Should teenage criminals be called “children”?

[RobertU]

Should teenage lawbreakers or suspects (age 13 to 17) be referred to as “children”? The word “children” usually carries a connotation of innocence and harmlessness whereas “teenage” often invokes images of defiance or thuggery.

Terminology can slant a story. “A young male wrote racist graffiti” sounds more insidious than “A schoolchild wrote racist graffiti.” Or police “attacked children” with tear gas is perceived differently than police teargassed “gang of teenagers.”

 

[bongsaway]

Should teenage lawbreakers or suspects (age 13 to 17) be referred to as “children”? The word “children” usually carries a connotation of innocence and harmlessness whereas “teenage” often invokes images of defiance or thuggery.

Terminology can slant a story. “A young male wrote racist graffiti” sounds more insidious than “A schoolchild wrote racist graffiti.” Or police “attacked children” with tear gas is perceived differently than police teargassed “gang of teenagers.”

They are not legal adults but it's easier to refer to them as criminals. Makes it sound more dangerous and we need to be afraid in america, and don't forget your weapon to protect you and yours from these criminals.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Should teenage lawbreakers or suspects (age 13 to 17) be referred to as “children”? The word “children” usually carries a connotation of innocence and harmlessness whereas “teenage” often invokes images of defiance or thuggery.

Terminology can slant a story. “A young male wrote racist graffiti” sounds more insidious than “A schoolchild wrote racist graffiti.” Or police “attacked children” with tear gas is perceived differently than police teargassed “gang of teenagers.”

We could call them the spawn of Satan.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Should teenage lawbreakers or suspects (age 13 to 17) be referred to as “children”? The word “children” usually carries a connotation of innocence and harmlessness whereas “teenage” often invokes images of defiance or thuggery.

Are they legally considered adults, with all rights and responsibilities which append?

If NOT, then they do remain "children," or if one prefers "juvenile" although the law allows them to be tried as "adults" if the crime is particularly heinous.

….whereas “teenage” often invokes images of defiance or thuggery. Terminology can slant a story. “A young male wrote racist graffiti” sounds more insidious than “A schoolchild wrote racist graffiti.” Or police “attacked children” with tear gas is perceived differently than police teargassed “gang of teenagers.”

This part troubles me, not only because you appear to think a story should be "slanted" in a more negative way, but also that you appear to assume guilt just because anyone, much less a juvenile, is reported to have committed a crime. Feel free to clarify.

IMO "slanted" news designed to sell "views" is a detriment to justice, often poisoning a jury pool before they are ever presented with the evidence.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

“Child” is far more accurate than “adult”, but I usually call them “kids”.

 

[Mr Person]

We call them "juveniles", and you most certainly would not want to convey a sense of innocence or harmlessness to some of them.

"Juvenile" is a neutral term. You're indicating an explicit age range without tying it to some sense of innocence or guilt.

 

[TheParser]

Should teenage lawbreakers or suspects (age 13 to 17) be referred to as “children”?

Absolutely NOT.

If they commit vicious crimes of violence, they should be called "individuals."

I am sorry that the Supreme Court has ruled that "children" cannot be given life sentences even for murder.

 

[RobertU]

Are they legally considered adults, with all rights and responsibilities which append?

If NOT, then they do remain "children," or if one prefers "juvenile" although the law allows them to be tried as "adults" if the crime is particularly heinous.



This part troubles me, not only because you appear to think a story should be "slanted" in a more negative way, but also that you appear to assume guilt just because anyone, much less a juvenile, is reported to have committed a crime. Feel free to clarify.

IMO "slanted" news designed to sell "views" is a detriment to justice, often poisoning a jury pool before they are ever presented with the evidence.

My experience with jury duty is that jurors have already poisoned their own minds long before they know any facts of the case.

 

[gulfman]

I have no problem giving these children the death penalty for rape and murder.Just call it late term abortion to appease the liberals.

 

[Bodi]

Should teenage lawbreakers or suspects (age 13 to 17) be referred to as “children”? The word “children” usually carries a connotation of innocence and harmlessness whereas “teenage” often invokes images of defiance or thuggery.

Terminology can slant a story. “A young male wrote racist graffiti” sounds more insidious than “A schoolchild wrote racist graffiti.” Or police “attacked children” with tear gas is perceived differently than police teargassed “gang of teenagers.”

Yes. And when describing me in a story they should mention "white person" so I sound more innocent than " black male"...

 

[FreedomFromAll]

Should teenage lawbreakers or suspects (age 13 to 17) be referred to as “children”? The word “children” usually carries a connotation of innocence and harmlessness whereas “teenage” often invokes images of defiance or thuggery.

Terminology can slant a story. “A young male wrote racist graffiti” sounds more insidious than “A schoolchild wrote racist graffiti.” Or police “attacked children” with tear gas is perceived differently than police teargassed “gang of teenagers.”

I know people who think that 50 year olds are children. Im 50 so I'm ok with that.

All kidding aside teenage children would be the proper pronoun. Regardless of the crime the law states that they are minors.

 

[Sweden]

Are they legally considered adults, with all rights and responsibilities which append?

If NOT, then they do remain "children," or if one prefers "juvenile" although the law allows them to be tried as "adults" if the crime is particularly heinous.



This part troubles me, not only because you appear to think a story should be "slanted" in a more negative way, but also that you appear to assume guilt just because anyone, much less a juvenile, is reported to have committed a crime. Feel free to clarify.

IMO "slanted" news designed to sell "views" is a detriment to justice, often poisoning a jury pool before they are ever presented with the evidence.

In Sweden the word ' ensamkomendeflykningbarn' -yes all one word - means 'alone coming refugee CHILDREN'. So one can be a child up up to one's mid twenties if one is a good enough liar. (Or older, the record stands at 41).

Here the age of criminal responsbility is 15, so nothing that a 14 year old, say, may do is a crime. Needless say those who authority believes to be 14 are much in demand for carrying drugs etc.

 

[spud_meister]

Should teenage lawbreakers or suspects (age 13 to 17) be referred to as “children”? The word “children” usually carries a connotation of innocence and harmlessness whereas “teenage” often invokes images of defiance or thuggery.

Terminology can slant a story. “A young male wrote racist graffiti” sounds more insidious than “A schoolchild wrote racist graffiti.” Or police “attacked children” with tear gas is perceived differently than police teargassed “gang of teenagers.”

Considering the whole legal system is meant to be based on a presumption of innocence, I don't see anything wrong with terminology that reinforces that, especially in minors. The problem is journalism, especially on the internet, that profits more with outrage and half-truths than integrity and balance.

 

[HonestJoe]

Should teenage lawbreakers or suspects (age 13 to 17) be referred to as “children”?

In what context? Official documentation, court proceedings, individual evidence, media reporting, casual discussions? Also, should convicted lawbreakers be treated the same as suspects?

The word “children” usually carries a connotation of innocence and harmlessness whereas “teenage” often invokes images of defiance or thuggery.

I guess you’ve never had to manage a room full of young children! Seriously though, the connotation is to a great part in the ear of the listener. I don’t think you can avoid unintended connotations because everyone will read different subtexts to whatever words are used.

Terminology can slant a story. “A young male wrote racist graffiti” sounds more insidious than “A schoolchild wrote racist graffiti.” Or police “attacked children” with tear gas is perceived differently than police teargassed “gang of teenagers.”

Well you changed elements there – adding school and gang. Accuracy and honesty are much more important than specific word choice. I think this also raises the point that there is much more to the impression generated (intentionally and not) when writing or speaking about anything like this. While choice of individual words can be important, a more holistic view of what you’re saying and how it’s presented is more important. You could talk about an “vicious gang of children roaming the streets” or a “group of teenage friends walking to the park”. The children/teenager difference isn’t the main factor there.

 

[Bum]

Should teenage criminals be called “children”?

I have no real thoughts on it, however, I think the term child or teenage will depend on what media outlet it is, and what agenda they are trying to advance.

