52-year old truck driver tried as juvenile in 1976 New Jersey murder

[quest7]

A truck driver has been convicted of the brutal murder of a New Jersey woman more than three decades ago.

A judge in Union County convicted Carlton Franklin of murdering neighbor Lena Triano in her Westfield home in 1976.

Prosecutors say Triano was found tied, raped beaten and strangled in her home.

Franklin was arrested last spring after the prosecutor

 

[A.Nonymous]

Not sure what you see as strange or wrong here.

 

[quest7]

Not sure what you see as strange or wrong here.

I guess it seems weird to charge him as a juvenile, when he's 52.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I guess it seems weird to charge him as a juvenile, when he's 52.

So you would charge him as an adult for a crime he committed when he was 15?

 

[ElasticNinja]

So you would charge him as an adult for a crime he committed when he was 15?

Cant some kids be tried as adults if they kill a few people or something?

 

[saptech]

If he was dodging the law for 30 years, isn't that a crime in itself. He should be charged for evading or something similar as an adult. It's not like he gave his self up to the law.

Just a thought!

 

[quest7]

So you would charge him as an adult for a crime he committed when he was 15?

I don't know that much on how this should be handled, I guess I'm looking at this...

If sentenced as a juvenile, the sentence would typically revolve around how to best rehabilitate him.

 

[kool kat2]

I don't know that much on how this should be handled, I guess I'm looking at this...

If sentenced as a juvenile, the sentence would typically revolve around how to best rehabilitate him.

I don't know know that id want 56 year old jimbo going to rehab for killing someone many many moons ago. Especially if he has a criminal history. Although the crime was committed as a kid....... Idk, at 15 and killing someone in that way........... Pretty disturbing

 

[A.Nonymous]

Cant some kids be tried as adults if they kill a few people or something?

Yes depending on the circumstances. Usually not 15 yr olds though. It's usually kids who are 17 and sometimes older 16 yr olds and it depends on the details of the crime.

 

[Hrethgir]

Yes depending on the circumstances. Usually not 15 yr olds though. It's usually kids who are 17 and sometimes older 16 yr olds and it depends on the details of the crime.

"Triano was found tied, raped beaten and strangled in her home."

I'd say those circumstances warrent him being tried as an adult.

 

[big_z]

If he was dodging the law for 30 years, isn't that a crime in itself.

It's only a crime if he was charged, ordered to appear, and went on the lam afterwards.

If it were a crime to not turn oneself in for a crime where nobody had been charged, that would be a violation of the right against self-incrimination.

 

[A.Nonymous]

"Triano was found tied, raped beaten and strangled in her home."

I'd say those circumstances warrent him being tried as an adult.

A 15 yr old in 1976? I don't know. Before my time.

 

[Bob Maxey]

"Triano was found tied, raped beaten and strangled in her home."

I'd say those circumstances warrent him being tried as an adult.

It depends on the laws in his jurisdiction.

Are you saying if a 15 year old kid commits such a terrible crime he or she should be tried as an adult?

 

[kool kat2]

It depends on the laws in his jurisdiction.

Are you saying if a 15 year old kid commits such a terrible crime he or she should be tried as an adult?

Shoplifting, ok tried as a minor. Murder/Torture/rape, ummmmmmmm yeah, i don't know about you but i sure as hell wouldn't wanr that rehabilitated.

 

[copestag]

what if he was 12 when he did it? or 8?

or what if he was 4 when he did it?

would that make a difference?

a 4 year old should be given the death penalty?

theres a reason we established an age to be legally an adult

personally I dont believe you should be tried as an adult til your 21.... no exceptions...... after all isnt that the legal age to drink?

the government has decided you arent smart enough to know right from wrong when it comes to alchohol until you are 21 but you should be smart enough to know about other crimes before that?

double standards........ they abound everywhere

I think most states recognize 18 as being legally an adult (of course not adult enough to drink, gamble, or many other things)....... and most under TODAYS law allow prosecution exceptions for minors who commit horrendous crimes

at what point do we say a crime is horrendous enough........ at what point do we say hes adult enough to be tried as an adult........ even though he wasnt adult enough to buy cigarrettes or legally get married?

you must of course bare in mind the legal qualification for 'adult'.... having reasonable conscious ability to make decisions that an "adult" would ......... so like I said........ he didnt legally have reasonable ability to buy some smokes....... or have sex without his parents permission....... or have a beer....... or buy a lottery ticket........ but we believe he has reasonable ability to decide whether his crime was ok?

as disgusting as his crime was....... legally he should be tried as a child....... he should be given the maximum penalty a child would have received at that time........ he should be remanded to a juvenile detention center until age of 18 ....... now of course hes above that age already......... so you must consider what that maximum would have been at the time........... he was 15... he could have been held til he was 18

give him 3 years in juvi and consider him punished

 

[saptech]

the government has decided you arent smart enough to know right from wrong when it comes to alchohol until you are 21 but you should be smart enough to know about other crimes before that?

