horseboy
It depends on extenuating circumstances. Personally, I'll cut a "child" a lot more slack than I would a teenager. In fact we've got a twisted on going on right now. My little niece's (8 years old) "boyfriend" got a hold of a locked and loaded gun from his buddy's house. Pointed it at his sister and shouted "bang" hitting her in the arm. The kid panicked and ran off, leaving his sister to bleed to death. It's a horrible, terrible accident. But justice has to take accidents into consideration. Nobody is even considering charging the boy. To the point that the "official" record is she shot herself with a gun he brought over. The local towns are practically burning both sets of parents in effigy for their failures. One for failing to teach their child that you NEVER point a firearm at another human being and the other for leaving a freaking loaded weapon with the safety off just lying around.

Now, had the kids been older, say 14-15 and had shot his sister because she had annoyed him. That would have been different. As someone with that though process is a danger to society and needs to be as far away from society as possible.

I am 45, but I am not to old to remember how fucked up it was being a teenager. To say that they should be expected to have the judgement and restraint of an adult is to belittle the turmoil they are experiencing. Teens are wrestling with the loss of youth and the expectations of maturity. It's all very disorienting. I would totally cut them slack, and again where are the parents of these teens??? Why aren't they responsible. It takes a very disturbed person to kill somebody. You think parents would notice.

bobhhh

horseboy
It depends on extenuating circumstances. Personally, I'll cut a "child" a lot more slack than I would a teenager. In fact we've got a twisted on going on right now. My little niece's (8 years old) "boyfriend" got a hold of a locked and loaded gun from his buddy's house. Pointed it at his sister and shouted "bang" hitting her in the arm. The kid panicked and ran off, leaving his sister to bleed to death. It's a horrible, terrible accident. But justice has to take accidents into consideration. Nobody is even considering charging the boy. To the point that the "official" record is she shot herself with a gun he brought over. The local towns are practically burning both sets of parents in effigy for their failures. One for failing to teach their child that you NEVER point a firearm at another human being and the other for leaving a freaking loaded weapon with the safety off just lying around.

Now, had the kids been older, say 14-15 and had shot his sister because she had annoyed him. That would have been different. As someone with that though process is a danger to society and needs to be as far away from society as possible.

I am 45, but I am not to old to remember how fucked up it was being a teenager. To say that they should be expected to have the judgement and restraint of an adult is to belittle the turmoil they are experiencing. Teens are wrestling with the loss of youth and the expectations of maturity. It's all very disorienting. I would totally cut them slack, and again where are the parents of these teens??? Why aren't they responsible. It takes a very disturbed person to kill somebody. You think parents would notice.

Parents should take a bit of responsibility, but it should go only so far. There is a lot of turmoil during teenage years (I would know, I'm only 18), but that's not enough of an excuse for murder.

What your saying is that if a teen (16 maybe) walks up into a school and shoots and kills 5 people, the teen shouldn't be punished as much as his parents. That makes very little sense.

Priest_Revan
Parents should take a bit of responsibility, but it should go only so far. There is a lot of turmoil during teenage years (I would know, I'm only 18), but that's not enough of an excuse for murder.

What your saying is that if a teen (16 maybe) walks up into a school and shoots and kills 5 people, the teen shouldn't be punished as much as his parents. That makes very little sense.

Listen, in every other aspect of life, the parent or guardian is responsible. If a kid shoplifts or vandalizes they don't charge him as an adult, why not? Doesn't he know right from wrong after all?? It's because the law doesn't deem a minor worthy of adult decisions. Apparently according to some this magical clarity about murder doesn't extend to any other transgression committed by a minor. Suddenly when a murder is committed a child has gained judgement, I would argue the opposite, it's probably easier for a minor to commit murder because they are immature and haven't the moral or intellectual perspective of adults. I'm not saying we shouldn't punish them, but they are still kids until they turn 18.

I think this charge them as an adult thing is just a way of sating the folks who feel that doing anything but is letting a criminal get off scott free. It's vengeful, and I don't think it functions as a deterrent.

bobhhh
Listen, in every other aspect of life, the parent or guardian is responsible. If a kid shoplifts or vandalizes they don't charge him as an adult, why not? Doesn't he know right from wrong after all?? It's because the law doesn't deem a minor worthy of adult decisions. Apparently according to some this magical clarity about murder doesn't extend to any other transgression committed by a minor. Suddenly when a murder is committed a child has gained judgment, I would argue the opposite, it's probably easier for a minor to commit murder because they are immature and haven't the moral or intellectual perspective of adults. I'm not saying we shouldn't punish them, but they are still kids until they turn 18.

