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

[blue22]

It is two different conversations. I am not talking about court. I am not talking about trial. I am not talking about punishment.

What I am talking about is the possible reasons why it happened in the first place. I never said anyone deserved special treatment. These are all kneejerk reactions and speak to exactly what I mean when I say that we tend to ignore and not talk about mental illness when it comes to malignant acts and violent crime.

We go all black and white and start throwing simplistic terms around like "evil" "bad seed". It's too easy.

Yes the actions are evil....but what compelled them? What contributed to all of this disordered thinking and these horrific antisocial actions?

As far as punishment and court: To your point about age: Did you know that your brain is not done developing until you are 26 years old? Do I think 12 year olds should be tried as adults? No. No more than I think an adult should be tried as a juvenile, or No more than I think a mentally ill person that knew right from wrong should get off after committing a murder. These girls should do a serious amount of time in a juvenile facility like the juveniles they are. Whether you think they are inherently evil or not.

I take mental illness very seriously. My family is ripe with it. It's not a knee jerk reaction on my part. Just as many people are dismissing the fact that these kids could just be evil, and will only accept that mental illness led them to do it.

I think there is a fine line when discussing mental illness (and I agree, the discussions need to happen) and excusing behavior. Plenty of people try to blame an illness and not a person.

 

[Spice]

The 50's were not oppressive to anyone I know.

Scarlett,

Ask any African American you know how oppressive the 50's were to them individually and as a group. These were the days of the Jim Crow South. As any Native American who was forced to go to "white schools" to "whiten up" and lost their language and culture. Sometimes being a part of a Privileged group can blind us to such horrible discrimination.

Certainly, the book that was the catalyst to the second wave of Feminism (the first was Sufferage) during the civil rights movement, "The Feminist Mystique" explains at great length the oppression of women, especially in the fifties. The feminist movement was a response to such oppressions and did not come out of nowhere.This is a matter of fact and history not opinion. I don't want to go back and forth about the 50's as it derails the thread. But facts simply do not support your idea that it was not oppressive. It was an extremley dark era for women and people of color. Again, not an opinion. Fact.

 

[AnaTeresa]

The 50's were not oppressive to anyone I know. If they were oppressive it was because someone chose the wrong mate or settled for something they did not want. My grandmother worked during the war making bombers. My mother was a nurse and a hairdresser. I don't know one woman who was raised in th 50's that did not have a life of her own. To say a whole era was oppressive to woman is nonsense. Everyone makes their life what they want it to be. Donna Reed who did that show was the producer of her show. She did not just sit and do lines she was the one producing it. There are many many awesome woman that came out of the 50's.

But one of the good things was that it was a decade that was still about humanness. It was still face to face communication. Even the 60's and 70's and to some degree the 80's and then it all changed. DO I believe that computers are evil? Nope. But I believe that kids need to be monitored when using them and they need real live interaction with people that show them empathy and compassion and sympathy for other humans. Online nothing matters. You can be powerful in your nasty words. You can be someone.. Even if it is all in your mind.



To me this smacks of two kids with a pack mentality after being immersed in this slenderman legend. I They are vulnerable because of their age and hormones, development. Do I think they need more than jail? Yes. But I don't see mental illness. Not in 2 together. I see a plan and I see disconnection.

Anecdotes are not data. Correlation is not causation. Just because you personally have not experienced something, or have had someone divulge it to you, does not mean that something does not exist.

If you want to cover your ears and eyes to what the fifties were like, that's great. But history shows it wasn't some golden time without crime and happy hands at home.

 

[Spice]

I take mental illness very seriously. My family is ripe with it. It's not a knee jerk reaction on my part. Just as many people are dismissing the fact that these kids could just be evil, and will only accept that mental illness led them to do it.

I think there is a fine line when discussing mental illness (and I agree, the discussions need to happen) and excusing behavior. Plenty of people try to blame an illness and not a person.

I do dismiss facts that people or children are just "evil" because evil is not a fact nor is it tangible. No offense, but that kind of thinking is for religious texts and does dismiss mental illness entirely. It focuses on the event and not the cause and it is the 'cure all' term we use to explain horrific events.

I have yet to meet a family without mental illness present, including my own. That is the point. It's very common and very dismissed by simplistic terms such as 'evil" . jmo

 

[Ausgirl]

How does one diagnose "evil" - by actions? What if those actions are prompted by an organic cause? Is it still evil then? What if there's factors influencing behaviour that we simply do not know about? Many abusive families look "nice" on the outside, butter wouldn't melt. What if these girls suffered some horrific thing that made them want to 'escape' so badly they'd kill for it? Is that "evil" too?

What's the treatment for evil of this sort? Aside from burning them in the village square. Exorcism? Lock 'em up forever, throw away the key?

 

[AnaTeresa]

"She's 12 and she has mental health issues," Cotton said. "There's no question that she needs to go to the hospital."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/slende...tabbing-is-mentally-ill-lawyer-says-1.2664136

Okay I tend to agree. Though he's a lawyer, not a psychiatrist...

My question here is: there's a kid charged with murder talking like she's utterly delusional, and she hasn't had a psych evaluation yet? How does that work? Is that usual?

