Not all Juveniles Eileen but in this and the other case you noted most definitely.

Agreed.

I would say that The Patch did its job. The more appropriate place for your beef could be with the prosecutor's office or the Maryland Legislature. I'm not sure if I see a real difference between a 17 year old raping a drunk 14 year old girl or an 18 year old raping a drunk 14 year old girl. If juvenile court is the appropriate place for one then it should be the appropriate place for both and likewise if adult court is appropriate for one then it should also be appropriate for the other.

Our government has determined the age to be considered an adult or a minor. Saying that there is no difference in a 17 year old and an 18 year old committing a crime is like saying ok your 20, close enough, go ahead and drink. I've never understood why minors are charged "as adults". They are minors!! These ages were set for a reason!

LS, I agree, 100%. And if you decide that 17 is close enough, then why not 16? Then 15? Seriously, if you are considered to be an adult at 18, then that's it. No exceptions.

It's not a question of knowing right from wrong. Of course, most juveniles know right from wrong. The reason juveniles are treated differently in the justice system is that their brains are physiologically different from those of adults. They have not fully developed in the areas that govern impulse control, logic, and reasoning. Additionally, in this great nation of ours, people are given the right to be tried by a jury of their peers. A juvenile in the adult system has had that right rescinded, as juveniles are too young to serve on a jury, thus the juvenile cannot be tried by a jury of peers. This is part of the reason why the juvenile system was established.

Kids are kids. Let the juvenile justice system do it's job.

Not too late!!! I suggest we all petition the Patch to remove any articles that contain KR's name, picture or address. If they refuse, petion their advertisers to pull their support from the Patch under the action that you will stop patronizing anyone that advertises with the Patch. All of these articles are posted to generate revenue for the Patch, not as any true dedication to the truth or public service!

Hazzard Native, innocent until proven guilty. This is the US. That's how we do things. If he were your son, I think you would appreciate a fair trial, in a courtroom. If he is guilty, he should be punished, and the punishment should be appropriate for the offense and the extenuating circumstances. He is a juvenile, so that needs to be taken into consideration. But if he is not guilty, his life has already been destroyed, and that is hardly fair. I think it is very unfair that you have convicted him without ever hearing his story or what any of the witnesses have to say. You know what you have read in the media - I seriously doubt that is the entire story.

@ Mr. Hazzard Native...for the record, I do not know either family. It is simply my belief that juveniles should be tried in juvenile courts. I say that I think there is more to the story, only because the defendant's story has not been told publicly, at all - this is typical in these types of cases, I think. Ironically, I agree with everything else that you said. If he is guilty, then no, I do not want him near my family. If he is guilty, his victim's life is forever altered. Really, all I have said is that his case belongs in the juvenile courts, because he is a juvenile, and that people should not rush to convict this child without having all of the relevant facts.

Agreed!!! I am not sure that I buy the statement "...his juvenile brain has not fully developed, especially in the areas that control critical thinking skills, impulse control, and understanding consequences..." WTH? Teens today know more than we ever did at their age, and he had some idea of what was going on. I don't know who is lying, not lying, whatever, but I do know that he put himself in a bad position, drunk or not. HE made the choice to go into that girl's room, no one forced him to go in there. He had no business being in there, and that is exactly why he is in so much trouble. I said this before in a previous post, but no matter how well we think we 'know' a teenager, they are teens, and we have no idea what they are like when they are with their peers, and if you do, you are mistaken.

RationalPerson, you actually made my point for me. Thanks. The point is, exactly as you said, that they are TEENS, "and we have no idea what they are like when they are with their peers, and if you do, you are mistaken." The reason for that is that their brains have not fully developed. Look it up. It's scientific fact, acknowledged by the Supreme Court when they determined that a juvenile cannot be sentenced to death. It has nothing to do with knowing right from wrong. It has to do with controlling impulses and rationally determining the consequences of an action and how it might impact the rest of your life.

It doesn't make a damn bit of difference to me if their brains are "fully developed". You know the difference between right and wrong. You can't tell me that at the age of 17 you didn't know if you murdered someone they weren't coming back and you would be spending time in jail. You can't say that you didn't know it was wrong to rape someone and there would be consequences. It IS a matter of what's right and what's wrong. A slap on the wrist only perpetrates the idea that they can get away with whatever they want to. "Oh, but they're a child"... "Oh, but they're mentally incompetent". It's nothing but excuses with this country. Honestly, I firmly believe it's that attitude that's gotten our country to it's current state. It's bullshit is what it is.

Oh okay, that makes sense... I just hope it comes to an end for the families. Too many people have too many oppinions, and no one knows the facts.

