Teens should be responsible for their own actions

By Brandon Lester
The Daily Athenaeum (West Virginia U.)

05/23/2001

(U-WIRE) MORGANTOWN, W.Va. - During the past five years, America has seen more violence in its school system than in the previous 220 years combined. While the general public was able to overlook "smaller" events like those in Jonesboro, Ark., and West Paducah, Ky., the Columbine tragedy brought the issue to the forefront of American society.

Everyone began talking about the problem and how to remedy it. Now, a little more than two years later, there is still no resolution. And, it will continue to grow, because society still refuses to acknowledge the true problem.

The pressing issue is not the availability of guns or the lack of prayer in schools or the effects of rock music. The real problem is that society has not learned from the classroom tragedies. Too many people still believe that children under 18 cannot be liable for their actions, and that it must be someone else's fault when these events occur. This only prolongs the nation's suffering; these events will continue until the blame is placed on the proper party, which in many of these cases is the child.

Case in point: Last week, a jury in Florida convicted 14-year-old Nathaniel Brazill of second degree murder for shooting his English teacher Barry Grunow, a crime that holds a punishment of 21 years to life in prison. While some may see this as a step in the positive direction, a careful analysis of the facts shows that America is still ignoring the truth.

On May 26, 2000, the last day of school in Lake Worth, Fla., Brazill, an honor student who was then 13, was sent home early for throwing water balloons. He then proceeded to walk to a house several minutes away from the school, where he seized a .25-caliber semiautomatic pistol, a weapon that he was at least somewhat familiar with in terms of how to handle and use as judged by his testimony. He proceeded to tuck the weapon into his clothes and head back to the school.

Once he re-entered, he went the classroom of Barry Grunow, his English teacher. Grunow was not the teacher that suspended him and was admittedly one of Brazill's favorite teachers. At this point, he was caught on a security camera, cementing his guilt for the upcoming crime.

He asked Grunow if he could see two girls in the class. When he was told that he could not, Brazill pulled out the gun and aimed it at Grunow's head (he later claimed that he wanted this power over Grunow but did not intend to fire the gun). When he was subsequently told to leave by Grunow (who some believe thought it was a toy gun), he shot and killed his teacher instantly. He then ran out of the school, but not before pointing the gun at another teacher who was alerted by the gunshot.

Because it was caught on tape and was confessed to, the jury merely had to decide the level of Brazill's guilt. First degree murder carries a life sentence, and implies that the defendant engaged in premeditation. Second degree is a lesser charge, suggesting that the murder was more akin to a spur-of-the-moment decision. Although other charges were presented in the case (such as manslaughter and aggravated assault), these were the primary areas of distinction.

The fact that the jury found Brazill guilty of second degree murder indicates two things. One, they felt sympathy for a young man whom many believed simply made a bad mistake. Two, they did not believe that a child as young as 13 could premeditate. In other words, they believed that Brazill was not fully responsible for his actions because he was too young to fully grasp the depth of them.

This sets a dangerous precedent, and at the same time highlights the dangerous social mores of contemporary society. If the case had featured a 25-year-old defendant, a first-degree conviction would be a legal no-brainer. Because Brazill was 13, however, he somehow became immune from the full brunt of the blame.

While a line must be drawn for accountability, 13 is more than old enough to expect a proper knowledge of life and death and right and wrong. A 1-year-old obviously does not realize that pointing a loaded gun at someone else's head and pulling the trigger will result in that person's death. However, by 13, one surely understands this.

To suggest otherwise is delusional. Thirteen-year-olds are more than capable of processing this information. Brazill is no exception. He had no mental handicap that forced him to think at a sub-par level, and he knew enough about guns to make an informed decision about carrying one. Simply put, he seized the gun for criminal purposes and committed a crime for which he should be fully punished.

His excuse that he only wanted to use it to show power is even more disturbing. This does not categorize him as a boy making a bad mistake. Rather, it shows that he exhibited a criminal train of thought, and should be punished to the highest degree possible. Claiming an intent to scare and not to shoot does not absolve guilt; it only creates more.

By not handing down a first-degree murder charge, the jury in this case only perpetuated the misconception that those below the age 18 can not be held accountable for their actions. While young children may not comprehend the consequences of firearms, teenagers are surely mentally developed enough to make an intelligent decision on such a grave matter. When they do not, they should be punished as severely as adults.

Children make many mistakes because they are not always wise enough to see all of the consequences of their actions, but that does not absolve them from guilt in all situations. Better lines must be drawn in the American society; otherwise the modern streak of terror is only going to continue.