Post Gazette wants trial of boy open to public

A 11 year old boy killed his father's pregnant fiancee. He was initially charged as an adult but then it was changed to a juvenile. The PG is arguing that the public needs to know how the decision was reached, not just the result of the decision.

I understand that the public is very interested in this trial, but does it really serve the public interest to open the trial? It seems like this is more of a freak show factor than any real compelling public interest.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11266/1176996-100.stm

 

My first thought is to think the boy might be MR, Autistic or Special Ed in some way.

I could see the police not looking at that when the initial charge was given.

 

I'm kind of surprised that they're actually going through with a trial of an 11-year-old. No plea deal?

 

There's a trial going on in RI with a mother who killed her 8-year old daughter. They're allowing a pool photographer in, but no TV.
Local radio guy is going nuts about it. I was listening to him the other day and it's apparent he's a media whore. He was screaming about how he's been e-mailing Nancy Grace about the case and how the public deserves to see the trial. It sounds like he just wants it on TV so when national pundits need someone to talk to, they go to him. He's done it with other in-state news.

 

No.

 

If it's who I'm thinking of, JD, he also had a great habit of spouting completely made up shit on Twitter. This was especially fun before the hurricane, since I wasted 30 minutes debunking some of his crap.

 

The P-G wants to know how the decision was reached ... I don't see a problem with that.

 

But if the police say the child is retarded, then you are digging into the child's privacy.

 

It's in juvenile court. It should be closed.

 

I don't really think any trial should be open to the public, regardless of age. It's nobody's business but the defendant's and plaintiff's and the respective families. Newspapers shouldn't be allowed to cover any trial.

 

Thanks for your opinion, Adam. You do know that victim's are not the plaintiff in criminal cases. It's either the "people of" or the "state or commonwealth of".

 

Why? Just because he's a juvenile? I don't think that's enough of a reason; not with the killer in question and his crime.
The kid has already been indentified. If he's retarded or has anger-management issues I think it might actually help to have that explained in the press rather then shoved under the judicial rug of a juvenile case.
Otherwise you have people thinking the kid is just Grade-A fucked up, w/o any circumstances or background.

I think many of the juvenile laws in the states have become arcane, due to the savage crimes of many kids under the age of 18, 16, 15, 13 (insert age here)...