DrAmAqUeEn247
Junior Member
*Lil' Bunny FuFu was hoppin' through the forest*
Posts: 214
|
Post by DrAmAqUeEn247 on Apr 10, 2003 15:39:33 GMT -5
We recently had a debate on this issue. Should they be tried as adults or as children...I was on the negative side (I had no choice) and we had some good points, but the affirmative side did too!
Post your comments here and ?'s if u have any!
DramaQueen247
|
|
|
|
Post by -*- Little Miss Strawberry -*- on Apr 23, 2003 8:19:55 GMT -5
A young offender has a lot of life ahead of them, and so I reckon they shouldn't be tried as adults, because I'm all for giving people a second chance and less of a punishment, if they are able to begin their life again... however, we rely on the law for the safety of all people. There is no difference between a 16 year old commiting murder and an 18 year old. It's still murder. If we don't set free adults, what's the difference for a 16 year old? We're all to bear the consequences of our mistakes. Then again, I don't believe in the death penalty, so... yeah.
A bit muddled, sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spazmatikal on Apr 23, 2003 20:12:34 GMT -5
i believe that if the child commits an "adult" crime, they should pay the penalty. as littlemissstrawberry mentioned, a 16 year old commiting a murder is just like an 18 year old commiting a murder. it's still murder. it's still and intense, real problem.
i also think it depends on a crime. i mean, if an eleven year old is tried as an adult, and sent to prison for life -that's obviously not right. the vhild should go through some sort of rehabilitation, and the government should attempt to help the kid to make something better out of his/her life and be a better person.
i dunno, i guess i sort of contradicted myself, didn't i?
|
|
|
|
Post by It's~A~Nova on Apr 23, 2003 22:57:29 GMT -5
A 16 year old committing a crime is not exactly like an 18 year old committing a crime. Children's brains aren't fully developed yet and don't work like an adults brain does.
I don't think children should get the death penalty, then again, I don't think anyone should get the death penalty. As for spending life in prison...I don't think that's right either. People can be rehiblitated...but if they are going to try and rehibilitate someone they should be very maticulous about it. Not just say send an 11 year old to get somewhere till he's 18. He should be in there as long as it takes to be rehibilitated, even if he doesn't get out till he's 63.
|
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on Apr 23, 2003 23:15:50 GMT -5
Looks like I'm in the minority on this one, but yes, I think that in murder cases (and possibly even rape, sodomy, etc. cases), juveniles should be tried as adults. Specifically for murder, a definite yes. Even at 9 years old, a kid knows right from wrong. Although I do think the sentencing should be done at age appropriate levels, because a 12 year old definately knows the ramifications of murdering someone, IMO.
A 16 year old committing a crime is not exactly like an 18 year old committing a crime. Children's brains aren't fully developed yet and don't work like an adults brain does.
Sorry, but a 16 year old is NOT a child. I was more mature at the age of 16 than many 21+ year olds. That excuse does not work at all because that is like saying that all 18 year olds are capable of intelligent, mature, unchildlike thoughts and that is not the case whereas there are 16 year olds who KNOW what they are doing and will use their age to their advantage (commit a murder at 15 because they know they will get off as soon as they turn 18 and have their records wiped clean).
|
|
|
|
Post by It's~A~Nova on Apr 24, 2003 22:30:47 GMT -5
Sorry, but a 16 year old is NOT a child. I was more mature at the age of 16 than many 21+ year olds. That excuse does not work at all because that is like saying that all 18 year olds are capable of intelligent, mature, unchildlike thoughts and that is not the case whereas there are 16 year olds who KNOW what they are doing and will use their age to their advantage (commit a murder at 15 because they know they will get off as soon as they turn 18 and have their records wiped clean). First off~You may have been very mature at the age of 16 but scientifically the brian's not completely matured yet. I'm not even sure if it's completely matured at 18, that's just the age society's slapped to label 'adult' to. Secondly~There may be people taking advantage of committing a crime because they're underage but there are those who simply don't understand or apperciate their actions and the consequences to those actions. Opening the door to execute children may lead many to unnecessary death. (Though I believe all death penalty related deaths are unnecessary...different topic tho...) |
|
|
|
Post by unsunghero on Apr 24, 2003 23:18:42 GMT -5
First off~You may have been very mature at the age of 16 but scientifically the brian's not completely matured yet. I'm not even sure if it's completely matured at 18, that's just the age society's slapped to label 'adult' to. Secondly~There may be people taking advantage of committing a crime because they're underage but there are those who simply don't understand or apperciate their actions and the consequences to those actions. Opening the door to execute children may lead many to unnecessary death. (Though I believe all death penalty related deaths are unnecessary...different topic tho...) Oh, please. The brain doesn't need to be "fully developed" to distinguish right from wrong. Most 16-year-olds should be able to understand that crime is wrong, in whatever sense. |
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on Apr 25, 2003 0:22:50 GMT -5
First off~You may have been very mature at the age of 16 but scientifically the brian's not completely matured yet. I'm not even sure if it's completely matured at 18, that's just the age society's slapped to label 'adult' to.
The brain does NOT need to be "fully matured" to know right from wrong. How hard is it for an 8+ year old to know that killing someone, or even seriously hurting someone, is wrong? That's just another excuse that those kid's who are committing murders need, "My brain wasn't fully developed so I can't be held liable for my actions". Please.
Secondly~There may be people taking advantage of committing a crime because they're underage but there are those who simply don't understand or apperciate their actions and the consequences to those actions. Opening the door to execute children may lead many to unnecessary death. (Though I believe all death penalty related deaths are unnecessary...different topic tho...)
Then those are the types of kids who do not need to be in public with other people who are able to see that their actions have consequences. My little sister at age 9 knows what's right from wrong and you're trying to give the excuse that kids aren't smart enough to know better? That's not only insulting to the kids' intelligence level, but another excuse to put off the real problem: That parents need to teach their kids right from wrong and that the kids need to be adequately punished for whatever crime they commit. And yes, the punishment should fit the crime NOT the age.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shetries on Apr 25, 2003 16:23:27 GMT -5
Oh, please. The brain doesn't need to be "fully developed" to distinguish right from wrong. Most 16-year-olds should be able to understand that crime is wrong, in whatever sense. I agree. |
|
