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

Kelzie said:

Okay, but what is that study based off of? What qualities do we was a society believe are present in an 18 year-old that we don't think are there in an 11 year-old? As far as I can tell, all the necessary criteria for declaring an adult competent to stand trial are present in a sixth grader. The only difference is that we want to hold on to our societal illusion that kids are wide eyed and innocent.

Click to expand...

Impulse control, for one. Another would be emotional stability and, for a third, ability to dispel a connection between morality and the influence of authority figures. I don't really think an 11 year old is capable of the last at all, especially when it comes to parental figures. If they see ugly behavior, violence, and criminality in the adults around them, then it stands to reason that the influence on them to behave in a criminal manner would mitigate their culpability. The law does make concession that the guardian is more responsible for the child's behavior than the child itself is.

Kelzie said:

Age is arbitrary though. I could say I think it should be 5 and that would mean just as much as you thinking it should be 21. We have to have a reason why we think it should be that age.

Which is why I don't think it should be any age at all. Everyone develops at a different pace.

Click to expand...

Age is what we've got, Kelzie. That's why we have an adult system and a juvenile system. It's how we process offenders, based on their age.

What you seem to be suggesting -that age shouldn't matter -seems to be a much more subjective way to handle the problem of offenders.

missypea said:

Age is what we've got, Kelzie. That's why we have an adult system and a juvenile system. It's how we process offenders, based on their age.

What you seem to be suggesting -that age shouldn't matter -seems to be a much more subjective way to handle the problem of offenders.

Click to expand...

It's not what I've got and it's not what our system's got. Else this kid would be tried as a child. I'm actually very supportive of the current system, which often involves a psychiatric evaluation to determine what they should be tried as.

I do think all of those skanky bitches involved in that bullying case should be tried as adults, but you can't win them all.

Kelzie said:

It's not what I've got and it's not what our system's got. Else this kid would be tried as a child. I'm actually very supportive of the current system, which often involves a psychiatric evaluation to determine what they should be tried as.

Click to expand...

When the emotional, politically driven kneejerk reaction dies down, I am 100% confident that the decision to try him as an adult will be overturned by a more level headed judge.

I do think all of those skanky bitches involved in that bullying case should be tried as adults, but you can't win them all.

Click to expand...

Tried for what as an adult? They are certainly not culpable for the death of the disturbed girl who went and hung herself in the closet. Darwin blew his whistle and commanded that girl out of the gene pool. Why is it those girl's fault that she was too weak to handle school?

jallman said:

Impulse control, for one. Another would be emotional stability and, for a third, ability to dispel a connection between morality and the influence of authority figures. I don't really think an 11 year old is capable of the last at all, especially when it comes to parental figures. If they see ugly behavior, violence, and criminality in the adults around them, then it stands to reason that the influence on them to behave in a criminal manner would mitigate their culpability. The law does make concession that the guardian is more responsible for the child's behavior than the child itself is.

Click to expand...

All the sixth graders I've known (see previous posts for a list) have enough impulse control and emotional stability to avoid doing things that they know are wrong...unless they want to do them. Isn't that the same as adults?

As for the connection between morality and the influence of authority figures, that is and always has been a valid argument for deciding how much someone is punished. So I completely agree it should be taken into consideration during sentencing, the same as it is for adults who have grown up around violence. Unless of course a psychiatrist has decided this kid's exposure to violence has damaged him to the point where he can't make rational decisions, but that doesn't seem to be present here.

jallman said:

When the emotional, politically driven kneejerk reaction dies down, I am 100% confident that the decision to try him as an adult will be overturned by a more level headed judge.

Click to expand...

What emotional response? Most people here seem to think he should be tried as a child solely on the basis of emotion.

jallman said:

Tried for what as an adult? They are certainly not culpable for the death of the disturbed girl who went and hung herself in the closet. Darwin blew his whistle and commanded that girl out of the gene pool. Why is it those girl's fault that she was too weak to handle school?

Click to expand...

Certainly not murder. Bullying, harrassment, etc.

