View Poll Results: Should an 11 year old ever be tried as an adult?

Voters
75. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, this particular young man is a perfect example

    13 17.33%
  • No, never.

    39 52.00%
  • The justice system needs another alternative for extremely young, potentially dangerous offenders

    18 24.00%
  • Other, please explain

    5 6.67%
Page 50 of 52 FirstFirst ... 404849505152 LastLast
Results 491 to 500 of 519

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

  1. #491
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Last Seen
    04-15-10 @ 04:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,303

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    How does that even begin to make your point? Every other point of legal importance in dealing with children has a strictly defined limitation that does not move for ANY reason whatsoever. So why is it that you feel the need to move this point back and forth unless it is for emotional standards that lack objectivity?
    WTF? Lack of objectivity? Emotional standards? I am not moving anything "back and forth". I am hoping to set a standard for consequence of behavior. People are not allowed to drink till 21, vote till 18, drive till 16. Do you see any standard here at all? YES! That is right, the standard is that depending on the issue, an age is set. This is what you highlighted so conveniently. Age for respected action is subjective. Thanks!

  2. #492
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Flea View Post
    WTF? Lack of objectivity? Emotional standards? I am not moving anything "back and forth". I am hoping to set a standard for consequence of behavior. People are not allowed to drink till 21, vote till 18, drive till 16. Do you see any standard here at all? YES! That is right, the standard is that depending on the issue, an age is set. This is what you highlighted so conveniently. Age for respected action is subjective. Thanks!
    Bull****. The only thing I highlighted is that there is an immovable standard for each respective action yet there seems to be no objective and immovable standard for when we shuffle kids between two different justice systems. Just a subjective feeling about whether the kid knew better or not dependent on how severe the action is.

  3. #493
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Last Seen
    04-15-10 @ 04:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,303

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    Bull****. The only thing I highlighted is that there is an immovable standard for each respective action yet there seems to be no objective and immovable standard for when we shuffle kids between two different justice systems. Just a subjective feeling about whether the kid knew better or not dependent on how severe the action is.
    The ****ing problem, Jallman, is that the immovable standard for child murderers has not been ****ing set yet. For a smart guy, you seem to miss a very simple point.

  4. #494
    Professor
    Leo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,674

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Flea View Post
    The ****ing problem, Jallman, is that the immovable standard for child murderers has not been ****ing set yet. For a smart guy, you seem to miss a very simple point.
    Ummm ... the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, does state that no one under 18 shall be subject to the adult penal code (or words to that effect). Doesn't that mean the standard has been set by international law?
    I hate the idea of causes, and if I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country. E.M. Forster

  5. #495
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Last Seen
    04-15-10 @ 04:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,303

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Leo View Post
    Ummm ... the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, does state that no one under 18 shall be subject to the adult penal code (or words to that effect). Doesn't that mean the standard has been set by international law?
    It has been set by international law, but we don't have to abide by laws that don't fit our society.

  6. #496
    Professor
    Leo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,674

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Flea View Post
    It has been set by international law, but we don't have to abide by laws that don't fit our society.
    But wouldn't that only apply if we were talking about British Law, or German law, or some other national legal code? Doesn't international law apply to every country?
    I hate the idea of causes, and if I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country. E.M. Forster

  7. #497
    The Almighty
    Kelzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Last Seen
    10-21-17 @ 11:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    13,534

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    Nothing is "wrong" with me. What makes you think something is "wrong" with me?
    Emotional 180s tend to make me think something's wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    I don't think we need to go over everything that defines a civilized society but we do need to address one issue that is relevant to this discussion. A civilized society is one that makes every consideration for protecting its weakest members, namely the young, the infirm, and the elderly.
    I suppose that's fair. However, a civilized society wouldn't feel the need to protect these weak members from something they're capable of doing, would they? For instance, we wouldn't forbid someone that's elderly from driving, unless they proved incapable. And if they do prove capable and get in an accident, then we don't shrug our shoulders and say they shouldn't have been driving anyway.

    If they have the capacity to be held to the same standards, doing anything else is coddling.

    I think every opportunity should be presented to children to either live up to, in the case of the more fortunate, or rise above, in the case of the disadvantaged, what they were born into. I think that, even in criminal matters, the constantly evolving socialization of the child makes it counterproductive to the preservation of liberty balanced against the social demand for justice to hold them as culpable as adults.
    People are evolving socially their whole lives. An immature socialization process would not make an adult less culpable, so there is no objective reason why a child should be less culpable for the same reason.

    Further, the child, in every other legal matter, is deemed to be unfit to make decisions for himself even when we know that some kids could handle the responsibility and some cannot. The child cannot drink till 21, cannot enter into legal contracts until 18, cannot buy cigarettes until 19, cannot drive until 16, and in some places there are curfews. If we have determined the restrictions on a child to be immovable by codefied law, then it only stands to reason that the culpability of children in legal matters of a criminal nature should be as strictly defined and immovable.
    The nature of a criminal act prevents it from being compared to laws that limit the actions of minors. If only one kid in 500 wanted to drive, then perhaps we could view that on a case by case basis and evaluate that child's ability to understand the responsibility that comes with. Since it's pretty safe to say that all teenagers want to drive, a strict age limit had to be established for convenience. That is not the case with crimes committed by children and even less the case when we consider violent crimes. Then we do have the ability to evaluate each child individually and determine if they have the maturity to understand their actions and the consequences.

