therefore the rate of alcoholism will go down, poverty will decrease, crime will go down, etc., by fact of those with the undesirable traits being unable to pass the traits along because they aren't having children.

Sanger wanted birth control in the hands of poor people, not because she was a huge believer in women taking control of their own healthcare and reproductive health, but because she believed in the eugenic theory of a stronger society will occur if the poor people stop having poor babies who will then turn into poor adults.

Sangers's views on birth control are not a secret or her views on eugenics.

+1. She was pretty vile.

I bet Mr. Anwar would still be here if the perpetrators parents had taken birth control. Maybe Sanger was on to something.