I was sitting in my homicide class and someone gave a presentation on the Jonesboro Massacre. I wanted to learn more about what happened. I don't know who knows about this school shooting, but two young boys, Mitchell Johnson, 13, and Andrew Golden, 11 went to their school on March 24, 1998, with about 9 guns and waiting in the woods until Golden had to go in and pulled the fire alarm to make the students come out. As the students exited the school they shot at them. They managed to kill 5, 4 students and one teacher, and wound 10.
The murders were said to motived by the both of the girlfriends breaking up with them. They had told students about their plan but no one took them seriously about the threat. This is an article for the day after the shootings occurred. Due to Arkansas' law the boys only had to serve time in a juvenile detention center until they were 21 years old. My question is to why two young boys would do this at such a young age.
Here is another article that was written in 2008 that has more information on what happened and what happened after they were released.
http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4460
I have never heard about this case before, but it is crazy. I can't believe they got off so easy I mean the reason most people under the age of 18 are tried as an adult is because they say they knew it was wrong. Obviously when youre even 12 you know hitting is wrong so killing definitely is too. There is a case of a 12yr boy in iowa who killed his father and shot his 5 yr old sister. Apparently he was abused and neglected but I dont know if there is actually evidence of this. A 14 yr old girl in iowa is currently the youngest inmate in preison to be serving a life sentence for fatally stabbing her aunt. I also have heard that if you commit a crime as a juvenille and you stay out of troublee it is taken off your record. What about civil court? Can he be held financially responsible for all the damage they caused. Imagine all the victims' families I would be really upset about the whole situation. Everyone matures at a different rate physically and defintly mentally so how can there be a set age, its reidiculous.
here is the link to the one in Iowa http://www.kcci.com/news/22529216/detail.html
I remember this case quite well because it happened shortly after Columbine which contributed to the public hysteria about how children were becoming more and more violent and the blame was placed on video games. What the media failed to report on is that Columbine was not the first school shooting. That happened in the 70s (long before any violent video games were ever established) and was committed by a young girl whose excuse was that she didn't like Mondays (there is another blog post on this site about that school shooting).
When it comes to children offenders, I have very mixed feelings just as many other people do does as well. The premise of the Juvenile Justice system is to rehabilitate juvenile offenders so that they can avoid a life of crime. The purpose of sealing juvenile records (keeping their record closed so that it may not be used against them after they are 18) is so that they can avoid the stigma attached to being an offender.
To put it in some perspective, let's throw out a hypothetical situation. Say that when you were 14 years old, you started hanging out with some older, unsavory, teens. One night, they convince you to break into an empty house and bust up some stuff. Eventually you were caught and given probation based on the fact that you had no priors and that you had been doing well in school. After that incident, you decide to shape up and get your life back on track. You graduate high school in the top half of your class and get accepted into a decent college. Once you graduate from college, you begin to go job hunting and land an interview at a prestigious company that you've been dying to get into. At the age of 24, do you seriously want an incident that happened 10 years ago to prevent you from getting the job of your dreams? I bet the answer is no.
Just the same, I can give you a scenario that paints a quite different picture. One of a troubled youth that had been in and out of the juvenile system only to have their record sealed at the age of 18 then go on to commit an extremely heinous act. And because prosecution can't use their juvenile records, the offender is given a lighter sentence then he would had his past been revealed.
Either way, it's a lose-lose situation and one that has been controversial for many years. Can you truly sentence a child as young as 12 or 13 to life in prison and be certain that they are beyond any rehabilitation? It's a question that I find stuck in the middle because I hate the idea to give up on a child so young. Yet, I hate the idea of letting some body who is so cold-blooded to remain free.
I remember hearing about this story, but I didn't know that the two shooter, Andrew Golden, and Mitchell Johnson were so young when they committed the crime. It is tragic in all respects, for the ones who died and for the troubled boys who killed them. I don’t understand how a little middle school break-up could lead to such a catastrophe. Now, because of their actions there are 5 individuals whose lives got cut short.
Since the boys were under 18 they were tried as minors and only sentenced until they were 18 years old, which was then extended until their 21st birthdays. The crime that they committed was not a minor crime, it took the lives of 5 innocent people and injured 10 more. The lives of everyone involved that day were forever changed. Yet now the two murderers are free men. Their sentence was not fitting of their crime. Golden served 10 years and Johnson only 8 years. I looked up what types of things people go to jail for 8 years for and I found a case where a man received 8 years because of a home invasion robbery and selling cocaine. Yes, this is a crime and an awful thing, but compared to the murder of 5 individuals and the injury of 10 more individuals doesn’t compare.
I think that the boys should have been tried as adults. At 11 and 13 you know what is right and what is wrong. They knew what they were doing and the consequences of their actions. This was also no accident. The boys had clearly planned this, especially since other students had heard them talking about it days prior to the incident. But, I also don’t think they should have received life sentences. I believe this because at their age they don’t have a fully developed frontal cortex of their brain which is responsible for decision making. With this part of the brain not fully developed their decision making is almost impaired compared to an adult making decisions. I believe they should have had second chances to be upstanding members of society, but still adequately serve the time that they deserve.
http://www.4029tv.com/r/25021533/detail.html
http://www.allbusiness.com/crime-law-enforcement-corrections/law-arrests/12964949-1.html
I have never heard of this case before, but it is so unbelievable, especially considering their age! Two boys 13 year old (Mitchell Johnson) and 11 year old (Andrew Golden) killed five people and injured ten more outside of their middle school. It was said they planned this after their girlfriends had broken up with them.
Because they lived in Arkansas they could only be help until their 18th birthdays, however because the illegal firearm charge is a federal offense they were able to hold them until their 21st birthdays. This meant that Johnson only served eight years (although it was really only seven because he had turned fourteen the day he got sentenced) and Golden served only ten years. The crime they committed was murder one, which is when you unlawfully kill someone after premeditation. The normal sentencing for murder one is twenty five years to life (and the death penalty in the states who have it). And these boys killed five people plus the ten that they injured.
Although many people have a problem with them getting out so early, I do not think that they should have been tried as adults. Thirteen and eleven are such young ages and its at that time of your life with a lot of hormones going through your body and they were so young that their brains weren't fully developed, that it wouldnt be fair to sentence them for the rest of their lives. However everyone goes through hard times in their life and do not go on a killing spree. I feel like they should of had a tougher sentence, or that their should be a more effective way to handle kids who do this. Like to find a way (while they are also in jail) to work with them so that when they get out they have a better chance to succeed in being released.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/murder_first_degree.html