• 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
Yeah. I was working directly with gang members when these laws passed. The problem is...legislators generally know very little about juvenile crime, and are responding in a knee-jerk fashion to appear as if they are doing something about a perceived problem. And, while juvenile crime was quite high in the late 80s-early 90s, it has since dropped by a considerable margin, for reasons that we haven't even been able to coherently explain yet.

The problem is that adult facilities, for the most part, aren't adequately equipped to handle 10 year old offenders. It poses a safety risk to the young offender, and in some cases, to older offenders.

Furthermore, very few juveniles commit violent crimes ALONE. The vast majority of juveniles arrested for felony offenses are arrested in the company of adult perpetrators.

You're treating this subject in a very generalized and slipshod fashion that i find disturbing coming from a professional in the field of juvenile justice.

You are ignoring the fact that we do not send juveniles to a state or Federal penitentiary until they reach the age of 18.

So it really is of no consequence.
 
Yeah. I was working directly with gang members when these laws passed. The problem is...legislators generally know very little about juvenile crime, and are responding in a knee-jerk fashion to appear as if they are doing something about a perceived problem. And, while juvenile crime was quite high in the late 80s-early 90s, it has since dropped by a considerable margin, for reasons that we haven't even been able to coherently explain yet.

The problem is that adult facilities, for the most part, aren't adequately equipped to handle 10 year old offenders. It poses a safety risk to the young offender, and in some cases, to older offenders.

Furthermore, very few juveniles commit violent crimes ALONE. The vast majority of juveniles arrested for felony offenses are arrested in the company of adult perpetrators.

You're treating this subject in a very generalized and slipshod fashion that i find disturbing coming from a professional in the field of juvenile justice.

We are TALKING in a very vague and generalized manner. The OP was an OPINION POLL for Gods sake. This isnt a doctoral dissertation, its a blog. The juvenile in question is just one person...one of many.

I HOPE he can change. My actual recommendation here was try him as an adult and if convicted life, but WITH the possibility of parole. If he can be helped he should be and will be. If not, prison is where he belongs. I think thats actually a pretty fair position to take.
 
Do you want it to be some kind of emotional bull**** so you can justify your lack of argument?

There is no lack of argument on my part. I have presented logical and sound reasoning for not trying a child as an adult.

Why haven't you done the same for justifying your disregard for objectivity and consistent application of the law?
 
We are TALKING in a very vague and generalized manner. The OP was an OPINION POLL for Gods sake. This isnt a doctoral dissertation, its a blog. The juvenile in question is just one person...one of many.

I HOPE he can change. My actual recommendation here was try him as an adult and if convicted life, but WITH the possibility of parole. If he can be helped he should be and will be. If not, prison is where he belongs. I think thats actually a pretty fair position to take.

We are being emotional and jumping to give knee jerk reactions.
 
We are TALKING in a very vague and generalized manner. The OP was an OPINION POLL for Gods sake. This isnt a doctoral dissertation, its a blog. The juvenile in question is just one person...one of many.

I HOPE he can change. My actual recommendation here was try him as an adult and if convicted life, but WITH the possibility of parole. If he can be helped he should be and will be. If not, prison is where he belongs. I think thats actually a pretty fair position to take.

You're correct, that is a fair position to take but I still have to question whether blurring the lines of objectivity in the law that much is a good idea or not.
 
Yeah. I was working directly with gang members when these laws passed. The problem is...legislators generally know very little about juvenile crime, and are responding in a knee-jerk fashion to appear as if they are doing something about a perceived problem. And, while juvenile crime was quite high in the late 80s-early 90s, it has since dropped by a considerable margin, for reasons that we haven't even been able to coherently explain yet.

The problem is that adult facilities, for the most part, aren't adequately equipped to handle 10 year old offenders. It poses a safety risk to the young offender, and in some cases, to older offenders.

Furthermore, very few juveniles commit violent crimes ALONE. The vast majority of juveniles arrested for felony offenses are arrested in the company of adult perpetrators.

You're treating this subject in a very generalized and slipshod fashion that i find disturbing coming from a professional in the field of juvenile justice.

Most juveniles in adult facilities (there arent THAT many of them) arent kept in general population. So...maybe keep him in a Juvenile facility and then transfer him at 18.