Kelzie said:

What emotional response? Most people here seem to think he should be tried as a child solely on the basis of emotion.

Click to expand...

No, I am seeing that most people like an equitable and objective measure of applying the law without deviation on the sole count that "oh noes, the kid did something really, really bad so let's get him".

Certainly not murder. Bullying, harrassment, etc.

Click to expand...

You know why bullying and harassing has never been criminal among kids? Because kids have poor impulse control and they are still developing ideas about social order, empathy, compassion, and individuality.

No creature reverts to it's natural, primal and sadistic state with such alacrity and glee as a child out of the supervision of an adult. That's just part of dealing with children. They are, at their core, egocentric, sociopathic, and amoral until they are socialized properly.

You've read Lord of the Flies, right? You know why that book remains relevant? Because it rings true about the nature of children.

Kelzie, when I made the distinction between legal consequences, and human consequences, I was referring to the differences between recognising that one has done something wrong, and will be punished, and recognising the effects of what one has done upon other human beings.

You may be lucky enough to have gone past that, but I am still at the age where I am punished by legal adults and those who have power over me. But I am 16, not 11, so if I do something which physically or emotionally harms another human being, my cognisance of that wrong is not limited to the fact that I will be punished. I am also aware of the human consequences of what I have done. I know that there is a moral dimension, which may adversely affect others, to my actions.

I am not at all sure that I had the same awareness, to the same degree, when I was 11. In the intervening five years, I have changed totally - intellectually, physically, emotionally, and in terms of empathy with others. I could easily have committed a similar crime (for dissimilar reasons) to that committed by this boy, at that age. And I thank the fates that I live in a society where there is no possibility that a modern Judge Jeffreys could flout the law, so as to have me tried as an adult at 11.

jallman said:

No, I am seeing that most people like an equitable and objective measure of applying the law without deviation on the sole count that "oh noes, the kid did something really, really bad so let's get him".

Click to expand...

Using age as the determing factor is extremely subjective. It has nothing to do with a desire to "get someone." He did something wrong knowlingly. He should be treated no different than any else who did the same thing with the same mental characteristics. If he knows what he did was wrong, if he knows he will be punished for it and if he can understand the legal system, he should be treated like an adult who knows the same. That's objective.

jallman said:

You know why bullying and harassing has never been criminal among kids? Because kids have poor impulse control and they are still developing ideas about social order, empathy, compassion, and individuality.

No creature reverts to it's natural, primal and sadistic state with such alacrity and glee as a child out of the supervision of an adult. That's just part of dealing with children. They are, at their core, egocentric, sociopathic, and amoral until they are socialized properly.

You're read Lord of the Flies, right? You know why that book remains relevant? Because it rings true about the nature of children.

Click to expand...

Not to get into a book discussion with you, but Lord of the Flies was an allegory for human, adult nature and society at large. Children were used to show that it was human nature, not just natural to children.

I don't know what kind of kid you were but I played very nicely with my sister, whether my mom was watching or not. I agree that most bullying shouldn't be prosecuted because it's not in the real world. But when it crosses over to harrassment, it needs to be. You can't harrass someone and get away with it when you're adult, you shouldn't be able to when you're a kid.

Leo said:

Kelzie, when I made the distinction between legal consequences, and human consequences, I was referring to the differences between recognising that one has done something wrong, and will be punished, and recognising the effects of what one has done upon other human beings.

You may be lucky enough to have gone past that, but I am still at the age where I am punished by legal adults and those who have power over me. But I am 16, not 11, so if I do something which physically or emotionally harms another human being, my cognisance of that wrong is not limited to the fact that I will be punished. I am also aware of the human consequences of what I have done. I know that there is a moral dimension, which may adversely affect others, to my actions.

I am not at all sure that I had the same awareness, to the same degree, when I was 11. In the intervening five years, I have changed totally - intellectually, physically, emotionally, and in terms of empathy with others. I could easily have committed a similar crime (for dissimilar reasons) to that committed by this boy, at that age. And I thank the fates that I live in a society where there is no possibility that a modern Judge Jeffreys could flout the law, so as to have me tried as an adult at 11.

