Wait, what?

Pittsburgh - A superior Court panel in Pittsburgh must decide whether a boy who was 11 at the time should be tried as an adult in the slaying of his father’s pregnant fiance.

A Lawrence County judge in March refused to move Jordan Brown’s case to juvenile court. Now 13, Brown is charged with shotgunning 26-year-old Kenzie Marie Houk, also killing her unborn son, in their New Galilee farmhouse in February 2009.

The judge ruled Brown wasn’t likely to be rehabilitated in juvenile court. But Brown’s attorneys were expected to argue Tuesday that asking the boy to exhibit the remorse necessary to satisfy the court would also violate Brown’s right against self-incrimination.

The court panel is expected to take weeks or months to rule.

Brown faces life in prison if convicted as an adult, but will be free by the age of 21, if he’s tried in juvenile court.

There are so many fucking problems I have with this story, I don’t even…

1. “Jordan’s refusal to admit guilt showed that he was not sorry for what he did.” Back the fuck up. Why is this judge overseeing this case? Let’s try to practice a little “innocent until proven guilty,” ass-face.

2. The kid was 11. What the fuck are we going to prove by putting him into an adult prison?

3. If he gets tried as an adult, and proven innocent, I say we should let him drink, drive, smoke, and vote as well. If this kid suddenly developed the mental and emotional competency of an adult, he should be given the rights of an adult as well.

4. Who the fuck decided to buy an 11-year old boy a shotgun? Durr?

There’s obviously some personal vendetta against this kid that we’re not seeing here, or at least some sort of bias. I don’t understand why this blatant refusal of this kid’s rights is being allowed to pass. Throwing this kid into an adult prison just proves that this country has absolutely no interest in rehabilitation, but more of a fascination with retribution, and it’s honestly sick. Yeah, maybe some 35 year old murdering gang member is beyond rehabilitation. But an 11 year old boy is not.

Source is here.

No, no vendetta. They're making an example out of him. Violence and crimes are happening at a younger and younger age. They have to stop it somehow, and how else can they do it? There's a difference between stealing candy and murdering a woman and her unborn child. They have to draw the line somewhere. I'm guessing his innocence (or lack thereof) isn't a question, and that's why they aren't treating him innocently until he's proven guilty. The father was probably there, or the kid probably had a history of hating this woman. I'm guessing she was the 'new mommy' after his dad and real mom split.

"Making an example out of someone" is not how the courts should be run.

And there is a question of his innocence. It's called not having been tried. The child maintains his innocence, and nobody, especially the court has a right to decide his innocence before the trial.

In theory, you are correct. I'm not doubting this for a second, nor do I disagree with you. I'm not saying that it's RIGHT to make examples of people (although in some serious cases, it may be necessary) I'm just saying that that is what they're doing. They do it all the time, even with things much less serious.

Now, I'm going to admit- I know nothing about this case. I've only read what's here, and that's all I care to read, so I'm going to ask you a question that will have to be considered hypothetical, as I really don't know how these events transpired: Lets ASSUME that the father was there when it happened. Lets assume that what I said was true, and this pregnant fiance came along and tried to replace the kid's real mother right after his dad left her. Lets say the little boy didn't take too kindly to the situation, and showed a history of anger/disapproval/violence to this woman until one day they got into a fight, he grabbed his father's loaded shotgun, and shot her before the father had a chance to stop him.

I also believe in "innocent until proven guilty", but again, assuming that all of that is true and his own father is an eye witness- Is there anywhere we can safely draw the line? How long is the legal system supposed to tap dance around this kid, pretending to believe that he's innocent, when not only do they KNOW he's guilty but all the evidence (and the eye witness) points to the same conclusion? Isn't that like watching a movie after reading the spoilers, but pretending that you don't know how it will end?

I am by no means saying that the kid doesn't deserve a fair trial- He certainly does, as does everyone. But his first judge knew enough about what happened (Hell, for all we know the kid probably confessed) to say "f*ck you kid, you're getting tried as an adult", and NO judge wants to do that to a child, so I'm guessing there's more to it than we know. If his case reeks that much of guilt (especially confessed guilt), I don't see why they shouldn't call it like they see it. Keeping it in their heads and rendering him guilty anyway would be no different, it might just seem more 'politically correct'.

Just read this. It is so messed up! Obviously this child has psychological issues. He needs serious help.

I remember being 11. I knew that shooting someone with a shotgun would kill them. Any 11 year old that doesn't know that has something wrong with them. If that's the case with this kid, fine, make that your case. But don't make the case that this kid wasn't mature enough to know what he was doing, he was. As for the presumed guilt, yes, he should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. But still, this is an adult crime and should be decided in an adult court.

This reminds me of this one Law & Order: SVU I saw. This 11 year old kid went with his older friend to rob this lady. And when his friend told him to grab a knife, after he beat the crap out of her, he just waddled off and grabbed it. Then watched the kid stab her to death.

His mom didn't take the plea bargain (a couple years in juvie) because she thought the jury would see her son was a good boy, and just easily influenced by everyone else.

He got sentenced to life as an adult.

If he doesn't exhibit any remorse, then he likely has a personality disorder and WON'T ever be able to be rehabilitated.

Over 15 years ago there was a case here where two 11/12 year olds kidnapped a toddler, sexually assaulted him and murdered him (it is thought that one boy was the 'leader', and he was most likely abused as a child himself. And that the other boy just went along with it). They were sent to juvenile detention centres and later transferred to adult prisons when they were 18. They were in their early 20s when they were released (with new identities) a few years ago. Last year one of them (the one considered the leader in the case) was sent back to prison after being found guilty of child porn offenses. These people, who are so damaged, so personality disordered, at a young age, they can very rarely be successfully rehabilitated.

