11-year-old American is youngest person in world to face life without parole

davyjose

crayolastereo wrote: »

I don't think thats fair. He was 11. At eleven you don't understand life and death. This woman and her baby were replacing him in the eyes of his father. He deserves to be punished, he doesn't deserve to be locked away the rest of his life.

Plenty of other 11 year olds seem to.

Tar.Aldarion

midlandsmissus wrote: »

What's teh evidence for this?

Just read that his Dad thinks he is innocent.

I imagine they didn't convict on a whim and we can't know the details but it sounds like it was a clear cut case if the judge was enraged that he even tried to deny it.

Fluorescence

crayolastereo wrote: »

I don't think thats fair. He was 11. At eleven you don't understand life and death. This woman and her baby were replacing him in the eyes of his father. He deserves to be punished, he doesn't deserve to be locked away the rest of his life.

Bull. At 11 you know full well what life and death mean. He knew damn well what the fcuk he was doing, and I'm pretty sure blowing out the brains of a woman and her unborn baby was a pretty graphic sight. Perhaps he should have been given possibility of parole, but he deserves his sentence IMO.

Jeboa Safari

Fight_Night wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Who are you to say he is not able to be rehabilitated?

Yeah you're right, let someone capable of that sit through a few classes, let him back into society protecting his identity instead of the law-abiding majority, and take a chance and hope he doesn't decide to kill again, and sure if he does its societies fault anyway :rolleyes:

wolfpawnat

Fight_Night wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Who are you to say he is not able to be rehabilitated?

Are you qualified to say he can?

Could Ted Bundy, Eric Harris, Ian Huntley be rehabilitated? I, as a law abiding citizen, would not want to find out!

That could have been your sister!

A tiny child did not get to experience life because it's half brother was a disgusting animal! I hate and despise my stepmother. I don't take it out on my half brother and I would have never shot them and I was the same age as that animal when she was pregnant with my brother!

wonderfulname

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Are you qualified to say he can?

Could Ted Bundy, Eric Harris, Ian Huntley be rehabilitated? I, as a law abiding citizen, would not want to find out!

That could have been your sister!

A tiny child did not get to experience life because it's half brother was a disgusting animal! I hate and despise my stepmother. I don't take it out on my half brother and I would have never shot them and I was the same age as that animal when she was pregnant with my brother!

Are you qualified to say he can't? He shouldn't be denied parole, twenty years from now someone who is qualified should be allowed to make a judgement as to whether or not he is suitable to integrate into society. That decision should not be made now.

You don't exactly make a rational argument.

tfitzgerald

I am for long sentences but an 11 year old to life is a bit harsh they should give him a break

wolfpawnat

wonderfulname wrote: »

Are you qualified to say he can't? He shouldn't be denied parole, twenty years from now someone who is qualified should be allowed to make a judgement as to whether or not he is suitable to integrate into society. That decision should not be made now.

You don't exactly make a rational argument.

It is not a normal human pattern to think to kill a pregnant woman.

I do not think he should not be allowed ever even bother applying for parole, but not for at least he is okayed by professionals and a few of them at that! We as uneducated people in this area cannot decide what is right, we can only voice our opinions.

My argument is rational. Many people have situations like this occurring everyday in their families. Parents breaking up, new partners, half siblings. But not many would think of going and finding a gun or other deadly weapon and kill another human being. That is not normal!

Helix

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

As far as replacing it with "the vast majority of people", I don't believe it makes the statement any less valid.

it does if youre condoning not locking killers up for life with no parole, ever, because theyre only products of their environments

ScissorPaperRock

Helix wrote: »

it does if youre condoning not locking killers up for life with no parole, ever, because theyre only products of their environments

It shouldn't be about locking people up. It should be about addressing the conditions within the environment that made them like that, and about rehabilitating those who have been conditioned in such a way that makes them feel such actions are necessary.

Locking people up is a cop out. So far as we are unable to ensure that we can effectively rehabilitate people, they should be kept away from people, so that they cannot harm others, but in environments that can positively influence these people. Societies' attitudes need to change towards recognising and addressing the causes of these problems, and treating those that require treatment rather than punishing them.

