Zoloft Defense Sacked

There is no glee to be found in this tale of a 12-year-old who murdered his grandparents and now, as a 15-year-old, faces 30 years in prison. But had Christopher Pittman's Zoloft defense worked there is no telling where that might have ended.

To their credit, the jury did not let a blizzard of flim-flam from the defense obscure key facts which showed knowledge of right and wrong, such as Pittman setting a fire to cover his tracks.

Clearly Zoloft did not quell whatever ill thoughts the young boy harbored and the drug did not cause those thoughts either.

Comments

[smacky]

"Defense attorneys had urged the jury to send a message to the nation by blaming Zoloft for the killings."

There they go with that stupid cliche again.... ( send a message , that is...)

[Rhywun]

How about *this* stupid cliche:

"I know it's in the hands of God. Whatever he decides is what it's going to be," Pittman said quietly.

Uh... no. It's in the hands of your peers - who rightfully decided you should rot in jail.

[NoStar]

Smacky, are you trying to send a message?

[smacky]

NoStar,

No, I did send a message. And I just sent one now, too.

I had no message and the message was,
We're all Jesus, Buddha, and the Wizard of Oz.

[Pavel]

It's amazing what pills can do. Remember the time Oxycontin made a young boy crush it up, snort it and chug 8 beers before choking on his own vomit?

These medicines need a new warning label:

"Do Not Take With Grapefruit Juice but a Nice Warm Cup of STFU."

[free form]

Yikes, is there anything in the WORLD more trite than "sending the right/wrong message?"

Nothing makes me feel more violent than hearing this.

Um, more Zoloft, please...

[Ball of Confusion]

I'm kind of amazed that twelve actual people would turn DOWN the opportunity to "send a message" to the evil drug companies. Could it be that I have misunderestimated the American populace?

There must be some other explanation. I'll be looking for these jurors to be driving new luxury SUV's with "LUVZOL" vanity plates.

[Mike]

I'm kind of amazed that twelve actual people would turn DOWN the opportunity to "send a message" to the evil drug companies. Could it be that I have misunderestimated the American populace?

Or could it be, that contrary to what the tort reform cheerleaders chant, juries are mainly rational and reasonable in their decisions?

[zeroentitlement]

I prefer my STFU over ice, myself.

How dare the li'l darlin's grandparents discipline him for choking a smaller kid on a bus! How they must have wounded his self-esteem, tsk. Hope the violent little f*ck makes some nice friends in the prison shower.

[Della]

30 years seems inhumanly harsh for a crime carried out by a 12 year old, that's below the age of criminal responsibility in most developed countries.

In addition what's the point of having different laws for children when apparently they will just be tried as an adult no matter how young they were at the time of the crime.

[Larry]

30 years in prison for a 12-year-old? Have we gone totally nuts? What about some blame for whoever left a weapon accessible to a disturbed 12-year-old?

[Stewart Vardaman]

That Zoloft is one amazing drug. It kept him from knowing the difference between right and wrong when he shot them, but the dosage wore off so fast it didn't take him long to set fire to the house in an attempt to cover up his wrongdoing.

[Brad R.]

As someone who takes Zoloft-
If you're the type of person who thinks about killing your grandparents, Zoloft ain't gonna help you. You need something stronger. Much stronger.

[Ball of Confusion]

30 years in prison for a 12-year-old? Have we gone totally nuts?

Seems harsh on the surface of it to me also, but I don't know all the details of the case, nor do I know what parole options will kick in when.

What about some blame for whoever left a weapon accessible to a disturbed 12-year-old?

Would that include things like knives, baseball bats, ropes, and matches?

[Ball of Confusion]

Hope the violent little f*ck makes some nice friends in the prison shower.

I *really* wish people would quit winking at prison rape. It ain't part of the sentence.

[NoStar]

Prison rape: Cruel, but not unusual. Doesn't punishment have to be both to be prohibited?

[WSDave]

30 years for a 12 year old? HELL YES!!! More, in fact.

100 million 12 year olds (or however many) DON'T kill thier grandparents (and set fire to the house and claim an intruder did it) every day.

Do a crime like an adult, do the time like an adult.

[Semolina]

Mike wrote: "Or could it be, that contrary to what the tort reform cheerleaders chant, juries are mainly rational and reasonable in their decisions?"

No. What it "could be" is that this particular jury was rational and reasonable. Tort reform advocates would surely point you to countless other scenarios where they don't think that's been the case.

