• 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
jallman said:
And I am totally against it, 100%...even in the cases where I feel like the little bastard should fry. But I think that cut and dry about every criminal issue. There is a standard of measurement of culpability and it is the standard applied to everyone regardless of social status, economic standing, color, race, creed or religion. That black and white measure is what leads me to detest hate crime legislation and trying juveniles as adults: the law should be dispassionate, totally objective, and blind to petty human emotion.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it is run by humans. So this can never happen.
 
Blackdog said:
Unfortunately it is run by humans. So this can never happen.
Click to expand...

I don't think believe that. We have created other systems that are unfettered by the taint of emotion. :shrug:

It's all about having a commitment to a standard and not allowing any deviation from it.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
If the juvenile system lacks the resources or jurisdiction to hold juveniles who commit serious crimes, we should address that deficit, rather than this hodgepodge mishmash of insanity that we currently have.
Click to expand...

That would be a good idea.
 
Blackdog said:
That would be a good idea.
Click to expand...

That's what I fought for when I was a local. It was a...frustrating battle. By and large, adult systems are heavily funded and have a considerable degree of political clout. Juvenile systems aren't and don't. Legislators don't understand the differences and want to be seen to be "doing something" about crime. It was much like banging my head repeatedly into a brick wall.

And, when our efforts in my state resulted in a significant infusion of resources into the juvenile justice system, including funds to build several new detention facilities to replace our outdated/overcrowded centers, I was seen as someone who wanted to punish and lock up juveniles.

There is really no winning in this particular battle, but some things are worth fighting...just because they are the right thing to do.
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
I don't think believe that. We have created other systems that are unfettered by the taint of emotion. :shrug:

It's all about having a commitment to a standard and not allowing any deviation from it.
Click to expand...

Not true, anything we touch is affected.

Go sit in a courtroom for any length of time and watch what happens. It is nothing but emotion from the States Attorney who was divorced and now has a vendetta, to the police officer who was picked on in high school and lashes out at society as a whole right up to the judge who has political ambition.

No, everything about our system runs around and is fueled by human emotion.

It will always be a part of everything we touch.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Not true, anything we touch is affected.

Go sit in a courtroom for any length of time and watch what happens. It is nothing but emotion from the States Attorney who was divorced and now has a vendetta, to the police officer who was picked on in high school and lashes out at society as a whole right up to the judge who has political ambition.

No, everything about our system runs around and is filed by human emotion.

It will always be a part of everything we touch.
Click to expand...

Law is reason unaffected by desire. Or should be, according to Aristotle.
 
Blackdog said:
Not true, anything we touch is affected.

Go sit in a courtroom for any length of time and watch what happens. It is nothing but emotion from the States Attorney who was divorced and now has a vendetta, to the police officer who was picked on in high school and lashes out at society as a whole right up to the judge who has political ambition.

No, everything about our system runs around and is fueled by human emotion.

It will always be a part of everything we touch.
Click to expand...

If we can create a dispassionate scientific method and dispassionate programming languages then I think we can codefy petty emotion out of the legal system. Not completely, mind you, but wherever humanly possible. Adherence to strict standards is the only way to do that. A series of if/then scenarios that lead to a tightly tailored answer to the question of justice in every case.
 
jallman said:
If we can create a dispassionate scientific method and dispassionate programming languages then I think we can codefy petty emotion out of the legal system. Not completely, mind you, but wherever humanly possible. Adherence to strict standards is the only way to do that. A series of if/then scenarios that lead to a tightly tailored answer to the question of justice in every case.
Click to expand...

That is not the nature of crime. Crime is chaos, and chaos flies in the face of most logic. So many factors in each crime make each one different. And so many people involved.

What you suggest would take a super computer the size of the moon.

PS even the scientific method has been affected. Lies, covered up tests etc. After humans get involved, it can never be more than what we are.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
That is not the nature of crime. Crime is chaos, and chaos flies in the face of most logic. So many factors in each crime make each one different. And so many people involved.

What you suggest would take a super computer the size of the moon.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's really all that complicated, actually. We already have the method, we just need a commitment to adherence to it.

