Trying children as adults.

[crackedthesky]

I saw another case of this happening today. What are your thoughts? Should children ever be tried as adults?

I completely disagree with the idea. The reason we made a distinction in the first place is because kids are NOT adults. Look up study after study, and you'll find that the brain just isn't anywhere near as developed. Honestly, I don't get why we have the distinction if nobody ever abides by it.

The problem I find with my viewpoint is that if we make them separate... where do we draw the line? Just because someone is 18, doesn't mean their brain is developed to the point that they would know not to do something that they wouldn't otherwise do. If memory serves, our brains keep developing until around age 30 or so. Granted, most people have learned enough about cause and effect by then, but still.

I'm really not sure where to stand on this, because every individual case is usually very different. I think there are definitely cases where a child does something, and by the time they're 20 or so, completely and utterly regret it and would not have done it had they understood the repercussions. On the flip side, there are some people who never learn that, but would this mean they should always be immune?


This is a very messy topic, I feel.

[4N6 science]

Yeah.. I agree it is messy.

I feel that if they person knows the difference between right and wrong but commits a heinous crime they should applicable to the full gambit of punishments. There are plenty of sick kids out there that know what they're doing (i.e. DC sniper Lee Malvo).

[saysmydoctor]

No. Fundamentally disagree.

[Josh Weinstein]

Are you referring to the Missouri teenager? I think she needs to be locked up (either prison or psychiatric care). She dug up the grave days before she killed that 9 year old and admitted to police that she did it because she wanted to know how it felt to kill someone.

[sleepyseanzzz]

Yeah.. I agree it is messy.

I feel that if they person knows the difference between right and wrong but commits a heinous crime they should applicable to the full gambit of punishments. There are plenty of sick kids out there that know what they're doing (i.e. DC sniper Lee Malvo).

i was gonna say, this guy deserves to be tried as an adult, he knew what he did. he was 17, now hes 24, and those people are still dead because of him.

[atticus18244fss]

Kids should go straight to execution.



/kiddin

[mena]

You're not mature enough to drink until you're 21, but you're capable to stand trial as an adult at 15.

But like you said it's a very messy system and each case is different. I think you have to look at all elements of the case to truly determine if trying a minor as an adult is the right thing to do. Premeditation, brutality of the crime, etc.

[erccentea]

I would normally agree with you. However, some of the recent news I've seen has made me question it. Specifically, the news story about the girl gang raped outside her school dance as a crowd watched http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/27/california.gang.rape.investigation/index.html
Also the story of the 15 year old boy who was set on fire over a video game. http://www.truecrimereport.com/2009/10/teens_douse_15-year-old_michae.php (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/27/california.gang.rape.investigation/index.html)

[mena]

I would normally agree with you. However, some of the recent news I've seen has made me question it. Specifically, the news story about the girl gang raped outside her school dance as a crowd watched http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/27/california.gang.rape.investigation/index.html
Also the story of the 15 year old boy who was set on fire over a video game. http://www.truecrimereport.com/2009/10/teens_douse_15-year-old_michae.php
The gang rape case really angered me when I read about it. Like I said, each case is different and it's nearly impossible to take one side when it comes to this issue and completely stand by it. I think the best thing would be to examine the motive and situation of the crime. Sometimes it's juvenile stupidity while other times it's just pure evil.

[sleepyseanzzz]

Azn_GnpOz1w

[erccentea]

Azn_GnpOz1w


I literally just lol'd

[BryterJonah]

You're not mature enough to drink until you're 21, but you're capable to stand trial as an adult at 15.

But like you said it's a very messy system and each case is different. I think you have to look at all elements of the case to truly determine if trying a minor as an adult is the right thing to do. Premeditation, brutality of the crime, etc.
You kill brain cells when you drink. You form brain cells as you grow. No real difference, when their heads explode.

[Max_123]

depends on the crime

[zion the lion]

I would normally agree with you. However, some of the recent news I've seen has made me question it. Specifically, the news story about the girl gang raped outside her school dance as a crowd watched http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/27/california.gang.rape.investigation/index.html
Also the story of the 15 year old boy who was set on fire over a video game. http://www.truecrimereport.com/2009/10/teens_douse_15-year-old_michae.php

The gang rape case really disgusted me. All of those boys should be tried as adults to the fullest extent of the law, and the people who watched should be tried as adults too.

The boy who was set on fire, was horrible too, but those boys all regret what they've done. When I was watching the news they said that the child psychologist working with them (or something) said that they were all remorseful and in shock, like an impulse/rage thing. there are things that I've done when I've been overtaken by rage that I'm shocked about later, I dont think it makes what they did okay by any means. But it's clear that their frontal lobe wasnt fully developed.

I have a huge bias when it comes to these two though.

[4N6 science]

i was gonna say, this guy deserves to be tried as an adult, he knew what he did. he was 17, now hes 24, and those people are still dead because of him.

Yeah I know. Well John Muhammad is dead and Lee M will be rotting in jail for the rest of his life.

[Jake Denning]

Dont agree with it. Try Kids as Kids.

[jeremypeele]

I think adults should be tried as children!

[Mitch]

Hmm, this is a tough one for me to answer.

[Sventhegreat]

I feel like it could sometimes be situational? I don't know though.

It hurts my braaaaaaaaaaaain.

[Anything1216]

I think its wrong. But the argument that says just because your brain isnt fully developed, your not responsible for what you do, is just ridiculous.

[MyNameIsRoss]

Depends ( I guess )

[Lloyd Christmas]

Are you referring to the Missouri teenager? I think she needs to be locked up (either prison or psychiatric care). She dug up the grave days before she killed that 9 year old and admitted to police that she did it because she wanted to know how it felt to kill someone.

I agree with you here, this is totally fucked.

[Alaina <3]

I think it depends on the situation. If the kid regrets it, then I don't think that they should be tried as an adult. If they show no remorse for their actions, then I certainly think they should be tried as an adult.

[Deadbolt23]

That case with the kid that got set on fire is sickening. How can you just say, 'oh, they lost their temper'? They set the fuckin kid on fire.

[denissuxx]

Under 18 = kids
Over 18 = adults

For the most severe children's crimes, make tougher sentences. Sorted

[SeeJayy]

Its a hard line to draw. Obviously there are children who function at a higher rate than many adults will ever function. The law doesnt account for these children. "Children" know the law and while they may not be able to comprehend the true detriment of some crimes; they are developed enough to understand the difference between what is good and what is evil. If at age 14 I had murdered someone I would have understood the impact of my actions immediately. Obviously, there is a difference in the culpability of some children and perhaps there should be a compulsory assessment of children who are charged with indictable offences so that those who had the adult capacity to consider their actions could be held responsible.

[Love As Arson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_abolition_movement

[HYGz]

That case with the kid that got set on fire is sickening. How can you just say, 'oh, they lost their temper'? They set the fuckin kid on fire.

I agree with this.

It's really hard to set someone unwilling to be set on fire...on fire. Lost their tempers? Maybe. Premeditated aggravated assault? Absolutely.

There are also kids that know full and well that since they can't be tried as adults, they can do whatever they want, so they do.

[Deadbolt23]

I'm not so sure about the 'kids aren't developed enough to understand' argument. When I was 15, I knew that setting someone on fire was wrong. I understood the repercussions this would cause, both to me, and to the victim. I'm not really sure what more is needed to develop, for it to be a disgusting choice they've made.

[Thug_Nasty]

Are you referring to the Missouri teenager? I think she needs to be locked up (either prison or psychiatric care). She dug up the grave days before she killed that 9 year old and admitted to police that she did it because she wanted to know how it felt to kill someone.

i dont care if shes 15 or 50. she dug a grave for that girl days before she killed her. she doesnt deserve to live on this earth and i would support her execution.

[Thug_Nasty]

I think it depends on the situation. If the kid regrets it, then I don't think that they should be tried as an adult. If they show no remorse for their actions, then I certainly think they should be tried as an adult.

bullshit. so if the kids who lit the teen on fire regretted their actions, then they shouldn't be tried as an adult or the 15 year old girl who strangled and then stabbed a 9 year old. if she regrets it she should be tried as a minor? thats ridiculous.

[HYGz]

Also...with the whole "case by case" argument...it's already like that. If a kid gets caught with a beer at the age of 15, they get a slap on the wrist and some community service. If they fucking kill somebody, then they get tried as an adult. I think that's fair...if you commit a big boy crime, you get big boy time.

[open mind]

kids are kids and crimes are crimes, there is no such thing as a "big boy" crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_abolition_movement

the modern prison system is costly, ineffective, barbaric, and exploitative but completely abolishing prisons isn't realistic.

[HashHolly]

I'm not so sure about the 'kids aren't developed enough to understand' argument. When I was 15, I knew that setting someone on fire was wrong. I understood the repercussions this would cause, both to me, and to the victim. I'm not really sure what more is needed to develop, for it to be a disgusting choice they've made.

This. A fifteen year old knows right from wrong, and knows that consequences for actions exist. Im sorry but if your setting someone on fire, part of a gang rape, attempt to kill, or kill someone at 15 you need to be tried as an adult...you know better by that age.

[TachyonEvan]

I don't think it's fair in most cases, but let's be honest. At about 16 or 17, there's a point where you understand what you're doing.

[GeeBee]

the modern prison system is costly, ineffective, barbaric, and exploitative but completely abolishing prisons isn't realistic.

I dunno how barbaric it is. I personally think they get quite a few perks compared to prison systems elsewhere in the world.

[HYGz]

kids are kids and crimes are crimes, there is no such thing as a "big boy" crime.



the modern prison system is costly, ineffective, barbaric, and exploitative but completely abolishing prisons isn't realistic.

this brought the lulz.

I dunno how barbaric it is. I personally think they get quite a few perks compared to prison systems elsewhere in the world.

I completely agree with this. It's not like we shove people in sewage ridden cells, not feed them, beat them to death, then forget about them and leave them to rot like this is a third world country. Prisoners can have jobs, they get fed, they can watch tv, they get comissary to buy things like candy bars and cards, they can shower, sleep comfortably, get fresh air and physical activity, see their families (albeit through a glass wall). So costly? Yes. Barbaric? Absolutely not. Exploitive? Substansiate that one. Ineffective? I've been to jail personally, and never want to go back, so again, no. What's so wrong with our prisons?

[Josh Weinstein]

i dont care if shes 15 or 50. she dug a grave for that girl days before she killed her. she doesnt deserve to live on this earth and i would support her execution.

I see where you are coming from, but it's better to keep her alive and isolated. First, executing her (I would assume would be postponed past her 18th birthday) would be the easy way out. Killing her in the near future won't bring back that 9 year old girl. Second, keeping her isolated from society and in her prison cell will be much more of a punishment. It's her entire life without freedom. Third, it costs taxpayers more money to sentence a person to death than keep them alive in prison for the rest of their lives. You may believe in "eye for an eye", but let's not forget what Mahatma Gandhi said: "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

[saysmydoctor]

this brought the lulz.



I completely agree with this. It's not like we shove people in sewage ridden cells, not feed them, beat them to death, then forget about them and leave them to rot like this is a third world country. Prisoners can have jobs, they get fed, they can watch tv, they get comissary to buy things like candy bars and cards, they can shower, sleep comfortably, get fresh air and physical activity, see their families (albeit through a glass wall). So costly? Yes. Barbaric? Absolutely not. Exploitive? Substansiate that one. Ineffective? I've been to jail personally, and never want to go back, so again, no. What's so wrong with our prisons?
This brought the lulz.

No, instead we shove people into an overcrowded system fed by its own bureaucratic inertia that fails to address the actual problem. Not to mention, the real problem with the prison system is it does nothing. We just house these 'criminals.' Their 'jobs' aren't contributing to society at large, their jobs usually are concerned with maintaining the very bureaucratic infrastructure that imprisons them. What does that do? Nothing.

