• 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
Trying Juveniles as Adults: Why might a juvenile case be transferred to an adult court?

The two most important qualities that will instigate a transfer from juvenile to adult court are age and the severity of a crime. For example, a fifteen-year-old who murders his teacher might very well be tried as an adult because of his proximity to adulthood and the viciousness of the crime.

Trying Juveniles as Adults: How old does a minor have to be to be tried as an adult?

This depends on the state in which the juvenile was charged for the crime. Some states impose age minimums as criteria for trying juveniles as adults, which may be as old as fifteen or as low as twelve. Other states allow any minor to be tried as an adult as long as he or she knows the difference between right and wrong.

Trying Juveniles as Adults: What are the benefits of trying a juvenile in juvenile court?

Many people believe that it is always better to try a juvenile in juvenile court, but here are some of the most common arguments:

- Juvenile records are more easily sealed than adult records
- Juvenile convictions are less likely to make an impact on the child's future than an adult conviction
- Sentences handed down in juvenile court are often less severe and are sometimes tailored to the juvenile's individual situation
- Sentences for incarceration are usually shorter in juvenile courts, and judges are not able to hand down lengthy jail sentences, such as life imprisonment.
- Jail sentences are served in juvenile detention centers rather than jails or prisons.

Trying Juveniles as Adults: What are the benefits of trying a juvenile as an adult?

There are actually several reasons why an adult court would be in the best interest of a minor:

- Adult courts allow juveniles to have their cases heard in a jury trial.
- Large cities often have overfilled dockets, and the case might be disposed of more quickly or even dismissed.
- Adult courts may have more sympathy for a minor than a court that hears juvenile cases all the time.


EDIT;
Accidentally lost the source I used above. Sorry. I googled the question, though. Anyone can find it.
 
TiredOfLife said:
Everything has drawbacks.
Click to expand...


The number of people killed by guns for any reason (including self defense or by LEO) << The number of people killed in a land without firearms. The law of the jungle applies to the second one; that is , the strong shall kill the weak.
 
TiredOfLife said:
You have certainly said that but you are wrong. Let us say that we take a random decision that you believe is an "adult" one, and we present it to the courts without them knowing anything about it all, And they say how old was this person who made this decision, and you say 15 your honor. And the judge raises his eyebrows, and promptly throws you out of his courtroom. Why, because 15 can't make that decision.
Click to expand...

And yet...there are many people under the age of 18 that HAVE been tried as adults by those same courts and even quite possibly the same judges. Like me a judge recognizes the fact that the circumstances of what happened matters more than the age of the person. And the circumstances of the kids in the OP are certainly congruant with adult decisions.
 
ChrisL said:
Anyway, all you who want these kids to get the death penalty are screwed anyway. It's against the law to execute minors. So there! :mrgreen: I win.
Click to expand...

Well why would you be against trying them as adults, then?
 
ChrisL said:
None of this justifies killing kids. None of it. Back in the old west they killed people because they didn't really have a place to house them all. We have facilities now. We don't HAVE to kill anybody. We CHOOSE to. That's wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. Now TWO families will have lost people. Putting kids to death is not helping anyone.
Click to expand...

Lol! Sorry but that is actually kind of funny considering the fact that many states are letting criminals go because they don't have a place to house all the criminals.
 
Kal'Stang said:
And yet...there are many people under the age of 18 that HAVE been tried as adults by those same courts and even quite possibly the same judges. Like me a judge recognizes the fact that the circumstances of what happened matters more than the age of the person. And the circumstances of the kids in the OP are certainly congruant with adult decisions.
Click to expand...
I disagree, and with the courts on this one as well.
 
P. Kersey said:
Trying Juveniles as Adults: Why might a juvenile case be transferred to an adult court?

The two most important qualities that will instigate a transfer from juvenile to adult court are age and the severity of a crime. For example, a fifteen-year-old who murders his teacher might very well be tried as an adult because of his proximity to adulthood and the viciousness of the crime.

Trying Juveniles as Adults: How old does a minor have to be to be tried as an adult?

This depends on the state in which the juvenile was charged for the crime. Some states impose age minimums as criteria for trying juveniles as adults, which may be as old as fifteen or as low as twelve. Other states allow any minor to be tried as an adult as long as he or she knows the difference between right and wrong.