The alternative is to try him as a juvenile, he DOESNT get help, and gets out and hurts others. That is the opinion of the psychiatrist that assessed him. i personally wouldnt want to explain to the families of future victims...well...we assessed him to be incorrigible...but come on...he was only 11 when he killed his future step momma...sorry for your loss...
 
There is no lack of argument on my part. I have presented logical and sound reasoning for not trying a child as an adult.

Again you completely ignore my argument for some bull**** that does not even apply to what I have said.

Intellectual dishonesty is not very becoming.

Why haven't you done the same for justifying your disregard for objectivity and consistent application of the law?

I have done this, you ignored it. :shrug:
 
Well, you are. I dunno about Vance.

Oh I see.

You are a mind reader and know exactly what I think and why. Well since you seem to know my mind better than I do lets play a game.

What is my mothers maiden name?
 
Again you completely ignore my argument for some bull**** that does not even apply to what I have said.

No, I considered your argument and found it lacking.

Intellectual dishonesty is not very becoming.

Then stop being intellectually dishonest. :shrug:

I have done this, you ignored it. :shrug:

No, I did not ignore it. I just found it irrelevant to the argument at hand so, no, you did not do this.
 
Oh I see.

You are a mind reader and know exactly what I think and why. Well since you seem to know my mind better than I do lets play a game.

What is my mothers maiden name?

Irrelevant. You're starting to devolve into childish emotionalism now.
 
Irrelevant. You're starting to devolve into childish emotionalism now.

Oh NOW I am being emotional because you suggest you know my mind better than I do?

Hmmmm...
 
Well, you are. I dunno about Vance.

Hell...Ive tried to be pretty fairly objective. I dont know the KID...and Ive suggested that if convicted he should be given the opportunity for rehab...and if he cant then he should stay where he belongs. How is that emotional?

Ive seen juvenile offenders bite mouthfulls of meat of female guards forearms because they got careless and reached in front of them. These arent lunatic insane mental cases...they are violent children. Ive seen one kid bash in another kids head with an XBox. and on and on. Not ALL...but enough. And pardon me for not being emotional and thinking we should 'just' sentence them as juveniles because they are young.
 
Wow...did you pull that straw right out of your ass? Where did I say there were 'large numbers' of violent offenders under the age of 14? You make a total argument out of THAT??? My only assertion was that MOST violent offenders DONT rehab...and this particular one has been assessed as 'unlikely' to be rehabbed. Age is nothing but a number.

You made the claim that you'd worked with hundreds of 12-14 year old sex offenders. I find that claim absurd, having worked extensively with a number of state juvenile justice systems, and having some idea of who is involved in those systems.

The isolated juvenile sex offender population made up 1/3 of the population of the facilities I worked at.

And of those, I suspect a tiny amount were under 14. Beyond that, a small percentage of juvenile offenders are sex offenders.

The other two thirds were divided into court ordered O/A and juvenile incarceration. The ones that were there were in isolation because they were violent and dangerous to others.

Yeah. I worked with those kids in the communities, in their homes and schools, before they were incarcerated. In some cases, I recommended that they be incarcerated.

I disagree with its use...but that doesnt change the reality. Teach them 'what they are'. The recividism rate of violent juvenile offenders pretty much mirrors the adult population.

Well, that's good. You'll be happy to learn that the recidivism rate of sex offenders is much lower than that of violent offenders.

TYPICALLY they cant be rehabbed.

Proof?

In point of fact, the majority of sex offenders are not rearrested.

CSOM Publications

But hey...you got a little 'thanks' pop from your buddy...so it wasnt a totaL failed effort.

I got a thanks because I spoke using data and evidence that I know how to handle, because I've worked in the field for almost 2 decades and I stay current on the research.
 
And this makes me emotionally knee jerking how?

Because there is no objective measure to your argument. It's all about subjectivity and relativism...two things I believe should not have a place in determining equitable application of criminal law.

:roll:



This is a lie. You know this.

If that were the case, we wouldn't be having this disagreement.
 
Oh NOW I am being emotional because you suggest you know my mind better than I do?

Hmmmm...

No, you are being emotional because you are devolving to petty game playing and begging proof of psychic powers...rhetorically of course.
 
Hell...Ive tried to be pretty fairly objective. I dont know the KID...and Ive suggested that if convicted he should be given the opportunity for rehab...and if he cant then he should stay where he belongs. How is that emotional?