For instance, the process is something like this:

1. Was a crime committed? If yes, move to step two.

2. Was the suspect above or below the age of 18? If above, see rule set 1. If below, see rule set 2.

(let's assume above and we go to rule set 1)

3. Were there aggravating factors? Define the aggravating factors. Then proceed to prosecution of the preset charge.

4. Did a jury find the defendant guilty or not guilty? Not guilty, proceed to acquittal. Guilty, proceed to sentencing.

5. Sentencing: preset sentencing for the crime is announced, proceed to punishment.


Follow this procedure with zero deviation and there is a huge step taken toward making the justice system equitable. Of course, this is all just untested opinion on my part. ;)
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
I don't think it's really all that complicated, actually. We already have the method, we just need a commitment to adherence to it.

For instance, the process is something like this:

1. Was a crime committed? If yes, move to step two.

2. Was the suspect above or below the age of 18? If above, see rule set 1. If below, see rule set 2.

(let's assume above and we go to rule set 1)

3. Were there aggravating factors? Define the aggravating factors. Then proceed to prosecution of the preset charge.

4. Did a jury find the defendant guilty or not guilty? Not guilty, proceed to acquittal. Guilty, proceed to sentencing.

5. Sentencing: preset sentencing for the crime is announced, proceed to punishment.


Follow this procedure with zero deviation and there is a huge step taken toward making the justice system equitable. Of course, this is all must untested opinion on my part. ;)
Click to expand...

Hehehehe if the nature of crime were that simple.

Who knows, you may be on to something.
 
jallman said:
I don't think it's really all that complicated, actually. We already have the method, we just need a commitment to adherence to it.

For instance, the process is something like this:

1. Was a crime committed? If yes, move to step two.

2. Was the suspect above or below the age of 18? If above, see rule set 1. If below, see rule set 2.

(let's assume above and we go to rule set 1)

3. Were there aggravating factors? Define the aggravating factors. Then proceed to prosecution of the preset charge.

4. Did a jury find the defendant guilty or not guilty? Not guilty, proceed to acquittal. Guilty, proceed to sentencing.

5. Sentencing: preset sentencing for the crime is announced, proceed to punishment.


Follow this procedure with zero deviation and there is a huge step taken toward making the justice system equitable. Of course, this is all just untested opinion on my part. ;)
Click to expand...

Hey, look! Objective, rational law! What a nutty idea.
 
VanceMack said:
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.
Click to expand...

But this is cutting right to the heart of Jallman's position. You're interjecting your emotion into considerations of law, i.e., you've seen children do gruesome things, so that means it's okay to treat them like adults in certain cases; that's purely emotional and anecdotal.

Trying a child as an adult would be like trying a canine as a human. Legally and objectively speaking, they are different from one another. We do not put canine's on trial for gnawing a person's face off just because the owner thought his dog was like a human at times; this should be the same thing for children and adults.
 
Gander said:
But this is cutting right to the heart of Jallman's position. You're interjecting your emotion into considerations of law, i.e., you've seen children do gruesome things, so that means it's okay to treat them like adults in certain cases; that's purely emotional and anecdotal.

Trying a child as an adult would be like trying a canine as a human. Legally and objectively speaking, they are different from one another. We do not put canine's on trial for gnawing a person's face off just because the owner thought his dog was like a human at times; this should be the same thing for children and adults.
Click to expand...

Its actually NOT interjecting emotion...its interjecting REALITY. An EMOTIONAL response would be "we cant treat them like adults...they are only CHILDREN...they are only 11"...whereas I personally believe that if a 'child' has been tested and assessed by a psychologist and found to be a threat to society they should be treated as such REGARDLESS of age. I cant stress enough that i DO believe in rehab and hope for rehab...but to ignore that SOME...not all...but SOME of these guys are for whatever reasons NBKs...well...I dont want to have that conversation with their next victims parents.
 
VanceMack said:
Its actually NOT interjecting emotion...its interjecting REALITY. An EMOTIONAL response would be "we cant treat them like adults...they are only CHILDREN...they are only 11"...whereas I personally believe that if a 'child' has been tested and assessed by a psychologist and found to be a threat to society they should be treated as such REGARDLESS of age.
Click to expand...

Why only two choices though? Why must an 11-year-old be treated as an adult, which is absurd on its face, just because they are a threat to society? Why does that make him an adult, or need to be treated like one? Can't we have a third way of handling these kinds of things?
 
misterman said:
Why only two choices though? Why must an 11-year-old be treated as an adult, which is absurd on its face, just because they are a threat to society? Why does that make him an adult, or need to be treated like one? Can't we have a third way of handling these kinds of things?
Click to expand...