But you are smart enough to know how to join/drafted into military and go off to war to kill or be killed at 18??? But not smart enough to buy, at least beer or wine.
Interesting!

 

[kool kat2]

But you are smart enough to know how to join/drafted into military and go off to war to kill or be killed at 18??? But not smart enough to buy, at least beer or wine.
Interesting!

Age restrictions are all backwards. Either way, this wasn't a killing in self defense or accidental. It was cold murder. With a side of rape and torture. If you're old enough to RAPE and TORTURE a human being, without having been forced into it by some crazy mentor, then you're old enough to be incarcerated for the appropriate amount of time, not flippin juvi. Hell, statutory "rapists" get harsher sentencing than juvi, and no forced sex or torture involved. (of course im referring to the instances where its consensual)


I remember a story where some pre-15-year - olds killed their own mother. Thats just twisted, no matter how you look at it. If you kill your own mother (assuming of course she wasn't doing crazy crap to the kids, wich there was no indication of in the story) before your sweet 16 you're pretty much beyond repair.

 

[Drhyde]

Well this bares similarity to the Loughner case. I always thought it was weird that they forced him to take medication in order to make him competent to stand trial. I mean, if he was insane at the time of the crime, shouldn't he be tried as such. This seems similar in most respects. If that's the way the law works then you follow it I suppose. Still, it's been three decades and he hasn't killed again, I'd say he's never going to again by most regards. Try him as a juvenile, let him spend his time in jail whatever it may be, and move on. Then, change the laws to ensure it doesn't happen again if there's that much moral outrage over it.

 

[saptech]

Still, it's been three decades and he hasn't killed again, I'd say he's never going to again by most regards.

He hasn't killed again, that we know of.

 

[copestag]

Age restrictions are all backwards. Either way, this wasn't a killing in self defense or accidental. It was cold murder. With a side of rape and torture. If you're old enough to RAPE and TORTURE a human being, without having been forced into it by some crazy mentor, then you're old enough to be incarcerated for the appropriate amount of time, not flippin juvi. Hell, statutory "rapists" get harsher sentencing than juvi, and no forced sex or torture involved. (of course im referring to the instances where its consensual)

You can ignore the blue text below.... its what I was originally typing before it dawned on me.... the best way to get the point across is an example based on your own arguments..... since you mentioned statutory rape Ill use that

so here goes:

a guy brutally rapes, tortures, and murders someone at the age of 15....... you want him tried as an adult because he was mentally capable as an adult at the age of 15

what if you later found out that same guy at the age of 15 was in a sexual relationship with a 40 year old woman.... would you also want that woman arrested for statutory rape?

either hes an adult or he isnt.......... statutory rape implies hes not an adult........ but murder implies he is?

you cant (in good faith) have it both ways...........but under the law you can today

we arent however talking about today........ and under the laws at the time he committed the crime.... he could not be tried as an adult....... therefore he cannot be tried that way today......

3 years juvi maximum sentence legally possible

ignore blue text below...... unless your curious about a different approach at futility

as I said......

would you feel the same way if he was 6 when he did it?...... what if he was 10?

at what age do you qualify someone as 'adult'............ the law has said 18 is a reasonable age to use

when we start making exceptions to the law its a slippery slope..... for what criteria do we make exceptions......... shouldnt exceptions work both ways?

so if you say certain people at age 15 are mentally competent to be considered adult if they commit a crime.......... then should we also agree that certain people should be allowed to legally drink @ 15? do we have some test to base the criteria on?

we shouldnt be making exceptions to law only when it works in the governments favor.......... the laws should be adhered to no matter the circumstance

 

[kool kat2]

You can ignore the blue text below.... its what I was originally typing before it dawned on me.... the best way to get the point across is an example based on your own arguments..... since you mentioned statutory rape Ill use that

so here goes:

a guy brutally rapes, tortures, and murders someone at the age of 15....... you want him tried as an adult because he was mentally capable as an adult at the age of 15

what if you later found out that same guy at the age of 15 was in a sexual relationship with a 40 year old woman.... would you also want that woman arrested for statutory rape?

either hes an adult or he isnt.......... statutory rape implies hes not an adult........ but murder implies he is?

you cant (in good faith) have it both ways...........but under the law you can today

we arent however talking about today........ and under the laws at the time he committed the crime.... he could not be tried as an adult....... therefore he cannot be tried that way today......