Click to expand...

I am sure that if someone had an honest discussion with the boy before he killed his stepmother, he would know what dying means to her. He could have told you the effect it would have on his father and on her family. He could have told you want dying means to his unborn sibling and the loss of a life that never got a chance.

Is he as aware of the morality surrounding murder as he will be at 16? Of course not. Just like an 18 year-old doesn't have the same moral maturity as a 25 year-old. And yet (most) of us are comfortably trying an 18 year-old as an adult. The fact that he is still going to develop is not a factor in deciding what court to try him in. As previously mentioned, the brain continues developing until the age of 25.

And I don't know you, but you seem shockingly mature and intelligent for a 16 year-old. I highly doubt you would have murdered someone five years ago.

Kelzie said:

Using age as the determing factor is extremely subjective. It has nothing to do with a desire to "get someone." He did something wrong knowlingly. He should be treated no different than any else who did the same thing with the same mental characteristics. If he knows what he did was wrong, if he knows he will be punished for it and if he can understand the legal system, he should be treated like an adult who knows the same. That's objective.

Click to expand...

There is nothing objective about determining on a case by case basis, on the sole judgment in the heat of the aftermath of a crime, whether the kid is an adult or not. What is objective is determining a base line from statistical means and then never deviating from that standard regardless of how we feel about the individual in question or his actions.

Not to get into a book discussion with you, but Lord of the Flies was an allegory for human, adult nature and society at large. Children were used to show that it was human nature, not just natural to children.

Click to expand...

I disagree entirely. The use of children and the absence of adults and authoritarian forces in charge of socializing the kids was a pervasive theme in that book. It was so believable and so poignant because these were kids, with blurred lines between reality and fantasy, morality and impulse, social norms and instinct, civilized justice and animalistic "might makes right". Of course, you can take a New Critical analysis of the book and make it into any allegory you wish but a strict deconstructionist argument of the book indicates that children were used as the characters because they had not been totally socialized and this "human nature" has not been suppressed by enforcement of civilized morality.

I don't know what kind of kid you were but I played very nicely with my sister, whether my mom was watching or not. I agree that most bullying shouldn't be prosecuted because it's not in the real world. But when it crosses over to harrassment, it needs to be. You can't harrass someone and get away with it when you're adult, you shouldn't be able to when you're a kid.

Click to expand...

I agree you shouldn't "get away with it" as a kid either. That's part of socialization: consequences commensurate with culpability in the matter at hand. To criminally try children because they screw up and act out during the socialization process is beyond irrational, however. There is an expectation that kids are not always going to be kids...that they are going to mature and rise to the morality taught to them over time. To impress permanent, life destroying punishment over something that is part of the maturation process does not make any sense at all. That is part of your "human consequence" we were talking about earlier.

jallman said:

There is nothing objective about determining on a case by case basis, on the sole judgment in the heat of the aftermath of a crime, whether the kid is an adult or not. What is objective is determining a base line from statistical means and then never deviating from that standard regardless of how we feel about the individual in question or his actions.

Click to expand...

When you consider that everyone matures at a different pace, taking it on a case by case basis is the only way it can be objectively handled.

I disagree entirely. The use of children and the absence of adults and authoritarian forces in charge of socializing the kids was a pervasive theme in that book. It was so believable and so poignant because these were kids, with blurred lines between reality and fantasy, morality and impulse, social norms and instinct, civilized justice and animalistic "might makes right". Of course, you can take a New Critical analysis of the book and make it into any allegory you wish but a strict deconstructionist argument of the book indicates that children were used as the characters because they had not been totally socialized and this "human nature" has not been suppressed by enforcement of civilized morality.

Click to expand...

See, I told you I didn't want to get into a book discussion and now you're going to make me pull up the SparkNotes.