Sure...such as? Would a viable third option be to sentence as an adult, place in juvenile til they are adults, offer rehab, and if rehabbed then paroled?
 
I have contributed all I am capable of to this discussion, but I would like to say that the voting confirmed what I have always felt about the USA. The American people are considerably better than the institution. The system (like most others,) is flawed but the people are magnificent. :2wave:
 
VanceMack said:
Sure...such as? Would a viable third option be to sentence as an adult, place in juvenile til they are adults, offer rehab, and if rehabbed then paroled?
Click to expand...

why place him in juvenile if they're trying him as an adult?

semms rather inconsistent to me
 
misterman said:
Why only two choices though? Why must an 11-year-old be treated as an adult, which is absurd on its face, just because they are a threat to society? Why does that make him an adult, or need to be treated like one? Can't we have a third way of handling these kinds of things?
Click to expand...

It is not about the age, it is about the crime. Murder and such are not to be tolerated regardless of age. What the hell does age matter? What logical step is there that states that age matters in the damn slightest?
 
LOLZ! It seems I haven't finished contributing to this thread (as per my last post). :mrgreen:

Johnny Utah said:
It is not about the age, it is about the crime. Murder and such are not to be tolerated regardless of age. What the hell does age matter? What logical step is there that states that age matters in the damn slightest?
Click to expand...

Why does age matter? Because society (everywhere) says it does. I am not legally entitled to vote, I have only just become legally entitled to apply for a driver' licence, I am not legally entitled to drink alcohol, I am not legally entitled to buy cigarettes, I am not legally entitled to sign a contract, I am not legally entitled to hold public office, I am not legally entitled to be a director of a company, and I am not legally entitled to join the armed forces. And I am not 11 years of age - so if someone who is 16 and a half cannot do all these things, how can he be considered a responsible adult, and prosecuted as such? How much less so an 11 year old?
 
VanceMack said:
Sure...such as? Would a viable third option be to sentence as an adult, place in juvenile til they are adults, offer rehab, and if rehabbed then paroled?
Click to expand...

Well, that's one way, and it is used now of course, but it's a pretty lame one. It's still fitting these cases into the existing system instead of changing it.

I think we should start by giving serious juvenile crimes punishment that doesn't automatically end at age 21, but still keeps them out of the adult system. And above all, it should acknowledge that these are still children and still need to have guidance to grow up, or else they'll just commit another crime and end up in prison anyway.
 
Johnny Utah said:
It is not about the age, it is about the crime. Murder and such are not to be tolerated regardless of age. What the hell does age matter? What logical step is there that states that age matters in the damn slightest?
Click to expand...

But that's silly. It should be about age. Otherwise ALL crimes would be adult crimes, and we wouldn't have a seperate system for juveniles.

It has nothing to do with "tolerating" crimes. We're not just letting them get away with it. But kids just aren't as responsible for their crimes as adults.

Would you send a four-year-old to adult prison for deliberately shooting someone with a gun?
 
I watched a show the other day, I believe it was TLC. It covered murders by young people over the past years, and included some interviews of them now, as they serve out their life sentences. The show was balanced, including both the horror of the crimes, the family dynamics the offenders grew up in, and psychological profiles of them. It did not editorialize in and of itself, but did portray these troubled young people as human beings, not monsters.

Some of these young people, now in their 20s, having served out, already, many, many years in prison, did sound as if they have accepted responsibility for their actions and have done a lot of sincere introspection. Many of them were bullied severely, or suffered abuse and neglect at the hands of their parents.

I really feel that these young people need to be reevaluated at some point, especially those who committed crimes under the age of 16. There has to be a better system in a sophisticated society such as ours than locking them up and throwing away the key. Dogs get treated better than that.
 
spud_meister said:
why place him in juvenile if they're trying him as an adult?

semms rather inconsistent to me
Click to expand...

Place him in an age appropriate facility while he is being both held (punished) and rehabilitated (helped). Because maybe a 14-15-16 year old violent youth offender might continue to adopt survival techniques in an adult only facility that he might then take with him should he ever be paroled and BE that much more violent. How is that inconsistent? The sentnece would be the same...the difference would be where he is held as a youth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom