I decided that even though it was pretty much a dead topic over there, I thought it would be better placed over here.
All the original posts on the topic are below.

By Markn on Friday, September 06, 2002 - 11:55 pm:

I think they should. If they're old enough to understand what they're doing then they're old enough to suffer the appropriate consequences and punishment, such as the The King brothers being found guilty of killing their father.

By Blue Berry on Saturday, September 07, 2002 - 04:28 am:


I agree. At 16 one can drive. At 18 one can vote. At 14 one should be able to be raped in prison by Bubba. The benefits of being Bubba's ••••• should not be held only for "adults". At 18 one can be drafted and asked to kill for one's country. Should we really keep these poor innocents from the joys of [deleted].

(No "" because this is so over the top only a fool would think I'm serious and no I do not think 21 year olds should be subject to creul and unusual punishment either.)

By Brian Fitzgerald on Sunday, September 08, 2002 - 12:35 am:


ON the other hand. You can't even legaly but booze when you are under 21. You can't legaly vote, buy smokes, buy porn or sign a legaly binding contract (without parental approval) until you turn 18. You aren't even supposed to be able to get tickets to an R rated movie until you are 17. Why do we have those laws and rules? Because we believe that people under that age are not mature enough to do those things. If they are not mature enough to do those things how can we hold them to the same standards as we hold mature adults.

NOTE: I'm not saying that trying kids as adults is a bid thing. Just that we need some consistancy.

By TomM (Tom_M) on Sunday, September 08, 2002 - 01:34 am:


Berry-

The state of the penal system (including the juvenile justice system) is appalling and needs reforming, but that is irrelevant to a philosophical discussion of whether to try children as adults.

-------------

There are basically two reasons for treating crimes by juveniles differently than crimes by adults. The first is Brian's reason. Children are presumed not to have the emotional and intellectual maturity to fully appreciate the consequences of their actions, and so should be held to a lower standard, just as we do with the incompetent and the insane. (To quote Bill Cosby, "Children are brain-damaged.")

The second is that they are still pliable. Habits and attitudes are not as ingrained. The theory is that while ideally adult peneology mixes both punishment and rehabilitation*, juvenile peneology should focus almost exclusively on rehabilitation.

*Some see the punishment as society's revenge, others as just retribution, and still others as simply "getting his attention" (as in the old joke about the farmer and the mule) for the rehabilitation. That is an argument, however, for another thread.

On the other hand--

Cut-off ages tend to be arbitrary, however. In some states a child can drive as soon as his feet reach the gas pedal, others states make them wait until they are 17 or 18. The voting age used to be 21, when it was dropped to 18, so was the drinking age in many states, at least for a year or two.

But people do not all mature at the same rate. The cut-off ages are an attempt to limit the maximum number of not-yet mature citizens, while enfranchising the maximum number of mature citizens without the time and expense of repeatedly testing every individual.

We do use guidelines other than just the cut-off age in those situations where we are focusing on the decisions and actions of a single individual (such as an accused suspect on trial).

In the case of deciding to try a juvenile in the adult justice system, the questions to be asked are did he appreciate the consequences of his actions the way an adult would? (Did he understand that throwing a ten-year-old off the roof, or beating his father senseless with a baseball bat would probably result in death, and that they would not be back the next day, like in a cartoon?) And how inured and hardened have they become?

The questions that are asked, though, are usually "How shocking was the crime?" "what does the public think about the circumstances?" and "Is this an election year?"

By Blue Berry on Sunday, September 08, 2002 - 04:40 am:


Nothing rehabilitates like being raped. The Pakistani judges knew this truth and it is time we faced it too.

We can use all the euphamisms we want, but we are not talking about antiseptically putting them in adult prisons. We are talking about putting 13 year olds with cute bums in the same cell as Bubba.

If the state has the death penalty it means we should kill the 13 year old. You may use what ever euphamism you want to avoid the truth, but that is what it means.

TomM,

The state of the penal system is inextricable from this issue unless you want to argue on a hypothetical plane (or if this is an election year.)

By TomM (Tom_M) on Sunday, September 08, 2002 - 05:13 am:


The state of the penal system is inextricable from this issue Berry

Why?

Why is it OK to send a 19 year-old to raped or to executed but not a 17 year-old? If the issue is the state of the system, then it should not be about the age of the offender.