Barbaric? You just said you've been to jail and don't want to go back. I'm assuming the conditions weren't very pleasing. Exploitative? Very much so. Crime reduction programs generally feeds off the lowest common denominator in society and then politicians utilize these statistics showing crime reduction to justify their programs. Big example: Rudy Giuliani. Ineffective? Yes, amongst developed nations, we still have one of the highest crime rates comparatively.

[Love As Arson]

kids are kids and crimes are crimes, there is no such thing as a "big boy" crime.



the modern prison system is costly, ineffective, barbaric, and exploitative but completely abolishing prisons isn't realistic.
Certainly not now,however, the effective implementation of prison reform leads to a fundamental questioning of the institution that is prison; the question then becomes,if these individuals can be rehabilitated, then to what extent does prison hinder that process and what new facilities can be created to ensure rehabilitation actually happens?

[x togepi x]

on one hand, i think it's pretty fucked up that we're willing to say children count as adults when they do something wrong but won't extend that same courtesy to the mature, responsible under 18 crowd. oh, it's a pain in the ass to emancipate myself from my abusive parents but i can kill someone and get to go to adult prison? AWESOME. on the other hand, i've always known killing/rape were wrong ever since i was old enough to really know what they were. maybe it depends on what kind of criminal justice system you want to have: one based around retribution or one for another reason (like rehabilitation, deterrence etc).

but yeah, i find the idea that our prisons aren't barbaric because other countries have worse systems to be fucking idiotic. obviously we're not the worst possible system possible but that doesn't mean we're okay. our prison system is still way too violent, it's still way too easy to get fucked up on drugs and still insanely dehumanizing (and for those who don't care about dehumanizing criminals, i'd like to point out that this dehumanization is probably one of the biggest reasons why people who get out of prison end up going right back).

[GeeBee]

This brought the lulz.

No, instead we shove people into an overcrowded system fed by its own bureaucratic inertia that fails to address the actual problem. Not to mention, the real problem with the prison system is it does nothing. We just house these 'criminals.' Their 'jobs' aren't contributing to society at large, their jobs usually are concerned with maintaining the very bureaucratic infrastructure that imprisons them. What does that do? Nothing.

Barbaric? You just said you've been to jail and don't want to go back. I'm assuming the conditions weren't very pleasing. Exploitative? Very much so. Crime reduction programs generally feeds off the lowest common denominator in society and then politicians utilize these statistics showing crime reduction to justify their programs. Big example: Rudy Giuliani. Ineffective? Yes, amongst developed nations, we still have one of the highest crime rates comparatively.

While I don't think our prison system is rough on those within it (conditions-wise), I agree with everything you've typed.

[x togepi x]

While I don't think our prison system is rough on those within it (conditions-wise), I agree with everything you've typed.

I doubt you could make it through a few years in it.

To be fair, I doubt anyone who regularly posts here could. but yeah, it's so totally not rough.

[saysmydoctor]

Yes, the prisoners get three square meals a day, aren't tortured, blah blah, our prison system in many ways is exponentially better than others--that being said, just because say--a state corrections officer isn't beating the fuck out of you, doesn't mean....say, some random gang member isn't.

Prisons are still pretty fucking scary.

[JoeJealousy]

kids are kids and crimes are crimes, there is no such thing as a "big boy" crime.



the modern prison system is costly, ineffective, barbaric, and exploitative but completely abolishing prisons isn't realistic.

my brother is a corrections officer and from what ive been told its kinda plushy. you have all day to watch tv, play cards, workout, listen to the radio, and read among a bunch of other activities.you get 3 square meals a day, a roof over your head and a bed. i would say costly and ineffective fit the definition here but in no way is it barbaric. imprisonment is highly romanticized in the media and through various forms of entertainment but in many cases i dont see them being to far off base. thats not saying though there isnt gang activity among other crimes behind bars. just my two cents.

[Love As Arson]

my brother is a corrections officer and from what ive been told its kinda plushy. you have all day to watch tv, play cards, workout, listen to the radio, and read among a bunch of other activities.you get 3 square meals a day, a roof over your head and a bed. i would say costly and ineffective fit the definition here but in no way is it barbaric. imprisonment is highly romanticized in the media and through various forms of entertainment but in many cases i dont see them being to far off base. thats not saying though there isnt gang activity among other crimes behind bars. just my two cents.

The new report and standards on prison rape - released today by the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission - challenge prison officials to end this devastating and all too prevalent human rights violation, Human Rights Watch said. Although a growing number of prison authorities are trying to curb sexual violence and hold perpetrators accountable, the commission report makes clear that tens of thousands of prisoners are still raped each year by staff and by other prisoners because officials have not instituted basic measures to protect them.
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/06/23/us-prevent-prison-rape

Among the findings outlined in Pettit's presentation are:
"¢ Rates of positive or latent tuberculosis are 50 percent to 100 percent higher for inmates than for the general population. The TB rate among black inmates is 14.6 percent compared to 8.4 percent for white inmates. Despite substantial declines in the overall risk for TB in the U.S., blacks are eight times more likely to contract the disease than whites.
"¢ Blacks both inside and out of prison have higher rates of HIV infection than whites. Inmate rates for HIV are 3.5 percent for blacks and 2.3 percent for whites, although Pettit said this data is weak because many inmates have not been tested for HIV or will not say if they are HIV positive.
"¢ The number of black men living in rural, or non-metropolitan, areas increases dramatically when the inmate population is included because many jails and prisons are located in rural locations.
"¢ Rates of childlessness are higher for both black and white inmates than the general population. Sixty-four percent of non-prison white men have children, but that number drops to 50.6 percent of jailed white men. Among blacks, 71.7 percent of the non-prison men have children while 61.7 percent of those in jail are fathers.
http://newswise.com/articles/view/543147/

[saysmydoctor]

I take issue with the term 'corrections' because it implies they are broken and it's no one's fault but their own--as if these people aren't products of society.

