• 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 an 11 year old ever be tried as an adult?

Should an 11 year old ever be tried as an adult?

  • Yes, this particular young man is a perfect example

    Votes: 12 20.3%
  • No, never.

    Votes: 31 52.5%
  • The justice system needs another alternative for extremely young, potentially dangerous offenders

    Votes: 11 18.6%
  • Other, please explain

    Votes: 5 8.5%

  • Total voters
    59
Understanding isn't the only factor in responsibility. An adult is automatically presumed to be responsible, if he isn't insane. A child may understand just fine but still not have the ability to control himself or make proper decisions.

Well alright. If it's shown that this child could not control his actions, then I agree they shouldn't be tried as an adult.

I have a feeling though that this kids could control his actions and he could make proper decisions. He just chose not to. At what point are people responsible for the actions? 18's just a number. I propose that if people understand what they did and know it's wrong, they should be tried as an adult. I mean, you don't see legions of 12 year-olds out there murdering. Obviously the rest of them have it figured out.
 
My feeling is, they try kids like this as adults in order to assure that these violent offenders are locked up for a long time, because the juvenile justice system won't guarantee that. If tried as a juvenile, they automatically get released at I believe age 21 in most states?

That's why I think there has to be a revamping of the juvenile justice system. When a young person commits a crime that would carry a long prison sentence in the adult system, there should be some type of parole system, rather than automatic release at age 21. That would give the system the opportunity to evaluate the offender.

These kids are very very troubled, obviously. But, they are very young too, which means that the die is not totally set. They are more malleable and with proper treatment and therapy, there is hope to get to the root of the problem and help redeem them.
 
It certainly doesn't mitigate adult criminals. Possibly it is considered in the sentencing, but no one, adult or child is any less guilty cause their parents suck.

A extremely brief google search gave my the following criteria to be declared competent to stand trial:

*understand his present charges,
*understand his overall legal situation,
*understand the roles of courtroom personnel
*distinguish between various pleas
*understand the range of possible verdicts

Most sixth graders understand all of the above. If it's found out that he doesn't, then he should be charged as a child.

You really think an 11 year old understands the roles of the courtroom personnel and the distinction between the various pleas?
 
You really think an 11 year old understands the roles of the courtroom personnel and the distinction between the various pleas?

I'm quite sure that if it's explained to him, he'll understand. The concepts aren't that difficult. When I was in sixth grade, I remember one of our science experiments was analyzing how light refracted. The difference between a judge and a lawyer is less complicated than that.
 
I'm quite sure that if it's explained to him, he'll understand. The concepts aren't that difficult. When I was in sixth grade, I remember one of our science experiments was analyzing how light refracted. The difference between a judge and a lawyer is less complicated than that.

I think you are just being contrary at this point and it doesn't become you. The proceedings, implications, and consequences of a court room are a little more complicated in real life than "that's Perry Mason and that's Judge Judy".

And the average adult doesn't understand the distinction between a "guilty" and a "no contendere" plea.

I'm surprised at you.
 
My feeling is, they try kids like this as adults in order to assure that these violent offenders are locked up for a long time, because the juvenile justice system won't guarantee that. If tried as a juvenile, they automatically get released at I believe age 21 in most states?

That's why I think there has to be a revamping of the juvenile justice system. When a young person commits a crime that would carry a long prison sentence in the adult system, there should be some type of parole system, rather than automatic release at age 21. That would give the system the opportunity to evaluate the offender.

These kids are very very troubled, obviously. But, they are very young too, which means that the die is not totally set. They are more malleable and with proper treatment and therapy, there is hope to get to the root of the problem and help redeem them.

That is the point of the juvenile justice system. Regardless .... when he turns 18 his record will be sealed. He will get a fresh start. That is the point of a juvenile record.

Sadly ... some nazi jurisdictions have not yet figured that out. Which was some states ... like anywhere in the south, Illinois, and a few others need to subject to extreme federal oversight.
 
My feeling is, they try kids like this as adults in order to assure that these violent offenders are locked up for a long time, because the juvenile justice system won't guarantee that. If tried as a juvenile, they automatically get released at I believe age 21 in most states?

That's why I think there has to be a revamping of the juvenile justice system. When a young person commits a crime that would carry a long prison sentence in the adult system, there should be some type of parole system, rather than automatic release at age 21. That would give the system the opportunity to evaluate the offender.

These kids are very very troubled, obviously. But, they are very young too, which means that the die is not totally set. They are more malleable and with proper treatment and therapy, there is hope to get to the root of the problem and help redeem them.

From what I understand, once the kid turns 18 they are entered into adult prison to carry out the remainder of their sentence, not released at age 21.

• Of the 7,135 juvenile felony defendants,
62% were black, 20% were
white, 96% were male, and at the time
of arrest 55% were within 1 year of
adulthood as defined by their State.
• 66% of the juvenile felony defendants
were convicted, either of a felony or a
misdemeanor. Of those convicted,
64% were sentenced to jail or prison
as the most serious penalty. The average
prison sentence received was
about 90 months.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/jfdcc98.pdf
 
Last edited:
Not necessarily. Each state is slightly different. Some states can keep a juvenile in custody until age 21. Some, up to age 24. In most states, juvenile and adult systems operate separately and are closed to each other. An offender can't be transferred from one to the other without a new charge.

So, in most states, juveniles who are tried as adults go directly into adult systems. For instance, in the case we are discussing, the boy was charged as an adult, so instead of going into a juvenile detention center, he was taken to the county jail where he was held for more than 9 months in special circumstances (temporary holding room off the receiving area). Finally, his attorney was able to get the judge to transfer him to a juvenile detention center until the conclusion of the trial where he will receive therapeutic interventions and educational services, not to mention being housed more appropriately with other juveniles.
 
Last edited:
I think you are just being contrary at this point and it doesn't become you. The proceedings, implications, and consequences of a court room are a little more complicated in real life than "that's Perry Mason and that's Judge Judy".

And the average adult doesn't understand the distinction between a "guilty" and a "no contendere" plea.

I'm surprised at you.

Sooo...just so we're on the same page. Since the average adult doesn't understand the distinction are we not trying anyone anymore? Let's just let em all go!
 
Sooo...just so we're on the same page. Since the average adult doesn't understand the distinction are we not trying anyone anymore? Let's just let em all go!

YOu were wondering about a slippery slope argument? You just made one.
 
YOu were wondering about a slippery slope argument? You just made one.

Figured since that's the way this game was being played...

I'm going to assume that what jallman meant was the average adult doesn't know the difference between a "guilty" and a "no contendere" plea. I'm sure if it was explained to them, they would understand it just fine. All I'm proposing is that the same criteria be held to a child.

Put another way, exactly how would you determine if someone is old enough to be charged as an adult? Are you going with the subjectively decided age of 18? Is there something magical that happens at 18 that grants them full understanding that someone 17 years and 364 days old does not possess?
 
Sooo...just so we're on the same page. Since the average adult doesn't understand the distinction are we not trying anyone anymore? Let's just let em all go!

I didn't say anything of the sort and you know it.
 
Figured since that's the way this game was being played...

I'm going to assume that what jallman meant was the average adult doesn't know the difference between a "guilty" and a "no contendere" plea. I'm sure if it was explained to them, they would understand it just fine. All I'm proposing is that the same criteria be held to a child.

Put another way, exactly how would you determine if someone is old enough to be charged as an adult? Are you going with the subjectively decided age of 18? Is there something magical that happens at 18 that grants them full understanding that someone 17 years and 364 days old does not possess?

Hardly. But, in order for justice to be uniform and equitable to everyone, some point must be defined and adhered to rather than leaving it open to the subjectivity of "is he mature enough".
 
Hardly. But, in order for justice to be uniform and equitable to everyone, some point must be defined and adhered to rather than leaving it open to the subjectivity of "is he mature enough".

I have defined a point. It's if they're capable of understanding what they did was wrong and the nature of the punishment for such an act, they should be treated as an adult who understands the same things. Your point is based of an arbitrarily determined age which doesn't actually mean anything. You honestly think someone 17 1/2 should go to juvie for a couple years if they commit a crime like this?

And enough with the "it doesn't become you" and "I'm surprised at you." It's a saturday afternoon. Relax.
 
And enough with the "it doesn't become you" and "I'm surprised at you." It's a saturday afternoon. Relax.

I didn't make those comments today. And it still doesn't become you to be so contrary.
 
I didn't make those comments today. And it still doesn't become you to be so contrary.

Dude. This is a debate site. We're all contrary here.

Answer me. If a person one day shy of their 18th birthday shot their stepmother in the stomach with a shotgun, killing her and her unborn child, would you try them as a child?
 
Dude. This is a debate site. We're all contrary here.

Answer me. If a person one day shy of their 18th birthday shot their stepmother in the stomach with a shotgun, killing her and her unborn child, would you try them as a child?

If 18 was the limitation defined by law, yes, I would try them as a child.

Now I have not defined 18 as the defining number here. I would define 15 if it were me but that's beside the point.

We have two different criminal justice systems: one for minors and one for adults. It makes no sense to me to have two but to arbitrarily change the point of entry from minor to adult based on a subjective examination of the child.
 
If 18 was the limitation defined by law, yes, I would try them as a child.