Granted, the two are somewhat bound up in the real world. If a real live minor is convicted, he will be sent to a real prison as awful as it is, but there are two separate issues involved, and you don't solve the one by ignoring it because you are too focused on the other.

By Tom_m on Sunday, September 08, 2002 - 05:23 am:


We can use all the euphamisms we want, but we are not talking about antiseptically putting them in adult prisons. We are talking about putting 13 year olds with cute bums in the same cell as Bubba.

I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that even if tried and convicted as an adult, a minor is incarcerated in a juvenile facility until he reaches the age of majority

By Blue Berry on Sunday, September 08, 2002 - 06:41 pm:


I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that even if tried and convicted as an adult, a minor is incarcerated in a juvenile facility until he reaches the age of majority. -- TomM

Not being a child convict I've never looked this up. If it is true, what's the point of trying them as adults. If convicted of murder does the 14 year old get prison until he turns 18 and then gets the chair?

If not, then trying them as adults means we are talking about the prison system whether the incarcerated is 90, 19, or 9. It is inextricably bound. We can magically seperate it here for discussion purposes, but they will end up in prison. We can pretend the consequence of the action is different, but they will end up in prison.

The difference? I don't know. I assume a 19 year old with a cute bum can fight off Bubba better than a 14 year old. Even if he loses the five years makes a big differnce when Bubba tells him it is his own fault. Of course, I don't know. I'm sure some 19 year olds will still beleive Bubba and some 14 year olds will realize Bubba is lying to himself. Personaly I'm assuming that the five years makes a difference.

By TomM (Tom_M) on Sunday, September 08, 2002 - 10:59 pm:


If it is true, what's the point of trying them as adults.

When they are tried as children, upon reaching majority they are released, no matter how long the sentence would have been, and the record is expunged. A couple of years ago there was a case of a Kennedy cousin who was linked to a previously unsolved murder. He had been a minor at the time, and there was the reverse question. Should he be tried as a youthful offender? If he were, since he was now an adult, the juvenile justice system couldn't touch him.

Similarly, seventeen-and-a-half-year-olds would be able to commit crimes with total impunity. Convicting them as adults means that when they reach the age of majority, instead of being automatically released, they are transferred to the adult penal system to finish their sentences, and the conviction stays on their records.

We can magically seperate (sic) it here for discussion purposes, but they will end up in prison. We can pretend the consequence of the action is different, but they will end up in prison.

At the risk of some Roving Mod deciding that I'm getting too personal, I must admit that I'm surprised that you are the one who is muddying the waters. You are usually clear, logical, and dispassionate and the first one to jump on fuzzy thinking or sloppiness.

By ScottN on Monday, September 09, 2002 - 02:41 am:


A couple of years ago there was a case of a Kennedy cousin who was linked to a previously unsolved murder. He had been a minor at the time, and there was the reverse question. Should he be tried as a youthful offender? If he were, since he was now an adult, the juvenile justice system couldn't touch him.

This conundrum occured in the Law&Order Season 9 Episode "Juvenile". You'll have to look elsewhere, the moderators haven't put up Season 9 yet.

By Blue Berry on Monday, September 09, 2002 - 03:57 am:


TomM,

So let me get this straight. At trial we treat them as adults, but in prison we acknowledge they are children. Hmmm...

Should I question the double standard or just apply doublethinkTM?

By KRW on Monday, September 09, 2002 - 11:44 am:


No, what you should do is raise your children right so that they don't commit crimes in the first place and we don't have to have debates of this nature.

By TomM (Tom_M) on Monday, September 09, 2002 - 05:53 pm:


So let me get this straight. At trial we treat them as adults, but in prison we acknowledge they are children. Hmmm...

Should I question the double standard or just apply doublethinkTM? []

It is not my intention to defend the current system, but just to clarify the issues surrounding the question which is the topic of this thread.

The fact that there is a serious problem with the penal system is a totally separate question from that question.

To rephrase the question: Given that legal cut-off ages are arbtrary, and that there are situations where the courts get involved in determining majority/maturity/responsibility of certain individuals despite the guidelines of the cut-off ages (competency hearings, emancipation hearings, living wills, etc.), should the legal system have the right to ask the courts to make a similar ruling on the majority/maturity/responsibility of some under-age offenders?

Your first response above (Saturday at 4:28) is clearly heartfelt and emotional. Your later responses while calmer and more thought out, seem (at least to me) to be still influenced by the "kitten effect."