Mardy Bum

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

It shouldn't be about locking people up. It should be about addressing the conditions within the environment that made them like that, and about rehabilitating those who have been conditioned in such a way that makes them feel such actions are necessary.

Locking people up is a cop out. So far as we are unable to ensure that we can effectively rehabilitate people, they should be kept away from people, so that they cannot harm others, but in environments that can positively influence these people. Societies' attitudes need to change towards recognising and addressing the causes of these problems, and treating those that require treatment rather than punishing them.

Some people are just c^nts and need a good punishment not a pat on the back and treated with a 'oooo it is society's fault not yours' attitude.

Fluorescence

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

It shouldn't be about locking people up. It should be about addressing the conditions within the environment that made them like that, and about rehabilitating those who have been conditioned in such a way that makes them feel such actions are necessary.

Locking people up is a cop out. So far as we are unable to ensure that we can effectively rehabilitate people, they should be kept away from people, so that they cannot harm others, but in environments that can positively influence these people. Societies' attitudes need to change towards recognising and addressing the causes of these problems, and treating those that require treatment rather than punishing them.

Yes, but some people really are just bad to the bone. Just like scummy parents can occasionally spawn a decent child, decent parents can occasionally spawn a right little bastard. It happens.

That said, I'm surprised the U.S. hasn't taken a long hard look at its system and how it isn't working. Gun laws over there really need to be changed, as everyone and their granny does NOT need access to firearms! Sure, it won't stop criminals getting them, but it will cut waaaay down on gun related death. I'm sure [though tbh it sounds like this kid would probably have used a knife or other weapon if there wasn't a gun to hand].

I don't know that a kid who could do such a thing could ever possibly be fully rehabilitated and reintroduced to society as a well-adjusted person, but I do think he deserves the chance. After a long long time in prison.

ScissorPaperRock

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Some people are just c^nts and need a good punishment not a pat on the back and treated with a 'oooo it is society's fault not yours' attitude.

Don't agree at all. I believe that nothing happens without a cause. Nothing "just" happens.

Mardy Bum

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

Don't agree at all. I believe that nothing happens without a cause. Nothing "just" happens.

So you believe in modern society that people are unable to develop their own moral compass without being catered for at every junction in their life?

ScissorPaperRock

Mardy Bum wrote: »

So you believe in modern society that people are unable to develop their own moral compass without being catered for at every junction in their life?

I believe that most modern societies (some more than others) are built in such a way that allows people live and prosper. At the same time, most societies are not perfect. Some people have more power than others. Some people have access to more resources than others. Some people are desperate. Some people are exposed to experiences in their lives that can change the way they understand the world.

It's not about being catered for. It's about designing our society to shape the kind of people we want it to produce.

Helix

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

It shouldn't be about locking people up. It should be about addressing the conditions within the environment that made them like that, and about rehabilitating those who have been conditioned in such a way that makes them feel such actions are necessary.

Locking people up is a cop out. So far as we are unable to ensure that we can effectively rehabilitate people, they should be kept away from people, so that they cannot harm others, but in environments that can positively influence these people. Societies' attitudes need to change towards recognising and addressing the causes of these problems, and treating those that require treatment rather than punishing them.

lets never lock anyone up ever again then eh?

lets have them do whatever they want with no consequences, since its not their fault

people like you have the world in the state it is

ScissorPaperRock

Helix wrote: »

lets never lock anyone up ever again then eh?

lets have them do whatever they want with no consequences, since its not their fault

people like you have the world in the state it is

Yeah sure...

First, I'll repeat one thing, just to be clear. I believe that if someone cannot be rehabilitated, they should be separated from people so that they cannot harm them, but in an environment that is geared towards positively influencing them rather than make them into worse people.

Now. About people like me having the world in the state it is. Help me understand this.

What am I like? Who else is like me? What state is the world in? And how have people like me led to the world being in this state?

Let me offer my view on this. I don't think it makes any sense.
Society is not the way I think it should be, and that would therefore suggest that I'm not the one who has the world in the state it is. Furthermore, the current approach to dealing with societies' problems is the one you think works, which would suggest that people like you have made society the way it is. Pretty simple really.

Helix

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

What am I like? Who else is like me? What state is the world in? And how people like me lead to the world being in this state?