[JoeJealousy]

The new report and standards on prison rape - released today by the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission - challenge prison officials to end this devastating and all too prevalent human rights violation, Human Rights Watch said. Although a growing number of prison authorities are trying to curb sexual violence and hold perpetrators accountable, the commission report makes clear that tens of thousands of prisoners are still raped each year by staff and by other prisoners because officials have not instituted basic measures to protect them.
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/06/23/us-prevent-prison-rape

Among the findings outlined in Pettit's presentation are:
"¢ Rates of positive or latent tuberculosis are 50 percent to 100 percent higher for inmates than for the general population. The TB rate among black inmates is 14.6 percent compared to 8.4 percent for white inmates. Despite substantial declines in the overall risk for TB in the U.S., blacks are eight times more likely to contract the disease than whites.
"¢ Blacks both inside and out of prison have higher rates of HIV infection than whites. Inmate rates for HIV are 3.5 percent for blacks and 2.3 percent for whites, although Pettit said this data is weak because many inmates have not been tested for HIV or will not say if they are HIV positive.
"¢ The number of black men living in rural, or non-metropolitan, areas increases dramatically when the inmate population is included because many jails and prisons are located in rural locations.
"¢ Rates of childlessness are higher for both black and white inmates than the general population. Sixty-four percent of non-prison white men have children, but that number drops to 50.6 percent of jailed white men. Among blacks, 71.7 percent of the non-prison men have children while 61.7 percent of those in jail are fathers.
http://newswise.com/articles/view/543147/

cool....

[saysmydoctor]

cool....
Quality rebuttal, sir.

[Mitch]

Quality rebuttal, sir.

Agreed.

[HYGz]

Certainly not now,however, the effective implementation of prison reform leads to a fundamental questioning of the institution that is prison; the question then becomes,if these individuals can be rehabilitated, then to what extent does prison hinder that process and what new facilities can be created to ensure rehabilitation actually happens?

This.

Yes, our prison system is fucked. Yes, it is completely asinine that kids can get a slap on the wrist for one thing and get put away for life for another thing (which still doesn't deduce from the fact that killing someone and a minor in posession of alcohol -- or something to that extent -- are two completely different extremes.) What I want to know is what are our options as a society?

[x togepi x]

i'm not entirely sure that the punishment for a minor in possession is a "slap on the wrist". what do you guys want to happen, firing squad?

[caveBEAR]

my brother is a corrections officer and from what ive been told its kinda plushy. you have all day to watch tv, play cards, workout, listen to the radio, and read among a bunch of other activities.you get 3 square meals a day, a roof over your head and a bed. i would say costly and ineffective fit the definition here but in no way is it barbaric. imprisonment is highly romanticized in the media and through various forms of entertainment but in many cases i dont see them being to far off base. thats not saying though there isnt gang activity among other crimes behind bars. just my two cents.

Keep in mind, all those activities are being played by people who have done some pretty bad things to get there, and therefore, bad things happen in prison.

There's also a lot of crime and gang activity in prisons.

[JoeJealousy]

Keep in mind, all those activities are being played by people who have done some pretty bad things to get there, and therefore, bad things happen in prison.

There's also a lot of crime and gang activity in prisons.

keep in mind that my 2nd to last sentence does address that beyond the "perks" of prison there is still the activites you mention.

[GeeBee]

I doubt you could make it through a few years in it.

To be fair, I doubt anyone who regularly posts here could. but yeah, it's so totally not rough.

Yes, the prisoners get three square meals a day, aren't tortured, blah blah, our prison system in many ways is exponentially better than others--that being said, just because say--a state corrections officer isn't beating the fuck out of you, doesn't mean....say, some random gang member isn't.

Prisons are still pretty fucking scary.

Forgot the "comparatively" caveat. It's no "Midnight Express", however.

[JoeJealousy]

Quality rebuttal, sir.

i thought so :)

[x togepi x]

i love the my friend/relative/whatever is a cop so i'm gonna tell you how it is line of logic. as if people don't lie about their jobs or anything.

[GeeBee]

i love the my friend/relative/whatever is a cop so i'm gonna tell you how it is line of logic. as if people don't lie about their jobs or anything.

I know my rights. I've seen Law and Order.

[crackedthesky]

No. Fundamentally disagree.

Further thoughts?

Are you referring to the Missouri teenager? I think she needs to be locked up (either prison or psychiatric care). She dug up the grave days before she killed that 9 year old and admitted to police that she did it because she wanted to know how it felt to kill someone.

Yeah. I live in Missouri, so this hit kinda close to home.

You're not mature enough to drink until you're 21, but you're capable to stand trial as an adult at 15.

But like you said it's a very messy system and each case is different. I think you have to look at all elements of the case to truly determine if trying a minor as an adult is the right thing to do. Premeditation, brutality of the crime, etc.

I see what you mean. Interesting point, int he first sentence.

I would normally agree with you. However, some of the recent news I've seen has made me question it. Specifically, the news story about the girl gang raped outside her school dance as a crowd watched http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/27/california.gang.rape.investigation/index.html
Also the story of the 15 year old boy who was set on fire over a video game. http://www.truecrimereport.com/2009/10/teens_douse_15-year-old_michae.php

That's part of the reason it's so hard to pick a stance. Some things just make you go "wtf," while some you're like "I don't think that kid really understood what was going on."

depends on the crime

Duh. My question is: should it?

I think adults should be tried as children!

I almost spat soda all over my monitor when I saw this xD

I think its wrong. But the argument that says just because your brain isnt fully developed, your not responsible for what you do, is just ridiculous.