3 years juvi maximum sentence legally possible

ignore blue text below...... unless your curious about a different approach at futility

as I said......

would you feel the same way if he was 6 when he did it?...... what if he was 10?

at what age do you qualify someone as 'adult'............ the law has said 18 is a reasonable age to use

when we start making exceptions to the law its a slippery slope..... for what criteria do we make exceptions......... shouldnt exceptions work both ways?

so if you say certain people at age 15 are mentally competent to be considered adult if they commit a crime.......... then should we also agree that certain people should be allowed to legally drink @ 15? do we have some test to base the criteria on?

we shouldnt be making exceptions to law only when it works in the governments favor.......... the laws should be adhered to no matter the circumstance

My point was, for example : 20 year old man /woman bangs 17 year old girl /boy consensually. Said 20 year old would get a harsher sentence than mr. Rape/Torture /murder. In my opinion (i said my own personal opinion that i am well aware not everyone shares..... Even though im all knowing) that's just plain dumb. I was just pointing that out. And yes, if a 6 year old rapes/tortures/murders someone, that kid is jacked up already. Life in prison for the little runt. At least that is my opinion at the moment, at least until I hear of a case in wich a 6 year old does that, then i might feel differently, who knows.



And i wasn't arguing about how competent someone is at 15,i was saying that if a 15 year old does those things, then thats just messed up all around, competent or not.


Can you clarify what you mean by "a different approach at futility"?


The need for all these disclaimers is really annoying :banghead:

 

[kool kat2]

But you are smart enough to know how to join/drafted into military and go off to war to kill or be killed at 18??? But not smart enough to buy, at least beer or wine.
Interesting!

I will never understand that logic.

 

[copestag]

yes banging a head against a wall is an excellent emoticon........ and it exactly explains a different approach at futility

because theres no possible way other than banging a head against a wall to demonstrate the futile attempts to impart comprehension



so in your opinion a 15 year old who would do these things is messed up all around and beyond rehabilitation........ and that may be true........ but thats not even close to the law...... the law says or at least said at the time....... that hes a child and can only be rehabilitated....... and only until hes 18

and while I find the idea that a 6 year old is beyond rehab and should get life in prision just plain disturbing (wondering who needs the counseling here)..... I'll play along for a minute.....

so if a 6 year old is legally responsible for his actions and should be treated as an adult.... your opinion not mine...... then should we also grant legal right to allow 6 year olds the same adult decision making to drink/have sex/buy cigarrettes/vote/join the army/etc etc???

you seem to be advocating a double standard under the law....... adult enough to do life in prison but not adult enough to do other adult things

but we are getting way off track here...... in the grand scheme of things..... the law is the law....... now or then...... and legally by presidence he can only receive the punishment he would have received back then.......... the most severe being 3 years in juvi

I would like to see him fry personally....... what he did was sickening...... but I wont let my emotion cloud my opinion of whats right by law

 

[kool kat2]

yes banging a head against a wall is an excellent emoticon........ and it exactly explains a different approach at futility

because theres no possible way other than banging a head against a wall to demonstrate the futile attempts to impart comprehension






What? Im sorry I missed the point.




so in your opinion a 15 year old who would do these things is messed up all around and beyond rehabilitation........ and that may be true........ but thats not even close to the law...... the law says or at least said at the time....... that hes a child and can only be rehabilitated....... and only until hes 18




Im sure society would benefit from not letting this guy get off with a slap on the wrist. The law would not do justice in this case and that is the point.





and while I find the idea that a 6 year old is beyond rehab and should get life in prision just plain disturbing (wondering who needs the counseling here)..... I'll play along for a minute.....





I should point out that I don't see a 6 year old committing these crimes any time soon. And id appreciate it if you didn't question my mental health. You don't have enough information to make any assumptions.








so if a 6 year old is legally responsible for his actions and should be treated as an adult.... your opinion not mine...... then should we also grant legal right to allow 6 year olds the same adult decision making to drink/have sex/buy cigarrettes/vote/join the army/etc etc???






No a 6 year old should not have those legal rights. However, if a 6 year old commits such crimes, it is my opinion that something should be done to make sure the little psycho doesn't get a chance to do it again. And like I said, if the day comes and a 6 year old does this, then my opinion might change.









you seem to be advocating a double standard under the law....... adult enough to do life in prison but not adult enough to do other adult things





Again, if someone does this....... Blablabla...............








but we are getting way off track here...... in the grand scheme of things..... the law is the law....... now or then...... and legally by presidence he can only receive the punishment he would have received back then.......... the most severe being 3 years in juvi






The law doesn't always = right (doesn't always make sense either)





I would like to see him fry personally....... what he did was sickening...... but I wont let my emotion cloud my opinion of whats right by law

 

[copestag]

and there is the exact problem with your argument......... you fail to see 2 things:

A) the law and justice are not synonymous........ the law trumps justice every time...... its the law

B) saved you a little time since you cant find it on your own 6 year old commits crime

yawn