Now I have not defined 18 as the defining number here. I would define 15 if it were me but that's beside the point.

We have two different criminal justice systems: one for minors and one for adults. It makes no sense to me to have two but to arbitrarily change the point of entry from minor to adult based on a subjective examination of the child.

Okay then, why 15? Obviously you think there is some level of understanding that seperates a 15 year-old from a 14 year-old. What's your criteria?

Changing the point of entry makes perfect sense. If a murderer has a child's understanding of the law and their crime, they should not be tried as an adult. I don't see a sixth grader having a child's understanding. He tried to cover up the crime. He knew what he did was wrong, he knew he would be punished. He's capable of understanding the court system. I see no reason he should be tried as someone who didn't understand what he was doing or the consequences.
 
Understanding isn't the only factor in responsibility. An adult is automatically presumed to be responsible, if he isn't insane. A child may understand just fine but still not have the ability to control himself or make proper decisions.



Good points ^. I would simply add that they don't have all their brains yet. No joke. They don't.

Children/teens simply don't appreciate the ramifications of their actions.
They don't look ahead and they don't reason well.

Almost every adult I know will say "It's a miracle I made it to adulthood" When I was a kid I ......."
The reason they say that is because almost all kids make bad choices in their lives at some time.

I would never want a child to be held/tried as an adult.
 
Good points ^. I would simply add that they don't have all their brains yet. No joke. They don't.

Children/teens simply don't appreciate the ramifications of their actions.
They don't look ahead and they don't reason well.

Almost every adult I know will say "It's a miracle I made it to adulthood" When I was a kid I ......."
The reason they say that is because almost all kids make bad choices in their lives at some time.

I would never want a child to be held/tried as an adult.

The brain continues to develop until the age of 25. Should we try a 23 year-old as a child?

Brain development can't be the only standard.
 
The brain continues to develop until the age of 25. Should we try a 23 year-old as a child?

Brain development can't be the only standard.


No, that's not what I said.


Some teenagers will jump off of a cliff, head first, without ever checking to see the depth of the water.
Why?
Because they don't think!

They don't reason well. They have extremely limited life experiences to pull from. Children and adults should always be viewed with that distinction. One is a child. One is not.
 
No, that's not what I said.


Some teenagers will jump off of a cliff, head first, without ever checking to see the depth of the water.
Why?
Because they don't think!

They don't reason well. They have extremely limited life experiences to pull from. Children and adults should always be viewed with that distinction. One is a child. One is not.

I know what you're saying. But if we can't use brain development as a criteria for deciding if someone is going to be tried as an adult or a child, what do you propose we use? I'll ask you the same question I asked jallman. I assume you agree that an 18 year-old should be tried as an adult. Why? What additional understanding does an 18 year-old possess that a 17 year-old doesn't?
 
I know what you're saying. But if we can't use brain development as a criteria for deciding if someone is going to be tried as an adult or a child, what do you propose we use? I'll ask you the same question I asked jallman. I assume you agree that an 18 year-old should be tried as an adult. Why? What additional understanding does an 18 year-old possess that a 17 year-old doesn't?


We (society) have to have a line somewhere that distinguishes a child from an adult. That's the line that was decided upon. :shrug:

I will tell you that I'm not completely convinced that 18 is the right number. If I made the rules the "magic" number would probably be 21.



As far as a 17 vs 18 ....what does that have to do with an 11 year old being tried as an adult?

Gotta admit I didn't read the whole thread so perhaps this conversation has moved on from the OP.
 
We (society) have to have a line somewhere that distinguishes a child from an adult. That's the line that was decided upon. :shrug:

I will tell you that I'm not completely convinced that 18 is the right number. If I made the rules the "magic" number would probably be 21.



As far as a 17 vs 18 ....what does that have to do with an 11 year old being tried as an adult?

Gotta admit I didn't read the whole thread so perhaps this conversation has moved on from the OP.

Well same thing then. Why 21? What level of understanding do you think a 21 year-old has that someone 20 and a half doesn't? There has to be some sort of criteria for this. Just picking numbers isn't something I can debate against. I can pick numbers too, but there has to be reasoning behind it.
 
Well same thing then. Why 21? What level of understanding do you think a 21 year-old has that someone 20 and a half doesn't? There has to be some sort of criteria for this. Just picking numbers isn't something I can debate against. I can pick numbers too, but there has to be reasoning behind it.


OK well, let's stick with what we've got and the story. An 11 year old being tried as an adult.

What makes you believe that an 11 year old has the same brain, emotional, maturity, reasoning levels and life experiences as an 18 year old? I don't understand where you draw the similarities from.

:confused:
 
Back
Top Bottom