It takes a long time for a psych evaluation. For example, we had a juvenile client who committed a serious crime much like this one with a clear mental health component to it. It took many weeks for us to engage a psychologist for our own private evaluation, which took hours of talking to the client, reviewing school records, mental health records, etc. If I recall correctly, it was about two and a half months before we had our own private evaluation.

Then, once we had that evaluation, we took it to the prosecutors and the court. Basically, we're saying, hey we were right, this child has problems. But the court isn't going to take our word for it. So then there's a court-ordered evaluation. That takes months to decide who's going to do it, and then more weeks in having that evaluation done.

During this time, our client is in juvenile detention, and receiving little to no mental health care. The child's problems were such a tangled ball of yarn, the local juvie did not have the means to properly treat him/her.

Once the court evaluation comes back, both sides are agreeing the child definitely has mental health issues, but there are two different diagnoses. So a third doctor has to be brought in.

To make a long story short, that case took almost a year for all the evaluations to be done. The court system is slow, as is the mental health system. I'm sure behind the scenes her lawyer is working to find a forensic psychologist who can do an evaluation, but if you're a good lawyer, it's tricky to find a good one, who's respected by the state, rather than the usual defense-hired experts.

 

[Disguiseduser0308]

This was a gruesome, well planned slaying of another human being. A 12 year old is developed enough to know that is wrong. Period. They committed a crime, that should not be handled in the juvenile system.

ETA: Obviously the victim is alive, but they thought they were murdering her.

I've never understood the whole tried as an adult issue (especially not for children this age). These girls are not considered mature enough to: purchase firearms, alcohol, tobacco products, vote, enlist in the armed services, or heck even drive. But... they're mature enough to stand trial as adults? Even when it's been studied how part of the human brain doesn't fully understand cause/effect until our mid 20s?

The laws recognize that children are not mature or worldly enough for any of the above (except driving at 16). I'm supposed to believe the law knows better in this case? They can't drink, drive, etc. But, they can stand trial as adults for attempted murder? I don't agree, this feels like the law likes to pick and choose which child has an adult brain. The very fact that they're children means they won't have an already matured brain.

Anyway, JMO. It's always bothered me that this happens. :truce:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Anecdotes are not data. Correlation is not causation. Just because you personally have not experienced something, or have had someone divulge it to you, does not mean that something does not exist.

If you want to cover your ears and eyes to what the fifties were like, that's great. But history shows it wasn't some golden time without crime and happy hands at home.

No one is saying it was perfect. No time is perfect. I am not talking about the politics of it, I am talking about the togethereness and human interaction at the time.

People had to talk to each other, They had to be present.

 

[Spice]

This was a gruesome, well planned slaying of another human being. A 12 year old is developed enough to know that is wrong. Period. They committed a crime, that should not be handled in the juvenile system.

ETA: Obviously the victim is alive, but they thought they were murdering her.

Black and White, over simplified, reactive, emotional response to a complex issue. Right from wrong. Good or Evil. With zero contemplation or consumption of any empirical research on brain, behavior, developmental stages, whatsoever, the criminal justice system, or rehabilitation. They are juveniles and they should be tried as juveniles and they should pay for their crimes.

 

[blue22]

How does one diagnose "evil" - by actions? What if those actions are prompted by an organic cause? Is it still evil then? What if there's factors influencing behaviour that we simply do not know about? Many abusive families look "nice" on the outside, butter wouldn't melt. What if these girls suffered some horrific thing that made them want to 'escape' so badly they'd kill for it? Is that "evil" too?

What's the treatment for evil of this sort? Aside from burning them in the village square. Exorcism? Lock 'em up forever, throw away the key?

Really? They suffered such horrific abuse, it forced them to premeditate the stabbing of a friend? Both of them? And this delivers them from the abuse how? How does that allow them to escape? What key does another young girl hold? It's a bit ridiculous. It does not matter to me, if they suffered abuse. (Other than believing those who did it, should be held accountable.) If they are competent to stand for their actions murder is a CHOICE. Yes, murder like this is an evil choice.

Here is the thing. It doesn't matter if somethings is "prompted." If I was sexually abused and my father plans and premeditates the murder of my offender...the law still charges him with the same crime. Will it come up at sentencing? Absolutely. Will his defense try to use it? Absolutely. What it does not and should not effect, is what prosecutors charge.

I'm sure the system is starting to get mental health evaluations underway. I'm sure they will find peel back the layers and find anything, if it's there. Unless they are found insane by the courts, those layers should not effect how they are charged. Obviously, if they aren't mentally compentant, than they will be treated differently.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Scarlett,

Ask any African American you know how oppressive the 50's were to them individually and as a group. These were the days of the Jim Crow South. As any Native American who was forced to go to "white schools" to "whiten up" and lost their language and culture. Sometimes being a part of a Privileged group can blind us to such horrible discrimination.