By brain devleopment, I'm talking about delvelopmental stages. Take, for example, a toddler. My little brother, when he was a baby, he thought EVERYTHING was his. He would kick and scream and start hitting people if you took something from him, even if he had no idea what it was (he held my guitar all day, one time, for example.) If a grown man was to beat the hell out of me for taking something I own from him, he'd go to jail; it would be a crime. It isn't considered a crime for a toddler, because they don't understand that it is wrong.
The argument, then, is that not all children understand that what they're doing is a crime, with repercussions. It's incredibly easy for a bunch of twenty-somethings on AbsolutePunk to say "they know damn well!" because those twenty-somethings do know damn well. But you aren't inside the mind of the kid in question, so to say that you KNOW what they do and don't know is beyond ridiculous. This is where the entire debate lies; if a child does not know that what they are doing is wrong, if they don't understand the concept, is it a crime? Is it a crime if, say, you're learning to drive, and you haven't learned the difference between the brake and the gas, and you run someone over? You didn't go out of your way to kill them, you just weren't aware of what was going to happen. If two siblings get in a fight, one kid might push his brother down the stairs. it's not like he thought "I'm going to murder my brother!" No, he was just pissed off and wanted to vent. At the same time, while the difference in these situations and, say, shotting or stabbing someone is clear to us; that's because we do know exactly what is going on. But study after study has shown that kids at eight or ten or even sometimes 15 just do not understand this yet; so is it fair to judge them based on the false premise that they do?

I think it depends on the situation. If the kid regrets it, then I don't think that they should be tried as an adult. If they show no remorse for their actions, then I certainly think they should be tried as an adult.

That's too broad. If a kid regrets it, chances are, it won't be instantly, or else he probably wouldn't have done it in the first place. There are times, I'm sure, where somebody regrets what they've done as soon as it happens. But the kid may have no concept of remorse yet; if someone is too young to have the ability to have remorse, that isn't their fault.

Under 18 = kids
Over 18 = adults

For the most severe children's crimes, make tougher sentences. Sorted

I'd like to refer you to one of the above quotes, then. Why is it not okay to drink if you're an adult the second you turn 18? Do you think there's some magic switch in every person's brain where as soon as their biological clock strikes 18, they suddenly have all of the knowledge of all concepts in the world?

Its a hard line to draw. Obviously there are children who function at a higher rate than many adults will ever function. The law doesnt account for these children. "Children" know the law and while they may not be able to comprehend the true detriment of some crimes; they are developed enough to understand the difference between what is good and what is evil. If at age 14 I had murdered someone I would have understood the impact of my actions immediately. Obviously, there is a difference in the culpability of some children and perhaps there should be a compulsory assessment of children who are charged with indictable offences so that those who had the adult capacity to consider their actions could be held responsible.

I understand what you're saying. However, the fact that you or even a majority of people understand it at 14 doesn't mean that all children do.

I'm not so sure about the 'kids aren't developed enough to understand' argument. When I was 15, I knew that setting someone on fire was wrong. I understood the repercussions this would cause, both to me, and to the victim. I'm not really sure what more is needed to develop, for it to be a disgusting choice they've made.

Adressed directly above.

I don't think it's fair in most cases, but let's be honest. At about 16 or 17, there's a point where you understand what you're doing.

I think with most people, yeah, there is. But there are some people who still don't understand; that's what makes this difficult.

my brother is a corrections officer and from what ive been told its kinda plushy. you have all day to watch tv, play cards, workout, listen to the radio, and read among a bunch of other activities.you get 3 square meals a day, a roof over your head and a bed. i would say costly and ineffective fit the definition here but in no way is it barbaric. imprisonment is highly romanticized in the media and through various forms of entertainment but in many cases i dont see them being to far off base. thats not saying though there isnt gang activity among other crimes behind bars. just my two cents.

...Cool?
I don't want to get into the prison debate because this has nothing to do with my original question, but if prisons are so nice and warm and fluffy, why do the people who are, say, innocent not want to stay there?

i'm not entirely sure that the punishment for a minor in possession is a "slap on the wrist". what do you guys want to happen, firing squad?

I lol'd.




Well, it seems this has been turned heavily into a discussion about our prison systems, which isn't what I wanted. But there are a lot of good discussions, here. It seems that the difficulty comes in that we don't try the kid based on any measurement of their psychological development, but based upon the severity of the crime. I, personally, think this is ass backwards.

[denissuxx]

I'd like to refer you to one of the above quotes, then. Why is it not okay to drink if you're an adult the second you turn 18? Do you think there's some magic switch in every person's brain where as soon as their biological clock strikes 18, they suddenly have all of the knowledge of all concepts in the world?

I'm not American... we can drink (legally) at the age of 18 here, so my response would be because America has stupid laws.

But in response to the bolded, of course not - 18 is just a generally accepted age at which you are classified as an "adult". Some people never mature - of course, some are more mature than others.

/rushed thoughts before i go to bed

[crackedthesky]

I'm not American... we can drink (legally) at the age of 18 here, so my response would be because America has stupid laws.

But in response to the bolded, of course not - 18 is just a generally accepted age at which you are classified as an "adult". Some people never mature - of course, some are more mature than others.

/rushed thoughts before i go to bed

Thank you for clarifying.
Yeah, I get that that's where the line is usually drawn. But my quesiton is whether that's right. Personally, I think most people have probably come to terms with the concept of right and wrong by, at the latest, 16.
But this brings me to another point: Why do you think the age at which we can learn to drive is 15? It's not for fun; there's a psychology behind it. It's because studies showed that at this age, kids are still willing to take risks, and they're better equipped to learn from their mistakes. They're also more prone to make said mistakes in the first place.
This draws two interesting points for the argument: If at 15 we are still willing to take risks, does that mean a 15-year-old truly has grasped the concept of life and death?
And on the flip side: If most kids are able to grasp and learn from mistakes at 15, doesn't this imply that most of them have latched on to the concept of doing something wrong?

This furthers my assessment that in trying children as adults, there's really no good way to do it without psychoanalyzing every child in every case as it stands. Even this seems problematic... but it would make me feel a lot better than doing it by severity of the crime, which takes absolutely nothing into account regarding the person perpetrating the crime.

Maybe what should happen instead of trying children as adults, is trying them as though they were making the insanity plea. If a retarded man or someone with a mental disorder kills someone, they are often tried with thse things taken directly into account, and it usually results in a lot of therapy and institutionalization. I think children fall much closer into this category than into the category of adulthood.