The central concern of Lord of the Flies is the conflict between two competing impulses that exist within all human beings: the instinct to live by rules, act peacefully, follow moral commands, and value the good of the group against the instinct to gratify one’s immediate desires, act violently to obtain supremacy over others, and enforce one’s will. This conflict might be expressed in a number of ways: civilization vs. savagery, order vs. chaos, reason vs. impulse, law vs. anarchy, or the broader heading of good vs. evil. Throughout the novel, Golding associates the instinct of civilization with good and the instinct of savagery with evil.

Click to expand...

SparkNotes: Lord of the Flies: Themes, Motifs & Symbols

Nothing about kids.

I agree you shouldn't "get away with it" as a kid either. That's part of socialization" consequences commensurate with culpability in the matter at hand. To criminally try children because they screw up and act out during the socialization process is beyond irrational, however. There is an expectation that kids are not always going to be kids...that they are going to mature and rise to the morality taught to them over time. To impress permanent, life destroying punishment over something that is part of the maturation process does not make any sense at all. That is part of your "human consequence" we were talking about earlier.

Click to expand...

When kids make decisions that actually do destroy a life, not just figuratively, then the time to treat them as children is gone. There is no objective reason for how our society treats children. Globally and historically, this "child" would be responsible for providing for the family by his age. Western society has decided he's still to young to handle being held accountable for his own decisions based on subjective feelings. When compared to the same standards that we hold adults to though in deciding competence, you offer no reason why he should be treated differently other than the fact that he's a kid and he can't control himself. There's nothing in his nature that either makes him a) unaware what he did was wrong or b) unaware that what he did has consequences. Legal systems aside, and purely on a philosophical basis I see no reason to include any other criteria for determining when to hold someone accountable for their actions.

Kelzie said:

When you consider that everyone matures at a different pace, taking it on a case by case basis is the only way it can be objectively handled.

Click to expand...

No, that is the very definition of "subjectivity". It is to look at the subject rather than the objective. Within the limits of this discussion, the objective is application of blind justice.

See, I told you I didn't want to get into a book discussion and now you're going to make me pull up the SparkNotes.

Click to expand...

When SparkNotes becomes the standard for literary critique, I will be inclined to accept it as truth. Until then, my point stands. As does yours. That's what makes literary critique "subjective" by nature.

When kids make decisions that actually do destroy a life, not just figuratively, then the time to treat them as children is gone. There is no objective reason for how our society treats children. Globally and historically, this "child" would be responsible for providing for the family by his age.

Click to expand...

Oh really? Globally and historically, this child would be providing for the family by age 11? In what third world country? That's about the only place an 11 year old would be responsible for the provision of his family's welfare and even then I question the age of 11.

There's a reason we are considered a civilized country.

Western society has decided he's still to young to handle being held accountable for his own decisions based on subjective feelings.

Click to expand...

No, nothing subjective about it despite your desperate need to paint it so.

When compared to the same standards that we hold adults to though in deciding competence, you offer no reason why he should be treated differently other than the fact that he's a kid and he can't control himself.

Click to expand...

That's a blatant lie. I have offered many reasons and you have simply decided not to take note of them because they are inconvenient to your argument that children should be held solely culpable when you are particularly put off by their crimes.

There's nothing in his nature that either makes him a) unaware what he did was wrong or b) unaware that what he did has consequences. Legal systems aside, and purely on a philosophical basis I see no reason to include any other criteria for determining when to hold someone accountable for their actions.

Click to expand...

Legal systems aside, huh? Well good, let's just throw the whole goddamned system out and go back to public lynchings since it's not about legal systems and objectivity. As long as you, who have confessed a distaste and disgust for children anyway, see no reason to have standards, then it's all good, right?

All lawyers are suppose to provide the best defense for there client, even when he did the crime. This lawyer looks like he changed sides. That is for me a shock. His lawyer could have offered other ways to punish him. In Germany he would have gotten 10 years maximum.

jallman said:

No, that is the very definition of "subjectivity". It is to look at the subject rather than the objective. Within the limits of this discussion, the objective is application of blind justice.

Click to expand...

Applying the same objective standards to all the subjects is not subjective. That's like saying grading a test is subjective because there are multiple subjects.

