Jordan Murder Case

This is a very difficult question to answer, because everyone is different. Children mature differently and at different levels. Some children may be very responsible and aware of consequences, due to their upbringing. Perhaps they had to grow up fast, and that could influence what they know about life. Another child could have been sheltered their whole life and does not really understand consequences, because maybe they never had any. These are both extremes on the development scale, but as we can all see, children can differ greatly. Also there is a great difference between children who are mentally handicapped or developmentally delayed. These individual should always be dealt with carefully and evaluated accordingly. Obviously, any case

involving a mentally handicapped individual should always be dealt with differently than those who are not handicapped. However, for any child without a mental handicap, they should all be held responsible for their actions in the same ways within the criminal court. That being said, I honestly am not sure what age a child should be held responsible for their actions in criminal court. This could vary between the children who are more maturely developed and those who are not.

I would have to say that the age of 16 or above would be an acceptable age group. It is extremely hard to say, because I cannot judge every child at 16 and say that yes they all know right from wrong, because that isn’t true. As I said, all children develop differently. Also, I think many children do not realize how serious things can be at times. I obviously knew a gun could kill people, but because I had never had real experience with a gun, I honestly hadn’t seen first-hand what it was capable of. I didn’t understand its consequences; I only knew that it was dangerous if used incorrectly. I think when kids are playing with guns or doing bad things they know the consequences, but they don’t fully understand them or believe them. They do not understand how serious something is, because they have never experienced it first hand; perhaps, they only saw it on the movies or games. This is a long shot, but I believe that some children are like this and actually do not understand the consequences of things. At a young age many children know right from wrong, but there are many who don’t. In conclusion, I would say that 16 is a good age, but I believe evaluations should be done to fully determine an individual’s mentally capacity and capability of understanding such a crime and its consequences.

I do not think that Jordan should have been tried as an adult for his crime.

I think murder is a very serious crime, and yes those who commit it should always be punished; however, not if that individual lacks the understanding of their crime and its consequences. I believe that at the age of 11, Jordan did not fully understand what would happen if he shot an individual. He probably knew that they would die, but did he understand that that individual would never come back or what the consequences for killing someone was? Clearly, Jordan is in need of therapy and counseling. This child acted irrationally and I would like to know if he planned the murder. I would want to know this, because that would help understand whether or not Jordan understood what he was doing and why he did it. However, if it was unplanned, that only furthers the assumption that he did not understand what his actions would cause. Jordan is a child, children act irrationally and are quick to act. Yes, they should be punished, but I believe they should be punished in a far different way than adults. Jordan should not be placed within a prison, where he will not get the treatment he truly needs. Jordan needs a lot of treatment and help, because he is just a

child.

I believe that the punishment delegated by the court did not fit his crime, because Jordan should not have been tried as an adult at the age of 11.

If he had, he would have been placed in prison and never would have had any chance of rehabilitation. I do not believe that anyone that young, regardless of the crime, (well unless the child has killed more than one person, maybe then, but that is a completely different argument) should be tried as an adult. There is a juvenile court system for a reason, juveniles get charged accordingly and I believe that it is fair. Within a juvenile court Jordan would be given the opportunity of treatment all while still being punished for his heinous crime. That is why I believe that the later ruling for him to be placed within a residential treatment facility until the age of 21, was a far better punishment. This punishment will ensure that Jordan gets the help that he needs and that he will be held responsible for his

actions.

I do agree with the Pennsylvania Appeals Court decision to call for a new trial for Jordan Brown. Within the articles presented to us, there was a lot of information provided that said that, perhaps, the investigators did not conduct a thorough investigation and that ultimately, a lot of the evidence was circumstantial. If this is true, I believe that there should absolutely be another trial conducted. If Brown 100%, beyond a reasonable doubt did commit the crime, let them prove it yet again, but with all the evidence provided by a thorough investigation. I think that it was wrong of them to ultimately say, that yes, Jordan Brown had to have committed the crime, because this lead to the investigators doing an inadequate investigation. They may have dismissed any ideas of anyone else being able to commit the crime, because they had believed that Jordan was the only one who could have. Perhaps, he did, but I think that all evidence should be thoroughly reviewed to make a full determination.

If I had been the original judge on the Brown case, I would have not tried him as an adult. I would have tried Brown as a juvenile, regardless of the crime, because he is only 11 years old. I would want rehabilitation, therapy, etc., for him. I would have also had Jordan Brown sentenced to a residential treatment facility, because there Jordan would get the assistance he needs, all while still being held responsible for his actions. However, I would later make a reevaluation when Jordan turned 18, because he would now be an adult and eligible for adult court. During the reevaluation, I would want to know a number of things, such as: how he behaved in the treatment facility, if he felt remorseful, if he understood his actions, if he admitted guilt, and so on. These are all very relevant questions and would determine whether or not Jordan, at the age of 18, should be sent to prison.