- Joined
- Nov 7, 2010
- Messages
- 7,676
- Reaction score
- 2,850
- Location
- Your Head
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Physiology isn't always the best standard either. Just because you have the physiological capacity to make adult adult decisions doesn't mean that you have the emotional/psychological maturity to make adult decisions.
Shouldn't be tried for 1st degree murder, that's for sure. But the individual was an adult, and the assumption is that as an adult, it's reasonable to assume he should understand the consequences of drinking and driving before he gets to the bar, and that's why he's still fully culpable.
The consequences of this case are dire indeed, 14 people killed, immense property damage, etc. I don't know what the kids thought or if they were really aware of what could be the consequences for those actions. But my generalized take on trying someone as an adult vs juvenile is based on whether or not the individual is an adult or a juvenile. I think we should stick to that and not float things around because a particular crime may be heinous and we want greater "justice".
Nevertheless, in most cases we do have laws pertaining to juveniles acting as adults and being punished as adults.
We do, but it sort of defeats the purpose of having a separate juvenile system. The reasoning behind this was supposed to be that kids don't fully understand the ramifications of their actions and consequences, so we have a juvenile system so that kids are punished for crime, but we don't institutionalize them and put them on a path for a life of crime.
So either that's true or it's not, and if it's true and we're going to make a juvenile system, then juveniles go through that system even for horrible crimes. Their cognition doesn't suddenly become adult level just because the crime they committed is horrible.
Not really. It supposedly takes away the age only criteria as being the determination of acting in an adult manner by those under an arbitrary age.
Except that there's not like an "adult test" they give. It's just that a crime is so bad, that we want the kids punished harder than they can be in the juvenile system, so we try them as adults. But the point is, either kids are fully able to understand their actions and consequences and are thus equally culpable to an adult, or they are not. But the mere fact that we have a juvenile system at all, we are saying that they are not. And thus we need a cut off, and it's going to be age related. We need to stick to that then, not flop it around because we want someone punished harder than we otherwise could punish them for.
It's stupid to have a juvenile system, claim that kids by fact that they are kids and still developing cannot be held as culpable for their actions as adults, and then turn around and try these kids we've already said don't quite understand the consequences of their action as adults as if they do fully understand the consequences of their actions.
We do, but it sort of defeats the purpose of having a separate juvenile system. The reasoning behind this was supposed to be that kids don't fully understand the ramifications of their actions and consequences, so we have a juvenile system so that kids are punished for crime, but we don't institutionalize them and put them on a path for a life of crime.
So either that's true or it's not, and if it's true and we're going to make a juvenile system, then juveniles go through that system even for horrible crimes. Their cognition doesn't suddenly become adult level just because the crime they committed is horrible.
Hmm...seems to me this should not even be up for debate. But, I imagine that every little bit of extenuating circumstance will be used to keep them not only anonymous, but to also try them as juveniles.
Could juveniles in Gatlinburg fire face murder charges? - CNN.com
IMO, these kids need to do 50 years or more behind bars...if not get the death penalty.
I believe that is correct. Try them as adults. They knew what they were doing even if they didnt calculate the long term consequences. They can take their age into consideration during sentencing as appropriate.Depends on the age. 16 or 17 is no different than 18. They clearly know starting fires is wrong and can clearly understand implications. Hell. Just talked about this with my 11year old and she was talking about consequences like deaths... homes burnt... forest destroyed... animals dead.
Try them as adults.
**** em.
Yes it does suddenly become adult level. Talk to any kid about stealing an I Phone... breaking a store sign or murdering a person.
Cognition doesn't speed up just because you want it to. The idea of the juvenile system is that a kid cannot know well know the ramifications of actions. We either have it or we don't, but you cannot pretend that just because one crime is so bad that the reasoning behind the juvenile system is moot. That's just stupid.
Cognition doesn't speed up just because you want it to. The idea of the juvenile system is that a kid cannot know well know the ramifications of actions. We either have it or we don't, but you cannot pretend that just because one crime is so bad that the reasoning behind the juvenile system is moot. That's just stupid.
Hmm...seems to me this should not even be up for debate. But, I imagine that every little bit of extenuating circumstance will be used to keep them not only anonymous, but to also try them as juveniles.
Could juveniles in Gatlinburg fire face murder charges? - CNN.com
IMO, these kids need to do 50 years or more behind bars...if not get the death penalty.
Yet the law says so. If they were one day older they'd be charged as adults and their individual maturity would make no difference whatsoever.The essential problem i see is that a 17 364/365ths old minor is not about to suddenly learn reality in a day.
If mental incompetence is the defense, then it should be demonstrated rather than assumed.
I could see an 8 year old getting the little kid gloves, but if these kids were 16+ and they started this fire on purpose, i have little sympathy for them.
Then again, i still don't know- was this a cigarette butt or a campfire or something? To some extent, i think that emergency services dropped the ball, and they shouldn't rake these kids over the coals to deflect from that.
They should be charged as adults.
Yet the law says so. If they were one day older they'd be charged as adults and their individual maturity would make no difference whatsoever.
IMO, commit an adult crime, be tried as an adult.
Jesus people... its like many of you have never actually known a teenager and absolutely nothing about cognitive development. When things are happening kids logic is less available. Driving a car. Fights. Arguments. Talk to kids about speeding to a concert... no biggy. Running people over to make the concert. Bad.
Kids arent stupid and minor laws are generally stupid. The real reason for a juvenile system is not because a kid doesnt know starting a wild fire isnt bad but to keep kids away from adults in prison for safety.
They can regurgitate why it is wrong, but most don't understand. They haven't had to pay bills, they don't know what pictures and momentous mean and how it affects people, they may not have even lost anyone important in their lives. Do they know fires can kill? Probably. Do they understand fires can kill? It is impossible to say without talking to them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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?