A twelve year old boy will be tried in adult court for the murder of his father’s girlfriend, according to to a Pennsylvania judge. He is facing life in prison if convicted.

Jordan Brown, who was eleven at the time is accused of shooting his father’s pregnant girlfriend in the head while she was sleeping. Allegedly he approached Kenzie Marie Houk with his loaded gun and shot her in the head.

After a hearing Lawrence County Judge Dominick Motto refused to send the case to Juvenile Court. He said “This offense was an execution-style killing of a defenseless pregnant young mother. A more horrific crime is difficult to imagine,”

At the hearing there was evidence that Brown wrapped the gun in a blanket. After shooting Houk he went to school getting rid of the empty shells on the way. Furthermore the evidence shows that he continues to deny shooting Houk despite the facts that forensic tests show that she was shot with Brown’s 20 gauge juvenile model shotgun.

Assuming that he did kill Houk, the fact that he does not show any remorse indicates to me that he is not mature enough to be tried in adult court. He obviously did not understand the severity of his actions.

Under Pennsylvania law the burden is on children over ten years old to prove that they can be rehabilitated in the juvenile system. But Judge Motto found that Brown could not be rehabilitated before he turns 21. Talking about rehabilitation prior to trial appears to assume Brown’s guilt. Unless and until Brown is convicted he is assumed to be innocent. Therefore it seems to violate the Constitutional requirement that he is being asked to proved that he can be rehabilitated prior to finding that he is guilty.

Questions must be asked about why the child had a loaded gun. Even if his father was teaching him how to hunt, why was he allowed to have a loaded gun in the house and why did the gun not have a trigger lock on it?