Perhaps the following will show you that your response does not relate to the question at hand. (I have never discounted either the truth or the urgency of the issue you raise. I've only pointed out that it was a separate issue.)

If a seventeen-year-old gang member with a long history of violence, who works out regularly, and who has friends on the inside should not go to Oswald State Prison because Adebisi or Schillinger (take your pick) might find him "cute," shouldn't a nineteen-year-old milquetoast convicted of one drunk-driving incident also be able to ask for some alternative? The problem is bigger than just the age of the offender.

Besides, if the only reason to refuse to consider trying the teenager as an adult is to spare him from the possibility of being reaped in prison, it is a flawed reason. Rapes occur in juvenile facilities as well.

By Blue Berry on Monday, September 09, 2002 - 07:27 pm:


TomM,

No matter how you ask the judge the question translates into, "Should we allow this 14 year old be thrown in a cell with 30 year old weight lifter who will repeatedly rape him?" You can call it "vertical deployment of anti-personnel devices", but it will still be "bombing". You can ask if "a repeat defendant of near adult age should be incarcerated in a maximum security facility with other inmates who have been convicted or crimes of equal severity" but it will still mean, "Should the 14 year old be raped by other repeat criminals?"

If one believes in his/her/its argument you have no need to hide behind euphemisms.

In your example you use a seventeen year old. I could be wrong, but isn't the defendant in that kids killing their father case 13. Yeah, 18 is an arbitrary date we can use 21 or 15 or 25 or 7. My point will remain. The result of the actions proposed must be considered. Bubba may be fanciful. The becoming a cellmate's, um, female dog, is a real consequence. The consequence is inextricably bound to the action. To claim that it is not is poor thinking.

By Hannah F., West Wing Moderator (Cynicalchick) on Monday, September 09, 2002 - 07:48 pm:


Saturday:

My manager found 3 12-year-old girls messing around in the break room, at work. One of the theaters lets out right by it (in an 'employee only' area), so....

Then, that manager finds my purse in that theater. I haven't been in there all night.He tells me to check it (duh), so...

I find I'm missing $4 in loose change, my cell phone, and my PDA is out of its leather slipcase, and the cover is off (it's broken, so they left it).

The girls he found messing around the break room came up to box office, saying they lost rings and money. THEN, they go over to concession and try to buy something with loose change. The same amount in my wallet.

They walk towards the mall, and see my manager and a Sheriff's Dept. officer (theater security) walking toward them. They RUN.

They get them, their mom's with them. Mom grills them; they claim innocence.

One of them had F'ING CHANGED HER SHIRT (I found it sweeping the ladies' room)!!!!!!!!

My manager tells me what happened, etc., and is taking info on it from me, and being very sweet (as usual, but he was being really supportive, etc.).

So yes, I'm pretty bloody pissed right now.

All they'll get WHEN proven guilty is a slap on the back of the hand and a "Don't do it again!"

By TomM (Tom_M) on Monday, September 09, 2002 - 08:23 pm:


If one believes in his/her/its argument you have no need to hide behind euphemisms.

I have made no arguments. I have not expressed any opinions one way or the other. I have not used (and certainly have not "hidden behind") euphemisms. I have merely tried to clearly separate the question from emotional hype. Which is why I deliberately avoided tying my statements to the specifics of the case in Florida.

I don't know of many emancipation cases that would be heard, much less won, where the plaintiff is 13 or 14 years old, [except for that one case a few years ago-- which was also in Florida] and there may be a valid argument that a priori we can assume that offenders that young should not be tried as adults. That is yet another separate issue (but more closely linked.)

The consequence is inextricably bound to the action. To claim that it is not is poor thinking.

Taking this statement, in the given context (as an argument against putting a defendant in a trial where he might, if convicted be sent to a prison where he might be in physical danger), to its logical conclusion we would not have any criminal trials because the cure -for any convict- may be worse than the crime.

One more time. Yes, prisons are dangerous places. Yes reform is needed. Yes, there are even times when these facts are important considerations in determining sentencing (but not in determining guilt). But they are not a part of the question as asked.

By TomM (Tom_M) on Monday, September 09, 2002 - 11:36 pm:


Taking this statement, in the given context (as an argument against putting a defendant in a trial where he might, if convicted be sent to a prison where he might be in physical danger), to its logical conclusion we would not have any criminal trials because the cure -for any convict- may be worse than the crime.