[x togepi x]

I know my rights. I've seen Law and Order.

I'm glad that when I was working for the public defender that Sam Watterson wasn't the prosecutor.

[Anything1216]

By brain devleopment, I'm talking about delvelopmental stages. Take, for example, a toddler. My little brother, when he was a baby, he thought EVERYTHING was his. He would kick and scream and start hitting people if you took something from him, even if he had no idea what it was (he held my guitar all day, one time, for example.) If a grown man was to beat the hell out of me for taking something I own from him, he'd go to jail; it would be a crime. It isn't considered a crime for a toddler, because they don't understand that it is wrong.
The argument, then, is that not all children understand that what they're doing is a crime, with repercussions. It's incredibly easy for a bunch of twenty-somethings on AbsolutePunk to say "they know damn well!" because those twenty-somethings do know damn well. But you aren't inside the mind of the kid in question, so to say that you KNOW what they do and don't know is beyond ridiculous. This is where the entire debate lies; if a child does not know that what they are doing is wrong, if they don't understand the concept, is it a crime? Is it a crime if, say, you're learning to drive, and you haven't learned the difference between the brake and the gas, and you run someone over? You didn't go out of your way to kill them, you just weren't aware of what was going to happen. If two siblings get in a fight, one kid might push his brother down the stairs. it's not like he thought "I'm going to murder my brother!" No, he was just pissed off and wanted to vent. At the same time, while the difference in these situations and, say, shotting or stabbing someone is clear to us; that's because we do know exactly what is going on. But study after study has shown that kids at eight or ten or even sometimes 15 just do not understand this yet; so is it fair to judge them based on the false premise that they do?

What toddler is being charged as an adult?
And just because someone doesn't know exactly what the consequences of their actions will be, it doesn't mean that they don't know that an action is wrong. I don't know the exact consequences of making/selling crack cocaine. But i do know that its not a good thing to do.

[HYGz]

Thank you for clarifying.
Yeah, I get that that's where the line is usually drawn. But my quesiton is whether that's right. Personally, I think most people have probably come to terms with the concept of right and wrong by, at the latest, 16.
But this brings me to another point: Why do you think the age at which we can learn to drive is 15? It's not for fun; there's a psychology behind it. It's because studies showed that at this age, kids are still willing to take risks, and they're better equipped to learn from their mistakes. They're also more prone to make said mistakes in the first place.
This draws two interesting points for the argument: If at 15 we are still willing to take risks, does that mean a 15-year-old truly has grasped the concept of life and death?
And on the flip side: If most kids are able to grasp and learn from mistakes at 15, doesn't this imply that most of them have latched on to the concept of doing something wrong?

This furthers my assessment that in trying children as adults, there's really no good way to do it without psychoanalyzing every child in every case as it stands. Even this seems problematic... but it would make me feel a lot better than doing it by severity of the crime, which takes absolutely nothing into account regarding the person perpetrating the crime.

Maybe what should happen instead of trying children as adults, is trying them as though they were making the insanity plea. If a retarded man or someone with a mental disorder kills someone, they are often tried with thse things taken directly into account, and it usually results in a lot of therapy and institutionalization. I think children fall much closer into this category than into the category of adulthood.

I agree with this. Very valid point.

[crackedthesky]

What toddler is being charged as an adult?
And just because someone doesn't know exactly what the consequences of their actions will be, it doesn't mean that they don't know that an action is wrong. I don't know the exact consequences of making/selling crack cocaine. But i do know that its not a good thing to do.


Wow. Way to completely and entirely miss the entire point of my entire post. But I'll humour you and answer your questions:

1. None, that I'm aware of. But luckily for me, I never suggested one was.
2. Again, you're entirely missing the whole definition thing. When I say they don't understand consequences, I mean they don't understand that their actions even have consequences. A kid shoving his friend down a flight of stairs isn't thinking "if I do this, he might break his neck and die, resulting in my being tried in a criminal court as an adult and going to jail for the rest of my life," he's only thinking "what a jerkbag, take THIS!"

[concernedparent]

I always feel personally about this like...I know for a fact I would have made most of the same moral decisions three years ago as I would have today. I'm not making any broad statements about the practice, just giving a personal thought.

[samsara]

I think it is situational, you cant have the same punishment for various degrees of crimes.

[open mind]

While I don't think our prison system is rough on those within it (conditions-wise), I agree with everything you've typed.

have you ever experienced cabin fever? try dealing with that for years.

sanitation while not as bad as it could be is rather poor and if you get sick you have to wait days to be seen by someone.

one of my cellmates died because of a lack of proper treatment.

[Anything1216]

Wow. Way to completely and entirely miss the entire point of my entire post. But I'll humour you and answer your questions:

1. None, that I'm aware of. But luckily for me, I never suggested one was.
2. Again, you're entirely missing the whole definition thing. When I say they don't understand consequences, I mean they don't understand that their actions even have consequences. A kid shoving his friend down a flight of stairs isn't thinking "if I do this, he might break his neck and die, resulting in my being tried in a criminal court as an adult and going to jail for the rest of my life," he's only thinking "what a jerkbag, take THIS!"

Thank you for coming down to my level of thinking to humor me.
Unless they were severley mentally retarded, I have never heard of, or met anyone able to kill someone, that did not know it was wrong. Maybe you have, I dont know.

[HYGz]

have you ever experienced cabin fever? try dealing with that for years.

sanitation while not as bad as it could be is rather poor and if you get sick you have to wait days to be seen by someone.

one of my cellmates died because of a lack of proper treatment.

I totally feel you on this one. Dude in my pod wanted out so bad he deffocated on the floor right in front of everyone. Then proceeded to smear it all over everything. Was about 4 and a half hours before they sent a trustee to clean it up.

[denissuxx]

Thank you for clarifying.
Yeah, I get that that's where the line is usually drawn.

