To Tell Or Not To Tell Mary Kate Frank

uncomfortable room have to discuss a life and death case about a boy that is accused or killing

Are there any acceptable reasons for letting someone die in front of your eyes? In the article “The Murder They Heard” written by Stanley Milgram and Paul Hollander and first appearing in The Nation, Milgram and Hollander explored the reasons for the neighbors’ failure to help, their lack of civic sense and their actions toward Catherine Genovese’s murder, in part, they are responding to the hype created around Martin Gansberg’s “38 Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call the Police.” Milgram and Hollander argued that the witnesses were not at fault in that murder and instead, they blamed the city life, society norms, law, and the situational pressure. Even though Milgram and Hollander stated some acceptable reasons to think that the witnesses were not guilty, I still find the witnesses’ responsible for the loss of Genovese’s life.

The Frontline episode “When Kids Get Life” serves as a reminder for how the criminal justice system sometimes drops the proverbial ball when it comes to juveniles. Time after time, situations arise and are brought to the attention of the Department of Social Services. Whether they are overlooked or lost somehow, they are deprived of the help they need. The system fails children who are crying for help, and the results are sometimes fatal. Circumstances lead to the loss of life, not only for the victims, but also for the delinquents who saw no other way out. In other cases, the group mentality of juveniles equates to the responsibility of all members for a crime committed by one person.

In this criminal trial, two girls have been arrested and charged with attempted first-degree intentional homicide for trying to kill their friend. On May 31, 2014 12 years old Anissa Weier and Morgan Geyser lure their 12-year-old friend Payton Leutner to the woods and stabbed her 19 times before abandoning her in the woods until a bicyclist found her body. Leutner was quickly sent to the hospital and was lucky to survive. As investigator investigated the case, it was told by both Weier and Geyser that the reason is to appease a fictional paranormal character Slender Man. Both Weier and Geyser are trail for adult court rather than juvenile court and if they were found guilty for convicting to kill their friend they will be facing up to 35-65 years in jail within the adult court. Both Anissa Weier and Morgan Geyser exact charges

If local officials were notified that there was a young homeless teen with psychiatric problems roaming the streets maybe this incident could have been prevented. Trina was traumatized by the boys’ death The mother and prosecutor argued that Trina had an intend to killed the young boys. If Trina lawyer had paperwork to prove Trina’s psychological incompetence the courts could’ve dropped the case or have it moved to juvenile court. Leaving Trina eligible to be given the harshest sentence available. Trina was given a life sentence for an unintended crime illustrated the inequality of the justice system

Imagine a sunny day at the West Side Park. Children playing hopscotch and wishing on coins being flipped into the fountain. Now, at that same fountain, imagine an innocent teen being stabbed to death and three liters of blood staining the steps. One summer night, Ponyboy Curtis and Johnny Cade walked to the West Side Park. Bob Sheldon and his friends drove up to the boys while intoxicated. Bob’s friends friends and Johnny’s have had previous disagreements. After fighting, Bob attempted to dump Ponyboy in the fountain when Johnny stabbed him and killed him. Johnny Cade is guilty of Bob Sheldon’s murder because he knew he was guilty and confessed, he wanted to kill him, and he could have attacked Bob in some other way that would not have proven fatal.

Among the reasons adolescents are incapable of the same reasoning and maturity as an adult is the fact that their brains have not yet fully developed. According to the “Young Adult Development Project” at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology(MIT), the human brain does not reach full maturity until at least the mid-20s. As a result, minors do not possess the mental capacity to understand the consequences of their actions. They cannot fully comprehend the seriousness of the situation until it is already too late. Teenagers are especially susceptible to this, which can lead to regret, guilt and many obvious mistakes. Researchers at MIT point out the limitations of the teen brain in their Young Adult Development Project, “At the same time young adults are experiencing new levels of sophistication in thinking and emotional regulation, their brains are undergoing changes in precisely the areas associated with these functions.” Additionally, The University of Rochester Medical Center writes in their article “Understanding the Teen brain” that “Good judgement is not something [minors] can excel in... yet.” In 2016 a 10-year old boy shot and killed his brother while they were playing cops and robbers with a rifle he did not know was loaded.