Trying Juveniles as Adults: What are the benefits of trying a juvenile in juvenile court?

Many people believe that it is always better to try a juvenile in juvenile court, but here are some of the most common arguments:

- Juvenile records are more easily sealed than adult records
- Juvenile convictions are less likely to make an impact on the child's future than an adult conviction
- Sentences handed down in juvenile court are often less severe and are sometimes tailored to the juvenile's individual situation
- Sentences for incarceration are usually shorter in juvenile courts, and judges are not able to hand down lengthy jail sentences, such as life imprisonment.
- Jail sentences are served in juvenile detention centers rather than jails or prisons.

Trying Juveniles as Adults: What are the benefits of trying a juvenile as an adult?

There are actually several reasons why an adult court would be in the best interest of a minor:

- Adult courts allow juveniles to have their cases heard in a jury trial.
- Large cities often have overfilled dockets, and the case might be disposed of more quickly or even dismissed.
- Adult courts may have more sympathy for a minor than a court that hears juvenile cases all the time.


EDIT;
Accidentally lost the source I used above. Sorry. I googled the question, though. Anyone can find it.
Click to expand...

I don't have a big problem with a 16 or 17 year old getting LWOP for a particularly heinous crime. Some adjustments should be made considering they are minors and at risk. There is also the problem with housing juveniles who are sentenced to LWOP. Where do we house them until they are adults? We don't want to throw them in with the adults, but we also don't want them around other juveniles who have committed lesser crimes. I'm not sure if any other states have come up with solutions for these issues.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Lol! Sorry but that is actually kind of funny considering the fact that many states are letting criminals go because they don't have a place to house all the criminals.
Click to expand...

That's because all of the money is being spent on appeals processes for those on death row. Did you read my link about CA? Please read it.
 
ChrisL said:
I'm not sure how I feel about serial killers or mass murderers. Serial killers are a "special" case. Those are people who thrive on killing and actually enjoy it. Some of them have claimed they can't live without killing and how it's a part of who they are. I don't know what to do with people like that.
Click to expand...

It does change things, doesn't it. In general, I would hope that if there is any chance to reform we attempt that. In the case of people who commit crimes like serial killers I am less inclined to believe reform is possible; people do get too broken to repair. So if I use the potential for reform as a guide I would probably not support the death penalty for these boys (as awful as what they did was) because while the act was heinous, they are just boys and I would not judge this act the same coming from a 15yr old boy as I would coming from a 35 yr old man. At 15, your brain isn't even fully developed, seems like there is a much greater likelihood that they are not beyond reform. I am just not sure what the eye for an eye mentality actually accomplishes other than satisfying someones need for revenge.
 
ChrisL said:
I don't have a big problem with a 16 or 17 year old getting LWOP for a particularly heinous crime. Some adjustments should be made considering they are minors and at risk. There is also the problem with housing juveniles who are sentenced to LWOP. Where do we house them until they are adults? We don't want to throw them in with the adults, but we also don't want them around other juveniles who have committed lesser crimes. I'm not sure if any other states have come up with solutions for these issues.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of federal juvenile facilities where they would stay until they are 18..after that they go to real prisons for the rest of their sentence.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Lol! Sorry but that is actually kind of funny considering the fact that many states are letting criminals go because they don't have a place to house all the criminals.
Click to expand...

Here you are. This is from a link I posted a couple or few pages back.

California

Assessment of Costs by Judge Arthur Alarcon and Prof. Paula Mitchell (2011, updated 2012)

The authors concluded that the cost of the death penalty in California has totaled over $4 billion since 1978:

$1.94 billion--Pre-Trial and Trial Costs
$925 million--Automatic Appeals and State Habeas Corpus Petitions
$775 million--Federal Habeas Corpus Appeals
$1 billion--Costs of Incarceration
The authors calculated that, if the Governor commuted the sentences of those remaining on death row to life without parole, it would result in an immediate savings of $170 million per year, with a savings of $5 billion over the next 20 years.
Click to expand...
 
P. Kersey said:
There are plenty of federal juvenile facilities where they would stay until they are 18..after that they go to real prisons for the rest of their sentence.
Click to expand...

What facilities are these? Please post links to back up your assertions.
 
