GUILTY WI - 12-Year-Old Girls Stab Friend 19 Times for Slenderman, Waukesha, 31 May 2014 #1

[Spice]

HA! I think at our core everyone here wants justice, I think that we see things differently because of experiences but in the end I think we are all on the same page about wanting to make sure there is justice for every victim and justice for every accused and for me and I think all of us here that means making sure that everyone has all the rights they are entitled to.

This case stinks to me because as juveniles they should be under some kind of protection from the law and the press.

Agreed. I also think we are in a agreement about more than we are not in agreement.

In any event, I think this case is very difficult to process for everyone. It is so disturbing and my heart breaks for the victim and future trust issues that she is going to have and the trauma and psychological scars that this will leave on her for a lifetime.

That two 12 year old children are capable of something like this is almost impossible to process. It flies in the face of everything that we feel and believe about children and our role as adults in protecting them and their innocence, keeping them safe from the bogeyman.

It's just beyond comprehension when they become the bogeyman.

They need to do time in a juvenile facility, they need to be viewed as juveniles that committed a horrific crime, and they need to receive intensive therapy and counseling while incarcerated so that hopefully they can become functioning adults if and when they ever get out.

A society is a reflection of how it treats its children, and when we start trying them as a adults and locking them up and throwing away the key with adults as if they are garbage, that is a reflection on us., the adults and decision makers in our society.

I mean, we legislate emotion into laws all of the time. That doesn't mean such laws are ethical, logical, or make sense. I can think of many throughout history that were disgusting, ignorant, ineffective and based on nothing but emotion.

 

[nightwatch]

By law, their parents or lawyer don't have to be there for them to waive their rights. The confession was obtained legally. The police did not proceed until after they read their miranda rights and they waived their rights. None of which require a parent or lawyer.

Thanks for the explanation. Some people question if they are old enough to know right from wrong or fact from fiction. @ 12 one is old enough to understand miranda rights. That speaks volumes imo.

ciao

 

[Spice]

12 is old enough to fully understand the concept of miranda rights, what they mean, why they are afforded to you, and what it means to waive them? 12 year olds understand our very complex criminal justice system and trial process? I highly doubt that.

Its confusing, even for adults who have more than a middle school education.

 

[giagreen]

It is not either or.
You can look at the facts of brain development and where they are in life, The influences they had and what kind of parents raised them and then also want them punished for what they have done. But the simple fact is they are indeed CHILDREN. Not even fully through puberty.

They need to be treated as CHILDREN who have committed a crime not adults. They still need to suffer the consequences but they don't need to be thrown into the pen without any chance of redemption.

I don't really look at it as punishment to be honest I'm looking at it as getting them help. They need it. And others deserve not to feel scared of these girls.

They are not going to be thrown into the pen I'm sure they will end up in a juvenile detention center until they are of age to go to actual jail. Even then I doubt they will even make it there and be released.

I don't hate these girls and I'm not all about punishing them to no extent....I'm all about getting them help. And most of all making sure they don't do this again. I'm sorry but 12 years old is old enough to know what the act of killing is and they new what they were doing. Should they really be able to walk free in 6 years and not be monitored at all? I dont think that would be keeping society safe. And the safety of others is what needs to be put first.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Most kids are taught that, once caught, if they tell the truth, then they will not get in as much trouble. Much more likely they based their decisions on this principle than on any considered decision to waive their legal rights.

 

[Cubby]

Ms. Norris...Thank you so much for that breakdown of what each girl said in their statements. Really helpful.

I'd like to add, especially since I couldn't make it through the criminal complaint without feeling ill.

Incredibly cold hearted and very difficult to read.

 

[Spice]

Most kids are taught that, once caught, if they tell the truth, then they will not get in as much trouble. Much more likely they based their decisions on this principle than on any considered decision to waive their legal rights.

You can see their lack of understanding of their rights in how freely they spoke with the police. They were straight forward in their confessions and not because they were in any way remorseful. They had no idea of the enormity and weight of that. If they were as competent and calculating as a sociopathic adult that understood the system and their rights, they would have not said a word and asked for a lawyer.

 

[blue22]

I have a huge issue with them being able to waive their Miranda rights. Did I even read that correctly? How can they have been able to do that and treated legally as adults at the point of arrest? When is the decision to try someone as an adult made, is it based on the crime, and what, suddenly they're treated as if they have the same amount of judgement about their own rights as a full grown adult?

Actually, it has nothing to do with being an adult or being tried as one. It's simply the law in their state. Juveniles can waive their rights and they did so.

I think they wanted to confess. They got caught with the knife and blood. I really think they didn't WANT to confess with their parents int he room. It's lawfully their right to do so. Adult, or not.

 

[blue22]

Thanks for the explanation. Some people question if they are old enough to know right from wrong or fact from fiction. @ 12 one is old enough to understand miranda rights. That speaks volumes imo.

ciao

I totally understand what people are saying. And if that's an issue, they should work to change the law.

As it stands, nothing was done illegally. In that sense, I have no idea what people are freaking out about. Their rights were not violated, it's the law as it stands.