Just in case you think I'm indulging in hyperbole here, let me say that this issue is often raised in the case of a defendant who is a police officer, or a child molester, etc. Jeffrey Dahmer's lawyers pleaded that any prison time would be the equivalent of a death sentence. (And he was killed in prison a couple of months later.)

By constanze on Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 05:26 am:


I agree with TomM about seperating the current state of prisons (meaning that there will hopefully be a reform soon) from the general issue.

Here in germany, the normal legal age for voting, drinking, driving is all around 18. It was lowered from 21 during the 70s. But when a juvenile between 18 and 21 is tried for a crime, the judge can decide if this individual is grown-up enough to be tried under adult law or still juvenile enough to be tried under juvenile law. Under 18, juvenile law will always apply.

The fact that in some states of the US like Texas under-18s will and are tried and sentenced not only to prison, but to the death penalty, is usually considered breaking the Human Rights convention by other states. Its one of the reasons Amnesty international is regularly accusing the USA as breaking Human Rights intentionally. (Germany gets warnings, too, when police officers beat up foreigners, but those are individual cases, not offical laws.) I fail to see how it makes a change for the juvenile to wait till they are over 18 before serving the death penalty, if during the crime they were under 18.

And juvenile laws do not mean a slap on the hand; there should be rehabilitation and punishment. Sometimes this does not work because the relation for crime and punishment is wrong.

By Maquis Lawyer on Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 10:35 am:


Blue Berry: We can use all the euphamisms we want, but we are not talking about antiseptically putting them in adult prisons. We are talking about putting 13 year olds with cute bums in the same cell as Bubba.

Tom_m: I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that even if tried and convicted as an adult, a minor is incarcerated in a juvenile facility until he reaches the age of majority

Tom_m is right. Even if a juvenile is tried and convicted as an adult, he or she will be incarcerated in a juvenile facility until age 18. It gets a little complicated after that point.
In Kentucky (where I live) juveniles charged with crimes are charged either as juveniles (public offenders) or as adults (youthful offenders). The public offender goes through the juvenile court system, meaning closed proceedings, sealed records (although this is changing to some extent) and a general focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment. The trade-off is that the juvenile gets fewer rights in this system than an adult – particularly, no right to a jury trial. Technically, the juvenile isn’t “convicted”, but is “adjudicated as a public offender”. Once the court makes that finding, the juvenile may be fined, given probation, sentenced to home incarceration, or sent to a secure juvenile facility (“juvenile hall”), group home, or other program (including the increasingly popular “boot camps”). However, because the juvenile isn’t allowed a jury trial, he or she can’t be made to serve time in an “adult jail”.
After the charge is initially brought against a juvenile, the court can also transfer the juvenile for trial as an adult (youthful offender). This is mandatory is cases where the juvenile is charged with a felony involving a firearm, and it is within the discretion of the juvenile court judge depending upon the age and maturity of the juvenile, the juvenile’s prior record, the seriousness of the charged offense, and the like. A “youthful offender” is tried as an adult in all respects except that (1) no one can be sentenced to death for a capital offense which he committed before reaching the age of 16; (2) the juvenile can’t be sentence as a persistent felony offender (repeat offender) for offenses committed prior to turning 18; and (3) the juvenile is eligible for probation even for crimes where an adult would not be eligible (doesn’t mean that he’s going to get it though).
In addition, a convicted youthful offender must be sent to a juvenile facility until he or she turns 18. However, the juvenile can be transferred to adult prison before that time if he escapes or engages in violent or disruptive behavior in the youth facility. At age 18, the youthful offender goes back before the judge, who may (1) release the juvenile on probation or other conditional discharge of the sentence; (2) send the juvenile back to the Department of Juvenile Justice for up to six months of “treatment” (off to boot camp); or (3) send the juvenile to adult prison to finish his sentence.
Laws in your state may vary, so check first before relying on this.

By Blue Berry on Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 12:03 pm:


Maquis Lawyer,

I see. The law uses a double standard. In one standard is the trial where they may be tried as adults (if it is an election year). The second standard is the prison they are sent to.

What about the states with capital punishment? Does Texas wait until they are 18 before killing them?

In that Florida case he was found guilty as an adult. Does Florida have capital punishment? Does he get the chair? Should we wait until he's 18 to kill him?