ChrisL said:
Meh, I don't need to argue this case anymore. These kids aren't getting the death penalty, so I'm pleased about that.
Click to expand...

Why am I not surprised that you won't address the content of my post. (btw, I never argued for the DP for these kids. The only time I addressed it was to argue for DP in general)
 
Kal'Stang said:
Why am I not surprised that you won't address the content of my post. (btw, I never argued for the DP for these kids. The only time I addressed it was to argue for DP in general)
Click to expand...

I already told you multiple times that I disagree. They are not adults. This was the furthest thing from an adult decision that I can think of.
 
ChrisL said:
That's because all of the money is being spent on appeals processes for those on death row. Did you read my link about CA? Please read it.
Click to expand...

The money is spent many ways...not just on appeals processes. How about getting people that can work but don't off of welfare programs? That would free up tons of money to build new prisons just by itself.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Yes and those experts also fully acknowledge that the brain does not fully develop until a person is in their mid to late 20's. And yet we have everyone over the age of 18+ making what is considered adult decisions all the time.

So here is the choice you are left with going by your arguement. Since according to those same experts you talk about a persons brain does not stop developing until at the latest age of 29 then the law should reflect that and no one under the age of 30 should be allowed to be considered as an adult and as such no decision they make should be considered as adult decisions. Which could quite possibly release lots of murderers into our society with time served. Or you can accept the fact that children can, and do, make adult decisions.

I can accept either answer as that would make my criminal record a non-issue and I am over the age of 30. ;)
Click to expand...

ChrisL said:
I already told you multiple times that I disagree. They are not adults. This was the furthest thing from an adult decision that I can think of.
Click to expand...

So you would opt for option A? Make the legal adult age 30?
 
ChrisL said:
FACT is that they do not always make good decisions. Children learn from mistakes. Not that I'm classifying this incident as a "mistake"; I'm just noting that fact with children in general. I've raised a child. He is going on 18. I know what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

The problem is that your argument transcends to adults. Adults learn from mistakes. I do this daily The reason I succeed is because I learn from my failures, especially in the sporting realm. I know what I am talking about as well... two children so I can double your experience plus I am a teacher for over ten years. I win!
 
TiredOfLife said:
You had me at "adult-like". No wait, I had you. Sorry.

They are pretty good at playing house and dress-up I here as well, but I'm not writing them a mortgage and handing them a martini.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't write a ton of adults a mortgage either... and I am great at playing dress up too...
 
ChrisL said:
Yes, they should be punished, not killed. Why would anyone think it strange that I don't want the government to kill it's citizens? IMO, it's the opposite. Those people who are screaming that they want these kids to be killed are the strange ones.
Click to expand...

So you are against the DP overall then... right?
 
Bodhisattva said:
The problem is that your argument transcends to adults. Adults learn from mistakes. I do this daily The reason I succeed is because I learn from my failures, especially in the sporting realm. I know what I am talking about as well... two children so I can double your experience plus I am a teacher for over ten years. I win!
Click to expand...

Not if you think children and teens are on equal par with adults.
 
ChrisL said:
What facilities are these? Please post links to back up your assertions.
Click to expand...

What..you want the addresses? Hell..I don't know where they are located and I don't care enough to go look....Do you deny that juveniles are placed in separate facilities?

BOP: Juveniles in the Bureau

Federal Juvenile Population

Federal juveniles are a special population with special designation needs. Each juvenile is placed in a facility that provides the appropriate level of programming and security. Several factors are considered when making placements, such as age, offense, length of commitment, mental and physical health.

Historically, the federal juvenile population has consisted predominately of Native American males with an extensive history of drug and/or alcohol use/abuse, and violent behavior. These juveniles tend to be older in age, generally between 17 to 20 years of age, and are typically sentenced for sex-related offenses.

In fact, the federal government has unique jurisdiction over crimes in Indian Country and the most serious crimes committed on reservations tend to be prosecuted in federal court. As a result, most federal juveniles are Native American. Typically, federal juvenile offenders have committed violent offenses and have an unfavorable history of responding to interventions and preventive measures in the community. As a last resort, they are sentenced by the federal courts to the custody of the Bureau (BOP). Federal law does not provide aftercare supervision for BOP custody cases following release from residential programs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom