US child appeals against being tried for murder as an adult

[billvon 3,009]

>You are assuming, incorrectly, that all "children" are the same and that no person
>is capable of being a responsible person until they reach some predetermined age.

No, I don't assume that at all, any more than I assume that everyone who has 199 jumps is completely incompetent to jump with a camera but everyone with 200 jumps is perfectly fine - or that a jumper with 24 jumps cannot understand the risks he is taking, but a jumper with 25 jumps can.

>Do not fall for the delusion that no "child" can understand or comprehend the
>results of their actions. Many, many can and do understand as well, or even
>better than, adults.

Agreed. But similarly, do not fall for the delusion that most children understand the consequences of their actions as well as (or better than) adults.

[kallend 2,032]

Quote

Quote

I suspect the answer lies in that children are more likely to respond to corrective intervention and lesson the chance of repeat. But if that's not an option for a particular child (clear diagnosis of psychopathy, sociopathy), then what?

and, isn't better (more fair) to assess ANY criminal on the basis of recidivism, rather than just ASSUME a certain propensity based on an arbitrary cut off date?

Age is much more likely an accurate indicator than the nature of a crime. The is NO proof that heinousness correlates at all with maturity, while there is abundant evidence that age does.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

As for parole - One guy goes in at 14 - at 18 (four years later) he's a good candidate (based on observed behavior) to be let out. Another goes in a 34 - at 38 (four years later) he's a good candidate (based on observed behavior) to be let out.

as the only person who seems to be trying in this thread, you may be onto it here.

The solution is not in pretending that teenage murderers can be treated as children, but in changing the sentencing guidelines to allow for review of their maturation. No 20 year or life minimum. When the child comes of age, reevaluate to see if he really fit to be in society.

that said, is it fair to other juvenile offenders to be kept along side murderers?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

>You are assuming, incorrectly, that all "children" are the same and that no person
>is capable of being a responsible person until they reach some predetermined age.

No, I don't assume that at all, any more than I assume that everyone who has 199 jumps is completely incompetent to jump with a camera but everyone with 200 jumps is perfectly fine - or that a jumper with 24 jumps cannot understand the risks he is taking, but a jumper with 25 jumps can.

>Do not fall for the delusion that no "child" can understand or comprehend the
>results of their actions. Many, many can and do understand as well, or even
>better than, adults.

Agreed. But similarly, do not fall for the delusion that most children understand the consequences of their actions as well as (or better than) adults.

Most children do not understand as well as adults. I stated as much in my post.
So, if some people are capable of being acting in a responsible manner and understand the consequences of their actions at a young age, why can we not try those few as adults?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The solution is not in pretending that teenage murderers can be treated as children, but in changing the sentencing guidelines to allow for review of their maturation. No 20 year or life minimum. When the child comes of age, reevaluate to see if he really fit to be in society.

that's what I've been saying.

But I think Billvon wins with the mass murdering rapist minor getting grounded and losing his cell phone. I love it. I'm sure that makes the neighbors all comfy.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Age is much more likely an accurate indicator than the nature of a crime. The is NO proof that heinousness correlates at all with maturity, while there is abundant evidence that age does.

??Age is much more likely an accurate indicator of recidivism of the already committed crime than what??

Or are you arguing your strawman again about the definition of adult vs minor? That's always been a moot point or a strawman depending on who you were talking about. If so, you're debating with no one.

Confusing, if the crime is already committed, then an assessment of character of the criminal needs to be be done and considered in their sentencing.

I'm not sure if you are refuting something or not - or you just made up something to refute.

My contention is that recidivism is the main thing we want to protect against. And that we assess that for anyone. If there is a correlation of that to age, then great, use that as one criteria, but not the sole criteria. You seem to agree with this sometimes, and argue it at other times. Or think it's the SOLE criteria for anyone younger than 15, or 16, or 22, or whatever.

I'd consider that a very young person that does something terrible has a MUCH greater chance of being taught right from wrong than a fully and emotionally matured adult. But, so what? If the youth cannot be retaught (clinically psycotic), that's important too. That's part of the assessment that should be considered. Why is that so unreasonable to you people?

Arbitrarily disallowing an assessment of this kind based on a random age cutoff is no better than doing it for gender, or skin color, or thickness of hair.... I'm saying the just thing is to assess it for each individual in consideration of the penalty.

And again, this is NOT in consideration of the criminal at all, but strictly for the sake of protecting the public from that individual.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,009]

>But I think Billvon wins with the mass murdering rapist minor getting grounded
>and losing his cell phone. I love it. I'm sure that makes the neighbors all comfy.

And by jailing the 11 year old for possession of cocaine who takes his mother's cocaine to school, I'm sure you will sleep better at night, confident that an army of 11 year old drug criminals will not swarm over you as you sleep.

Any other really dumb comparisons you'd like to get out of the way?

[billvon 3,009]

>So, if some people are capable of being acting in a responsible manner
>and understand the consequences of their actions at a young age, why can we
>not try those few as adults?

Many people (Rehmwa included) react angrily to the suggestion that laws should not be enforced equally, and find things like "hate crimes" annoying because you have to "understand the defendant's state of mind" or whatnot to determine the severity of their crime.

Same thing here. If you prosecute an 11 year old as an adult because he's more mature than your average 11 year old, you have to understand his maturity level - which everyone on his side will be doing their level best to misrepresent. That's a nearly impossible task.

