Old Enough To Go To Jail???

[whiteboy223]

Following King Crabs post. Do you think that people at the age of 14 and 15 should be able to get convicted and sent to jail rather than punishing the parents for the childs behavior?

[Faiien]

if your old enough to make stupid decisions, then your old enough to go to jail

[Frattimonde]

if your old enough to make stupid decisions, then your old enough to go to jail Agreed.

[DarkMirror]

Parents, realistically, have only little control over their kids once they hit their teens. Therfore, if some 15 year old tries to kill another kid with the full intent of doing so, then yeah, they should be tried and sent to jail.

[whiteboy223]

So you all do agree that the law should be set for those at the age and over should be liable for the decisions they make and should be sent to jail.?

[Faiien]

I agree with DM but an argument that could be brought up is that the kid is too influential and not old enough to be logical about issues. Which then leads to parents blaming their kids behavior on internet sites, games, tv, books, ect. Which quiet frankly, pisses me off to no ends.

[whiteboy223]

True Fallen. But then wouldnt the police then blame the parents for letting there kid be too influential and not protecting them from what the parents are resorting to? AKA- T.V, Internet sites, Videos, ect.

[Magmaniac]

So if you guys agree that people have the ability to make decisions for themselves by age 14 or 15, why not give the abilities to vote, drive, drink, etc. to people at that age as well?

Isn't it a bit absurd to expect people to act like adults when they are not treated like adults?

[whiteboy223]

That is also true. But now you have run yourself into a hole my good friend...You see, now you have brought up the issue of drinking, voting, and driving. If these children were able to do these, then they would have to have the knowledge to drive, moral and self controle to drink, and the knowledge of political matters to vote. Since when did we teach these ages that source of commitment. The ages are for the abilities which come with age. The decision of right and wrong grow with the individual him/her self.

Now all you have to do is dig yourself out of your hole...

[Magmaniac]

Doesn't it take moral and self control to know whether or not to fight? I think so. So there's drinking sticking down at 14 as a reasonable age.
Politics is something you have to care about to be involved in. It's not like people over 18 suddenly gain the ability to understand politics better. It just depends on how long you've been thinking about it and paying attention. I'm sure if the voting age were lowered, people would start learning about politics at a younger age, and hell, maybe the percentage of eligible voters will go up after a few years because people will be involved in politics earlier and will be more interested in it at a younger age.
And driving, well, anyone who can reach the pedals can learn how to drive. I think if people are old enough to make life and death decisions on an adult level in regards to fighting, I don't see why driving would be any more difficult.

[DarkMirror]

Drinking is an actual physical problem. 14 year old bodies are built for alcohols even less than older ones. So please, stop using that argument.

As for driving and voting, we shall see.

[Magmaniac]

Drinking is an actual physical problem. 14 year old bodies are built for alcohols even less than older ones. So please, stop using that argument.

As for driving and voting, we shall see.
My point is one of mockery. I think the ages of all of these things and others (including ability to be tried as an adult) should be somewhere around 22. Because thinking is also a physical problem. The human brain is not fully developed until then, and cognitive processes are limited.

Edit: I was somewhat serious on the voting part though.

[WarInSerbia]

Following King Crabs post. Do you think that people at the age of 14 and 15 should be able to get convicted and sent to jail rather than punishing the parents for the childs behavior?
Yes they should.What if they decide to rob a man for fun (happened once with me :confused:),they threaten the man with a knife/gun and they kill him...
What should the police do then?Arrest the parents who may be kind and all that and let the murder kids walk away?

[Toucan]

whether or not an individual understands what they have done is wrong has no bearing.
The only thing that needs to be considered is are they a threat to innocent law abiding people? Is the state not negligent by allowing known violent offenders to carry on offending?
A dog that mauls a child doesn't understand that it has done wrong, but the damn thing will still be put to sleep.
Just because a violent offender is a teenager or even a child, doesn't mean they get a free pass to continue offending.

[singo]

So if you guys agree that people have the ability to make decisions for themselves by age 14 or 15, why not give the abilities to vote, drive, drink, etc. to people at that age as well?


Well, I would.

There again, The physical arguments do have some merit. Particularly about driving, quite a lot of 14 year olds are not big enough to drive a car. Saying that, so are a lot of people over that age. Shortarses abound.

The thing is, being old enough to know right from wrong is a hell of a lot different from knowing how the political system works or how to drive.

Of course, if franchise was limited to people who actually knew what they are doing and could vote responsibly there would be an electorate consisting of only about half a dozen people.


You are old enough to be expected to know right from wrong at about 12.

[The_Maker]

Unless the kid in question has proven mental issues, if he's old enough to intentionally kill he's old enough to be jailed.

[WarInSerbia]

You are old enough to be expected to know right from wrong at about 12.Zerg_eater is now 12,I guess that proves that theory...he HAS improved since last year and so...he isnt spamming much then he was last year

[Anoiktos]

I have a 12-year-old brother and a 14-year-old brother, and considering their actions and thoughts of late, I can truthfully say that there's no way in hell I would consider them as mentally capable of making these sorts of decisions as an adult would be.

To be frank, though, it comes down to this: while driving may be physically incapable for someone smaller, and alcohol may be more difficult for younger people to tolerate,
1. There are adults who are too small to drive cars, and still do (see: grandmothers)
2. There are adults with low alcohol tolerance who still drink

And, most importantly, and as the most direct comparison to this:

Sex.

People are physically capable of having sex at 12. Girls have gotten pregnant at nine years old. If you truly believe that it should be a child's responsibility alone - and not society's - to know 'right from wrong', and that they should be punished as adults at these ages...

...Then you should have no problem with them choosing to pump out babies at that age. Both have equally life-damning consequences.

[T-Dawg]

My question is at what point do we ditch rehabilitation in favor of keeping an individual separated from society?

A bad 12 year old has a much larger chance of being rehabilitated than a 30 year old has, because the 12 year old is still going through cognitive changes. IE the second pruning of neurons has yet to occur. This means that the influence on the 12 year old's cognitive growth is much greater. Stick that 12 year old in jail with hardcore criminals, and guess who will be the major influence on that 12 year old's life? That's right criminals, which will just lead to recitivism.

I am not claiming that all bad kids can be rehabilitated; just that they have a higher chance to be, is it morally acceptable to forever ruin said child without offering a chance for redemption? (By the way: an eye for an eye more code leaves everyone blind, so please don't use that as an argument -- it is philosophically bankrupt).

[WarInSerbia]

I'm saying for CRIMINAL activities like robing,killing and such ...

[Biohazard]

After reading some of the more intelligent posts in here I've come to this conlcusion:

While kids at 14 and 15 know right from wrong, if they choose to do something that they know is wrong sometimes they don't quite fully comprehend the consequences of that wrong action. Cases where they choose to try a minor as an adult are analyzed by professionals before any decision is made. The law can't specifically cover every single possible case that can happen, that's why we have people that interpret the law and enforce it. It all comes down to maturity, they look at this kid and perhaps they have him analyzed by a psychologist, and if he is determined to have known what he was doing was wrong and that he understood the consequences of what he was doing, then he might be charged as an adult (depending on the severity of the crime).

That brings up another point. We have different punishments for different crimes for a reason. They aren't going to try a robbery case and a murder case the same way. Taking money and taking a life are two completely different things. If this kid vandalizes a school and is caught, there is a strong likelihood that he will be tried as a minor. But if this same kid commits premeditated murder, pending evaluation I think there's an equal chance that he will be tried as a minor or an adult. Is the system perfect? No way, but it seems to work.

I think kids should be tried as adults if the crime is severe enough. But does that mean they should be allowed to drink as well? No way. Kids have shitty enough judgment as it is. Bottom line, committing murder and drinking a beer are two completely different things and shouldn't be compared.

[whiteboy223]

Alright Biohazard, so you have cleared my question up. But now how about the voteing and driving? What do you think about that?

[GenocideAlive]

My point is one of mockery. I think the ages of all of these things and others (including ability to be tried as an adult) should be somewhere around 22. Because thinking is also a physical problem. The human brain is not fully developed until then, and cognitive processes are limited.
I think the problem with the vast majority of your position is that it's largely composed of mockery. I'd love to see any sort of fact-based research performed that forms an argument or complete proof of your position. As it is, you are making some rather bold, out-there statements regarding the condition of the human brain and criminal behavior. If such research were as true and simple as you have made out to be, I certainly think that it would be very difficult to try minors under the age of 22 as adults.

The problem with the entire complaint regarding children not having the rights of adults lay not only in the Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle, but also in the vagueness of age and criminal severity.

If someone is age 15 and they slaughter a whole family, regardless of the endless rhetoric regarding what they "understand" or how "mature" their brain is, they should be separated from society. Perhaps permanently. That is a mark of a deeply disturbed individual with horrific sociopathic tendencies.

Additionally, if someone is 22 years of age and commits a crime but has the responsibility of a 15 year old, should they be tried as an adult? If a 15 year old takes more responsibility in their day to day life than a 22 year old, should they automatically be given the right to drink? Please consider that a 22 year old pays taxes and has responsibilities for employment. A 15 year old could avoid a job until they're 18 and they would have no consequences from the government whatsoever.

In as far as the drinking age goes, the bar is not set at 21 simply because of responsibility, there are adverse affects of alcohol on the growing body. Just like steroids are relatively harmless at 24+, and almost incalculably bad for a 16 year old.