TomM,

Yes. If you are on a jury deciding the fate of someone, you must weigh the consequence of a guilty verdict. I have no problem with Jeffery Dahmer having a good chance he will be killed. I have problem sending someone guilty of possession with intent to distribute to a good chance they will be "Bubba's" female dog. If anyone does not consider the likely consequences of their actions they are $tupid.

By Maquis Lawyer on Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 01:16 pm:


Blue Berry
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution prohibits execution of any person who committed a capital offense prior to the age of 16. Texas, being a U.S. state (I suppose J) has to follow this rule. However, if a juvenile commits a capital offense after he turns 16, he's subject to the death penalty, depending on the laws of the state where he's convicted. Three current members of the U.S. Supreme Court have publicly stated that the Constitution prohibits execution of anyone who committed a capital offense before turning 18. However, they are out-voted by the other six members of the Court.
I suppose that a state could execute someone before he turned 18. As a practical matter though, with matter-of-right appeals in state court and habeas corpus petitions in federal court, not even Texas could get around to executing someone within two years.

By TomM (Tom_M) on Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 05:22 pm:


Yes. If you are on a jury deciding the fate of someone, you must weigh the consequence of a guilty verdict.

I have a little trouble with the word "must" in that statement, because that is precisely opposite a jury's mandate (unless they jury is held over to decide in the sentencing phase of the trial). They swear to base their verdict only on the evidence presented at trial, and only based on the events of the crime. "Extraneous" facts such as the likely disposition of the defendant, if convicted, are specifically excluded.

One of the great benefits of the jury system is that the 12 common men (and women) can use common sense and ignore the rules if they feel justice is better served. That is why things like jury nullification and other strange jury decisions are allowed to stand, even though they drive the professionals involved (prosecutors, defendors, judges, clerks, etc.) crazy.

I have served on juries, and I know that I have sometimes allowed these "extraneous" facts affect my vote towards the verdict. But that does not change the rules. Either the rules of the Justice System's "game," or the rules of logical debate.

There can always be allowances made for exceptions in the rules, but the rules must exist to underlie those exceptions or there is no order.

If anyone does not consider the likely consequences of their actions they are $tupid.

Should this not also apply to the person who broke the law in the first place?

By Blue Berry on Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 05:52 pm:


TomM,

It does apply to the person who broke the law in the first place. Was that a careless throw awy line or do you think I condone 13 year old murdering their parents?

Jury nullification must exist because sometimes the law is an [body part reference deleted]. (Hey, Im just quoting Dickens there. Can't we quote classics?) In the end the judge does not have to live my actions, nor the prosecutor, the state rep., or the baliff. In the end I am answerable to me. (Maybe I can be imprisoned or tortured, etc. but unless we are talking of the Borg only I can be me.)

Maquis Lawyer,

I don't get it. If the 14 year old is convicted as an adult, can Texas execute him after his 18th birthday or never? What if he comitted the murder when he was 14 but wasn't arrested until he was 18? What if he's Catholic and ate a slice of peperroni pizza on a Saturday of Lent but crossed the international date line back into Friday then commited the murder?

By TomM (Tom_M) on Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 10:47 pm:


Blue Martin Luthor* Berry-

I am slowly becoming convinced that you are not reading my posts past the first word that you choose to see as a hot button. If you took the time to notice, I came out in favor of jury nullification, when the circumstances warrant it. I just recognize that when the jury does it, they are violating the oath that they made. (It's called "considering the consequences of your actions") I even admitted to violating that oath myself, or at least to bending it. Recognizing the rules allows you to bend or break them in an informed manner.

Unless the you are on a case where the sentencing portion of the case is a jury question, (which usually only happens in capital cases -- which means ,if Maquis Lawyer is correct it will never happen with an underage defendant) your job as a jury is simply to determine whether or not the State met its burden of proof in showing tha 1) a crime was committed, and 2) that the defendant is crimminally responsible. Then it is up to the judge to determine what is a fair sentence, and he is the one who must live with his decision. If the judge is known to be a "hanging judge" and you believe that he will give an inappropriate sentence, one you couldn't live with, well thats what lesser included charges andjury nullification are for. But to go into a trial knowing nothing about the judge and nothing about the defendant beyond his age (or any other "irrelevant" detail) but determined to vote for acquittal no matter what, is irresponsible.

We keep getting further and further away from the original question. If I ever get the chance to give you my opinion on that, I think you would be surprised.

Yes, it was a throw-away line, but not a careless one -- at least not on my part. It was intended to point out that not once in all your posts did you appear to consider what consequences, if any, the child should face, assuming he was infact guilty.