Another problem is the converse. If it is mental age and not physical age that is the issue, then the 35 year old pedophile may not be prosecutable; he may well not be able to understand the consequences of his actions.

Thus we end up with hard limits - age in criminal cases, number of jumps for advanced licenses, time in sport for some things, time in a job for others. Are any of them hard-and-fast rules that absolutely determine age or capacity? Nope. Do they do a decent job most of the time? Yes.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>But I think Billvon wins with the mass murdering rapist minor getting grounded
>and losing his cell phone. I love it. I'm sure that makes the neighbors all comfy.

And by jailing the 11 year old for possession of cocaine who takes his mother's cocaine to school, I'm sure you will sleep better at night, confident that an army of 11 year old drug criminals will not swarm over you as you sleep.

Any other really dumb comparisons you'd like to get out of the way?

You are the one throwing out grounding when we're debating a murder case scenario.

But let's look at your scenario. I said "assess the criminal for the likelihood of recidivism for assignment of the penalty". So, the 11 year old is found guilty of possession. You're making the dumb assumption that that results years of jail time. I posit the judge should consider his age, condition, attitude and likelihood if it will be a repeat offense and sentence accordingly. And he should do the same for 30 year old drug addict/burgar as well.

It's very likely the 30 year will get a stiffer sentence and the youth might be moved to a foster home and just observed for a time. The result is seemingly just, and the fact that one is over 19 and the other under matters not one bit.

Talk about not being in the same room.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Many people (Rehmwa included) react angrily to the suggestion that laws should not be enforced equally, and find things like "hate crimes" annoying because you have to "understand the defendant's state of mind" or whatnot to determine the severity of their crime.

nonsense - hate crimes are politically motivated default settings - if you assess for recidivism in penalty, that can be taken into account without having to create an entire new set of redundant laws.

Christ, Bill, my whole argument is that it's important to "understand the defendant's state of mind" to determine the likelihood of repeat offenses and consider that as a big part of the penalty phase.

Politically defined categories emphasize specific states of mind over just an overall assessment. I don't see any reason to penalize someone that is 100% likely to kill again based on color any more than another that is 100% likely to kill again because he's trying to impress his girlfriend. It's the likelihood that I'm worried about - I could not care less if the reason is PC or not.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[regulator 0]

I see a lot of people debating the whole 'tried as an adult' factor and it should be because thats the title of this thread. So lets assume that he gets tried as a juvenile...what appropriate punishment would you think is fair for a 12 year old guilty of a double murder?

My conclusion: 15 years of bootcamp. Nothing like working your ass off and being a member of something greater than yourself to learn your role in soceity. Your thoughts?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And by jailing the 11 year old for possession of cocaine who takes his mother's cocaine to school, I'm sure you will sleep better at night, confident that an army of 11 year old drug criminals will not swarm over you as you sleep.

Any other really dumb comparisons you'd like to get out of the way?

Dunno - have you got any more?

No one (or few) here worry about other people's drug use. Much more concerned about murderers. No one ever tries to claim the second crime is a victimless one.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

>So, if some people are capable of being acting in a responsible manner
>and understand the consequences of their actions at a young age, why can we
>not try those few as adults?

Many people (Rehmwa included) react angrily to the suggestion that laws should not be enforced equally, and find things like "hate crimes" annoying because you have to "understand the defendant's state of mind" or whatnot to determine the severity of their crime.

Same thing here. If you prosecute an 11 year old as an adult because he's more mature than your average 11 year old, you have to understand his maturity level - which everyone on his side will be doing their level best to misrepresent. That's a nearly impossible task.

Another problem is the converse. If it is mental age and not physical age that is the issue, then the 35 year old pedophile may not be prosecutable; he may well not be able to understand the consequences of his actions.

Thus we end up with hard limits - age in criminal cases, number of jumps for advanced licenses, time in sport for some things, time in a job for others. Are any of them hard-and-fast rules that absolutely determine age or capacity? Nope. Do they do a decent job most of the time? Yes.

We also have exceptions in each case. Some people take to skydiving like they were born with wings. Some people pick up a baseball and can throw it at 90 mph with pinpint precision the very firt time. Some people graduate from college with a business degree and a year later are VP. And some young people commit premeditated, cold-blooded murder and know exactly what they are doing and the consequences.
In each case a very strong argument can be made that the person involved should not be held to the same standards as everyone else.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Abedy 0]

Quote

>why does the age matter at all?

Because young children are not responsible for their actions. They gradually gain responsibility (and accountability) throughout their childhood, and finally get all their rights at age 21.

Which is why children are often treated differently when it comes to crimes. They are both denied rights and insulated from responsibility when they are young.

In Germany, they have gained all civil rights except a very few ones at the age of 18. The 21 year thing when it comes to court cases and sentencing is sort of a relict of the times of the German Empire and/or the Weimar Republic. That is why most people do not understand that cold-blooded killers who usually kill their victims by brutal beating, kicking or stabbing plead for "juvenile offender status" and are usually granted it
Most of these 19,20,21-year old turds know very well what they did and usually have quite a list of crimes including assault and thus experience in being trialled and nevertheless they get away with juvenile law.

The sky is not the limit. The ground is.

The Society of Skydiving Ducks