Quote:
Originally Posted by StealthMode
According to this statement, you believe the younger teen (who, presumably, has a less developed PFC) should have gotten the less severe punishment than the one two years older. That didn't happen yet you say you're ok with the outcome. How is that?
|
Our laws favor rehabilitation for juvenile offenders. The reason is that they are deemed less able to form true criminal intent. In my state and probably yours, they even have entirely different courts and sets of criminal laws to deal with.
You're also dealing with two totally different sets of facts and available punishments. In the case of the 14 year old who punched someone, you have what is probably a murder in the second degree conviction. In the case of the drunk teenager who drove his car into a crowd, we could be looking at entirely different charges, maybe only manslaughter or negligent homicide. I don't see it as being the same degree of murder. You're also likely looking at a different caliber of criminal defense attorney. The state's attorney very well may have thought a trial for the drunk teenager with a high caliber defense attorney could have resulted in an acquittal.
There are just too many variables here we don't know to convince me that it's very fair at all to compare the two end results from totally different situations and declare them unjust. They may be, but I'm not sure about that.