Crime Weekly - S3 Ep145: Step-Brother Charged in Anna Kepner Case

Episode Date: March 4, 2026

Anna Kepner was an 18-year-old from Florida found dead aboard a Carnival cruise ship in November 2025. Her death was ruled a homicide, and her 16-year-old stepbrother has now been charged in connection with her death. Authorities have not publicly released full details of the charges or evidence, and the case remains under seal as legal proceedings continue.Try our coffee!! - www.CriminalCoffeeCo.comBecome a Patreon member -- > https://www.patreon.com/CrimeWeeklyShop for your Crime Weekly gear here --> https://crimeweeklypodcast.com/shopYoutube: https://www.youtube.com/c/CrimeWeeklyPodcastWebsite: CrimeWeeklyPodcast.comInstagram: @CrimeWeeklyPodTwitter: @CrimeWeeklyPodFacebook: @CrimeWeeklyPod

Hey, everyone. Welcome back to Crime Weekly News. I'm Derek Lavasher. And I'm Stephanie Harlow. And as we do on Crime Weekly News, we'll cover a story in the headlines. And then if there's an update in that story, we'd like to give you an update because now we're tracking it as much as you guys are. And we do have an update in the Anna Kepner case. If you do, if you're not familiar with it, Anna was 18 years old. She died on the Carnival Horizon cruise ship on November 7th. While she was on vacation with her family, she was found asphyxiated. There were some. details about it that we learned regarding the family. And we now have some updates. And I don't think they're going to be a surprise for many of you. Yeah. So it's once again because the person, her stepbrother and a stepbrother was, we all kind of thought because he was sharing a room with her and because there had been past incidences between the two of them that he was the one who may have been responsible or involved in some way. But nothing's really come out. This young man is a minor 16 years old. So even his name hasn't been released. But we do have some updates where

it appears that this 16-year-old boy is being charged with Anna's murder. And according to newly filed court documents, Chantelle Hudson's ex-husband, Thomas Hudson, he has said that the family of Anna Kepner has been making some posts on social media that he has a problem with. Now, if you remember again, Chantal Hudson was the new wife of Anna Kepner's father. And so the young man, the 16-year-old who is believed to now be involved with Anna's death, that would be her son. So I guess that according to Thomas Hudson, he says social media from the Kepner family has indicated that they want the nails in the coffin of the suspect, the 16-year-old boy, and that both the Kepner family and the respondent.

So in this case, the respondent would be Chantel, want this 16-year-old boy to be, quote-unquote, buried. Thomas Hudson has also alleged that the kids may have been allowed to drink while on the cruise. He alleged a lack of supervision of the children, as well as inappropriate living arrangements between the kids on the cruise. Derek and I talked about this. Yep, yes, we did. The Kepner family has denied these accusations.

They said the kids were not allowed to drink. They were supervised. Now, as far as the inappropriate living arrangements, the Kepner family has also denied that. But Derek and I both kind of said that we agreed that that probably wasn't the best way to situate these cabins and to have Anna in the room with, I believe it was a half brother and also a stepbrother. Not so much the half brother, but yeah.

Two boys. The non-blood-related stepbrother, who she hadn't even known for that long. Yep, yep. Now in the latest documents, we also see that Thomas Hudson is seeking sole custody of of his nine-year-old daughter, so Chantelle Hudson's other daughter. And although the case has been sealed a few weeks ago, we saw Anna Kepner's stepbrother and family members walking into a federal courthouse in Southern Florida.

Details on why they were in court haven't been publicly revealed because he's a 16-year-old boy. Right. But it does seem... They're not charging him as an adult. That's important to mention here. That's why they can't reveal it. Because if he was being charged as an adult,

even though he's a juvenile, they would be able to release his name. It appears that there could be two charges being investigated at this point, one that has been redacted in the court documents and the other listed as homicide slash murderers. So it does appear and who knows what the other charge could be, right? Once again, they're being very, very careful with this because of the ages of the people involved. Yeah. I was wondering how this was going to be charged, whether it was going to be on the burden of the state or the federal prosecutors. we're going to take it over and now we have our answers. Yeah, but I wonder what that other charge is that they're not revealing.