Ball of Confusion wrote: "I *really* wish people would quit winking at prison rape. It ain't part of the sentence."

A-frikkin-men. The punishment of prison time is the loss of freedom. It's not supposed to include sexual assault. The court system is already too unreliable when it comes to weeding out the innocent from the guilty -- not to mention all the ridiculous reasons for which people are imprisoned these days (read: drug laws). It's sickening enough when someone is sentenced to prison for, say, marijuana possession. The notion that they'll suffer homosexual rape because of it is almost unthinkable.

(An aside: We always think about the victims of prison rape, as we should. But does anybody ever consider the guys who actually commit it? As in, how/why/when do these he-men cross that psychological barrier and say to themselves, "Hmm, OK, I guess I'll do something really gay today"? It's just so ... weird.)

[6Gun]

There's another side to the Zoloft/Paxil/Prozac nightmare, and it ain't small government, folks.

The Bush Juggerna- sorry, Administration would just love to see each and every one of you bowed to the religion of State, that is, dope you into comfy submission to statist everything. You know like school, medicine, and of course, acceptable behavior.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst013105.htm.

Dubya needs to respell his last name. Orwell.

[MJ]

"30 years seems inhumanly harsh for a crime carried out by a 12 year old..."-Della

Double homicide, arson, auto theft, and underage driving are rather harsh crimes for a twelve year old to be committing. Maybe he did not understand what he was doing, but I do not think he should be trusted with the ability to do anything similiar for a very long time. What do you think should be done with him?

[Brendan Perez]

"Do a crime like an adult, do the time like an adult."

OK. We'll start treating teens like adults when they drink a beer, have a gun, walk down the streets past 12a, etc.
A teen who does the crime of drinking a beer like an adult should do the time (none) like an adult, right?

The do the time, do the crime concept falls apart when we hold one group to an additional set of laws.

[Brendan Perez]

The census says there were ~4.1 million 12 year olds in 2000.

Considering that even 12 year olds are treated like adults when they commit a violent crime, what right is there to deny 12+ year olds adult treatment when they wish to buy videogames or weapons?
Mike Males, author of Framing Youth (1999) and Scapegoat Generation (1996) calls this "Adult when convenient, child when convenient".

[herostratus]

My, what a group of nasty, hateful bastards we have here... rot in jail, 12-year-old!... hope the 12-year-old gets gang-raped... 30 years for a 12 year old? TOO LENIENT!!!!

Libertarians. God help us.

"I love my son with all of my heart," said Joe Pittman, whose parents were the victims. "And if my mom and dad were here, I know they would be begging you for mercy."

HOW DARE YOU BEG THE COURT FOR MERCY, WORM! PERHAPS YOU ALSO ARE OF THOSE KIND THAT WE KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH? GIVE HIM A TENNER!

Sorry to disappoint you, but the judge didn't actually say that.

The kid is deranged, OK? Have a little human decency (yes, even if Ayn Rand would despise you for it!)

Um, I could also point out that:

1) Adult drugs often work very differently -- sometimes even with reversed effect -- on children than on adults.
2) Some adult drugs have much, much stronger effects on children, due to their brains and organs and systems, different from an adults in many critical ways. If a critical threshold is reached, the drug can have hugely stronger effects.
3) Psychoactive drugs can have strong and unexpected effects on people who are actually deranged. Zoloft is probably contraindicated for the violently insane.
4) The exact details of 1, 2, and 3 above are grotesquely understudied for many drugs....
5) ...because that would cost money and, worse, pervert the working of the free-market system by possibly causing the loss of the lucrative children's market.

point 5 is polemic, of course (though true nonetheless), but 1-4 are pretty much established facts.

Just thought you might want to know.

[mje]

herostratus,

to say that these points are proven facts means nothing to this situation unless they are proven in relation to zoloft. but thanks for taking the time to let me know that some drugs have different effects on children than on adults.

[Aleana]

I'm sure I'm going to get raked over the coals for this, but I'm going to have to come down firmly on the side of trying this kid as an adult.

A kid who gets his parents gun down from the closet to show off, and ends up shooting his best friend shouldn't be tried as an adult. This was not premeditated, just the ignorance and serious lack of good judgment often shown by the young.