The ethical dilemma I wish to explore is The Duty to Warn. This refers to the duty of a counselor, therapist to breach one of the most important bonds between a client and a therapist; the law of confidentiality. The therapist has the right to break confidentiality without the fear of being brought up for legal action. If the therapist believes that the client poses a danger, or is a threat to himself, someone else, or society as a whole, the therapist must decide how serious of a threat the client may be, then if he decides it’s a serious issue, he must notify the person in danger, which would e the third party, or the police, or other people who may be in the

I shared in the first discussion for this book about the first killing I have known by someone close to me. A teen whose widowed father was dating my widowed mother. The partisan side of the victim’s family painted an overly exaggerated defense against him. I like everyone else wanted to witness the trial, but our parents would not allow us, and the school prohibited any student from missing school to attend unless they were called as a witness. On the day of the sentencing, I recalled my mother saying it was not a fair sentencing. I was barely a teen and all I can remember from the trial was that the judge

For example, sixteen-year old Sarah Kruzan was sentenced to life without parole for murdering her pimp. However, she is now 29 years of age, and says how she “deserved the punishment and that it is not okay to take anyone’s life” (Serwer, 1).In the same way how Sara Kruzan understood the wrong in her actions, minors can do the same and change their behaviour, allowing them to be respected by society once again. Another teen killer, Jacob Ind murdered his parents while they were laying in bed. However, Jacob and his brother were physically and emotionally abused by their parents. Years later, Jacob told a local news station that he killed his parents, because he was too “weak to directly confront them and that it was of pure selfishness” (Serwer,

For example, in the Slender Man Case two young girls that society pictured as innocent attempted three types to kill their victim. The first two attempts failed as they were afraid someone would hear their victim’s cry. This proves that “it is clear that developing adolescent brain does not prevent deliberate, thoughtful actions” (Weir 12) of juveniles as “her murder was thoughtful, deliberate and cunning in its planning and execution” (Weir 8) as they didn’t want anyone to hear their victim’s scream as they stabbed her nineteen times throughout her body. Brain development is not the the issue “if brain development were the reason, then teens would kill at roughly the same rates all over the world” (Jenkins 6) which is true “it cannot be an excuse for unspeakable behavior” (Weir 12) this why we should sentence juveniles a sentence they truly receive even if it’s an adult

In Joshua chapter two, a woman named Rahab lied to the king of Jericho, saying the spies who showed up at her house had already departed, when in fact, she had hid them in her house. Mrs. Johansen was in a similar situation when Nazi soldiers appeared in her brother Henrik's house demanding to know why a large multitude of people had gathered there. Mrs. Johansen lied to the soldiers, saying a relative by the name of Great Aunt Birte had passed away, and her corpse was in the coffin. The truth was that large wooden box was filled with warm clothes and blankets for the Jews, (who were portraying the relatives of Great Aunt Birte). So, should Annemarie's mother have told the truth, or was lying the right thing to do?

If a child/pupil discloses information to an adult in school that is of a serious nature, then the child should be made aware that the information given will need to be shared to protect them. If the school believes a child/pupil is at risk of serious harm then the confidential information will need to be shared with external professionals, such as police, social services, and other

Many people are unsure of the rights granted to minors because of the laws in place, or the lack of laws in place. In fact there are laws, such as the Privacy Act of 1988 that could be a reason people are confused about the rights minors have to confidentiality. This act is directly described in a professional practice article when Bird (2007), stated that an adolescent’s health information can be released to a guardian, but in circumstances where a minor is capable of making their own medical decisions, they should be allowed to do so (p. 655). Bird further explained that “If an adolescent is able to consent to their own medical treatment, then they are

Crimes are most associated with adults. Murder is especially most associated with adults. When a teenager commits such a crime such as murder they must be tried, and they should not be treated with leniency and coddling, but with the full force of the law as an adult.