* "Here I stand; I can do no other"

By Maquis Lawyer on Wednesday, September 11, 2002 - 12:52 pm:


Blue Berry Sorry if I wasn't clear, but no state (including Texas) can execute a person who committed a capital offense before the age of 16. This means that even if Texas tries a 14 year old as an adult, Texas can't execute him even after he turns 18.
Tom_m The right to a jury trial includes not only the jury deciding guilt or innocence, but also the jury fixing the sentence. While many states allow a judge to fix a sentence less than what the jury recommends, no state allows a judge to fix a greater sentence than the jury decides upon. This rule is even stronger in capital cases. In fact, this past June, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment requires the jury to find aggravating circumstances before the death penalty can be imposed. See: Ring v. Arizona
Before the death penalty can be imposed, every state requires a finding of "aggravating factors" beyond the murder itself: the defendant's prior record; whether the murder was committed while the defendant was committing another serious crime; the deliberateness or recklessness of the defendant's acts; and other factors. The Supreme Court held that the jury must make the finding that these aggravating factors exist before the judge can impose the death penalty

By TomM (Tom_M) on Wednesday, September 11, 2002 - 01:16 pm:


I knew about the "aggravating factors" in capital cases, which is what I meant when I said the jury had a sentencing phase duty in those cases, but I did not know that the jury could also limit the judge's options in sentencing in other cases. If that is true, it is even more irresponsible to sit on a jury having made up your mind for acquittal before having heard any evidence.

By Srussel (Srussel) on Wednesday, September 11, 2002 - 03:37 pm:


Should this board be moved to the new Legal Musings section of my Crime & Justice board? I think yes.

By Maquis Lawyer on Friday, September 13, 2002 - 08:22 am:


Back to the topic: Should juveniles be tried as adults and be subject to adult prison time, at least after they turn 18? As a general rule, I am a strong advocate of keeping minors in the juvenile court system. We treat juveniles differently from adults for a very good reason – most of the time, juveniles lack the maturity to fully appreciate the seriousness of their actions. In additions, most adults realize that teen-agers do foolish things, and while there must be consequences, those consequences shouldn’t necessarily follow a person through his or her whole life. For this reason, most people agree that the death penalty should not be an option for juveniles, at least under the age of 16. At the same time, the legal system has to have some way to let teen-agers know that that they can’t get away with serious violent crime, or constant repeat offending. Without this leverage, some juveniles are apt to believe that they can get away with anything. They are in for a rude awakening on their 18th birthday.
Recently, my car was stolen by a 17-year old male. It is a long story, but ultimately the car was recovered (without damage) and the 17-year old was arrested. He had a long record of car theft, and he probably would have been eligible for transfer for trial as an adult. However, at his arraignment, he pleaded guilty to the theft charge. While the prosecutor and the juvenile court judge shouldn’t have let him do that, once his guilty plea was accepted he couldn’t be transferred to adult court. As a result, he can only be incarcerated as a juvenile until he is 19. As an attorney, I understand these things, but I can’t say I’m happy about this.
Anyway, the question isn’t whether juveniles should be tried as a adults, but when should they be tried as adults. Most states require that the juvenile be at least 14 before he or she can be considered for transfer to adult court, although a few states have no minimum age. Is 14 an arbitrary line? Yes, but most legal distinctions are arbitrary when you get down to it. Are all 16-year olds mature enough to drive? Are all 18-year olds mature enough to vote or serve in the military? Are all 21-year olds mature enough to drink? I can make arguments about any of these age-lines, but if the law is going to make distinctions, it has to make them somewhere.
People object to the distinctions when it’s a close case, like the King brothers in Florida (who were tried as adults because they were 14) or the Jonesboro school shooters in Arkansas (who were tried as juveniles because they were younger than 14). As a policy, I believe that trying juveniles as adults should remain the exception rather than the rule. But I still think that it should be an option in serious cases.
Lastly, if you want to see how a 14-year old who was tried as an adult is doing now that he has turned 18 (and has gone to adult prison), check out this story about High-School-Shooter Michael Carneal

By Maquis Lawyer on Friday, September 13, 2002 - 11:36 am:


Correction: The King brothers were apparrantly both under the age of 14 at the time of the murder, but Florida law allowed them to be tried as adults anyway.