Let me offer my view on this. I mean it doesn't make any sense.
Society is not the way I think it should be, and that would therefore suggest that I'm not the one who has the world in the state it is. Furthermore, the current approach to dealing with societies' problems is the one you think works, which would suggest that people like you have made society the way it is. Pretty simple really.

youre a bleeding heart overly pc blame everyone else but the person at fault, everyones a good person at heart we just have to understand them, give everyone a million chances liberal

ScissorPaperRock

Helix wrote: »

youre a bleeding heart overly pc blame everyone else but the person at fault, everyones a good person at heart we just have to understand them, give everyone a million chances liberal

No, I just think logically.

"Liberal" and "conservative" and "PC" are just ideas, concepts that people have made up.

Something causes people to act in a particular way. Nothing just happens.

So address that which causes them to act that way.

The idea of cause and effect has nothing to do with socially constructed ideas such as those you use to label me.

twinQuins

Helix wrote: »

lets never lock anyone up ever again then eh?

lets have them do whatever they want with no consequences, since its not their fault

people like you have the world in the state it is

Helix wrote: »

youre a bleeding heart overly pc blame everyone else but the person at fault, everyones a good person at heart we just have to understand them, give everyone a million chances liberal

Remember kids, if you can't think up a counter-argument just resort to logical fallacies!

Helix

Morkarleth wrote: »

Remember kids, if you can't think up a counter-argument just resort to logical fallacies!

or make a post that is completely nonsensical

like that

Mardy Bum

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

No, I just think logically.

"Liberal" and "conservative" and "PC" are just ideas, concepts that people have made up.

Something causes people to act in a particular way. Nothing just happens.

So address that which causes them to act that way.

The idea of cause and effect has nothing to do with socially constructed ideas such as those you use to label me.

We live in the real world not in some Utopian society where resources are unlimited and the vast multitudes have to be handed everything on a plate in order to progress in life willingly and with some moral value.

twinQuins

Helix wrote: »

or make a post that is completely nonsensical

like that

Haha, okay, tell me what you don't understand and I'll put it in terms I'm sure even you can grasp.

Mardy Bum wrote: »

We live in the real world not in some Utopian society where resources are unlimited and the vast multitudes have to be handed everything on a plate in order to progress in life willingly and with some moral value.

Oh, yeah, because actually trying to get to the root of crime rather than pointlessly medicate it is "uptopian" and not a reachable ideal we should strive for.

ScissorPaperRock

Mardy Bum wrote: »

We live in the real world not in some Utopian society where resources are unlimited and the vast multitudes have to be handed everything on a plate in order to progress in life willingly and with some moral value.

I was wondering how long it would be before someone would start talking about how this was a Utopian idea. Talk of real systemic change usually brings about such claims.

Indeed, we live in a real world, but does that mean that things can't be improved? Why are people so resistant to change? Have we really come as far as finding the best solutions to all our problems? Or even as far as understanding and addressing the roots of all our problems to the furthest extent possible? I'd hope not, because things are pretty dire.

Furthermore, healthy people are generally pretty willing to survive. And most people are pretty willing to work, or to contribute, and cooperate when this helps them meet their needs.

And this is a little OT, but before we start talking about limited resources, why don't we first talk about more equitable distribution of resources.

Mardy Bum

Morkarleth wrote: »

Oh, yeah, because actually trying to get to the root of crime rather than pointlessly medicate it is "uptopian" and not a reachable ideal we should strive for.

Trying to get to the root of crime is Utopian, crime has existed since the humans first walked the earth. If something can be got easier than working for it people will take the easier option it is human nature. However with the progression of humanity, values and morals intervene in these choices and by and large people will not resort to the easier criminal option however some will. This is a result of a lack of morals and values. These morals are instilled in a person when they are young, if they are not there in some shape or form, even the smallest seed, then when they get older they will not suddenly develop them and all society can do is try to limit the damage caused.

Freedom of the City by Brian Friel is a great play which explores the results of poverty over generations in society, its also about the whole Northern issue, it is very interesting and Id advise reading it.

Millicent

Orando Broom wrote: »

What will that little prick be like at 21, to have the mind of a killer at 11. Jesus. Life in prison is perfect for him.

