Hey, there! Log in / Register

Two 13-year-olds arraigned for attacks downtown, on Boston Common and in Roxbury

Two young teens were ordered held in lieu of bail at their arraignments today in connection with a series of attacks in Downtown Crossing and Roxbury and on the Common, the Suffolk County District Attorney's office reports.

The two were allegedly part of a pack in which an 11-year-old did much of the pummeling, but she can't be charged because she's too young under state law.

One of the juveniles was charged with 14 counts from nine incidents and ordered held on $5,000 bail. The other was charged with nine counts from five incidents and ordered held on $3,500 bail.



Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!


These kids must have a horrifying home life.

Voting closed 90

I did too but I never did shit like this to people

behaviors have consequences. It’s time for these people to live with some significant consequences for their brutality to others.

Yes they need support services, but they also need to be punished

Voting closed 5

I can't imagine what they will be like as an adult if this sh*t is starting at age 11 and 13. You got some serious issues if you're starting this crap this early.

Voting closed 72

Other than punishment, they need to be on one side of a securely locked door and i and everyone I care about need to be on the other. People can argue about whether the objective is punishment or rehabilitation, but in any case one of the primary effects of incarceration is to physically prevent the incarcerated person from continuing to commit crimes.

Voting closed 64

So. You want them to learn what, exactly? How to be more vicious? How to be better criminals?

They need to be rerouted, despite what they have done. Otherwise it might be you in their way when they truly earn that life sentence as an adult.

TL/DR: what you advocate makes you part of the problem

Voting closed 33

It is not the primary effect of incarceration. Jail is not infinite resource. When a person is locked up, the government has to provide space for that person. The more people that get locked up creates pressure to let other people out. As the jail crowd up, there is more crime that happens inside the jail.

It is an uncomfortable fact that incarceration does not in itself decrease crime. I am not advocating that we let everyone go, but we need to use facts and evidence to choose what happens.

Voting closed 3

Nine incidents. It likely would’ve been allowed to continue, had these “incidents” not started making bad press.

Now fix the law so the 11-year-old can be charged.

Voting closed 75

She needs to be institutionalized and away from whatever environment has led her to this behavior. She doesn't need to be in jail, but a pediatric psych ward is probably appropriate; 11-year-olds in good mental health aren't acting out repeatedly like this.

Voting closed 3

It likely would’ve been allowed to continue, had these “incidents” not started making bad press.

This is stupid, and you perfectly aware that it’s stupid. Of course the problem is that you don’t care about being reasonable: this is just signaling to your fellow authoritarians that you share their cynicism and contempt for civil rights.

And what exactly will charging the 11 year old accomplish other than satisfying your own need for revenge? Clearly she needs court-ordered psychiatric care and her parents need to be investigated by DCF. But she’s not intellectually capable of understanding the legal consequences of her actions, nor emotionally capable of truly understanding why it’s wrong as a moral matter. She needs a therapist, not a judge.

Voting closed 3

How about the rights of the victims?

You think these kids would have just stopped out of the blue? You’re wrong on that one.

Charging the 11-year-old can help bring justice to the victims, if you care about them at all.

You must not be around people that age, because you are also wrong with this statement:

“she’s not intellectually capable of understanding the legal consequences of her actions, nor emotionally capable of truly understanding why it’s wrong as a moral matter.”

Kids start to understand these things around 5 years old. They know what is right and wrong well before 11, unless of course, there are no consequences ever in their life.

Voting closed 0

yes, 5 year olds understand right and wrong. But there is more to being charged with a crime than just understanding right or wrong. Not charging an 11 year old does not mean zero consequences. Mostly it means that it is a private matter.

Voting closed 20

I sense that no one has ever told these kids "no". Today it starts. Even a 13 year old is not too old to be put back on the right path. And just locking them up will not fix them. Whatever is going on in their home life is causing this. Get to the root of the problem and you'll have a lot more success than just putting them behind bars. (I know I sound like a bleeding-heart hippie, which I am not, but in this case I still feel "They're just kids" and would like to see them saved, rather than cast aside.)

Voting closed 2


No adult to supervise this 11 year old.
No safe fun activities for 11 year olds that keep them supervised.

Voting closed 16