- Joined
- Jul 27, 2018
- Messages
- 1,515
- Reaction score
- 631
- Location
- Vacaville, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
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.”
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.”
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.
….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.”
Should teenage lawbreakers or suspects (age 13 to 17) be referred to as “children”?
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.
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.”
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.”
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.
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.”
In what context? Official documentation, court proceedings, individual evidence, media reporting, casual discussions? Also, should convicted lawbreakers be treated the same as suspects?Should teenage lawbreakers or suspects (age 13 to 17) be referred to as “children”?
I guess you’ve never had to manage a room full of young children!The word “children” usually carries a connotation of innocence and harmlessness whereas “teenage” often invokes images of defiance or thuggery.
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.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.”
Should teenage criminals be called “children”?
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.”
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 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.
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.
giving an 8 year old to 13 year old death? sorry, but that is truly twisted.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?