I think this charge them as an adult thing is just a way of sating the folks who feel that doing anything but is letting a criminal get off scott free. It's vengeful, and I don't think it functions as a deterrent.

Because, ultimately I do not consider "Wangst" to be an excuse for murder. (I'm also of the opinion that retail employees should be issued taser guns for immediate detaining of vandals and shoplifters, but that's just my 7 years of retail working coming out)

horseboy

bobhhh
Listen, in every other aspect of life, the parent or guardian is responsible. If a kid shoplifts or vandalizes they don't charge him as an adult, why not? Doesn't he know right from wrong after all?? It's because the law doesn't deem a minor worthy of adult decisions. Apparently according to some this magical clarity about murder doesn't extend to any other transgression committed by a minor. Suddenly when a murder is committed a child has gained judgment, I would argue the opposite, it's probably easier for a minor to commit murder because they are immature and haven't the moral or intellectual perspective of adults. I'm not saying we shouldn't punish them, but they are still kids until they turn 18.

I think this charge them as an adult thing is just a way of sating the folks who feel that doing anything but is letting a criminal get off scott free. It's vengeful, and I don't think it functions as a deterrent.

Because, ultimately I do not consider "Wangst" to be an excuse for murder. (I'm also of the opinion that retail employees should be issued taser guns for immediate detaining of vandals and shoplifters, but that's just my 7 years of retail working coming out)

Other than self defense, there is NEVER and excuse for murder. We aren't arguing that. WE are arguing whether or not to charge minors as adults, and it shouldn't be about the murderer's intent, it should be about their age and maturity.

Whether the minor killed for a selfish or misguided reason, they are still a minor.

bobhhh
Other than self defense, there is NEVER and excuse for murder. We aren't arguing that. WE are arguing whether or not to charge minors as adults, and it shouldn't be about the murderer's intent, it should be about their age and maturity.

Whether the minor killed for a selfish or misguided reason, they are still a minor.

Well, the difference here is that they are considered minors only because we live in an industrial society. It's a very intricate and convoluted system. Therefore society created the artificial stage of adolescence. This is NOT an intricate issue, as you so succinctly pointed out. Therefore, it they are not eligible for societal protection from this issue. If a girl the same age can make the life changing decision whether or not she wants to get married, then someone of either gender can stand trial for choosing to murder someone.

bobhhh

Priest_Revan
Parents should take a bit of responsibility, but it should go only so far. There is a lot of turmoil during teenage years (I would know, I'm only 18), but that's not enough of an excuse for murder.

What your saying is that if a teen (16 maybe) walks up into a school and shoots and kills 5 people, the teen shouldn't be punished as much as his parents. That makes very little sense.

Listen, in every other aspect of life, the parent or guardian is responsible. If a kid shoplifts or vandalizes they don't charge him as an adult, why not? Doesn't he know right from wrong after all?? It's because the law doesn't deem a minor worthy of adult decisions. Apparently according to some this magical clarity about murder doesn't extend to any other transgression committed by a minor. Suddenly when a murder is committed a child has gained judgement, I would argue the opposite, it's probably easier for a minor to commit murder because they are immature and haven't the moral or intellectual perspective of adults. I'm not saying we shouldn't punish them, but they are still kids until they turn 18.

I think this charge them as an adult thing is just a way of sating the folks who feel that doing anything but is letting a criminal get off scott free. It's vengeful, and I don't think it functions as a deterrent.

How can you compare shoplifting or vandalizing to murder? They're at two completely different ends of crime.

But now, back to the topic at hand. I understand that murder can sometimes be confused with self-defense or something, but age, especially around the age of 15-17, shouldn't be much of a defense for them. In this day and age, can you honestly still tell me that few high schoolers, or hell, even middle schoolers don't understand death? I mean, I've heard of an 11 year old who is in a federal prison for an extremely horrible crime, and he understood completely what he did. Age really shouldn't be much of a variable when it comes to the crime. The reasons for the crime, how they did it, and things like that should come first.