Do you think it's a sexual assault thing possibly? It could be, it could be, but it also could be something as simple as there were measures taken to try and hide her body. It could be just something as minor as putting her under the bed and putting some pillows or blankets in front of it, just trying to alter the crime scene to avoid apprehension, to avoid detection. Maybe there was some tampering done to make it seem like someone else could have entered the room. There's a lot of specifics we don't have. but to kind of address what you just talked about as far as the parental supervision at the time on the cruise, yes, it's something important that we have to learn about and talk about as a preventative measure for everybody else who's listening and watching this case and following along. We can all learn from it. But at the end of the day, if those decisions were made, yes, we can condemn them if they weren't appropriate. But if this person, if this 16-year-old boy killed Anna, that doesn't change for me, right?

I mean, they're in the cabin together, and we could argue that that wasn't the best choice. But for him to go to this extreme, whether it was accidental or intentional, that's on him. He is a child. I get it, but he's 16 years old, and he clearly knows right from a world. He's legally a child, but mentally would you consider a 16-year-old? Competent enough to know that strangling someone could lead to death? I think most people would know that by that point. One of those things where did you know that that was wrong to do kind of questions.

Yeah. Right. And there may be something else there. There may be some underlying issues that we learn about and there may be a defense measure there. We don't know. But from what we have been told, it sounds honestly pretty clear cut. There was another witness there who said that when he was there, they were both in the room. He left.

Nobody else entered. That was alleged. That was Anna Kepner's ex-boyfriend who said that the 14-year-old brother had told him that. Right. That is fair. He really has no reason to lie about that. So it's very possible that it's true. Let's just say for the sake of this conversation, it's true, right? On top of that, we've talked about Amy Bradley before.

Cruise ships are a lot better now. There's probably more cameras in those hallways. And so they were probably able to determine whether or not someone could have entered or exited that room. and through reasonable deduction, you can come to a conclusion as to who could be responsible for Anna's death. And I think that's where we're at right now. So I'm actually intrigued just from an outsider to see what the defense is here. You know, Thomas is talking about it. What is going to be the argument here?

What could have transpired inside that room where your son is not responsible for this death? That's going to be a tough one. Well, it looks like the father is very supportive of. the son that he has helped him gain, you know, some sort of legal counsel and is going to stand by his side. And I don't know if the argument from the father's side of this is going to be he didn't do it so much as it's possible that he was put in a position by the adults in the room. Well, I mean, legally, I think he's probably being told legally he can make that argument. So he's going to try to. Yeah. Well, me and you are talking as friends and we're talking with you guys. I get it.

You're going to go with, oh, you know, He was put in a bad situation. Not buying it, bud. Sorry. I respect the fact that you're going to defend your child. But at some point, you got to just, you support them in a way where they did something wrong and now they're going to have to pay for their actions. But to come out and say, oh, well, my son was given an alcoholic drink and they were left in a room alone. And so he lost his temper and did something.

Tell that to Anna's family. Tell that to Anna's father and mother. I agree. I think as if it's your 16 year old son and you're like, hey, I just. want to make sure you're properly legally represented and you have the best chance that you can in a court situation. That's one thing to support. But to try and kind of shift the blame and enable in this way, it's not good for anybody if that's what's happening. I am trying to read between the lines here and we really want you guys to weigh in down in the comment section.

What do you think? Because you can tell a lot by what people say and what they don't say. and when they start making claims like, oh, I heard there might have been alcohol being given to the children. To me, I take that as a possible defense of, okay, these children were being fed alcohol. They were then sent to a room by themselves and something went down in that room because my son was inebriated because of what they gave him. And so he wasn't in a clear, you know, mental state and made a wrong decision. It was an accident. I don't know how you're going to justify that.