By TomM (Tom_M) on Sunday, September 15, 2002 - 01:47 pm:


Since this board has been quiet for a few days, I was thinking of finally posting my opinion on the subject. But now there really isn't much point, after Maquis Lawyer's elequent posting. For the most part I agree with him that the State should have the right to transfer certain cases to the adult justice system, but that it should be an extremely rare occurance, and there should be both "aggravating factors" and evidence that the offender clearly understood the consequences of his actions. [Under a certain age, this second condition should be assumed to be lacking due to the child's immaturity.] On most of the few points where I would have somewhat disagreed, my opinion was based on some details in which ML has explained I misunderstood the underlying facts.

By TomM (Tom_M) on Sunday, September 15, 2002 - 02:32 pm:


(Bringing this question back here again, after it was sidetracked onto another thread)

If thinking of the consequences of an action makes me emotional (emotional thought--what a concept) then [I'm] guilty as charged. Berry

Consider that:

1) Those consequences were not directly linked to the main thrust of the question (the defendant's age). A suspect of any age should not have to worry about those consequences. [With the possible exception of rapists and child molesters, for whom it could be considered poetic justice.]

2) It was later explained that an underage defendant, even when "tried as an adult," is still in the juvenile justice system, and is treated as a juvenile. Among other things, this means that he will not be incarcerated in an adult facility until reaching majority, and even then it requires a new hearing. (So those "consequences" do not apply. [At least not beyond the possibility of running into similar "consequences" in the juvenile facilities, which is no greater than if tried and sentenced to those facilities under the juvenile justice system.])

3) Stubbornness* and calling people stup¡d (even if it is only a hypothetical "someone who...") are generally considered to more often be signs of emotionalism than of logic.

4) Yes there is such a thing as emotional thought. Passion can be a powerful persuader. But it should not be allowed to obscure the facts.


Yes, I would have to say that your posts exhibited more emotion and less logic than is usual for you.

*If you have a less "loaded" word to describe continuing to worry about the "consequences" even after the facts were explained, I'll use that. I did not choose "stubbornness" to provoke, but rather because I couldn't thing of a gentler term.

By Blue Berry on Monday, September 16, 2002 - 07:51 pm:


TomM,

Read the order of the posts. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Before Maquis Lawyer got the facts the were none. Read your first post where juvenille facilities were discussed. Do you see anything that may be seen as qualifiers? I'll help you: I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that even if tried and convicted as an adult, a minor is incarcerated in a juvenile facility until he reaches the age of majority Whem Maquis Lawyer showed up with facts I shut up. (I apologize to Maquis Lawyer. I should've thanked Maquis Lawyer earlier than this. I admit that sin of omission --to Maquis Lawyer.)

Second, I can't find it to quote so I'll repeat it from memory. "If one does not consider the consequences of their actions then one is $tupid." If you decide that the one applies to you don't cry that I insulted you. It may be a land mine, but it is clearly marked and only an 1diot can accidentally trip it. It might even meet OSHA guidelines. (might)

Third, No I don't have a less loaded word because if you actually read the posts (Including your own!) you will find I was not stubbornly continueing after the facts were out.

Fourth, You bring this argument to another board. (At least it was another board in PM.) Matt Pesti calls my argument emotional and I scroll up to my previous post. I can not find anything emotional about Mohair subsides. I address Matt saying as much. I also joke that I've been called much but rarely emotional. Matt didn't have a problem understanding it and pointed out he was replying to an even earlier post. You, however, use the opportunity to call me emotional here.

You accuse me of almost trolling? (Is that like almost stabbing someone?) Read your own posts. You are going out of your way to pick a fight with me. Why? Should I just assume you are purposely trying to goad me?

By MarkN on Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 01:22 am:


Berry, please don't shout, ok? That's why I reduced the size of "to Maquis Lawyer".

By TomM (Tom_M) on Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 08:27 am:


I admit that I was the one who sidetracked the question of your being emotional to the other thread. it was perhaps, a little childish, but you had claimed, not that you rarely are called on being emotional, which I do agree with, but that you'd never had been so accused. I was beginning to believe that the poster in this thread was an imposter using your name, but that particular post sounded a lot more like "him" than like "you."

I didn't claim that I was insulted by your "someone who..." remark, just that more emotion than logic went into the phrasing of it, especially using a word you had to alter to fool the censorware. Just as more emotion than logic was involved in your "need" to raise your voice in the last post.

