How low will it go?  We may soon have a new answer as prosecutors may seek to try an 8 year old boy for the murder of his father and a boarder, according to the ABA Journal.  The New York Times describes the murder:

An 8-year-old Arizona boy charged with premeditated murder in the deaths of his father and another man shot each victim at least four times with a .22-caliber rifle, methodically stopping and reloading as he killed them, prosecutors said Monday.

Like everyone else, the police sought to gain some grasp on why a child would do something like this, anticipating some rational motivation that would explain his actions. 

Although investigators initially said they thought the boy might have suffered severe physical or sexual trauma, they have found no evidence of abuse, said Roy Melnick, the police chief in St. Johns, Ariz., where the shootings occurred. Psychologists say such abuse is often a factor in the extremely rare instances in which a small child murders a parent.

An investigation found no evidence that the boy had disciplinary problems at school or shown signs that he was troubled, Chief Melnick said. “That’s what makes this case somewhat puzzling,” he said, adding that the court had ordered a psychological evaluation for the boy. “Our goal is to get him some help.”

The prosecution, however, has other plans for the child.  According to USA Today :

“We are going to prosecute the child to the fullest extent that the law will allow,” prosecutor Criss Candelaria said Sunday. “Kids that age are rarely transferred (to adult court.) Of course, this case is different because it involves a double homicide.”

I’m struggling to make sense of this.  No, not the double murder by an 8 year old, but the statement by prosecutor Criss Candelaria.  I couldn’t possibly explain what drives an 8 year old to do what he’s done, but I find it similarly impossible to comprehend the reasoning for taking such a harsh position toward a child.  Is it because it was “a double homicide,” as would appear from the statement?  Does that mean single homicides are no big deal for kids.  That makes no sense.

Perhaps the premeditated aspect of his killing drives the prosecution to ignore that the child is 8 years old.  Perhaps the notoriety of the crime pushes the prosecution to show how tough they are, or keep them in the news.  Perhaps no one in the prosecution office has children, and there is a wholesale lack of understanding that we’re talking about an 8 year old child.  I don’t know, and I can’t make any sense of it at all.

Clearly, something went horribly wrong here.  But what that something is has yet to be discovered.  There are some things, however, about which there can be no reasonable doubt whatsoever.  One such thing is that an 8 year old child cannot possibly have the understanding of death, of murder, that would allow the child to appreciate the nature and consequences of his act. 

Sure, an 8 year old can be taught to load, aim and fire a weapon.  An 8 year old may even understand that when you shoot some living thing in the right place, it stops moving, breathing, living.  But this most rudimentary view barely touches the surface of understanding necessary to attribute such a degree of evil to this child to justify the prosecution’s approach.

Police Chief Roy Melnick seems to be the only one involved that has the slightest grasp on reality here: “Our goal is to get him some help.”  That’s what you do with an 8 year old.  That’s what you do when something goes horribly wrong with a child.  What you don’t do is prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.  Now that’s just nuts.