A kid who plans the cold-blooded murder of his grandparents and then tries to cover his tracks should not be let back out into society. I can't say if Zoloft was a determining factor here, maybe he should go to a mental institution for the rest of his life instead.
But you'll have to come up with some much better arguments to convince me that this kid should be shown leniency. A dangerously deranged person is still a danger whether he is 12 or 40.

[raymond]

As in, how/why/when do these he-men cross that psychological barrier and say to themselves, "Hmm, OK, I guess I'll do something really gay today"?

Rape is "really gay"?

1. The kid was 12. Have the bloodthirsty among you never seen or talked with 12yos? They're really really small, and they're all very childish. And while 12yos don't fit a mould insofar as maturity and morphology are concerned, a 12yo is _always_ a child.

2. Vioxx.

[Semolina]

"Rape is "really gay"?"

Hmm. Let's see... When one male decides to force another male to have sex, yes -- that sounds like gay rape to me.

Is there some better, more precise phrase that I'm overlooking?

[smacky]

Mike Males, author of Framing Youth (1999) and Scapegoat Generation (1996) calls this "Adult when convenient, child when convenient".

Wow. I've never even heard of that author until now, and that's been my point of view on juvenile laws for years. And I say that as a well-worn scapegoat.
I believe I've actually used almost that exact phrase on a thread here, too.

(An aside: We always think about the victims of prison rape, as we should. But does anybody ever consider the guys who actually commit it? As in, how/why/when do these he-men cross that psychological barrier and say to themselves, "Hmm, OK, I guess I'll do something really gay today"? It's just so ... weird.)

Semolina,

I think the reason guys initiate male-male rape is due to their biological overabundance of testosterone/sperm while imprisoned - making them desperate for sexual contact. Hence, making someone "their bitch". It's not homosexual by choice - it's homosexual incidentally, due to chronic absence of females. If you saw the "gay penguin" thread a few days ago, you'd know what I am referring to. This is the same reason that some governments put Salt Peter into sailors'/soldiers' food - to avoid a male conga line. If women were imprisoned with these male rapists, they would probably be raped just as frequently, or more frequently, than the male victims that face it. But since women aren't there, they make due with who's available to them there.

[WSDave]

We shouldn't excuse behavior just because the individual is 12 any more than if they are 112. While the Zoloft may be factor, I'm pretty sure that there are other 12 year olds taking it and not killing anyone, as well as 12 year olds not taking it and still committing murder. 12 years is old enough to know what's right and what's wrong. At that age they know about sex, drugs and rock & roll. He made his choice (commit an adult sized crime) and he should live with the results (an adult sized sentence). We're not talking about stealing a bicycle here.

As for the idea of 12 year old drinking alcohol, I'm okay with that. They're old enough to make they're own informed choices and should be allowed to.

Things have changed since you were 12, ladies and gentlemen. The age of innocence has past (there never really was one, it's just false nostalga).

[joe]

"Tort reform advocates would surely point you to countless other scenarios where they don't think that's been the case."

I'm curious about something: why don't "tort reform" advocates, who are really motivated by a strict sense of justice and an ardent desire to have the process work effectively, ever tell us about the examples of juries who were too lenient, and too irrationally biased against plaintiffs? I hear people bitching and moaning about the awful, awful "litigious society" all the time, yet I don't think I've ever heard of a case where 12 of these people got selected for a jury, and made a really bad judgement in favor of the defendant.

If I didnt' know any better, I'd think that the entire Washington-based, Republican-funded tort reform lobby had some sort of anti-consumer, pro-corporate agenda.

[Semolina]

Well, good thing you know better, then.

[herostratus]

Not leniency but mercy.

Obviously the kid is probably ruined for life, psychologically. He's also deranged and can't be roaming the streets. (Even if he wasn't a danger, he couldn't just be set free for various reasons of politics and justice.)

But still... mercy, for God's sake. Try it sometime.

Whether there would ever be a time when the kid is no longer deranged, and what the state should do then, I don't know; that's a complicated question.

-----

Based on some of these posts, I would propose a law that, as pedophiles are, libertarians should be prohibited from from working with or around children.

[zeroentitlement]

What has a 12-year-old got to be depressed about, in the first place? I'm sure my opinion is worth the paper it's printed on, being that I'm not a psychologist, but isn't it possible that some of these kids are merely BORED, or are simply experiencing that first disappointment of people out in the big world telling them "no, that's life, you can't have your own way all the time?"

A kid of 12, in today's 'Murrika, has been coached to constantly self-assess their own feelings. Waaah, I have the right to feel good and be happy and content, all the time. Just like they tell me on TV.

I agree, 30 years is harsh for a 12-year-old, but I'd still keep him in there for at least 10.

[Brendan Perez]

"We shouldn't excuse behavior just because the individual is 12 any more than if they are 112."

They're behavior shouldn't be excused, rather their accountability should be limited to the same degree that their rights and privileges are limited.

If that 12 year old had chosen to leave that environment, would he still be treated as an adult who knows right and wrong, or a child who can't make decisions for himself?

Personally, I don't think anyone under 18 should be treated as an adult for punishment until they're treated as one for their rights and privileges.

The reasons for not trying this person as an adult should be the same reasons, whatever they may be, that a 12 year old couldn't: serve on the jury,
go to the store at 12:30am, meet up with other 12 year olds at a bar to discuss the trial, legally purchase or own a .410 shotgun (or any firearm for that matter), smoke a cigarette, drink a beer, sign for their own drivers license, vote, sign contracts, be employed, own property, run a business, etc.

If he's a child, subject to additional restrictions, relative to adults, of his rights and privileges solely because of his age, then the level of accountability should be equally limited.

The circumstances of the crime don't warrant him being treated like anything but a child in court, given that there are no special circumstances that allow 12-17 year olds to enjoy any privilege or right to the same degree as an adult.
There is no consideration of circumstances in determining if a teen can enter a bar and drink a beer, vote, purchase firearms or less/"non"-lethal weapons like knives, pepper spray, tasers, stun guns, etc. Age is the only thing that matters. As such, age should be the only thing that matters for issues of accountability.

If the fact that teens know right from wrong is a justification to try him as an adult, then it should also be justification to allowing him the ability to purchase/possess weapons, etc.

Of course, not trying him as an adult isn't a cake walk for him as juvenile courts have all but abandoned the concept of rehabilitation and generally sentence like adult courts, sometimes retaining jurisdiction over "juveniles" until 25. Many states allow juvenile "convictions" to affect a person's life until they are 30. Massaschusetts seems to have lifetime prohibitions on firearm possession by a person "adjudicated delinquent" of a felony while a juvenile.

Even better, some states just route all offenses by persons 16 and/or 17 through criminal courts. North Carolina is one that I know of. They, of course, still have a juvenile court for people under 18-but it only deals in status offenses. So a 16 year old who shoplifts after curfew can be held in an adult jail for the shoplfting charge while also possibly facing a curfew charge in the juvenile court. A 17-year old could be stoppped as a suspected juvenile violating curfew and tried in criminal court for any "contraband" he possessed ie., drugs, guns, alcohol.

People under 18 should be treated as either adults or as children, not whichever is harsher, more restrictive or convenient at the time.
If they're treated as children, there should be at least some semblance of due process and liberty when making policy that effects them and not just the presumption that most lawmaking bodies have that anything done to people under 18 is justified because they're under 18.

[raymond]

Though most of my time is spent with 16-19yos, I see hordes of 12yos every day.

They're very disconcerting. Some of girls run around playing horsy, while others spend their time trying to catch the eye of an 8th grader. Some of the boys swagger, while others draw kitties.

Sometimes I have to try to reason with them. "Please do not shout out in class. By doing so, you are violating the rights of your neighbour who wants to learn." "Cheating is counterproductive." "You must not plagiarise because..." Try it some time.

Who set the boundaries for this kid? Whom do we hold responsible for his truancy, his window-breaking? Why can't we sue children in court? Why is it that a 12yo cannot sign a contract?

The boy committed his crime when he was 12. The jurors were faced with a 15yo. Physically and emotionally, a lot of changes had occurred in him.

From what I understand, one of the things jurors take into account is "the demanor of the accused". Is the demeanor of this 15yo boy that of the 12yo murderer? Would a jury have been more "sympathetic" to the 12yo? Is it even possible for an adolescent to get a fair trial 3 years after his crime?

How foolish to have tried him as an adult. Whatever were they thinking?

"Hmm, OK, I guess I'll do something really gay today"

When a character on South Park says something is "really gay", it's amusing. When an adult says it to make a point about prison rape, it is less so.

"Hmm, OK, I guess I'll do something really straight today. I'm going to rape Suzy."

How witty.

Perhaps I'm being too PC.

Rape Behind Bars