BTW. I always use qualifiers when I can't quote my sources chapter and verse. That does not mean I am making it up as I go. It usually just means that it's something I learned years ago and/or from sources other than the 'Net. I would not take similar qualifiers in someone else's posting as license to assume that they don't know what they are talking about.

Finally, the "almost like trolling" remark was, as I've already explained, based partially on a misunderstanding, and partially on missing the humor in the post I misunderstood. I apologized. Several times. Let it go already. (And as I read the posts, it seems like you are the one trying to pick a fight with me, at least since that incident. Regardless of who is at fault, I'm tired of it and want to call a truce.)

By Blue Berry on Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 02:42 pm:


TomM,

Word changed to get around censors? You mean "female dog" or "$tupid"? Pray, how else would you say it? I could not post at all, but that would defy any emotions I feel that make me post.

I never claimed emotions are never behind my desire to post. My reason for posting is usually emotionally based. (Surprise! I'm human.) I, and most people if they actually think before they type, can argue logically. Does the "emotion" effect my word choice? Yes. (Surprise! I'm human.)

Finally, the "almost like trolling" remark was, as I've already explained, based partially on a misunderstanding, and partially on missing the humor in the post I misunderstood. I apologized. Several times. Let it go already. (And as I read the posts, it seems like you are the one trying to pick a fight with me, at least since that incident. Regardless of who is at fault, I'm tired of it and want to call a truce.)

Then why do you bring it up again? Maybe I'm misreading this "3) Stubbornness* and calling people stup¡d (even if it is only a hypothetical "someone who...") are generally considered to more often be signs of emotionalism than of logic." but are you not accusing me of calling "someone" $tupid. (I guess you think I'm hoping "someone" says, "Hey, I never consider consequences.")

I'm trying to pick a fight with you? I'm the one with smileys don't tell jokes and infringe on my trademark. I didn't bring this up on another board. (Yes, I know you were serious. Yes, it is in bold. Yes, I'm angry and would put it block capitals if an innocent 3rd party did not request I keep my voice down.) You brought it to another board after, by your own admission, "this board has been quiet for a few days." (Notice I'm quoting you a lot. You are hanging yourself.)

If you want to drop it, fine with me. If you want to drop it, don't pick it up again.

By TomM on Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 03:38 pm:


If you want to drop it, don't pick it up again.


For the sake of peace, I will bite my tongue here and let the matter drop, provided you do the same.

-------------------------------------------------

A 10-year old boy led a three-year old boy out of the Woodbridge, N.J. public library the other day and murdered him. He is quite possibly New Jersey's youngest murder defendant, but will be tried as a juvenile due to his age.
I believe the two punk kids who led two year old James Bulger from a British shopping mall and brutally beat and killed him were quietly freed a few years ago. Totally reprehensible.

Adam,

I agree. Life as a female dog complete with being raped in prison is a fitting punishment.

This is not legal, it is merely true. If a ten year old commits a crime then the parents are responsible. I'd hate to see that enforced, however.

I think it should be case by case. I mean, a 13-year old who made a tragic mistake is NOT the same thing as a 12 year old sociopath who friggin' enjoyed it. Same reason I'm against mandatory minimum sentences for drug users.

I tried to move the original topic from PM over to here, but something went mind-bogglingly wrong, so I'm afraid we're stuck with this board as it is, with that super long Italic post up top. Sorry.

Brian Webber: Weren't mandatory minimum sentencing guidlines invented to keep Judges racist tendencies out of sentincing?

No need to respond, just teasing

Should children be tried as adults? Very simple question people.
I'm going to assume the Australian line that adulthood begins at 18.
Children with the mental capacity of an adult should be tried as an adult. If I, at 16, comprehend the seriousness of the crime of drug smuggling as someone at 20 does, and go ahead and try it, I should be tried as an adult.

The state of the prison system, wherever you are, is only relevant if it can be shown that all adults consider this before embarking on a crime, and this consideration is a prerequisite of proving a child has the mental capacity for an adult. I am sure a gargantuan number of adult criminals would not have considered the state of the prison system to incarcerate them after conviction. (See also: Schapelle Corby, arrested and sentenced to 20 years in an Indonesian prison for smuggling marijuana.)

On another note:
"All research and successful drug policies show
That treatment should be increased
And law enforcement decreased
While abolishing
Mandatory minimum sentences"
- System Of A Down, the Prison Song

I hope I didn't kill the force of my arguments by quoting from a band.