Because it makes some sort of 'legal' sense - perhaps not moral sense when applied to individual cases, however

But my quesiton is whether that's right. Personally, I think most people have probably come to terms with the concept of right and wrong by, at the latest, 16.

Completely agree here, took me till 15/16

But this brings me to another point: Why do you think the age at which we can learn to drive is 15?

17 in the UK :-p

It's not for fun; there's a psychology behind it. It's because studies showed that at this age, kids are still willing to take risks, and they're better equipped to learn from their mistakes. They're also more prone to make said mistakes in the first place.
This draws two interesting points for the argument: If at 15 we are still willing to take risks, does that mean a 15-year-old truly has grasped the concept of life and death?
And on the flip side: If most kids are able to grasp and learn from mistakes at 15, doesn't this imply that most of them have latched on to the concept of doing something wrong?

While, overall, I agree with this, the assuming generalization that over the age of 15, people are not willing to take risks, is ridiculous (I don't think you meant to imply this though?). Some people will never mature, and will keep taking risks and risks. Some children have common sense and would make sensible decisions. It can go either way

In response to the second bolded point, it's tough to appreciate life and death without having come close by taking the risks, right? Quite a paradox...

This furthers my assessment that in trying children as adults, there's really no good way to do it without psychoanalyzing every child in every case as it stands.

This would be so tough to do and many would abuse the system. People will commit crimes unless there are consequences. If these consequences aren't severe enough, or if they are easy to bypass... people would commit crimes knowing that they could cheat the system. I believe that are should be some sort of (minimal) factor of 'diminished responsibility', but this should be based on intent, severity of the crime, and other factors

Even this seems problematic... but it would make me feel a lot better than doing it by severity of the crime, which takes absolutely nothing into account regarding the person perpetrating the crime.

Some crimes, are done with absolute intent and malice. These require a greater criminal responsibility than others, right? In this way, some crimes are, contextually, more severe than others. For example, a child that shoplifts should be held absolutely accountable for this; it's deliberate, it's simple, it's in their control. If a child commits a crime and they are in a volatile situation at the time, if they're under pressure, if it's not planned - rationally, carefully and for a long period of time, then there should be a factor of 'diminished responsibility.

Maybe what should happen instead of trying children as adults, is trying them as though they were making the insanity plea. If a retarded man or someone with a mental disorder kills someone, they are often tried with thse things taken directly into account, and it usually results in a lot of therapy and institutionalization. I think children fall much closer into this category than into the category of adulthood.

I back this the most, although I agree with all your points here :-)

[GeeBee]

I'm glad that when I was working for the public defender that Sam Watterson wasn't the prosecutor.
I'm glad that when I was working for TD Ameritrade Sam Watterson wasn't the company's spokesperson.
Wait...
have you ever experienced cabin fever? try dealing with that for years.

sanitation while not as bad as it could be is rather poor and if you get sick you have to wait days to be seen by someone.

one of my cellmates died because of a lack of proper treatment.
No doubt it could be much better. But I've seen prisons in Russia. There's no comparison.

[open mind]

I'm glad that when I was working for TD Ameritrade Sam Watterson wasn't the company's spokesperson.
Wait...

No doubt it could be much better. But I've seen prisons in Russia. There's no comparison.

saying we're less barbaric then some other country still leaves us with being barbaric.

prison is essentially subjecting someone to mental anguish in hostile surroundings for years so they can come out more fucked up then they were to begin with. if all you want to do is punish people it works, but if you're looking to improve society there isn't a less effective way to do it.

[sayyes]

saying we're less barbaric then some other country still leaves us with being barbaric.

prison is essentially subjecting someone to mental anguish in hostile surroundings for years so they can come out more fucked up then they were to begin with. if all you want to do is punish people it works, but if you're looking to improve society there isn't a less effective way to do it.

If we could rid the prison system of rape and corrupt prison officers would you get behind it?

[open mind]

If we could rid the prison system of rape and corrupt prison officers would you get behind it?

that only takes care of half of the problem.

prisoners also need to be given something constructive and meaningful to do so they have the skills needed to stay out of trouble upon release.

halfway houses should also be mandatory for anyone within 4-6 months of release so prisoners don't re-enter society broke and with no place to go.

[caveBEAR]

Thank you for coming down to my level of thinking to humor me.
Unless they were severley mentally retarded, I have never heard of, or met anyone able to kill someone, that did not know it was wrong. Maybe you have, I dont know.

The point he was trying to make, that somehow was completely lost on you twice, is that when an adult comes home from work, finds his wife banging some dude, grabs a gun and blows them both away, that guy knew exactly what he was doing. Every action he took, whether in part to a crime of passion or not, has been thought through enough where he knew what the repercussions, at least in the back of his head, would be.

On the flip side of that coin, a child, maybe someone as old as 13-14, definitely younger, could be in a tussle or argument with a friend/brother, as children are notorious to do. During the argument, they push the friend/brother and he falls down the stairs. We would treat the child differently than the adult because the child didn't understand that his actions would result in harming someone else.

The adult knows that (one angry husband) + (two bullets) = crime. The child may not fully understand yet that (action) --> (harm) --> crime, so how can you treat them as a criminal. It's the same idea behind manslaughter/murder.

[RedWineSheets]

lol @ people in this thread who have zero real world experience with criminal law and most likely have never stepped foot inside a courtroom.

[Anything1216]

The point he was trying to make, that somehow was completely lost on you twice, is that when an adult comes home from work, finds his wife banging some dude, grabs a gun and blows them both away, that guy knew exactly what he was doing. Every action he took, whether in part to a crime of passion or not, has been thought through enough where he knew what the repercussions, at least in the back of his head, would be.

On the flip side of that coin, a child, maybe someone as old as 13-14, definitely younger, could be in a tussle or argument with a friend/brother, as children are notorious to do. During the argument, they push the friend/brother and he falls down the stairs. We would treat the child differently than the adult because the child didn't understand that his actions would result in harming someone else.

The adult knows that (one angry husband) + (two bullets) = crime. The child may not fully understand yet that (action) --> (harm) --> crime, so how can you treat them as a criminal. It's the same idea behind manslaughter/murder.