I do not think 8 years in a juvenile rehabilitation centre is adequate punishment for murder. And an 11 year old does understand what he is doing. So while I don't think a 13 year old should be sent to an adult prison (because there he will have NO chance of rehabilitation at all), I do think they should be given a punishment that fits the crime, and if that is life imprisonment, then so be it, and he should be sent to a juvenile centre until he reaches 18 and then transferred to an adult prison to serve out the rest of the sentence.

I read this case on Crime Library (one of my favorite sites to read during my "free time.")

I agree with evrything you've said.

Agree with Red Fraggle. An 11 year old knows the difference between right and wrong.

I agree with RedFraggle times a million. And while making an example out of someone isn't how the courts SHOULD be run, they do it all the time.

i don't think he'd get sent to an adult prison. he'd probably get something similar to those boys red fraggle was talking about. from this one article i don't have enough information as to whether the kid is remorseful, maintaining he didn't do it, or the evidence against him. so i can't really make a call. if there's evidence he did do it and he's maintaining his innocence, then i'd say he probably has a personality disorder and probably won't be rehabilitated, in which case, probably a good idea not to have him freely roaming about society. if there's little evidence, or he's remorseful, then he probably shouldn't be tried as an adult.

his photo creeps me out though.

Is, uh, everyone in this thread forgetting that this child hasn't been tried yet? What if he's innocent? Why should ha be expressing remorse for something he hasn't done, if he didn't do it?

@Roche: Is the kid "not showing remorse" the only deciding factor in whether or not he should be tried as an adult? No, I'm thinking the horrendous nature of this crime has a little more to do with wanting to try him as an adult. If he's innocent it shouldn't matter whether or not he's tried as an adult right? Right because the only difference in being tried as an adult vs. juvenile is the length and conditions of the sentence.

Also, if he's tried as an adult and is sentenced to life in prison he's not going to be thrown into an adult prison first. They will hold him in juvenile prison until he's 18-21 and then transfer him to adult prison, so calm down.

Next, If you commit a crime... like, oh I don't know, killing a woman and her unborn child, it doesn't matter that you're 11 years old. You should KNOW that guns kill people and there should be NO reason that his "mental and emotional competency" should come into play. So, that's not even a valid argument.

Lastly, I highly doubt that the shotgun was purchased for the child. Could it possibly be that the child found his father's shotgun (which may or may not have been locked etc.)? I think that's a more likely story.

So there is no personal vendetta against this boy. He should be tried as an adult. DONE.

@beautiful lie: kids do find guns and play with them, so there's no doubt in my mind that the shot gun wasn't the kid's. back when they were allowed here someone i know was playing with a shot gun and accidentally shot and killed his mother :( he was about the same age this kid is knew he shouldn't have been playing with it. so this kid would know that killing someone or even being anywhere near his dad's gun is wrong.

I remember watching about this on the news.
Personally, I think they should just do to him what they do to most juveniles. They usually put them in the juvenile prison system until they're 25.. 25 is a weird number to me, but that's how they usually do it. And after that, they should put him in an adult prison...
Some people say he's just a kid and kids don't understand the concept of guns. I'm sorry, that's bullshit. I knew what a gun was when I was 11 years old.
If he's smart enough to pull the trigger, then he's smart enough to know it kills.
I think they've just caught the next Jeffrey Dahmer and he deserves what he gets. For no reason, no reason at all, an 11 year old boy should be THAT jealous of a grown woman.
And there's a scary look in his eyes. Almost like a schizophrenic look...
Lil' dude has some issa-ma-ues

@Nellie "like a schizophrenic look"

*sighs and shakes head*

And what exactly does a schizophrenic look like? I used to work in psychiatry and this boy doesn't remotely remind me of any of the schizophrenics I've worked with (nor the friend of mine who has schizophrenia).

If what you are referring to is the lack of emotion in his face, which may or may not represent an actual lack of emotion, or a flat affect, then I think you're thinking more of people with psychopathic or antisocial personality disorder (the type of people who are unable to feel remorse, and are far more likely to be invovled in crime than schizophrenics are).

@Red Fraggle: EXACTLY. There is definitely something about his look. He almost has a Damien from the Omen movie look about him. There is definitely something about his stare that is discerningly wrong. I definitely would NOT call it Schizo though.

He had an almost ASPD look about him.

@Nellie: Just out of curiosity... what makes him the 'next Jeffrey Dahmer?' I mean, this kid is not molesting young men/boys, dismembering them, eating them or having sex with them after killing them like Dahmer did to his victims.

I say stick him in Juvenile until he's 18 and then re-evaluate him then. If he's been fixed and they think he can live out a normal life...then fine. If not...then transfer him to an adult prison and throw away the key.

Ha, I hate you!!! How can you say it in so little words and I write a whole paragraph to get the same point across!?!?! *So envious*

@Nellie: It's what a Degree in Journalism/Desktop Publishing and a lifetime of working behind the microphone will do for you. I've been doing music and writing since I was 11.

I love to write... My finacee says I'm the typical female with the story telling.. I have to tell you what happened 10 years ago just to tell you what happened 10 minutes ago. Lmao, I hate it!!!
I always made the BEST grades in school when it came to writing papers and what not. I don't think the teachers ever read it all like they were supposed to, they were just happy I went above and beyond.
See, like this, maybe I just talk too damn much!!!

LOL I do that too Nellie. Cj is awesome :)

@ Music God of Bloop: But surely the point should not only be to rehabilitate him, but to also punish him for his crime? Why should adequate rehabilitation dismiss his responsibility to receive appropriate punishment?