But that, I mean, that's not like going out on a limb here as a detective. I mean, that sounds like the direction he's going. My son was put in a position where there were circumstances that caused him to act out in a way that he otherwise wouldn't. I don't think that clears him of murder, but I think that's the argument here. I don't know how he's going to beat it on that. What are you going to charge the parents with the murder? The ones who gave him the alcohol? Good luck with that.

The kid's a minor. So I think you're going to try to do everything you can to minimize his. direct involvement. And once again, I understand as a parent, you're like, well, I don't want his whole life to be ruined. He's only 16. But at the same time, as Derek and I said, a 16-year-old does have the capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong. And are there going to be mental health issues brought up? I'm sure. As of now, from what I heard, this kid was on ADHD medication, maybe had some emotional issues in the past. But nothing standing out that I can see that would completely take away his responsibility.

for being responsible for somebody's death. You know, and I'm trying to, I always try to see both sides. And then I play out a scenario of you have parents who have parties for their children and they serve alcohol to minors. And then that minor leaves and gets in a car accident. Those parents can be charged. But that's a different circumstance. Those kids didn't go and commit a murder.

So just to play out a different scenario, if you have people show up to your house and they're 17 years old, right? And they have a couple drinks while, you know, at your house. And then they go out to a, you know, a club or bar and they get in a fight and kill someone. Are the parents going to be responsible because they were inebriated at the time of the fight? I don't think so. I think it's different circumstances. I feel if it's at their home, they would be responsible in some way. Like I know. I'm saying if that child left the home and goes out to an establishment. I think there is some, yeah, I think there is some responsibility.

But does it alleviate or exonerate the person who did it? I think it's based on the property. Like if you served alcohol to minors in your home and then they go out and get in a car accident or something like that, then yes, there is some responsibility to the adults who served the minors. I agree. But this is a cruise ship. And unless they are handing them alcohol and there's videos of them knowingly feeding these kids alcohol, just the, you know, oh, hey, I think that they were letting. them drink kind of thing isn't going to be enough, in my opinion, to completely implicates Anna's father and his wife in what happened here. Now, once again, Derek and I both said we agreed that

the decision to put them all three in the same room was not wise. Even if they're not drinking. Even if they're not, yeah, of course, just in general, we wouldn't think that it was a smart decision to make, especially because there's nobody there. You know, you'd have to go to a different cabin to get an adult. It's not like there's an adult in the next room kind of thing. You're in a locked room. So if something happens, then the parents can't get right in. The parents have to go and get somebody from the cruise ship. And it's just, there's too much distance there. And also, allegedly, according to Anna's ex-boyfriend, she had expressed her discomfort with the 16-year-old boy before to her parents and they ignored her. If those things are proven and that's the case,

I think there's some responsibility to be taken here. But I agree. I don't think in the way that that the 16-year-old's father is trying to. kind of completely wipe the slate clean for his son. And to take the analogy that we just said, and I gave the bar example, but let me give another example, you as a parent serve a minor alcohol at your house. That minor goes out and hits and kills another person that's driving a different vehicle. There is some culpability and potential criminal charges coming the way of the parent. However, the minor who's driving intoxicated is also going to be charged.

They don't get cleared of any wrongdoing because of how they ended up in that situation. So my point being, if there was alcohol given to this 16-year-old boy, and he went into that room and at minimum killed Anna, there's no world in which a judge says, you know what, you were given alcohol, so you're clear. You were on goo. You know, you're all set. You're protected. You don't have to be held responsible for what you did because you were in. inebriated. He made a choice to drink as well, and then he carried out another action. So there could be something that comes the way of the parents, but it's not going to exonerate