 

[blue22]

Legal or not, There is no way a 12 yr old knows the nuances of the law. I am not sure that this is legal and I am sure it will be challenged and possibly thrown out. No matter what It should not be leaked to the press.

Well, I agree about it not being leaked. Since a juvenile victim is involved, espcieally.

Their confession is legal, you see. That is the law. A juvenile CAN waive their rights. It's not nuanced, that is simply their right. They chose to confess after their miranda rights were read. It will not be thrown out, because it's LEGAL. In order to throw something out, the confession has to be obtained illegally or coerced. The girls freely confessed of their own will.

We can argue until we are blue in the face about a 12 year old not being sophisticated enough. It doesn't matter if we think they aren't, the LAW says they are and can waive their rights. It's truly simple as that. It will not be thrown out, because their is not grounding.

 

[Karmady]

12 is old enough to fully understand the concept of miranda rights, what they mean, why they are afforded to you, and what it means to waive them? 12 year olds understand our very complex criminal justice system and trial process? I highly doubt that.

Its confusing, even for adults who have more than a middle school education.

Although minors can sometimes waive their Miranda rights effectively, as I understand it, the court still looks at the totality of the circumstances - including their age, intelligence, the manner in which they are interrogated, etc. This is a Constitutional issue so Wisconsin can only offer more protection to minor - not less than the Constitution requires. I think there is a very good chance the confessions will be challenged unless maybe the parents consented for the girls -- which seems like what may have happened and which I believe they can do.

Here's a law review article about it http://www.georgemasonlawreview.org/doc/13-1_Brooks.pdf

And here's a link to the current rule in KS, just for example:

Does my child have "Miranda" rights? Does a parent have to be present during questioning?

All citizens enjoy the right to be informed of their rights when they are in police custody and are being questioned about suspected criminal acts. If a child is under the age of 14 and in custody, they must have the opportunity to consult with a parent or guardian prior to waiving Miranda rights and giving a statement. In all cases of police questioning of juveniles in custody, the court will look at their age, the presence of parents, and other factors to determine whether any statement was freely and voluntarily given.
http://da.jocogov.org/faq/96

 

[blue22]

Although minors can sometimes waive their Miranda rights effectively, as I understand it, the court still looks at the totality of the circumstances - including their age, intelligence, the manner in which they are interrogated, etc. This is a Constitutional issue so Wisconsin can only offer more protection to minor - not less than the Constitution requires. I think there is a very good chance the confessions will be challenged unless maybe the parents consented for the girls -- which seems like what may have happened and which I believe they can do.

Here's a law review article about it http://www.georgemasonlawreview.org/doc/13-1_Brooks.pdf

And here's a link to the current rule in KS, just for example:

Does my child have "Miranda" rights? Does a parent have to be present during questioning?

All citizens enjoy the right to be informed of their rights when they are in police custody and are being questioned about suspected criminal acts. If a child is under the age of 14 and in custody, they must have the opportunity to consult with a parent or guardian prior to waiving Miranda rights and giving a statement. In all cases of police questioning of juveniles in custody, the court will look at their age, the presence of parents, and other factors to determine whether any statement was freely and voluntarily given.
http://da.jocogov.org/faq/96
http://www.georgemasonlawreview.org/doc/13-1_Brooks.pdf

Thank you, I was struggling to find a good link for the law. The girls lawyer said they chose to speak without the parents being there and they read their rights, and then waived their right to self incrimination. He himself said it was legal.

 

[Spice]

Well, I agree about it not being leaked. Since a juvenile victim is involved, espcieally.

Their confession is legal, you see. That is the law. A juvenile CAN waive their rights. It's not nuanced, that is simply their right. They chose to confess after their miranda rights were read. It will not be thrown out, because it's LEGAL. In order to throw something out, the confession has to be obtained illegally or coerced. The girls freely confessed of their own will.

We can argue until we are blue in the face about a 12 year old not being sophisticated enough. It doesn't matter if we think they aren't, the LAW says they are and can waive their rights. It's truly simple as that. It will not be thrown out, because their is not grounding.

Blue,

I hear you. But sometimes "the law" is unethical and questionable. I mean, it used to be "the law" and perfectly legal to enslave people and segregate them. It used to be "the law" that women could not own property, obtain credit, or receive justice when they were raped.

We have and have had all kinds of laws and they get challenged and are changed all of the time.

I don't think anyone is freaking out. It is a questionable law that a 12 year old can waive their miranda rights without adult representation present, whether it be a lawyer, an advocate, or a parent. You cannot tell me that a twelve year old fully understands their constitutional rights or our criminal justice system enough to waive their rights. and speak freely without understanding their right to not incriminate themselves.

That being said, in this case, it appears that they are guilty as charged and it is good that we have full confessions that I believe are not forced or false, but any law that states a twelve year old understands and is competent enough to know the difference between "talking to an adult" and "talking to police" pertaining a crime is faulty in my opinion.

When I pick this a part and speak of their constitutional rights and this questionable law I am thinking about all of our constitutional rights in the future.

