The children of Colorado's jails (1 Viewer)

[jujuman13]

JUSTICE must be SEEN to be done as well as actually done.
Are these children actually receiving justice or is it merely some State responding to a crime wave without thought of JUSTICE.
We are supposed to be a Christian believing nation, justice MUST if it to be correctly termed as justice, be tempered.
Link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6089702.stm
Comments please.
TOT, we all of us know you are a 'string them up and hang them high' sort of person, it might be as well if you decided to forego any comment on this thread.

 

[talloulou]

I don't like the whole ability of children to be tried as an adult either. You are either 18 or you're not. You're a juvenile or you're not. The ability to decide to try some 14 year olds as adults while other 14 year olds get tried as kids is very unjust. Minors should all be treated as minors in my opinion. I have no doubt that many of them not sentenced to "life" will get out and more than likely commit more crime. But you just can't have a system where some kids are treated with "kid gloves" and other kids are not.

 

[jujuman13]

I think that in many instances where so called 'Petty crime' is the offence, it would be preferable were corporal punishment to be reinstated.

 

[1069]

I have seen studies which present a compelling argument for some type of institutional racism even within the juvenile justice system.
It seems youthful minority offenders are more often tried as adults than youthful white offenders; it also seems that minorities are sometimes sentenced to prison for the same crimes that white offenders are remanded to treatment programs for. Recidivism does not seem to be much of a factor in these arbitrary decisions.
It could also be, however, that this is a class issue rather than a racial one; minority juveniles often tend to come from a lower socio-economic strata, on average, than white juveniles, and are more often unable to afford attorneys and forced to rely on court appointed ones for representation.

 

[imprtnrd]

As the saying goes "talloulou" "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime" They know right from wrong so no excuse there. The are craving for attention which I guess they can't get at home (or where ever they live). So they act it out. All goes back to the parents or gaurdian who raised them.

 

[talloulou]

As the saying goes "talloulou" "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime" They know right from wrong so no excuse there. The are craving for attention which I guess they can't get at home (or where ever they live). So they act it out. All goes back to the parents or gaurdian who raised them.

Yeah but that statement does absolutely nothing to address the fact that two 14 y.o.'s can commit the same crime and one may arbitrarily be tried as an adult while the other gets to cling to his mothers apron as a minor. That is not just.

 

[Patrickt]

While justice is represented by a woman holding scales, that sort of justice doesn't exist. Never has. Never will. When your child is killed, nothing will ever balance the scale. A 17-year old tortures a four-year old to death. What would justice require? Four years in a prison? How about a really, really stern talking to? Or, a 17-year old with an IQ of 140 conspires with an 18-year old with an IQ of 85 to murder. Would justice tolerate a sentence for the 18-year old that was more than that for the 17-year old?

The statement was made that 18 is an adult and 17 is a juvenile, period. That isn't the law. Juveniles who are 16 or 17 can be declared emancipated by a judge and permitted to live on their own as adults. Juveniles are allowed, with parental permission, to marry and go into the military.

Lastly, the BBC story reported as fact that a young man had been raped by his parents but his jury never heard about that. I'm sorry but unless they would like to cite some supporting evidence I don't believe them.

 

[debate_junkie]

I don't like the whole ability of children to be tried as an adult either. You are either 18 or you're not. You're a juvenile or you're not. The ability to decide to try some 14 year olds as adults while other 14 year olds get tried as kids is very unjust. Minors should all be treated as minors in my opinion. I have no doubt that many of them not sentenced to "life" will get out and more than likely commit more crime. But you just can't have a system where some kids are treated with "kid gloves" and other kids are not.

The ability to decide who gets tried as an adult and who doesn't is based entirely on the nature/and or the severity of the crime. I've YET to see a 14 year old charged with shoplifting tried as an adult. So while you're "some do some don't" argument may work with some things, violent crime almost ALWAYS illicit's a juvenile being tried as an adult. Because I'm sorry, you cannot tell me that they don't know that pulling that trigger, or putting that knife into another person can result in death.

And the kids being talked about in this article their crimes involved the deaths of other people... the FIRST kid for helping cover up the murder of his friend's mom, the second kid for the shooting of another child. So like it was stated above... if juvenile's can't do the time, they SHOULDN'T do the crime. Raising up a bunch of pansies, who show no responsibility for their own actions, is PRECISELY one of the reasons ( the number one reason being people unfit to parent) that we even have to discuss this issue.

 

[1069]

The ability to decide who gets tried as an adult and who doesn't is based entirely on the nature/and or the severity of the crime. I've YET to see a 14 year old charged with shoplifting tried as an adult. So while you're "some do some don't" argument may work with some things, violent crime almost ALWAYS illicit's a juvenile being tried as an adult. Because I'm sorry, you cannot tell me that they don't know that pulling that trigger, or putting that knife into another person can result in death.

And the kids being talked about in this article their crimes involved the deaths of other people... the FIRST kid for helping cover up the murder of his friend's mom, the second kid for the shooting of another child. So like it was stated above... if juvenile's can't do the time, they SHOULDN'T do the crime. Raising up a bunch of pansies, who show no responsibility for their own actions, is PRECISELY one of the reasons ( the number one reason being people unfit to parent) that we even have to discuss this issue.

That's all good and well, but it still doesn't really address the issue that Tallou brings up, which is that two 14 year olds can commit the same crime and one may arbitrarily be tried as an adult, while the other is tried as a minor.

violent crime almost ALWAYS illicit's a juvenile being tried as an adult

This is patently false.
Please provide evidence to back up this statement.

 

[jujuman13]

Whose decision is it that determines the age at which a person is a child or an adult?
Does each State have a determination?
Or is there a Federal rule that determines when or at what age a child becomes an adult?

 

[1069]

Whose decision is it that determines the age at which a person is a child or an adult?
Does each State have a determination?
Or is there a Federal rule that determines when or at what age a child becomes an adult?

That's just the problem.
It's pretty much left up to the judge's discretion.
So on one hand, we've got kids as young as twelve or thirteen being tried as adults, and on the other hand we've got people as old as eighteen still being sentenced as juveniles.
Somebody really needs to come in and revamp and just standardize the entire juvenile justice system, so that the rules are the same for everyone.
True, two different sixteen-year-olds might be on very different levels cognitively and developmentally, but nevertheless, the only way to be fair is to sentence them both the same, according to their chronological age.
Either they're both juveniles, or neither one of them is.

5% of the general population has an IQ of less than 70, and that is generally considered the benchmark for mental retardation.
I believe that people with limited mental capacity need to be shown additional leniency. Although a person who is borderline mentally retarded is certainly capable of committing crimes, they are often quite easily led, and I don't think they are always entirely capable of understanding the consequences of their actions in the same way as someone of average intelligence. I feel the mentally handicapped need to be treated with some degree of additional tolerance, compassion and patience.

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

While justice is represented by a woman holding scales, that sort of justice doesn't exist. Never has. Never will. When your child is killed, nothing will ever balance the scale. A 17-year old tortures a four-year old to death. What would justice require? Four years in a prison? How about a really, really stern talking to? Or, a 17-year old with an IQ of 140 conspires with an 18-year old with an IQ of 85 to murder. Would justice tolerate a sentence for the 18-year old that was more than that for the 17-year old?

The statement was made that 18 is an adult and 17 is a juvenile, period. That isn't the law. Juveniles who are 16 or 17 can be declared emancipated by a judge and permitted to live on their own as adults. Juveniles are allowed, with parental permission, to marry and go into the military.

Lastly, the BBC story reported as fact that a young man had been raped by his parents but his jury never heard about that. I'm sorry but unless they would like to cite some supporting evidence I don't believe them.

Your first paragraph is a good example of why I belief that justice is nothing more than a platonic ideal that is unattainable in the real world.

The fact that politicians are destroying the lives of children, whose prefrontal cortex ****ing isn’t even fully developed yet (you know, the part of the brain that lets us decide to do what’s right instead of what feels good?), all for political gain, is a ******* travesty that jeers at our pretensions of upholding justice.

 

[Patrickt]

All of the discussion seems to indicate that justice should only exist for those who have committed crimes. Is some sort of justice for the victims and their families a bad idea?

Should people who never develop to the point they can consider what's right instead of what feels good be cut slack because it isn't their fault?

 

[jujuman13]

Quote
(All of the discussion seems to indicate that justice should only exist for those who have committed crimes. Is some sort of justice for the victims and their families a bad idea?)

Yes it does, because society is only in general concerned that those who do the crime should pay the time.

What kind of Justice is it possible to give the victims of crime?
Statement of remorse by the criminal when faced with the victim and after listening to the victim's story?
I think this may work to some degree, but not enough to efface the crime.

Satisfaction of the victim at seeing the Criminal pay whatever society or the Judge determines their punishment should be?

Confiscation of the Criminals assets?
Perhaps.

I suppose that the only Justice any victim could truly welcome is the knowledge that the Criminal is caught and will never re-offend, but this latter point would be the Criminals behavior over the remnant of the criminal's life.
It can never be possible to give a sense of Justice to the victim, unless the chastisement of the criminal is performed immediately after the commitment of the crime.
Even then, could that be considered JUSTICE?

Is American Justice being as fair as possible with respect to young offenders, when compaired to how other democratic nations treat their young offenders?