I don't know that this kid made a bad decision. He has not been convicted of any crime. I think it is inexcusable to convict a boy in the media. If he is not guilty, his life has been destroyed because of people who felt it appropriate to drag a child's name through the mud. Absolutely inappropriate. And no, there is no magic switch in the brain; the brain is developing. It's a process. Our great country has a MUCH higher rate of juveniles in our adult prisons than any other country in the world! And study after study shows that it is not effective in any way, and, in fact, leads to a much higher rate of recidivism. These are facts, not just opinions. I will be happy to debate the facts with you, if, in fact, you have facts to offer.

Dave, Even Juvinielle Offenses are reportable offenses and can keep a student removed from the general enviornment. Most likely he will be in Hickey soon!

It is actually not illegal to publish the name of a juvenile, charged as an adult or not, however it is not typically Patch policy to publish the names of juveniles. This, however, is a different situation because he was charged as an adult at the outset.

LS, that will only work if we reinstate lynch mobs. I doubt that Hazzard Native is qualified to act as judge, in spite of his judgments. He is, apparently, qualified to head a lynch mob, which is a bit worrisome, because he does not seem to understand that lynch mobs are no longer considered to be an acceptable form of justice. I don't think he is really interested in learning all of the facts of the case - he has omnipotent powers of determining guilt or innocence, simply by reading articles on the Patch. The facts are not relevant to his rantings.

He certainly does deserve a fair trial, as does the victim. Nobody wants to admit that this may very well have been a rape. I can admit that it may have been somewhat consensual, but none of the rest of you can admit that this could be rape. In reality, if what you all are saying is true, than you are accusing the 14 year old girl of the crime of making a false report.
Give him a fair trial, go ahead. If found to be "delinquent" of the crime of rape, lock him up until his 21st birthday.

hazzard native, where did you get that from? None of us have said that this was not a rape, only that the facts have not all been released. None of us wants a rapist to go free, we only want this boy to receive a fair trial in the appropriate court. Please tell me what I said that makes you think that I feel the victim is lying? I do not know the defendant or the victim. I am simply advocating for the rights of juveniles in the justice system today. If he is guilty, then he should be punished - and I am not entirely certain, but I believe that he could be sentenced to adult prison time after he turns 21, if he is found guilty. I am simply relieved that this case is in the right court, finally, and I would hope that this is evidence that Harford County is finally catching up to the rest of the world, in understanding that juveniles need to be treated as such, and not simply remanded to adult courts. You might want to look at this study that was completed in MD, before you continue with your assertions. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacqueline-caster/the-insanity-of-sentencin_b_758922.html

There are many studies, done by a variety f groups, and the conclusions are all the same. And please do not read between my lines, if your conclusions are going to be so absolutely incorrect. Rape is a heinous crime, and as far as I am concerned, rapists should rot in prison for their entire lives - and whatever happens to them is justice. On the other hand, I am so awfully sick and tired of people like you, Mr. Hazzard Native, who would throw a child's life away without having any evidence that there was actual wrongdoing. You have no right to convict this boy. You do not know all of the facts. A lot of people who know him seem to believe that his life has value. People like me just pray that the truth will come out, and that justice will be done. Once again, my stance is simply that I am grateful this case has been moved to the correct court. Your stance is to attack everyone here who disagrees with your OPINION that this boy is guilty and should go to prison. I ask you, Mr. Hazzard, do you have facts that the rest of us are not privy to? Because if you have facts, I am willing to listen. Frankly, I'm tired of hearing your opinions. And one more thing - our Supreme Court did consider this study and other studies, first in their decision that juveniles could not be subjected to the death penalty, and in a more recent decision that juveniles cannot automatically be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.

Eileen, you are quick to judge me for making assumptions and reading between the lines, but your posts, including this last one, are full of assumptions. I would not want to see a child's life thrown away without having evidence, just as I would not want to see a rapist go free and be able to ruin more lives. IF what is alleged is true, there is a young lady in our community that needs and deserves support much more than the person who allegedly violated her. Again, nowhere in your posts do you mention the needs of the potential victim, only the needs of the alleged perpetrator. You are one-way, and perhaps I am also.

guess you had to rely on 14 year olds who were new to the school because the rest of the school knew about you.

lol she was 15 and i was 17. nice try.

so you were either moved up a grade or she was held back. Either way, a senior guy dating a freshman girl just isnt right. Either desperate or looking for one thing only.

I was 17 my whole senior year and did not skip a grade. I turned 18 in late June!

Dislike the entire county, nice.
You would welcome him into your home anytime, even if he is convicted, or found delinquent of rape? That's a whole lot of faith you have there.
Yes, not allowed upstairs, because we all know that bad things only happen upstairs.
How naive to think that your children will never drink. I hope you are right, but I think you are quite jaded.
Blame the parents? Blame them for what? You report they were both drinking. How is it okay to assume they were both drinking, since you have pointed out that there hasn't been a trial? Double standard.

Being a rape victim /=/ being drunk. Nor is being drunk an excuse.