    I asked my little brother (he's 13) what he thought last night. He said since he understands what death is, knows murder is wrong and knows he will be punished for doing it, he should not be tried as a child. Out of the mouths of babes, huh?
    be humble for you are made of earth; be noble for you are made of stars

    Serbian proverb

  8. #498
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelzie View Post
    I suppose that's fair. However, a civilized society wouldn't feel the need to protect these weak members from something they're capable of doing, would they? For instance, we wouldn't forbid someone that's elderly from driving, unless they proved incapable. And if they do prove capable and get in an accident, then we don't shrug our shoulders and say they shouldn't have been driving anyway.
    This hits the nail on the head. An 11 year old is capable of drinking, capable of smoking, capable of ****ing someone in the 30's, capable of signing their name to a contract, capable of pretty much everything we restrict them from doing legally.

    You can't make and believe the statement above, especially the bold portions, while simultaneously promoting the following statement you made:

    The nature of a criminal act prevents it from being compared to laws that limit the actions of minors.
    If you believe the above, then you simply cannot believe that "a civilized society wouldn't feel the need to protect these weak members from something they're capable of doing".

    We absolutely believe a civilized society feels the need to protect it's weak members from something they are capable of doing.

    We just don't do this on the basis of the individual being shown incapable, but instead make the distinction arbitrary on the basis of age.

    If we are going to use that standard for one side of the equation, we MUST logically use the same standard for the other side of the equation. i.e. if we use age arbitrarily to restrict behaviors, we must use age arbitrarily when punishing behaviors.

    We can't pick and choose when the designations are arbitrarily decided and when they are not. We must either always apply them arbitrarily or always apply them in a non-arbitrary fashion.

    What people are doing when they argue for an 11-year old to be tried as an adult is arguing for a non-arbitrary application of the laws, but they almost universally fail to do this for all of the laws.

    That inconsistency makes their arguments fail. The only reasoning they have for their inconsistency is emotional (they argue for non-arbitrary applications when it suits their emotional desire for extreme punishment for extreme behaviors, but not when non-arbitrary applications would be in conflict with their emotional desire to "protect" children from themselves).

    In order to actually present a logical argument to charge an 11-year-old as an adult, one absolutely must hold the position that the current status quo of arbitrary age-based restrictions be abolished and that non-arbitrary, individual competency-based restrictions be put in place.

    What jallman is arguing here is actually the very consistent logical argument that all legal decisions of this nature be based solely upon the arbitrary age-based standards.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 04-13-10 at 12:57 PM.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #499
    The Almighty
    Kelzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Last Seen
    10-21-17 @ 11:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    13,534

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    This hits the nail on the head. An 11 year old is capable of drinking, capable of smoking, capable of ****ing someone in the 30's, capable of signing their name to a contract, capable of pretty much everything we restrict them from doing legally.

    You can't make and believe the statement above, especially the bold portions, while simultaneously promoting the following statement you made:



    If you believe the above, then you simply cannot believe that "a civilized society wouldn't feel the need to protect these weak members from something they're capable of doing".

    We absolutely believe a civilized society feels the need to protect it's weak members from something they are capable of doing.

    We just don't do this on the basis of the individual being shown incapable, but instead make the distinction arbitrary on the basis of age.

    If we are going to use that standard for one side of the equation, we MUST logically use the same standard for the other side of the equation. i.e. if we use age arbitrarily to restrict behaviors, we must use age arbitrarily when punishing behaviors.

    We can't pick and choose when the designations are arbitrarily decided and when they are not. We must either always apply them arbitrarily or always apply them in a non-arbitrary fashion.

    What people are doing when they argue for an 11-year old to be tried as an adult is arguing for a non-arbitrary application of the laws, but they almost universally fail to do this for all of the laws.

    That inconsistency makes their arguments fail. The only reasoning they have for their inconsistency is emotional (they argue for non-arbitrary applications when it suits their emotional desire for extreme punishment for extreme behaviors, but not when non-arbitrary applications would be in conflict with their emotional desire to "protect" children from themselves).

    In order to actually present a logical argument to charge an 11-year-old as an adult, one absolutely must hold the position that the current status quo of arbitrary age-based restrictions be abolished and that non-arbitrary, individual competency-based restrictions be put in place.

    What jallman is arguing here is actually the very consistent logical argument that all legal decisions of this nature be based solely upon the arbitrary age-based standards.

    I thought the driving example would show that I meant capable of doing it safely. Obviously a kid can drink, smoke and drive just as well as an elderly person suffering from dementia. That doesn't mean they are capable of doing it safely or responsibly.

    But safety doesn't really factor in when you're considering how responsible they are for their actions does it? That's the problem with analogies, they only go so far.

    Some kids are deemed capable of entering college at the age of 12. Why? Because there's a set of standards that are applied universally, regardless of age.
    be humble for you are made of earth; be noble for you are made of stars

    Serbian proverb

  10. #500
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelzie View Post
    Some kids are deemed capable of entering college at the age of 12. Why? Because there's a set of standards that are applied universally, regardless of age.
    False analogy. Entry into college is not based on age; it's based on academic performance. Further, entry into college is not a legal issue.

Page 50 of 52 FirstFirst ... 404849505152 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •