• 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
ChrisL said:
Nope, I already acknowledged that to be a problem with the juvenile system and agreed with another poster about perhaps trying them as adults (when it's a murder), but making adjustments for them as juveniles. It's a complicated problem. I just think 15 years old is too young to be charged as an adult.
Click to expand...

should a victim or his family get less satisfaction merely due to the age of the turd who shot the man?
 
TurtleDude said:
I have less problems with the family of the victim killing the killer than when the government does
Click to expand...

But realistically that is not going to happen.

but for a 16 year old-50 years in prison (the life span of lifers is about 15 years lower than free citizens) is far worse than being "put to sleep" like an unwanted dog
Click to expand...

Isn't that what you want? It's better than killing kids IMO. And those kids do have families.
 
TurtleDude said:
should a victim or his family get less satisfaction merely due to the age of the turd who shot the man?
Click to expand...

Emotions shouldn't play a factor when applying the law IMO.
 
ChrisL said:
But realistically that is not going to happen.



Isn't that what you want? It's better than killing kids IMO. And those kids do have families.
Click to expand...

in some cases, those who spawned those "children" ought to be in prison as well
 
ttwtt78640 said:
If that "letting them out" is before completing their initally assigned sentence then it makes things a lot worse.
Click to expand...

ttwtt78640 said:
How? If sentences can only be shortened, then what is the "up side" other than morons proclaiming to have saved money?
Click to expand...

There would be no initially assigned sentence. You would be incarcerated until you were deemed safe to interact with the general public again. No minimum or maximum. In a practical sense there would be a minimum since it would take a certain amount of time to analyze someone and determine whether they were safe to release or not. Releases would probably be conditional in a lot of cases too. For example someone with a mental health issue might have to prove they were being treated and taking their meds to stay out of prison.

ttwtt78640 said:
As I have stated earlier, those doing the letting out early should share the consequences of any recidivism. Gambling with the safety of others is easy, but when it is your chips going into the pot, the decisions are likely to be far different.
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous. We don't do that to doctors, and they hold people's lives in their hands every day too. All that would get you is no one willing to do the job.

If it was negligence that led to the decision to let the person go, then I agree that the person should be punished. But to expect people to be perfect is ridiculous.
 
ChrisL said:
Emotions shouldn't play a factor when applying the law IMO.
Click to expand...

true, if you deliberately murder someone because you are bored, we should not give you a pass just because you are a "kid"
 
TurtleDude said:
I have less problems with the family of the victim killing the killer than when the government does

but for a 16 year old-50 years in prison (the life span of lifers is about 15 years lower than free citizens) is far worse than being "put to sleep" like an unwanted dog
Click to expand...

I have often thought a sentence of 15 minutes with the friends and relatives of the victim would be a good idea.
 
TurtleDude said:
true, if you deliberately murder someone because you are bored, we should not give you a pass just because you are a "kid"
Click to expand...

I don't want to give them a pass. I just don't want them to be killed. The death penalty is passe. It's too expensive. It takes too long. It's bad to execute an innocent individual, and we have alternatives.
 
ChrisL said:
I don't want to give them a pass. I just don't want them to be killed. The death penalty is passe. It's too expensive. It takes too long. It's bad to execute an innocent individual, and we have alternatives.
Click to expand...

those are sound points. the expense comes from the ridiculous appeals process-in ohio a guy was clearly guilty of multiple murders three state courts found so, so he files a federal appeal. ONE anti DP judge whined. The 6th Circuit overturned that judge, the USSC sustained the DP but the same individual judge allowed another technicality. By the time they fried the guy over 35 different judges had sustained his guilt but due to one ANTI DP judge it took 22 years to fry the SOB-a guy they caught at the murder scene holding the murder weapon and one of his victims had the shooter's skin and blood on her hands after she scratched him as he killed her
 
molten_dragon said:
There would be no initially assigned sentence. You would be incarcerated until you were deemed safe to interact with the general public again. No minimum or maximum. In a practical sense there would be a minimum since it would take a certain amount of time to analyze someone and determine whether they were safe to release or not. Releases would probably be conditional in a lot of cases too. For example someone with a mental health issue might have to prove they were being treated and taking their meds to stay out of prison.



That's ridiculous. We don't do that to doctors, and they hold people's lives in their hands every day too. All that would get you is no one willing to do the job.

If it was negligence that led to the decision to let the person go, then I agree that the person should be punished. But to expect people to be perfect is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

If they have no skin in the game then they would simply bow to pressure to reduce sentences and thus costs. Perhaps if their recidvism record was 33% or less then they would get paid $10K extra for every 1% under that, otherwise they pay the state $10K for every 1% over that. ;)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
If they have no skin in the game then they would simply bow to pressure to reduce sentences and thus costs. Perhaps if their recidvism record was 33% or less then they would get paid $10K extra for every 1% under that, otherwise they pay the state $10K for every 1% over that. ;)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why it wouldn't be sufficient to review their performance the same as any other worker in any other industry. If they're doing a crappy job, they lose their job, just like anyone else would.
 
Yes I certainly believe they should be tried as adults. But I am curious to their backgrounds because there is something going on in our society that is contributing to the lack of respect for life being acted out in young males from teens to their early twenties. Were these males from single mother homes? Did they have a positive male role model in their lives? Did they have a record of other criminal behavior? Were they ever put on drugs such as Ritalin to control unfavorable behavior? Were they accustomed to getting high on a regular basis to escape reality? Something is going on and we damn well need to find out why the increase in such crimes.
 
TurtleDude said:
those are sound points. the expense comes from the ridiculous appeals process-in ohio a guy was clearly guilty of multiple murders three state courts found so, so he files a federal appeal. ONE anti DP judge whined. The 6th Circuit overturned that judge, the USSC sustained the DP but the same individual judge allowed another technicality. By the time they fried the guy over 35 different judges had sustained his guilt but due to one ANTI DP judge it took 22 years to fry the SOB-a guy they caught at the murder scene holding the murder weapon and one of his victims had the shooter's skin and blood on her hands after she scratched him as he killed her
Click to expand...

The appeals process helps protect innocent people from being executed though. It protects us from them so to speak. I don't anything about the case you refer to, but I heard on average is between 12 and 15 years and differs from state to state.
 
ChrisL said:
Nope, I already acknowledged that to be a problem with the juvenile system and agreed with another poster about perhaps trying them as adults (when it's a murder), but making adjustments for them as juveniles. It's a complicated problem. I just think 15 years old is too young to be charged as an adult.
Click to expand...

But if the end result is the same what difference does it make?
 
ChrisL said:
The appeals process helps protect innocent people from being executed though. It protects us from them so to speak. I don't anything about the case you refer to, but I heard on average is between 12 and 15 years and differs from state to state.
Click to expand...

I have always been ambivalent about the DP due to having had almost 30 years of trying jury cases and I have seen some really bad screw ups. But some people really deserve things worth than a clean death

for example, those two assholes in CT who raped a woman and her daughters and then burned the girls to death after killing the mother. NOthing the spanish inquisition did would be too cruel for those scumbags. but I don't think the state should bring back the pear or the wheel but if the father of a slain wife and two daughters wanted to break the mopes on the rack, I sure wouldn't lose any sleep over it
 
Mason66 said:
But if the end result is the same what difference does it make?
Click to expand...

Imagine being a 15-year-old in a prison full of adult men, mostly predators?
 
molten_dragon said:
I'm not sure why it wouldn't be sufficient to review their performance the same as any other worker in any other industry. If they're doing a crappy job, they lose their job, just like anyone else would.
Click to expand...

:lol: :doh Yep. We see gov't "expert" employees fired for bad performance all the time. :roll:

Care to link to the last 10 DOJ officials fired for making bad decisions. A quick search turned up one such case in 2007.
 
TurtleDude said:
I have always been ambivalent about the DP due to having had almost 30 years of trying jury cases and I have seen some really bad screw ups. But some people really deserve things worth than a clean death

for example, those two assholes in CT who raped a woman and her daughters and then burned the girls to death after killing the mother. NOthing the spanish inquisition did would be too cruel for those scumbags. but I don't think the state should bring back the pear or the wheel but if the father of a slain wife and two daughters wanted to break the mopes on the rack, I sure wouldn't lose any sleep over it
Click to expand...

I don't feel sorry for those guys either, and I also have feelings and feel angry when I hear about these things, but I'm talking about principles.
 
ChrisL said:
Imagine being a 15-year-old in a prison full of adult men, mostly predators?
Click to expand...

LOL, he might not like being "reared" that way
 
ChrisL said:
Imagine being a 15-year-old in a prison full of adult men, mostly predators?
Click to expand...

The 15 year old would be in a juvenile facility until he reaches 18 years old then transferred to the adult facility.

That would happen whether if he was tried as a juvenile or an adult, so my question remains what is the difference.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
:lol: :doh Yep. We see gov't "expert" employees fired for bad performance all the time. :roll:

Care to link to the last 10 DOJ officials fired for making bad decisions. A quick search turned up one such case in 2007.
Click to expand...

That stuff is going to happen no matter what.
 
Mason66 said:
The 15 year old would be in a juvenile facility until he reaches 18 years old then transferred to the adult facility.

That would happen whether if he was tried as a juvenile or an adult, so my question remains what is the difference.
Click to expand...

No, some states put juveniles in adult facilities, like California.

Prison Is Too Violent for Young Offenders - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com

Like many states, California allows youth offenders as young as 14 to be transferred from the juvenile system to adult courts. From there, most of the teenagers who are tried as adults and sentenced to life in adult institutions are placed in Level 4 maximum-security prisons that are extremely violent.

If rehabilitation is the goal for teenagers who are tried and sentenced as adults, then prison is not the answer.
This happens even though courts have said that juveniles are different from adults and in some situations must be treated differently. For example, in 2005, the Supreme Court banned the death penalty for juvenile offenders because “people under 18 are immature, irresponsible, susceptible to peer-pressure and often capable of change.” However, the justices have not yet applied this same logic when considering the sentencing and housing of juveniles in the adult system.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom