His parents both have college degrees and wellpaying jobs, enabling the family to live in a new home in a quiet neighborhood. The boy was active in Sunday school and in his church’s youth and mission programs and held above-average grades. He had no referrals in his disciplinary folder, and his teachers described him as a bright, well-behaved young man who got along well with his classmates. He liked to play on his computer, read books, and collect miniature military figures. In fact, he appeared as a model child with admirable aspirations to become a military officer.
After receiving consent from the parents to search his bedroom, on the surface, police found a “typical” teenaged-boy’s bedroom consisting of an extensive collection of figurines and models. However, police did find a nontypical collection of military books in his closet, and all of the games on his computer had a military motif as well.
The Certification Study
Ultimately, police charged the young shooter with six counts of shooting with intent to kill and one count of possessing a weapon on school property. Law enforcement and prosecutors had to address one primary question—should the criminal justice system process the boy as an adult or a juvenile? Oklahoma law lists certain criteria courts must consider when determining whether to certify a juvenile offender as an adult.4
• The seriousness of the alleged offense to the community, and whether the juvenile committed the offense in aggressive, violent, premeditated, or willful manner
• Whether the juvenile committed the offense against persons or property, and, if personal injury resulted, the degree of injury
• The sophistication and maturity of the juvenile and the capability of distinguishing right from wrong, determined by psychological evaluation; home search home environmental situation; emotional attitude; and pattern of living
• The record or previous history of the accused, including previous contacts with community organizations, law enforcement agencies, schools, juvenile or criminal courts, and other jurisdictions, as well as prior periods of probation or prior commitments to juvenile institutions
• The prospects for adequate protection of the public
• The likelihood of reasonable rehabilitation of the juvenile if the courts find the juvenile guilty of committing the alleged offense
• Whether the juvenile committed the offense while escaping or in an escape status from an institution for delinquent children
The crime in Fort Gibson was aggressive and violent. The boy’s actions, before and during the shooting, and the preparation involved strongly suggest a premeditated and willful crime. The boy committed the crime against other individuals, which resulted in serious injuries. Based on interviews with his family, friends, and school officials, juvenile officers concluded that he had the sophistication, maturity, and capability of distinguishing right from wrong. Because he had no previous criminal record, a “clean” school file, and a positive demeanor, officials did not perceive him as a threat. The juvenile officer concluded that public safety could be assured if the boy was detained in an institution for juvenile delinquents. Moreover, the juvenile officer concluded that if the courts processed him through the juvenile justice system, assuming his willingness to work toward identified treatment goals, rehabilitation could be achieved.5
The aggregative result of the young boy’s violent act would determine his fate—there was only one serious injury and no deaths. Nevertheless, 6 out of 15 shots established intent to cause great bodily harm.
| Page 10 |
Page 11
|
|