I agree that these comments are way out of line, completely inappropriate & offensive. I do have to chuckle at the irony that here Hazzard Native is so quick to accept everything written about someone else on the ever so sacred Patch and now someone is writing terrible things about him/her in a public forum and there is nothing he/she can do about it. I guess he/she has to hope we don't all believe the terrible things that are being written about him/her? Judge not, that ye be not judged !!!!

I chuckle because Tyler is over 18, if we believe he is at HCC. Yet clearly he is very immature. I was lead to believe Kyle Reddish is very mature by his fans. If we believe he is two immature because he is 16 to be in the adult system does Tyler get to be in the adult system?

@ BelAir Resident, I am not bothered by Tyler, rather by the belief that it is okay to purport that both parties were drunk, and that the parents and the county and the state prosecutor's office are somehow responsible for the alleged rape or the alleged situation in which the alleged rape took place, yet nobody on here can admit that this may have really happened. Many on here have jumped on me for my opinion that I do not want the accused near my children, they state that he is innocent because he hasn't had a trial yet. The Joppatowne Cannibal hasn't had a trial yet; will you invite him into your home too? Many on here say that I do not know what happened and should not make any assumptions at all because there hasn't been a trial, yet some of those same people report that both parties were drunk - hypocrites. The most vile and foul mannered person on this thread could not possibly offend me with some keystrokes; anyone that has to use the amount of vulgarity that Tyler has, in order to get his point across, is very much in need of some life skills. I actually support Tyler Bronco in his right to defend Kyle Reddish by such vile means, as his speech is protected under the same Constitutional Amendment as mine and yours. GO TYLER, spout off some more vulgarity in your attempt to convince the world that having sex with inebriated underage girls is okay, so long as they keep the story to themselves. GO, GO, GO, the stage is all yours!

A number of comments have been deleted for violations of Patch terms of use and user "Harry P. Ness" has been suspended.

So can I assume your position is unchanged? He is a 15 year old and this belongs in Juvinielle court? Or have you had an epiphany? BTW your use of parenthesis is not correct!

Grammar is the arguement of the weak minded. Also you forgot to end or close your last parenthisis! I would suggest you stop critiqueing other peoples spelling and actually debate facts. I find it appalling that you believe rapist, mass murders and attempted murders who are 16 & 17 are not capable of realizing right and wrong and therefore get off with a slap on the wrist! Of course I recognize your right to have a differing opinion. I was simply trying to see how far you think this Juvinielle crusade should go!

I find it appalling that you do not think others have a right to their opinions. And I have no idea where you got the notion that I think 16 and 17 year-olds don't know right from wrong. I never said anything of the kind, and, in fact, I absolutely believe most do know right from wrong. I have simply stated that the Supreme Court has acknowledged that there are basic differences in a teen's brain, as opposed to an adult's brain, making them unable to fully appreciate the whole situation and the ramifications of their actions, and additionally making it more difficult to control impulses. Teenagers act rashly. That's why they are not allowed to legally drink or vote. Further, teenagers, solely because of their young ages, are not allowed to serve on juries, meaning that, in an adult court, a juvenile cannot be tried by a jury of his peers, which is his constitutional right. The juvenile justice system came about because of these facts. And to be clear, I have cited facts all along, unlike you, who have simply spouted your opinions. You are, however, entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to my opinion that juvenile courts are for juveniles. And also to be clear, I never once said a thing about your grammar, but your spelling is atrocious. And one more thing, I am finished debating my facts with your opinions, unless you are actually confident enough about your opinions to sign your name to them. If you feel so strongly about your opinions, then own them.

I find it appalling you have a reading comprehension issue. If you read the post to which you replied you would clearly see that I said

"Of course I recognize your right to have a differing opinion. I was simply trying to see how far you think this Juvinielle crusade should go!"

It seems you missed that. I may think your opinion is crap but it is your opinion. I agree that the brain of a human does gradually grow and evolve but I DISAGREE. with your assertion that at 16 your brain is not capable of knowing and controlling actions like raping or killing. You point out as an example age requirements for voting, drinking and liscencing. Notice you can get a liscence to drive at 16. This means that it is recognized you are responsible enough to drive. If you get a DUI at 16 you go to adult court if you run over a kid you go to adult court. If you can not keep from shooting people or raping them you have no buisness driving a car!

Secondly you talk about jury of peers. You use this as if age is a qualifier for a peer jury. It is not a garuntee you will be tried by a jury of only people your age, gender, race etc. All it means according to the supreme court, is that the jury is a cross section of the community.

As I have already said, I will respond to your inane comments when you feel strongly enough about your convictions to sign your name to them. Until that time, it is apparent that you are merely attempting to get a reaction. I will, however, point out that your definition of the word "peer" is incorrect; in fact, it means a person who is of equal standing. A juvenile is not of equal standing with adults.

Dave not sure about this specific case but if HCPS is following their own policy he would be at alt ed until this is resolved assuming he would not be found delinquient. His prescence is likely to cause a substantial disruption, cause obvious trama for his victim who has a right to go to school without that trama and poses a potential risk if he is a sex offender.