Certainly, the book that was the catalyst to the second wave of Feminism (the first was Sufferage) during the civil rights movement, "The Feminist Mystique" explains at great length the oppression of women, especially in the fifties. The feminist movement was a response to such oppressions and did not come out of nowhere.This is a matter of fact and history not opinion. I don't want to go back and forth about the 50's as it derails the thread. But facts simply do not support your idea that it was not oppressive. It was an extremley dark era for women and people of color. Again, not an opinion. Fact.

It depends where you lived.

I am not getting into a racial debate. My point is that the past decades before the computer age and the rampant use of cell phones and electronic devices by kids was better for kids.

Just the nature of this crime shows that this immature kids were left to hours and hours of fantasizing and not getting any reality checks. They don't have balance.

 

[Ausgirl]

It takes a long time for a psych evaluation.

rsbm for space

Thank you so much, AnaTeresa, for that informed reply. I was really curious as why this had not happened already - I guess I know now.

How terribly sad. This is an area that should have resources aplenty thrown at it But like many things pertaining to problematic children, it probably isn't a priority.

A mentally troubled/ill child should not sit in jail for a year without the chance for treatment. Good grief, when they -do- get out, how's that going to help make them a better citizen? It's just a very wrong-headed approach.

 

[blue22]

Black and White, over simplified, reactive, emotional response to a complex issue. Right from wrong. Good or Evil. With zero contemplation or consumption of any empirical research on brain, behavior, developmental stages, whatsoever, the criminal justice system, or rehabilitation. They are juveniles and they should be tried as juveniles and they should pay for their crimes.

It IS black and white to me. People who are mentally competent to stand for their crimes, should do so. Period. Children who commit crimes so heinous there is little chance for rehabilitation, should be tried as adults. Period. (I am not assuming they are not able to be rehabilitated. I am saying IF that is the case.)

If they are competent, mental duress can be brought up by the defense and at sentencing. Those who are competent but mentally ill, should not get lesser charges.

 

[Elley Mae]

Really? They suffered such horrific abuse, it forced them to premeditate the stabbing of a friend? Both of them? And this delivers them from the abuse how? How does that allow them to escape? What key does another young girl hold? It's a bit ridiculous. It does not matter to me, if they suffered abuse. (Other than believing those who did it, should be held accountable.) If they are competent to stand for their actions murder is a CHOICE. Yes, murder like this is an evil choice.

Here is the thing. It doesn't matter if somethings is "prompted." If I was sexually abused and my father plans and premeditates the murder of my offender...the law still charges him with the same crime. Will it come up at sentencing? Absolutely. Will his defense try to use it? Absolutely. What it does not and should not effect, is what prosecutors charge.

I'm sure the system is starting to get mental health evaluations underway. I'm sure they will find peel back the layers and find anything, if it's there. Unless they are found insane by the courts, those layers should not effect how they are charged. Obviously, if they aren't mentally compentant, than they will be treated differently.

Exactly. Of Course their Lawyer is crying mental illness, how else to save them from prison.

 

[Disguiseduser0308]

Exactly. Of Course their Lawyer is crying mental illness, how else to save them from prison.

Sure, it can be seen as a defense tactic. In that same vein, to do less wouldn't be providing these girls with the defense our laws afford them. They are entitled to a defense.

I believe these girls will receive some type of punishment. What that will be based on is still in the works.

 

[Ausgirl]

Really? They suffered such horrific abuse, it forced them to premeditate the stabbing of a friend? Both of them? And this delivers them from the abuse how? How does that allow them to escape? What key does another young girl hold? It's a bit ridiculous. It does not matter to me, if they suffered abuse.

It's a pretty well documented fact that abuse can affect behaviour negatively, sometimes to the extreme. Really, it's very google-able.

I was not saying I think these girls were both actually abused, I was speaking hypothetically, to try to figure out how one quantifies "evil" and what one might do about it. Also, whether things like mental illness or abuse trauma might change the perception of "evil" and if so, why.

Anyway. Yes, they ought to be tested. As for adult sentencing, I am on the fence about it, as I don't think either side of the court system is equipped to deal with 12 year old killers.

 

[katydid23]

I am blown away by what I am finding on Twitter. To be honest... it's sick, sick stuff.

Did it make them do it, no. BUT were they communicating with any of these mutliple slenderman accounts in any way??? I have to wonder.

That's what I was trying to say earlier, when I said the internet has such a powerful impact upon today's young kids. You know how plugged in they are. Many are CONSTANTLY looking at their cell/ipod.xbox/tablets and CONSTANTLY texting/instagramming/Vineing.

 

[Elley Mae]

Which mental illness is it?:waitasec:

 

[Spice]

Which mental illness is it?:waitasec:

There is no way to diagnose "which mental illness" it is without more facts and information and without a professional spending time with them, evaluating them, and doing a full psychosocial.

You don't need a diagnosis to opine that there may be underlying mental health issues with the little information that has been released.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Again, you are making wild assumptions and statements about the parents and their parenting skills without any information to support such opinions.

Yes I am. Because it is obvious that these kids had access to things and the opportunity to plan a murder!!! Dang right I am.

This is not engaged parents who knew what was going on! There is no way.

Did they know where their kids were that day? They are 12 not 16.

They should be supervised and monitored.

There is certainly not any proof there was effective monitoring here.