Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
America is one of the only Western countries that tries minors as adults and sends them to life in prison with adults. In fact as recently as 2005 it was legal to sentence minors to death!
People aren't born evil, generally speaking people turn to crime either because of abuse, neglect, mental illness or a combination of those factors. Being omnivorous beings, all people have a predatory and compassionate side and our internal and external experiences determine which side plays out more in our behavior and before one's brain is fully developed rehabilitation and change is very much a possibility. However sentencing kids to adult time will ruin any chance they could grow up to be good and changed adults since it's a clear statement that society has given up on them.
I think people are so blind in their vengeful pursuit of punishment in this country that they don't realize how hypocritical this is. Scientific studies show the brain doesn't fully develop until the ages 21 to 25 and that teenagers have poorer impulse control than adults. This is why we don't allow teenagers to drink, join the army, (until they're 16) drive, or vote. So why do we feel like they are responsible enough to spend their entire life behind bars let alone be executed?
Personally I think 18 or 21 is a good cutoff for just about everything, but I don't understand why minors can be tried as adults yet have none of the positive perks of coming of age. It seems like they are considered whatever works against their interest given the context in question. I think many older people, especially conservatives are just naturally ageist and hateful towards young people or something.
It depends o age and then they first have to be certified by court In most once certified always certified thereafter.Most tho do not get death penalty for murder only based on their age. Its not a question of perks ;its a question of them overall not binge handled as adults;certified. I have no problems once certified with them being given adult rights which is what happens in reality.
It depends o age and then they first have to be certified by court In most once certified always certified thereafter.Most tho do not get death penalty for murder only based on their age. Its not a question of perks ;its a question of them overall not binge handled as adults;certified. I have no problems once certified with them being given adult rights which is what happens in reality.
But don't you agree if they are mature enough to be given an adult jail sentence with adults they might as well be allowed to drink and rent an apartment on their own too since clearly they have fully developed their decision making capacities?
... Personally I think 18 or 21 is a good cutoff for just about everything, but I don't understand why minors can be tried as adults yet have none of the positive perks of coming of age. It seems like they are considered whatever works against their interest given the context in question. I think many older people, especially conservatives are just naturally ageist and hateful towards young people or something.
I think a lot of people, especially older ones, are very uncomfortable with teens and young adults. I'd consider it fear of the unknown. Those youngsters are always up to something they don't understand and their natural instinct is to SUPPRESS THEM. And when the young do something wrong, it's not possible to punish them as one would a child. So ... what to do? If these young adults used weapons, or inflicted serious harm (even if it's quite clear they are mentally unstable and/or had awful upbringings) the fearful want to "throw the book at them." Yes, it's a form of revenge.
Any legal punishment can be twisted to come across as revenge. And there's always been a mutual distrust/dislike between younger and older.
Fear-maybe. There's always a question: can the person be rehabilitated?
Do you want a rehabilitated murderer living next door?
Do you want your kids going to school with someone who has previously killed fellow students but has gone through a rehab program?
I don't feel the all-or-nothing adult rights holds. Awareness doesn't happen on the stroke of midnight on someone's 21st birthday. If the case has been evaluated based on the other factors mentioned and determined suitable for an adult trial, so be it.
A question I just thought of: is there any appeal to this? If the system (judge? whoever makes the decision) wants to try the person as an adult, is there a method of appeal, or is that decision final?
Scientific studies show the brain doesn't fully develop until the ages 21 to 25 and that teenagers have poorer impulse control than adults. This is why we don't allow teenagers to drink, join the army, (until they're 16) drive, or vote. So why do we feel like they are responsible enough to spend their entire life behind bars let alone be executed?
They may not have fully developed brains at 21-25, but they are pretty much at a level at age 18 that only a drastic set of circumstances could possibly change their direction. In some cases you might be able to blame the parents, in some cases the parents did everything right. Because of that, we cannot do anything to the parents, although in some cases, I wish we could.
We have to rely on the justice system to make those decisions. Like the parents, the justice system is not always correct. The best we can do is make sure all chances for appeal are available, and in the case of trying a juvenile as an adult, the death penalty should never be an option.
Trying a minor as an adult isn't some sort of punishment (beyond the penalty itself). Rather, it is acknowledgement that there is nothing magical about being 18 years and 1 day old, as opposed to being 17 years and 364 days old. So, while that general rule of age is a useful guideline, we sometimes deviate from it. And this works both ways. Sometimes, those older than 18 years of age are deemed to not be competent for trial, due to mental defect or illness.
Why anyone would think that because a 17-year-old murderer is deemed worthy of trial as an adult means all 17-year-olds should be able to purchase and consume alcohol is beyond me - neither has anything to do with another.
The murder trial might not even be the best example, since there are many more minor ways the laws are geared to be more restrictive towards younger people because it's politically convenient to do so.
Because groups like MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) put huge political pressure on legislators to enact blanket prohibitions rather than be more stern about the consequences of drunk driving. And it's tough to envision these laws being changed any time soon because if a congressional representative proposed doing so, they would be attacked for being sold on drunk drivers or being against "the children", so draconian and unreasonable laws still exist due to this kind of reasoning. So a 20 year old who serves his or her country and deployed into combat putting their lives on the line can't be trusted to decide if they want to legally enjoy a beer now and then. That's logical how????
Even if data shows that vehicle accident rates creep up as someone ages to resemble rates of younger drivers, or that adults are just about as likely to talk on their cell phones while driving and get into an accident as a result, the laws are all heavily weighted to young people. Even if the crash risk were similar, you would never see a law for older drivers saying that three 85 year olds can't all ride in a car together because they'll get distracted while talking but you can bet this law will be in effect for three 18 year olds riding together. Because it's the 85 year olds who vote and they aren't gonna put up with it! And the politicians know this and tow the line. I'm not saying that is a good law at all, but having this kind of ageist double standard is hypocritical.
I know I'm going to sound cruel but I'm very pragmatic about this issue. We already enough people who truly deserve our help as a society, why should we waste time with those who committed senseless murders, even if they are minors. I know this is how the Chinese think. They already have a billion people, they have no qualms about executing people even for minor crimes. Really, what would you rather spend your tax dollars on, reforming a 16 year old gang member who killed someone in cold blood or use that money for underprivileged children?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because it's the 85 year olds who vote and they aren't gonna put up with it! And the politicians know this and tow the line. I'm not saying that is a good law at all, but having this kind of ageist double standard is hypocritical.