 

[Xelor]

Should teenage lawbreakers or suspects (age 13 to 17) be referred to as “children”? The word “children” usually carries a connotation of innocence and harmlessness whereas “teenage” often invokes images of defiance or thuggery.

Terminology can slant a story. “A young male wrote racist graffiti” sounds more insidious than “A schoolchild wrote racist graffiti.” Or police “attacked children” with tear gas is perceived differently than police teargassed “gang of teenagers.”

Red:
"Urchin" and "hellion" invoke the character qualities. "Teenager" and "child" are neutral, "unloaded" terms that roughly identify age ranges -- 13-17 for the former and birth to 17 for the latter -- but that alone carry no qualitative value judgment.

In certain syntactical contexts, however, "child" and "teenager" can carry such judgements, for example:

• Judgement given by syntactical context --> "Well, what do you expect? They're teenagers/children."
• Neutral/non-judgemental context --> "Fifteen children/teenagers were on the bus."
• Judgment given by diction:
  • "The hellions drew ever nearer."
  • "There's an urchin on nearly every corner."
• Dictionally neutral:
  • "The children/teenagers drew ever nearer."
  • There's a child/teenager on every corner."

 

[Thoreau72]

Should Congressmen and Presidents be called adults?

 

[wellwisher]

If you asked any teenager; 13 or older, if they were still a child or a teen, they will set you straight. Saying they are a child is an insult. Run an experiment! Children long to be teenagers and long to be called young adults since that means they get more privileges and get to do more things. Once they grow whiskers, in various places, they want to do adult things like breed.

The word child, is not desired by teens, accept by criminal teens using this to game the system so they can avoid punishment. This identity politic game panders to the Democrat party world view, which protects criminals, such as those in office. Defense lawyers contribute the lion;s share of their campaign donations to the Democrat party. The party, in turn, has to spin for them to make their job easier. A repeat offender is worth more to a lawyer, than a one time offender.

 

[Peter King]

Should teenage lawbreakers or suspects (age 13 to 17) be referred to as “children”? The word “children” usually carries a connotation of innocence and harmlessness whereas “teenage” often invokes images of defiance or thuggery.

Terminology can slant a story. “A young male wrote racist graffiti” sounds more insidious than “A schoolchild wrote racist graffiti.” Or police “attacked children” with tear gas is perceived differently than police teargassed “gang of teenagers.”

Depends. below 14 everything is child, below 12 no criminal trial should follow, maybe alternative punishments based on what crime they committed.

In Germany a youth psychology specialist sits in during the trial and is asked what the mental development of the youthful offender is. There 19 year olds with extreme childish points of view can be prosecuted under the youth criminal system.

I think that is a reasonable way to look at it, but for me no-one under 14 should be prosecuted as an adult, above that it is a question that experts about the level of maturity should determine.

 

[ClaraD]

I have no problem giving these children the death penalty for rape and murder.Just call it late term abortion to appease the liberals.

giving an 8 year old to 13 year old death? sorry, but that is truly twisted.

 

[gulfman]

giving an 8 year old to 13 year old death? sorry, but that is truly twisted.

Just think.They could be on death row for 80 years

 

[ClaraD]

Just think.They could be on death row for 80 years

No, they shouldn't be on death row at all...13 year olds nor 8 year olds have the concept of the consequences of their actions, certainly not to the level of an adult.

 

[Bodi]

No, they shouldn't be on death row at all...13 year olds nor 8 year olds have the concept of the consequences of their actions, certainly not to the level of an adult.

Kids know consequences to their actions... every parent knows this.

 

[JeffreyB]

why dont we just call them "teenage suspects", seems completely accurate and not everyone has a negative view of teenagers.

 

[OldFatGuy]

giving an 8 year old to 13 year old death? sorry, but that is truly twisted.

A small cancer must be excised before it grows and does more damage.

It is natural to try to protect children. The problem that develops is when a child is plain evil, with no conscience, and an active threat to society having already committed capital crimes. They cannot be rehabilitated. Limited institutional incarceration provides education for worse crimes as an adult. Which is merciful, a death sentence or a life incarcerated? Pick your poison, but respect their victims when you make your choice.