this 16-year-old boy. If he murdered Anna, he's going to be charged with murder. Well, yeah, I agree. They would, do you, did you say you saw somewhere that they were charging him not as a minor, that they would be charging him as an adult? Yeah. So my understanding with the federal charges, if your charge as an adult, they can release your name. So the fact that they're not releasing his name indicates to me that he's still being charged as a minor, which is fine. I don't know the circumstances of this case yet. I don't know. We will never know. Only Anna and this boy will know what happened in that room. Now the forensics of it, the pathology report, all of that is going to give us some indication, whether this was an accidental death or it was intentional. I believe it's

already been ruled that it was intentional. Yes, it's been ruled that it was intentional. So there was, there was some form of asphyxiation, whether it was by a pillow or by manual strangulation with the hands, that's not an accident. That was a deliberate act. And the person who carried out that act needs to go to prison, 16 or not. It's very strange because I remember when we first talked about this case and the interviews that were coming up from the family, specifically the grandparents, were very kind of vague and like, oh, you know, she had a good 18 years.

And, you know, we're so happy for what time we had. for her and it sounded like it was an accident what had happened and they weren't coming right out and saying that they were angry or upset. They didn't seem angry or upset. And they in fact continued to say, no, you know, Anna and this boy were so close. Like they were just like a real brother and sister. And it almost seemed like there was some defense happening there. Now, we do know that Anna's 16-year-old stepbrother appeared in a federal court in Miami. This happened on February 6th. And then after Anna's father and his wife, so Chris Kepner and Chantel, his wife, they released a statement confirming that the stepbrother had been granted release and they were angry about this.

And they said, quote, at this time, it is deeply painful and disturbing to our family that the person responsible is able to walk freely. This reality adds to our grief and outrage. It is devastating to know that while we live every day with the loss of our child, the individual responsible has not yet been fully held accountable, end quote. Now I find this to be a little weird because once again, this statement following what happened with the 16-year-old going to court and then being, you know, granted a release. And Chris and Chantel standing there and saying this, now it sounds like Chantel's not talking about her own child. She's not talking about her own son because Chantel is not Anna's mother.

Chantel hasn't even really known Anna all that long. And we're talking about her son, her 16-year-old son, who stands to have a murder conviction on his record. And, of course, his whole life to, you know, be completely different and changed, whatever happens. And now the statement that they release in a joint way is it's devastating to know that while we live every day with the loss of our child, the individual responsible has not yet been fully held accountable. So I wonder what this is, is this fueling the 16-year-old's father? to be more supportive of the son, now that it seems Chantal has completely almost like, I guess, disowned him, like this individual responsible for the death of my child, almost as if she is not taking ownership for him anymore because of what he's done.

I'm not sure. But the whole, it's a weird dynamic. And I wouldn't know how to act in either of these situations. With the grandparents coming out afterwards and kind of seeming to be defending the stepbrother and not really acknowledging the impact of what it happened to Anna and how that it didn't need to happen. It wasn't necessary. It was avoidable. And then Chantal and Chris coming out and being mad that the 16-year-old's getting release.

And then it's a very weird dynamic. And this is why the blended family is hard because when you are, Chantel, whose side do you take? What part do you play in this? I almost would have, I guess, as Chantel probably told Christopher Kepner, my husband, I'm fine with you making that statement, but I don't want to make a statement on either side right now because I'm in a really bad position here. Like, this is my son I raised for 16 years. I gave birth to him.

I love him. But I also don't agree with what he did. So I don't want to come out on either side right now. I think I should just probably stay quiet. I mean, what are you doing in this situation? Honestly, I don't even know. As a parent, as a parent, and maybe this is just kind of me being heartless, but I don't really care about the parents right now.

