• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should these teens be tried as adults

Should the 15 and 16 year old also be tried as adults

  • yes and throw away the key

    Votes: 72 87.8%
  • no, they deserve a second chance

    Votes: 10 12.2%

  • Total voters
    82
I had to laugh when I checked the poll results. Vengeance is yours, eh kids? :lol:
 
thanks for proving my point.

What was your point?
At some stage, a child becomes capable of making adult decisions. 16, 18, 21, whatever. Once a date is set in law then anyone under that age must be tried as a child because it has been agreed, presumably with contributions from all the experts in child development, legal precedent and any other field that is relevant, that that is the minimum age at which the person can be held legally liable for the decisions they make. That's why it's commonly known as the "Age of Responsibility"
Bending those carefully crafted rules for vengeance's sake is morally wrong. The crime is irrelevant, it's the age/responsibility capability that matters.
 
What was your point?
At some stage, a child becomes capable of making adult decisions. 16, 18, 21, whatever. Once a date is set in law then anyone under that age must be tried as a child because it has been agreed, presumably with contributions from all the experts in child development, legal precedent and any other field that is relevant, that that is the minimum age at which the person can be held legally liable for the decisions they make. That's why it's commonly known as the "Age of Responsibility"
Bending those carefully crafted rules for vengeance's sake is morally wrong. The crime is irrelevant, it's the age/responsibility capability that matters.

you are half right age has nothing to do with it, it is the "responsibility capability" that matters.
 
Delighted to. A child is still a child, regardless of the crime.

and according to the vast majority of legal experts.... a "child" is a person 14 and younger. 15,16 & 17 y/o, while still minors are (and should be) treated differently in the eyes of the law.
 
Back
Top Bottom