Priest_Revan

bobhhh

Priest_Revan
Parents should take a bit of responsibility, but it should go only so far. There is a lot of turmoil during teenage years (I would know, I'm only 18), but that's not enough of an excuse for murder.

What your saying is that if a teen (16 maybe) walks up into a school and shoots and kills 5 people, the teen shouldn't be punished as much as his parents. That makes very little sense.

Listen, in every other aspect of life, the parent or guardian is responsible. If a kid shoplifts or vandalizes they don't charge him as an adult, why not? Doesn't he know right from wrong after all?? It's because the law doesn't deem a minor worthy of adult decisions. Apparently according to some this magical clarity about murder doesn't extend to any other transgression committed by a minor. Suddenly when a murder is committed a child has gained judgement, I would argue the opposite, it's probably easier for a minor to commit murder because they are immature and haven't the moral or intellectual perspective of adults. I'm not saying we shouldn't punish them, but they are still kids until they turn 18.

I think this charge them as an adult thing is just a way of sating the folks who feel that doing anything but is letting a criminal get off scott free. It's vengeful, and I don't think it functions as a deterrent.

How can you compare shoplifting or vandalizing to murder? They're at two completely different ends of crime.

But now, back to the topic at hand. I understand that murder can sometimes be confused with self-defense or something, but age, especially around the age of 15-17, shouldn't be much of a defense for them. In this day and age, can you honestly still tell me that few high schoolers, or hell, even middle schoolers don't understand death? I mean, I've heard of an 11 year old who is in a federal prison for an extremely horrible crime, and he understood completely what he did. Age really shouldn't be much of a variable when it comes to the crime. The reasons for the crime, how they did it, and things like that should come first.

I never said shoplifting was the same as murder, I said a minor's judgement is suspect in both cases. Only murder is singled out as adult behavior. A crime is a crime no matter who commits it, but minors are charged the way they are for the same reason a mentally disturbed person is given consideration by the law, because their judgement is suspect. It's why 15 year olds are not allowed to drink, smoke or vote. Even driving is only permitted depending on the state with restrictions, all because we don't expect kids to be able to make adult decisions. But suddenly a kid commits murder and zingo now he's a man.

Basically it doesn't take maturity to commit murder, it takes maturity not to.

Again I say this issue is all about vengeance.

Bob
Basically it doesn't take maturity to commit murder, it takes maturity not to.

Thats true, but tell me, at what age is someone truly mature? 18? 21? Those are just what we've been told as the legal mature ages for people, but are those ages correct?

In a legal term, yes, they are. When you look at it scientifically, it might not be. Truly, it must be based on the person, not their age. I've met 14 year olds who had the maturity of an 18 year old, and vice-versa (seriously).

trevoramueller
Talking about Capital Punishment got me thinking about all the elementary school shootings from a few years back. Should kids be tried as adults for committing murder or rape? Where's the age cut off, or should it be based on the severity of the crime?

If an 8 year old kid brings a gun to school and shoots 3 classmates, is that any different than a 20 year old kid shooting his classmates in college?

What are your thoughts?

If they commited the crime fully knowing what they are doing then they should be tried as a adult. Adult crimes deserves adult sentances.

Priest_Revan

Bob
Basically it doesn't take maturity to commit murder, it takes maturity not to.

Thats true, but tell me, at what age is someone truly mature? 18? 21? Those are just what we've been told as the legal mature ages for people, but are those ages correct?

In a legal term, yes, they are. When you look at it scientifically, it might not be. Truly, it must be based on the person, not their age. I've met 14 year olds who had the maturity of an 18 year old, and vice-versa (seriously).

Well you could say that about just anything with an age requirement, some kids are more mature than adults, but the law says 18, probably because it seems like reasonable cutoff. Ideally you have completed HS and are either seeking voluntary education or working or both. Adult concerns. Seems logical.

Of course it won't be 100% accurate, but then what is? Is it automatically accurate to charge a kid as an adult when they may not understand what they have done? how can you be sure? You can't really and I think jamming the courts with a lot of litigation every time a minor commits a violent crime is a waste of resources as well as a betrayal of the spirit of the law.

