Should Children Who Committ Crimes Do Adult Time?

[nikki1920]

1. how old is said child at time of crime?
2. does said child have previous criminal history? if so, for what? if so, for how long?
3. if they have been in the juvenile system before, and have not been 'rehabilitated', put them in jail.

These issues aren't as cut and dry as we'd like them to be and we have to look at each case individually, I think.

[laurent]

These issues aren't as cut and dry as we'd like them to be and we have to look at each case individually, I think.[/quote]


I agree with you on that...but if we start looking at each case differently instead of setting a standard, doesnt that open the door for injustice? I say that after reading DeepImpact2's post. I dont think that it is fair that age plays a role in how much time one is given especially when their adult counterparts are not receiving any leniency for commiting the same crime.

[madmax]

Originally Posted by Monique

I'm sorry ladies, but I don't believe that a child should serve life behind bars. Bye

Me neither. That is why I say fry him.

[nikki1920]

Laurent, I don't think so. Because they are children, their understanding of consequences and right and wrong are not fully developed, IN SOME CASES. Adults, presumably, know the difference AND understand the consquences. I'm looking at it in a very cut and dry sense, but we both know the real world is all kinds of gray.

[laurent]

Originally Posted by nikki1920

Laurent, I don't think so. Because they are children, their understanding of consequences and right and wrong are not fully developed, IN SOME CASES. Adults, presumably, know the difference AND understand the consquences. I'm looking at it in a very cut and dry sense, but we both know the real world is all kinds of gray.

You are right, the world is all kinds of gray, but when it comes to right and wrong there are no gray areas. Socially acceptable behavior is something that we learn at a very early age, so I dont fully buy into the belief that their understanding of right and wrong has not been fully developed. I guess I am kind of playingh devil's advocate here because I work with juvenile offenders, and my role is to advocate for their release back into society after they have commited delinquent acts, and after several years in this field, I can say that most, if not all, knew exactly what they were doing; knew it was wrong at the time; knew the consequences for their actions, but still committed the crime anyway.

[Kevin]

An interesting aspect to this issue for me is the fact that the law recognizes in many cases that people of diminished capacity, e.g., folks with brain damage or some sort of mental illness have less responsibility for their criminal actions.

Teenagers have such an infirmity. We know that kids lack a fully developed frontal lobe -- something which is supposed to inhibit impulsive behavior when working at adult capacity.

Should not the law then take into account the fact that as to crimes of impulse, these kids truly are not wired the way society expects them to be wired? Or do we ignore that because the victim and society demand justice for the act and would rather not take into account all of the things which caused the bad act so long as it is voluntary.

The correct answer, I think, when it comes to juvenile services is that we need to expend a lot more resources there if we want to even have a prayer of a positive income for any significant portion of the kids in the system. The trouble is that we're already spread so thin and selling the public on services for juvenile delinquents is not an easy thing even though in the long run, it's probably one of the most efficient uses of public money we could ever make (as a lot of money spent on intervention right now beats the cost to society of a career criminal).

[laurent]

Originally Posted by Kevin

An interesting aspect to this issue for me is the fact that the law recognizes in many cases that people of diminished capacity, e.g., folks with brain damage or some sort of mental illness have less responsibility for their criminal actions.

Teenagers have such an infirmity. We know that kids lack a fully developed frontal lobe -- something which is supposed to inhibit impulsive behavior when working at adult capacity.

Should not the law then take into account the fact that as to crimes of impulse, these kids truly are not wired the way society expects them to be wired? Or do we ignore that because the victim and society demand justice for the act and would rather not take into account all of the things which caused the bad act so long as it is voluntary.

The correct answer, I think, when it comes to juvenile services is that we need to expend a lot more resources there if we want to even have a prayer of a positive income for any significant portion of the kids in the system. The trouble is that we're already spread so thin and selling the public on services for juvenile delinquents is not an easy thing even though in the long run, it's probably one of the most efficient uses of public money we could ever make (as a lot of money spent on intervention right now beats the cost to society of a career criminal).

Well said!