Are you familiar with the Central Park Five? That case alone is a literal case study in why minors should not be interrogated or be able to waive their rights without a parent or adult representation

They were innocent and convicted for a crime they did not commit based on false confessions obtained exactly in this way.I am not saying that that occurred here, I'm saying that it's a very questionable law.

 

[blue22]

Blue,

I hear you. But sometimes "the law" is unethical and questionable. I mean, it used to be "the law" and perfectly legal to enslave people and segregate them. It used to be "the law" that women could not own property, obtain credit, or receive justice when they were raped.

We have and have had all kinds of laws and they get challenged and are changed all of the time.

I don't think anyone is freaking out. It is a questionable law that a 12 year old can waive their miranda rights without adult representation present, whether it be a lawyer, an advocate, or a parent. You cannot tell me that a twelve year old fully understands their constitutional rights or our criminal justice system enough to waive their rights. and speak freely without understanding their right to not incriminate themselves.

That being said, in this case, it appears that they are guilty as charged and it is good that we have full confessions that I believe are not forced or false, but any law that states a twelve year old understands and is competent enough to know the difference between "talking to an adult" and "talking to police" pertaining a crime is faulty in my opinion.

When I pick this a part and speak of their constitutional rights and this questionable law I am thinking about all of our constitutional rights in the future.

Are you familiar with the Central Park Five? That case alone is a literal case study in why minors should not be interrogated or be able to waive their rights without a parent or adult representation

They were innocent and convicted for a crime they did not commit based on false confessions obtained exactly in this way. It's a very questionable law.

I agree with you on this. Truly I do. With that said, people are arguing feelings. They don't think it's right, so it should be thrown out. It doesn't work like that. The law says it's fine, so the confession will stand. I get that people don't like the law and don't agree with. (I don't either, actually.) However, their confession was legal. If people are so horrified by it, let's get the law changed.

Feelings don't change the fact that their confession is legal.

 

[Elley Mae]

You have the right to remain silent when questioned.
Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law. (Modern readings have can and will in place of may)
You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish.
If you decide to answer any questions now, without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.
Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?

Miranda warning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems easy enough.

 

[Spice]

You have the right to remain silent when questioned.
Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law. (Modern readings have can and will in place of may)
You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish.
If you decide to answer any questions now, without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.
Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?

Miranda warning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems easy enough.

Sure. Anyone can read or hear those rights. But is a 12 year old sophisticated enough to comprehend the weight of what they are agreeing to waive? That is the question. Not whether or not the Miranda Rights are clearly defined or written. Comprehension and nuance is a part of understanding what you agreeing too. People , adults, sign things and contracts every day that they do not fully understand and they figure that out later, when its too late, that they have made a mistake. Never mind a twelve year old.

 

[Gardenlady]

If it were easy, we wouldn't have the case law on Miranda, fleshing it out further, that we do.

Feelings or not, legal now or not, the fact remains that the confessions could be challenged, could be thrown out, and procedure changed as a result. That's how we ended up with Miranda in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ellemo]

While I agree with those who think the girls should have had an adult present during interrogation, in this case it is a non issue. They were caught with the weapons and the victim is alive and capable of testifying. If anything, the confessions can help the girls get some sort of insanity or diminished capacity defense. If they throw that out and the judge rules no mention of Slenderman, then you are left with two girls, a bloody knife and a victim testifying that they did it with no provocation.

I do not care if their brains are still growing. I do not care how this is identified (mental illness/ evil/ bad parenting/ delusional). Even with their undeveloped brains, they understood it was wrong. They had no remorse. That is enough for me to want them put away for quite a while.

Truly, I really don't see how girls like this can get "better" or become active member of society. I don't care if others have done it in the past. Statistically, violent offenders are very likely to repeat their crime. This isn't someone who robbed a convenience store and shot the clerk in the process. A gun goes off and they panic and run away. That is someone I believe could "recover" if they wanted to.

These are girls who planned this for months. One girl freaked out and couldn't go through with it at first, but she wanted to do this so much that she was able to calm herself down enough to go through with it. The poor child was stabbed over a dozen times. After each thrust, the stabber could have stopped, the other girl could have run away for help. Neither did. They told the girl to lie down so she would die. Then they walked away. How do you become a member of society after that?

How can you develop empathy when you have none for your friend as she screams out in terror and pain? And then leave her to die?

 

[Spice]

If it were easy, we wouldn't have the case law on Miranda, fleshing it out further, that we do.

Feelings or not, legal now or not, the fact remains that the confessions could be challenged, could be thrown out, and procedure changed as a result. That's how we ended up with Miranda in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can they really Gardenlady? Even though they were obtained legally and according to the law? I'm truly asking because I have no idea.

 

[Elley Mae]

Sure. Anyone can read or hear those rights. But is a 12 year old sophisticated enough to comprehend the weight of what they are agreeing to waive? That is the question. Not whether or not the Miranda Rights are clearly defined or written. Comprehension and nuance is a part of understanding what you agreeing too. People , adults, sign things and contracts every day that they do not fully understand and they figure that out later, when its too late, that they have made a mistake. Never mind a twelve year old.

bbm I'm going with yes. Since they/she said they would become proxies I'm thinking they knew what the words meant.