I understand that, but you dont know that the child didnt know it was wrong, and what would happen if they did that. when i was 14 years old i knew it was wrong, and i would get in trouble for it. When i was 9 i knew that too. Kids are smarter than you think. I dont think that in most casses children should be tryed as adults. But in some cases, when the child is older (like 14 or 15) and they obviously showed some kind of planning process and tried to cover it up. They should be punished more heavily. But that's just me.

[bard]

depends on the crime/age

[saysmydoctor]

lol @ people in this thread who have zero real world experience with criminal law and most likely have never stepped foot inside a courtroom.
Didn't realize this was a prerequisite.

[GeeBee]

saying we're less barbaric then some other country still leaves us with being barbaric.

prison is essentially subjecting someone to mental anguish in hostile surroundings for years so they can come out more fucked up then they were to begin with. if all you want to do is punish people it works, but if you're looking to improve society there isn't a less effective way to do it.

I'll concur that prison does a shitty job of so-called "rehabilitation".

[Josh Weinstein]

lol @ people in this thread who have zero real world experience with criminal law and most likely have never stepped foot inside a courtroom.

Umm... I've interned at superior courts and witnessed numerous people being put before a judge and seeing their futures ruined because of the crimes they committed.

[crackedthesky]

Thank you for coming down to my level of thinking to humor me.
Unless they were severley mentally retarded, I have never heard of, or met anyone able to kill someone, that did not know it was wrong. Maybe you have, I dont know.

I'm sure you've met SO many of them, too, and I'm sure you're just an excellent psychologist, so you know EXACTLYwhateach and every one of them has going on in their heads.

Because it makes some sort of 'legal' sense - perhaps not moral sense when applied to individual cases, however



Completely agree here, took me till 15/16



17 in the UK :-p



While, overall, I agree with this, the assuming generalization that over the age of 15, people are not willing to take risks, is ridiculous (I don't think you meant to imply this though?). Some people will never mature, and will keep taking risks and risks. Some children have common sense and would make sensible decisions. It can go either way

In response to the second bolded point, it's tough to appreciate life and death without having come close by taking the risks, right? Quite a paradox...



This would be so tough to do and many would abuse the system. People will commit crimes unless there are consequences. If these consequences aren't severe enough, or if they are easy to bypass... people would commit crimes knowing that they could cheat the system. I believe that are should be some sort of (minimal) factor of 'diminished responsibility', but this should be based on intent, severity of the crime, and other factors



Some crimes, are done with absolute intent and malice. These require a greater criminal responsibility than others, right? In this way, some crimes are, contextually, more severe than others. For example, a child that shoplifts should be held absolutely accountable for this; it's deliberate, it's simple, it's in their control. If a child commits a crime and they are in a volatile situation at the time, if they're under pressure, if it's not planned - rationally, carefully and for a long period of time, then there should be a factor of 'diminished responsibility.



I back this the most, although I agree with all your points here :-)

I wasn't implying that older people won't take risks, just that this fades away. My dad is extremely busy and my mom can't drive, so I didn't start learning until I was 19. By that point, I was almost entirely unable to check my blind spots, because every bit of rationality in my body tells me not to take my eyes off of the road in front of me to turn my head. The willingness to take risks is overcome with ration as you get older. Some people just take longer, is all.

Also, I didn't mean to imply that severity of the crime should never be taken into account, just that it should never be the only thing taken into account.

Just to clarify. Good responses, btw.

[EchoPark]

I wonder if anyone in here had a relative or friend murdered by a calm and rational albeit underage person, if they would change their tune.

I've not doubt you would be baying for blood.

[anthonydarko]

It's not the best thing to do, considering if the person at hand is around 15 or so, however the justice system shouldn't go lightly on someone who committed a crime such as rape or murder just because the person is 15.

[Praetor]

I wonder if anyone in here had a relative or friend murdered by a calm and rational albeit underage person, if they would change their tune.

I've not doubt you would be baying for blood.
Because clouding logic with emotion is always a good idea!

[saysmydoctor]

I wonder if anyone in here had a relative or friend murdered by a calm and rational albeit underage person, if they would change their tune.

I've not doubt you would be baying for blood.
My parents always try to level this argument with me. I know if I was murdered, I'd rather there be no more bloodshed attached to my name.

This is an appeal to emotion, by the way.

[mattmatumbo]

If you're gunna try kids as adults, treat them as such, let them drink and smoke and be merry. Otherwise, try the little fucks as kids.

[Machu505]

Because clouding logic with emotion is always a good idea!
And the US doesn't have an impartial justice system, right?

[saysmydoctor]

And the US doesn't have an impartial justice system, right?
http://www.albanyaerialphotos.com/US%20Flag.jpg

Don't hate our freedom.

[SincerelyMe]

I think it's wrong to try children as adults. There's a reason we try them differently. Children and teenagers do stupid things, and they shouldn't have to suffer for the rest of their lives because of it. If the crime is really bad, give a tougher sentence maybe, but trying them as adults just isn't right.

As for the "they don't understand cause and effect" argument, I think it's bullshit. In New York (maybe in the US?), children as young as 7 can be arrested because that is the age that children are believed to be able to understand the concepts of cause and effect and right and wrong. To say that a 15 year old doesn't understand that is bullshit.

[x togepi x]

I feel like a lot of people who think we should try children as adults don't realize that "murder" is not merely a synonym for killing, at least in a legal sense.

[sayyes]

that only takes care of half of the problem.

prisoners also need to be given something constructive and meaningful to do so they have the skills needed to stay out of trouble upon release.

halfway houses should also be mandatory for anyone within 4-6 months of release so prisoners don't re-enter society broke and with no place to go.

I agree

[GeeBee]

I feel like a lot of people who think we should try children as adults don't realize that "murder" is not merely a synonym for killing, at least in a legal sense.

Not that I necessarily disagree, but I'd like to point out that most languages have only one word for the two terms in English.