Phantom Penguin
If they commited the crime fully knowing what they are doing then they should be tried as a adult. Adult crimes deserves adult sentances.

adult crime? how can it be adult if a child commits it? this a semantic argument. A crime is a crime, you are just as dead if a kid or and adult kills you, so why is murder an Adult crime? Legally murder isn't about the victim, it's about the killer's state of mind. I just don't understand why premeditated murder is considered adult behaviour. Kinda bodes badly for us adults.

bobhhh

Priest_Revan

Bob
Basically it doesn't take maturity to commit murder, it takes maturity not to.

Thats true, but tell me, at what age is someone truly mature? 18? 21? Those are just what we've been told as the legal mature ages for people, but are those ages correct?

In a legal term, yes, they are. When you look at it scientifically, it might not be. Truly, it must be based on the person, not their age. I've met 14 year olds who had the maturity of an 18 year old, and vice-versa (seriously).

Well you could say that about just anything with an age requirement, some kids are more mature than adults, but the law says 18, probably because it seems like reasonable cutoff. Ideally you have completed HS and are either seeking voluntary education or working or both. Adult concerns. Seems logical.

Of course it won't be 100% accurate, but then what is? Is it automatically accurate to charge a kid as an adult when they may not understand what they have done? how can you be sure? You can't really and I think jamming the courts with a lot of litigation every time a minor commits a violent crime is a waste of resources as well as a betrayal of the spirit of the law.

Lets be honest here, when you get right down to it, it's really easy for any kid to say that they don't understand what they did. Whether the kid really is telling the truth is lying out of their ass is... really hard to tell.

And I highly doubt the courts are going to use a lie detector on a kid.

Priest_Revan
Lets be honest here, when you get right down to it, it's really easy for any kid to say that they don't understand what they did. Whether the kid really is telling the truth is lying out of their ass is... really hard to tell.

And I highly doubt the courts are going to use a lie detector on a kid.

Maybe not a lie detector, but maybe bring in a crime pyschlogist... they can find so many ways to find out about whenever somebody is of a criminal mind or not.
Crime Psychologists have helped out on so many cases where they were able to figure out a criminal's state of mind which led to tons of evidence which busted or proved an person's innocence.

So why not do that with kids too?

Aurora Moon

Priest_Revan
Lets be honest here, when you get right down to it, it's really easy for any kid to say that they don't understand what they did. Whether the kid really is telling the truth is lying out of their ass is... really hard to tell.

And I highly doubt the courts are going to use a lie detector on a kid.

Maybe not a lie detector, but maybe bring in a crime pyschlogist... they can find so many ways to find out about whenever somebody is of a criminal mind or not.
Crime Psychologists have helped out on so many cases where they were able to figure out a criminal's state of mind which led to tons of evidence which busted or proved an person's innocence.

So why not do that with kids too?

I like the idea... but some people might disagree and say that it's "wrong to do that to children" or something like that. Usually, someone pulls something out of their ass at the last moment.

Priest_Revan
Lets be honest here, when you get right down to it, it's really easy for any kid to say that they don't understand what they did. Whether the kid really is telling the truth is lying out of their ass is... really hard to tell.

And I highly doubt the courts are going to use a lie detector on a kid.

Um..I think I just said that, you know you can'tever really be sure...and lie detectors aren't admissible evidence for a reason, they are inacurate.

Priest_Revan

Aurora Moon

Priest_Revan
Lets be honest here, when you get right down to it, it's really easy for any kid to say that they don't understand what they did. Whether the kid really is telling the truth is lying out of their ass is... really hard to tell.

And I highly doubt the courts are going to use a lie detector on a kid.

Maybe not a lie detector, but maybe bring in a crime pyschlogist... they can find so many ways to find out about whenever somebody is of a criminal mind or not.
Crime Psychologists have helped out on so many cases where they were able to figure out a criminal's state of mind which led to tons of evidence which busted or proved an person's innocence.

So why not do that with kids too?

I like the idea... but some people might disagree and say that it's "wrong to do that to children" or something like that. Usually, someone pulls something out of their ass at the last moment.

could always argue that it's for the good of the children.... After all, they're bound to be "tramatized" after causing the death of others..... so of course the poor dears need a psychologist! ;)

from the age of 10 you should be tried as adults, that way your brain is full functioning by itself

Poke Alster
from the age of 10 you should be tried as adults, that way your brain is full functioning by itself

Huh?

bobhhh

Poke Alster
from the age of 10 you should be tried as adults, that way your brain is full functioning by itself

Huh?

Yeah, I was a little lost by that too.