The Case Of Lionel Tate

Charging a child as an adult, and giving them a life sentence is not unconstitutional, based on what the crime is and how serious. Parents should be held accountable but not charged for the child's murder. If the child is capable of murder (purposefully) they are capable of handling the consequences of the murder. The case of Lionel Tate shows both sides of this argument very well as the opinions of the public are split. The case of Lionel made him the youngest person to ever get a life sentence. Lionel was just 12 years old and 180 pounds when he was playing with a neighbor's 6-year-old daughter, he was supposedly just imitating the wrestlers that he saw on tv. And to his mom, other people in the community, and the public he didn't deserve the sentence he was given, “he was only a kid” and “he was only playing”. It was unethical to his mother and eventually the mother of the daughter because he had a chance at life. The evidence of the girl's dead body showed that her injuries were the equivalent of if she fell off a third-story building. She had broken ribs, a fractured skull, and 32 other injuries. If it was

Psychologically speaking the 'brain is still developing' argument doesn't apply when a child has homicidal tendencies. You specifically look out for that stuff when their kids so you can prevent them from doing worse in the future. These kids need psychological help because they are stuck with a mental disorder that makes them murderous. The child's brain is still developing but the disorder that makes them want to kill will develop with them as they grow which is why parents should be held some sort of accountable for not recognizing or ignoring the signs that the child shows before the