Ive seen juvenile offenders bite mouthfulls of meat of female guards forearms because they got careless and reached in front of them. These arent lunatic insane mental cases...they are violent children. Ive seen one kid bash in another kids head with an XBox. and on and on. Not ALL...but enough. And pardon me for not being emotional and thinking we should 'just' sentence them as juveniles because they are young.

Your personal anectdotes don't count as evidence to bolster a reasonable argument. Sorry. I've seen juveniles shoot other juveniles, sometimes to death. Two of my clients shot two people to death over a set of hubcaps. Several of my clients were tried as adults and served prison terms. Several are on death row.

I have 5 times as much experience as you do, purely on the basis of longevity.

I still provided evidence and research from the field to support my viewpoint that trying an 11-year-old as an adult is insanity. So should you.
 
Hell...Ive tried to be pretty fairly objective. I dont know the KID...and Ive suggested that if convicted he should be given the opportunity for rehab...and if he cant then he should stay where he belongs. How is that emotional?

Ive seen juvenile offenders bite mouthfulls of meat of female guards forearms because they got careless and reached in front of them. These arent lunatic insane mental cases...they are violent children. Ive seen one kid bash in another kids head with an XBox. and on and on. Not ALL...but enough. And pardon me for not being emotional and thinking we should 'just' sentence them as juveniles because they are young.

But doesn't that experience tell you that these kids need rehab rather than adult punishment? If an adult did any of those things, we would immediately move to medicate, sedate, and lock away in a criminal mental facility.

Why is it different when kids do these things? Because they're kids who have had adults in their life fail them. There's a mitigation of culpability on that fact alone.
 
Because there is no objective measure to your argument.

Says you? Ummm So what?

It's all about subjectivity and relativism...two things I believe should not have a place in determining equitable application of criminal law.

Ahhh so your opinion is some how more important then mine. I see.

Well the law in this case is pretty clear in most states. Children can and are treated as adults depending on the circumstance, emotional makeup and the crime.

This is the reality of the situation.

If that were the case, we wouldn't be having this disagreement.

We are having this argument because AGAIN you are trying to turn a Grey area into an area you see as black and white.

Good thing for us the law is clear.
 
No, you are being emotional because you are devolving to petty game playing and begging proof of psychic powers...rhetorically of course.

Then don't put forth my perspective like you know what I am thinking. You don't.

Has nothing to do with being emotional. Don't put words or attitudes into my mouth when you have no clue.
 
Last edited:
Does the child have presence of mind to know beyond a reasonable doubt right from wrong? According to the article he does.

Can he be rehabilitated? According to the psychiatrist he can not. Probably a sociopath.

Was it premeditated? All the evidence points to yes, he made a plan and had time to reconsider.

Again my decision is based on the limited facts we have available and not emotion as you would try to project on me.

The problem is that the laws, as they currently stand, are a knee-jerk reaction to the high juvenile crime wave that hit in the late 1980s (most likely correlated to the upswing in gang activity nationwide). They have little basis in current research on adolescent neurological development, and they also were enacted in a vacuum of knowledge about what was available in adult correctional settings to deal with violent juvenile offenders.

In short, they're bad laws. That's what Jall is reacting to.

If this juvenile is a sociopath, the best setting for him in virtually every state I've ever worked in would STILL be a secure juvenile facility. In most states, he can be held for 10 years. Prior to release, he should be evaluated by the youth corrections authority in that state, and his parole should be transferred to adult authorities, if possible, with strict parole requirements. There are multiple ways to handle this case without referring it to the adult system, almost all of which are a better alternative than sending a fifth grader to an adult prison which is ill-equipped to handle him.
 
You're correct, that is a fair position to take but I still have to question whether blurring the lines of objectivity in the law that much is a good idea or not.

I know this wont matter to you...but...

...if you had known '******' you might think otherwise. And there are unfortunately a lot of kids like ****** out there. ****** was 9 when he got STARTED. He was 14 when he got sent to a secure facility. He was 21 when he got let out. He was 22 (and 4 rape victims later) when he got sent back. He will likely serve 7...maybe 12 of the 14 years he was sentenced. He WILL reoffend.

Look...I know thats anecdotal...****** is real but he could be any of a whole lot of them (tho probably a relatively small number compared to the non-violent offenders...right?). To just fabricate an arbitrary set of rules and judgements based on an ideology is dangerous. Thats why they have hearings to determine if a child CAN or SHOULD be tried as an adult.
 
Back
Top Bottom