I want justice for Anna. I don't give a shit about the dilemmas that the parents are having to deal with. For me, I want to know what happened in that room. And I know a lot of people have speculated based on the fact that it was a boy and a girl in that room, that it might have been sexual in nature. I do wonder if there's going to be an argument that this could have been a dispute that got physical. And I do pose the question if it were two boys in the room and there was a boy that was affixated that that was found under the bed, what would the conversation be there? Because I can tell you as,

you know, someone who has a brother who's close in age, we had some pretty, pretty, uh, pretty, uh, yeah, you probably had some fights. Pretty violent, pretty violent fights where there was fist being thrown and, and, you know, somebody could have been hurt really bad by unintentionally. So I'm looking forward to finding out hopefully more about this, although we mean never. It seems that they're keeping it very, very undercover. So I don't think we're going to get the answers that we need. And the reason I bring up this scenario is because of the fact that they release them. And I know that the family's upset about it, but there's two things you're looking at there. Is this person a danger to society? And are they a flight risk? And clearly the court has deemed that this 16-year-old boy is neither. And I do wonder

if that's because of the allegations against him. If federal prosecutors are trying to say, listen, he wanted to have sex with Anna, she turned him down. So then he sexually assaulted her and murdered her. That's a different story. Now, if they're making a case that they were fighting over something, the TV remote, the window being open, whatever it was. And they started, you know, getting into a physical altercation and something bad happened to her during that fight, that's a different ballgame.

And that could be what the judge is looking at here. So you're right. We may never know about it. And depending on those circumstances will, will alter my opinion as how long I think this kid should be behind bars. But there is a lot of speculation and conjecture right now. And I know it's simple to go to boy and girl in the room, clearly sexual in nature.

We don't know that. As you had started the episode by saying, it's all speculative. Yeah, I don't think that's why we thought that. It's because of the things that have come out. It's a part of it. Yeah.

It's a part of it for sure. Well, yeah. But also it's because of the things that have come out that the ex-boyfriend said, you know, he was creepy. He was on FaceTime with Anna one night. the kid came in, like, put himself on her in the bed, and she had to tell him to stop. So things like that. You know, as well as I do, just like the boy saying was there.

It's all subjective. You know, it's all just one witness's account. It's all, yeah, it's all just, it could be completely made up. You don't really understand the reason why somebody would do that. And even the ex-boyfriend's father said similar things. So we have an adult in the room now who comes in and says, yes, both, you know, my son and Anna told me that she was uncomfortable with this kid and that she had tried to tell the parents. So now we have an adult coming in.

So it makes it a little bit more solid. There's some videos of them as well. Like you see the back of him. He's in a hoodie where he's going into court. He's a tall kid. He's not tiny. No, he's not a little. Yeah.

No. He's probably got to be five, five, 10. I don't know. He's tall. I don't know compared to the person he was standing next to, but he wasn't a small kid.

Do you think, because I feel like if the, the murder, the death of Anna had been intentional and covered up the way that it seems to have been. Yes. Would it be, why would they be charging him as a minor?

I guess is my question. Do you think it has something to do with it being on a cruise ship and being in like international waters and their jurisdiction or what is what would be the reasons? There might be some mandates for it in the federal system that dictate whether or not their charge as an adult. It may also be the circumstances surrounding the incident. Again, we're speculating on the motive behind the killing. It could be as simple as they were arguing in the room over a curling iron. I don't know. I'm just making stuff up.

My point being, they know more than we do at the end of the day where I stand on it, whether it was an altercation over the TV show that they were going to watch or something more severe, I think this person needs to be in a facility for an extended period of time. How long will be dictated by the elements of the crime and what they're able to prove? I don't see a world where I would be open to having this young man, if you want to call him that, depending on, again, what you're able to prove. young man, if you want to call him that, depending on again what he did, be let out without serving any time. I don't think that's a justice to Anna. And if his father is fighting for that, I can respect the fact that he's defending his son, but I can also acknowledge that he's blinded by his love for his son. And if it was Anna, who was his child, he'd feel very differently. So do you think that the fact that this 16-year-old was let out, which upset Anna's father? Do you

think that has everything to do with his age? I don't think it has to do with his age. It's what I just said. I think there's circumstances that we're unaware of where the maybe even the case on behalf of the prosecutors is that this was a fight that got bad, that got violent. And so the judge is saying, okay, he's in parental custody. He's not a danger to society. This was, he was under the, you know, influence of alcohol. He had fought with his sister before. This got out of hand. I don't think he's going to be out there hurting other people. And he's not a flight risk. He, you know, he probably doesn't, I don't know if he has a passport or not. Maybe they took that.

He's living with his parents. They're taking responsibility for him. We have, you know, people watching him. He's not going anywhere. He's not guilty of a crime yet. Well, I mean, if he's charged and it stays in juvenile court, there's really, I have to be honest, probably not going to be any jail time done because we know that the focus of the focus of juvenile court is typically rehabilitation.

Yeah. I want to hear your guys' thoughts. We'll wrap it up there. But give your opinions down in the comment section below if you're on Apple Podcast or Spotify, you can leave a review. We can actually comment on your reviews and your statements on Spotify. We've done that very frequently in the last couple months now that we've learned how to use it. But I would say for me, regardless of whether it was a fight gone wrong or an intentional act, based on what we do know, it looks like the killing itself was intentional to the point where

there was an opportunity to let go and they didn't. So for that reason, this person needs to be behind bars for an extended period of time while they're being reformed. There has to be some consequences for your actions. However, I'm just one person. What do you guys think? And Stephanie, what do you think? I'm trying to understand. So I know it's Florida, right? So I know in Florida that a 16-year-old can commit a homicide or a murder. And Florida looks at the age of 16 as being old enough to develop intent and to understand the difference between right and wrong. So usually if a murder is ruled as, hey, this is intentional. This was something that the person who did it knew that if they kept holding on, that this person would die,

I don't understand why he's being charged as a minor. That's fair. I can't get past that, I guess. Well, let me hold your feet to the fire getting past that for a second, even though that's a valid argument. If you were to learn through evidence that this was a, fight between two teenagers that got out of hand and he lost his temper, maybe because he was under the influence of alcohol. If you're the judge in this case, are you saying, well, because of the circumstances, we're going to have you seek medical attention. We're going to have you treated outpatient. You're not going to serve any time. Or regardless of the circumstances, do you think because it's a homicide, this person needs to spend at least sometime behind bars

for what they did. If I'm a judge in this case and I, you know, you're talking about a fight, a fight, what are we saying like that Anna was in this theoretical situation that Anna was being physically involved like in a fight with this 16 year old kid and then. Potentially. I'm just playing hypotheticals here because that sounds like what the dad's saying. Yeah, but even so, if it was two adult people, we still wouldn't, yeah, if it was two adult people fighting and the woman was defending herself or, you know,

even, you know, she slapped the guy. We still wouldn't look at, you know, the guy who grabbed her neck and choked her to death as, like, possibly not responsible or not as responsible because she was fighting him, right? I agree. That's the point I'm making. If you believe that, and it goes back to what you were saying, actually, as far as 16-year-old, does he know right from wrong? And if he does, should be charged as an adult. So there could be issues here, I guess, because we do know he went and he did get some evaluation done at a mental health facility. So maybe based on what that evaluation said, this is why this is happening. I'm not sure.

It could also be that the state attorney hasn't filed a direct prosecution yet. I know that they can sometimes, especially with a sensitive case like this, maybe they haven't direct, I think it's called direct prosecution or direct file. but maybe the direct file hasn't happened yet. And so it's... I don't see them charged with a state side. You don't? I don't see it.

No, I mean, it's hard to because it happened on a cruise ship. Yeah, there's a collaborative effort between federal prosecutors and state prosecutors and the U.S. attorney and the state attorney will, they collaborate. They'll talk about what they want to do and what's the best approach and where they're going to have the best chance of success as far as a successful prosecution. So I think you'll see this stay in federal court. There may be some assistance from the state attorney. the AG, but I think it'll be in the hands of the U.S. attorney.

But, I mean, we'll have to wait and see how it plays out. So I just looked something up. And from what I can tell, in federal court, it doesn't matter if the act was intentional, even if it was murder. Anyone under the age of 18 at the time of the offense is legally a juvenile. And then that defendant's going to be prosecuted as a juvenile. So that's just kind of across the board. Kind of like minimum sentencing.

Like there's a mandate that they have to follow. there's prerequisite set up and that's what it falls under. So I guess it's going to come down to the circumstances of the case. He's going to be charged as a juvenile. It doesn't mean he can't end up in a juvenile prison somewhere for an extended period of time or at least until he's 18. It's all going to depend on the facts and circumstances, which unfortunately we may never know. And I do think that those matter in this case because if we're talking more sexual in nature where there was a refusal, I wouldn't care if he spent the rest of his life behind bars.

Now, if they're convincing in their argument that there was a verbal dispute that led to a physical altercation and it was a mutual thing and there was some type of horrific accident, maybe. I just don't know how you paint a picture of unintentional accident, but there's clear signs of manual affixiation, some form of affixation. I don't think they're even trying to do that. It just looks like the father's going on the end of the father's. I think he's probably trying. But what it looks like is they could. U.S. attorney could file a motion to transfer this kid to an adult status. But they might just keep it in juvenile because even with an intentional killing, the federal prosecutors might believe

that, you know, this kid can benefit from rehabilitation. He lacks a prior violent history. They are considering mental health factors and assess evidentiary risks. So what does that mean assess evidentiary risks. Like, as in based on the evidence of this case, we don't think he's going to be a risk to the general public, that this was kind of, I guess, a one-time thing. Where does that put Anna when it comes to justice, though? That's really concerning, yeah. That's my point. What do we always talk about when we have a simple metric as far as any case when we talk about sentencing? For you and I, we have like a very pragmatic approach to it. if the victim no longer has their life,

then the offender shouldn't either. I know that's kind of a simplistic way of looking at it and there's nuance to that and it's not always the case. I'm just talking from a general perspective. I just don't see a world in my brain where there is a victim who lost all of their hopes and dreams and everything, their aspirations, they're not going to get to realize any of that.

And yet the person responsible for taking that from them gets to go on and live their life with minimal penalties. To me, that is not justice. Especially because he's not being named, right? So he could technically go back out there, go out and move to a different state. And the people that he knows, the people he works for, the person that he gets in a relationship with would have no idea that he was the kid on the cruise ship. And imagine he does something like this again.

Well, yeah, what. And you know who's not going to be held responsible? Yeah, exactly. How many times does that happen? Right. That's my problem. So you can do things to try to prevent it from happening. I think rehabilitation is a real thing, especially with juveniles, we have to take that approach.

However, I do think rehabilitation can involve being away from society for a period of time so that you have the opportunity to really focus on what you need to focus on while we're also protecting those around you for many reoccurrences. Yeah, this is a hard one. I think there's a happy medium in there. This is a hard one, which is why we want to hear your thoughts on it. Let us know down in the comments below. What do you think about this person being charged as a juvenile? What do you think about the fact that they could be convicted of a crime and still let out without serving any time? And it would probably be wiped, right?

Like that wouldn't show up. I don't know how that works all the time. I mean, after they turn an adult, they could just completely be buried where their record would be sealed. And then finally, depending on what the circumstances are, which we may never know, does your opinion change whether it was a altercation that got out of hand? someone was in a moment of just rage and they did something they regret or you know on the other hand this was something sexual in nature i think we all can agree on that one but does that skew your judgment as far as what you think the penalty should be let us know down in the comments below if you're watching on youtube if you're listening on apple podcast spotify or any other platform

leave a comment leave a review we're constantly looking to get your feedback we would greatly appreciate it that's going to do it for us guys we'll be back later this week with elizabeth smart Part 5. It's our fifth and final part. So make sure you catch up on the series before the finale. And we do have an important announcement at the end of the week. So tune in for that as well. Until then, everyone stay safe out there and we will see you soon. Bye, guys.