Oh Jesus Christ, he was 11! Fuck me, you'd swear at 11 everyone here was a responsible, mature grown-up.

I'm not saying he shouldn't get prison or anything but life without parole all because he won't plead guilty and people are endorsing it? This is the very reason why emotion is supposed to be separate from the law, even though depressingly the judge doesn't seem to realise that either. Knee jerk reactions are not justice and it is frightening how many people on here are willing to totally condemn a teenager for the rest of his life.

ScissorPaperRock

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Trying to get to the root of crime is Utopian, crime has existed since the humans first walked the earth. If something can be got easier than working for it people will take the easier option it is human nature. However with the progression of humanity, values and morals intervene in these choices and by and large people will not resort to the easier criminal option however some will. This is a result of a lack of morals and values. These morals are instilled in a person when they are young, if they are not there in some shape or form, even the smallest seed, then when they get older they will not suddenly develop them and all society can do is try to limit the damage caused.

This is not true. People have evolved as social beings because we have fared better through cooperation. We can therefore assume that it is human nature to cooperate with one another.

What we need to understand and address is the factors within our societies that cause anti-social behaviour (in all its forms).

Damage control will never change anything.

Mardy Bum

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

This is not true. People have evolved as social beings because we have fared better through cooperation. We can therefore assume that it is human nature to cooperate with one another.

What we need to understand and address is the factors within our societies that cause anti-social behaviour (in all its forms).

Damage control will never change anything.

The modern world has been built on the back of colonialism. There has been f*ck all co-operation. Capitalism has replaced colonialism. Society will never be fit to vanquish all societies problem by the very nature of it.

ScissorPaperRock

Mardy Bum wrote: »

The modern world has been built on the back of colonialism. There has been f*ck all co-operation. Capitalism has replaced colonialism. Society will never be fit to vanquish all societies problem by the very nature of it.

The fact is people have never had as much of an understanding of the way things work as we do now. We know more now, and should therefore strive to improve our systems of governance accordingly.

jill_valentine

The reason I brought up contract law and the legal driving age was to highlight the fact that we generally accept that people below the age of roughly eighteen have extremely variable capacities for good judgement. I wouldn't trust an eleven year old to drive because I wouldn't trust their decision making ability. Kids of that age can be impulsive, short sighted and prone to temper. Now, again, we don't know all about this kids circumstances and I don't know about you, but when I was eleven or so I knocked out my cousin's two front teeth for grabbing my hair scrunchie in the playground. I can't really imagine doing that now, and I don't think that's just because scrunchies have gone out of style.

When an adult with severe developmental problems is put on trial, it's generally understood that he or she should be charged in terms of diminished responsibility, since he or she has "the mind of a child." Just seems strange to me that an actual child gets no such consideration; stranger still that the judge is free to pursue harsher sentences and conditions out of something suspiciously like spite.

Overheal

Im too tired to read this thread properly and maybe i dont want to: the first few posts show the AH rabble is out in force convicting the boy of the crimes he has been charged with even though it is clear in the article of the OP that he hasn't (hadn't?) been tried yet. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? You people don't pay attention to what's in front of you, do you? Being Charged with a crime and being found Guilty of a crime are not the same thing. When he's found guilty then by all means have a "He deserved it the sick little bastard where were the parents oh right they were shot" fest.

Noreen1

I find myself torn both ways by this case, because I keep comparing it to the James Bulger case.

I've posted before that I think that Jon Venables should have been locked up for life - and I haven't changed that view.

On the other hand, Jon Venables had displayed sociopathic tendencies before the murder of poor little James Bulger. Apparently, this child had not.

There is no doubt in my mind that 11 year old children understand the finality of death, and are well capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong. Therefore, the child, if he is guilty, deserves to be punished.

To come to a balanced judgement, however, we also need to consider whether a child has the same level of understanding, and self-control, as an adult.
Clearly, they don't - hence the term "Childish tantrum".

So, I think it unjust to try a child as an adult - but I also think it unreasonable to let sociopaths roam freely in society after a token sentence. If the child is found guilty, and shows sociopathic tendencies - then, for the good of society, I see no better option, at this time, than life in prison.
If, on the other hand, he is not a sociopath, then, at 11 years old (when the crime was committed) - IMO, he deserves a chance a rehabilitation.
What form that rehabilitiation should take, and what form his punishment should take, depends on his mental state when the crime was committed - assuming he is guilty, that is!

big toenails

An 11 year old child has little understanding of the adult world. He is only a child with the emotional level of a child. This young boy should never see the inside of a prison cell. Shame on America.

