First, I was mostly pointing at the home situation as the rationale for the case to be tried in the juvenile court as opposed to adult. Simply because between having been raised in his parents' home as a child and adolescence and entering the court system the perpetrator has not lived anywhere else. He had absolutely no time to be exposed to another viewpoint and life.
I tried to make a parallel with Keyes for a reason. As we are told, Keyes started murdering after his discharge from the army. He had been exposed to people, to communities, had a girlfriend, a child...so while still keeping in mind that his childhood was very complex, there was some time for him to look around and for the society to play a positive role. In a simplistic way, "you had enough time to look at the big world." But then, Keyes showed pretty scary behavior even at 14 (cruelty to animals). If he were caught and prosecuted as an adolescent and knowing his social history, wouldn't we, the society, at least give him the chance - maybe move to a foster family, at least? To see a different life?
This, in a nutshell, is my pro-juvie argument. His parents are dead; so are his siblings except for one, so they are victims. But we can only try to learn from every case.
JMO, we as the society are not in trouble, but perhaps in danger. It is just a hypothesis that i'd like to discuss. The danger might emerge if kids raised in rigoristic households without positive external influence will continue, for financial or other reasons, to live in the same households after graduation.
I am wondering if the systems that have been proven to work well for youths with antisocial personality disorder, such as organized sports and the army, with all their problems that we are actively discussing nowadays, still be a good option for moving out, especially if the parenting was too strict or in any way, "unorthodox".
As always, thinking mostly about prevention.