Freddie59

big toenails wrote: »

An 11 year old child has little understanding of the adult world. He is only a child with the emotional level of a child. This young boy should never see the inside of a prison cell. Shame on America.

???? And if jailing him saves other lives in the future, I'm all for it. Columbine, anyone?

Millicent

Freddie59 wrote: »

???? And if jailing him saves other lives in the future, I'm all for it. Columbine, anyone?

What the hell has Columbine got to do with this case? Two entirely different cases. Are you just throwing in underage killer cases for the sake of it? Mary Bell. Jon Venables. There. Any more?

Millicent

There was someone on earlier wondering about other countries treatment of underage killers (apologies, I can't find the post). I think what you may be thinking of is Norway; it's really interesting reading and a stark contrast to how the British and US systems seem to treat these children.

Jeboa Safari

big toenails wrote: »

An 11 year old child has little understanding of the adult world. He is only a child with the emotional level of a child. This young boy should never see the inside of a prison cell. Shame on America.

The vast majority of 11 year olds do understand that you can't just go killing people to get your own way though. He knew what he was doing.

HavingCrack

big toenails wrote: »

An 11 year old child has little understanding of the adult world. He is only a child with the emotional level of a child. This young boy should never see the inside of a prison cell. Shame on America.

I disagree here actually. Presuming he is in fact guilty (he has not been convicted), he displayed very 'adult' tendencies. He had been shooting before, knew animals died when you shot them, had previously told people he was going to kill her and waited until the woman was asleep before shooting her. While I am 100% sure he should be tried as a juvenile, not an adult,(I gave reasons why around page 8), his understanding of the adult world certainly was not lacking going on what we know.

Millicent wrote: »

There was someone on early wondering about other countries treatment of underage killers (apologies, I can't find the post). I think what you may be thinking of is Norway; it's really interesting reading and a stark contrast to how the British and US systems seem to treat these children.

That was a very extreme case, even by child murderer examples, 6 year olds capable of killing :eek:. On the whole, that may have been the right choice in that particular case but the one we are discussing is quite different.

As an aside, I have serious issues with the Norwegian penal system which places an inordinate amount on rehabilitation of prisioners with little punishment. While I believe rehabilitation is vital it needs to go hand in hand with punishment. The US state of Utah seems to have this down to a fine art with rectivism rates of only 20% compared to 80% in Texas.

Anyway, in Norway its slightly ridiculous, the maximum prison term you can serve for any crime is 21 years. So in theory a serial child murderer and rapist can only serve 21 years! Something seriously wrong in my opinion.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/europe/091017/norway-open-prison#- Interesting report on the Norwegian prison system.

Millicent

HavingCrack wrote: »

That was a very extreme case, even by child murderer examples, 6 year olds capable of killing :eek:. On the whole, that may have been the right choice in that particular case but the one we are discussing is quite different.

As an aside, I have serious issues with the Norwegian penal system which places an inordinate amount on rehabilitation of prisioners with little punishment. While I believe rehabilitation is vital it needs to go hand in hand with punishment. The US state of Utah seems to have this down to a fine art with rectivism rates of only 20% compared to 80% in Texas.

Anyway, in Norway its slightly ridiculous, the maximum prison term you can serve for any crime is 21 years. So in theory a serial child murderer and rapist can only serve 21 years! Something seriously wrong in my opinion.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/europe/091017/norway-open-prison#- Interesting report on the Norwegian prison system.

Thanks for that. I wasn't aware of the max sentences in law there. Still, I think they're on the right track as regards punishing underagers. This "kill him/lock him up forever" is a bit frightening, in all honesty, particularly when the child hasn't even been convicted. I know it's AH but it's far and above the usual levels of ire.


OT for a second: The Norwegian system, that would be 21 years for each individual charge? So if you raped and then murdered someone, you'd get a total of 42 years, or just 21 altogether?

HavingCrack

Millicent wrote: »

Thanks for that. I wasn't aware of the max sentences in law there. Still, I think they're on the right track as regards punishing underagers. This "kill him/lock him up forever" is a bit frightening, in all honesty, particularly when the child hasn't even been convicted. I know it's AH but it's far and above the usual levels of ire.

Yeah, they're on the right track definately. It does seem very odd that they were back at the same kindergarten next week though, something just doesn't sit right with me there.

Millicent wrote: »

OT for a second: The Norwegian system, that would be 21 years for each individual charge? So if you raped and then murdered someone, you'd get a total of 42 years, or just 21 altogether?

As far as I can make out, its 21 years maximum for all charges eg you can't get 42 years, you can only get 21 years regardless of the number of crimes you commit. Something seriously wrong with that I feel.

gflood

Its a sad situation ... both families have set up campaign websites each promoting their own version of the story and looking for support.

albeit

Whoever kept the gun in the house and made it accessible to an eleven-year old should, in my opinion, be prosecuted. The child is not innocent but he is not responsible.

Mardy Bum

albeit wrote: »

Whoever kept the gun in the house and made it accessible to an eleven-year old should, in my opinion, be prosecuted. The child is not innocent but he is not responsible.

For pre-mediated murder he is not responsible? Unless the kid has severe learning disabilities he is responsible.

albeit

Mardy Bum wrote: »

For pre-mediated murder he is not responsible? Unless the kid has severe learning disabilities he is responsible.

He is not responsible, whether he has a severe disability, or not. The person who provided him with, or made the gun available to him, is.

Mardy Bum

albeit wrote: »

He is not responsible, whether he has a severe disability, or not. The person who provided him with, or made available to him the gun, is.

Sweet jesus that is the sort of attitude that has allowed little scumbags to prosper in this country. What if he had done it with a knife?

albeit

Mardy Bum wrote: »

What if he had done it with a knife?

Then the woman an her unborn baby would have had a much greater chance of surviving, and/or the woman might have been able to fight off the attack. :rolleyes:

Mardy Bum

albeit wrote: »

Then the woman an her unborn baby would have had a much greater chance of surviving, and/or the woman might have been able to fight off the attack. :rolleyes:

My point went straight over your head anyway I see.

What I mean is the kid done it with the gun because it was the easiest weapon at hand and he knew how to use it and was fully aware of the damage it could do, but if he had attacked the woman with a knife you would not have the same bleeding heart response.
These situations are used to take a stab at American gun laws ( I do not agree with by the way) instead of looking at the case, 'Oh it was the guns fault why did he have it etc'. There is plenty of guns in American households and kids who are versed in using them but it is not too often that they go and start shouting their defenseless guardians with them on purpose.

albeit

Mardy Bum: We both know that it is much easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife. There is laws in America that are there to protect children from having access to guns, as they are a danger to both them and to having them hurt someone else. Of course they can hurt themselves or someone else with a knife, but they can not kill anyone or themselves as easily as with a gun. You say there shouldn't be any laws protecting children from having access to guns?

Mardy Bum

albeit wrote: »

Mardy Bum: We both know that it is much easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife. There is laws in America that are there to protect children from having access to guns, as they are a danger to both them and to having them hurt someone else. There are no laws that are in place for keeping kitchen knives out of reach of children, as it is much more unlikely they can hurt someone or themselves seriously or mortally with them. Of course they can hurt themselves or someone else with them, but not as easily as with a gun. You say there shouldn't be any laws protecting children from having access to guns?

I am taking you up on your statement that the kid is in no way responsible for his actions. Of course there should be gun laws re kids and access however that is not my point.

Your argument hinges all on the kids access to a gun. Your belief is that if the kid has access he can do what he likes because he is 11 and so has no moral compass or am I wrong? There is a long way from gaining possession of a gun and then shooting someone defenselessly. An 11 year old despite what you think does know the difference between right and wrong.

The kid got the gun and shot the woman knowing full well what a gun can do. So how is the child not responsible somewhat for its actions?

albeit

Mardy Bum wrote: »

The kid got the gun and shot the woman knowing full well what a gun can do. So how is the child not responsible somewhat for its actions?

Because someone else made the mistake of not protecting the child from having access to a gun.