When SparkNotes becomes the standard for literary critique, I will be inclined to accept it as truth. Until then, my point stands. As does yours. That's what makes literary critique "subjective" by nature.

Click to expand...

I did say I didn't want to get into a book discussion. There's a reason I'm in accounting.

Oh really? Globally and historically, this child would be providing for the family by age 11? In what third world country? That's about the only place an 11 year old would be responsible for the provision of his family's welfare and even then I question the age of 11.

There's a reason we are considered a civilized country.

Click to expand...

Perhaps we are better, perhaps not. That doesn't change the fact that children are more capable than we believe them to be.

No, nothing subjective about it despite your desperate need to paint it so.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I've been away from this site too long and I'm too used to how adults converse face to face. I have a feeling you're not this rude to people in front of you.

That's a blatant lie. I have offered many reasons and you have simply decided not to take note of them because they are inconvenient to your argument that children should be held solely culpable when you are particularly put off by their crimes.

Click to expand...

I certainly didn't mean to blatantly lie. If you would be so kind, could you please just summarize your system of deciding who can be tried as an adult that works for all offenders. See, my criteria applies to all. You appear to have seperate sets of criteria based off of a subjectively decided age.

Legal systems aside, huh? Well good, let's just throw the whole goddamned system out and go back to public lynchings since it's not about legal systems and objectivity. As long as you, who have confessed a distaste and disgust for children anyway, see no reason to have standards, then it's all good, right?

Click to expand...

Well your legal system is trying this kid as an adult. Your legal system routinely tries teenagers as adults. So I'm on board with the legal system. I'm just trying to reach a philosophical understanding of what level of maturity implies responsibility for your actions.

I've nothing left to say on the matter. I will just summarize by stating that in order for the law to be applied in a fair and consistent manner, some baseline has to be established. Now how we go about establishing that baseline and from what statistical mean we do that is another discussion entirely. However, it serves no purpose to society or the pursuit of justice to establish a dual criminal justice system and then to willy nilly toss out any standards or thresholds in favor of subjective treatment of the individual based on judgments made in the moment and aftermath of their crime. That is begging for human error to eclipse blind justice and I, for one, think we are more civilized than that.

jallman said:

I've nothing left to say on the matter. I will just summarize by stating that in order for the law to be applied in a fair and consistent manner, some baseline has to be established. Now how we go about establishing that baseline and from what statistical mean we do that is another discussion entirely. However, it serves no purpose to society or the pursuit of justice to establish a dual criminal justice system and then to willy nilly toss out any standards or thresholds in favor of subjective treatment of the individual based on judgments made in the moment and aftermath of their crime. That is begging for human error to eclipse blind justice and I, for one, think we are more civilized than that.

Click to expand...

I am in favor of a single objective evaluation for all offenders. If psychiatrists believe they meet the criteria, they are tried as adults, regardless of their age. That is a baseline.

And what are the guidlines that such specialist set? It would be nice when normal adults would know this before there child goes to court.

Kelzie said:

I am in favor of a single objective evaluation for all offenders. If psychiatrists believe they meet the criteria, they are tried as adults, regardless of their age. That is a baseline.

Click to expand...

No, that is a subjective evaluation and not a baseline. Unless you think we can perform a standardized test, on the spot, unbiased by the psychiatrist's views, differences in theory, etc.

I don't see that happening as there are so many different schools of thought within the field of psychiatry alone. The justice system should seek to remove the subjective taint of its officers' world views as much as possible.

bennyhill said:

And what are the guidlines that such specialist set? It would be nice when normal adults would know this before there child goes to court.

Click to expand...

I've already provided one. I'm waiting for the other side to come up with one as well.

Kelzie said:

I've already provided one. I'm waiting for the other side to come up with one as well.

Click to expand...

May I suggest you scroll back and read the thread then?

jallman said:

No, that is a subjective evaluation and not a baseline. Unless you think we can perform a standardized test, on the spot, unbiased by the psychiatrist's views, differences in theory, etc.

I don't see that happening as there are so many different schools of thought within the field of psychiatry alone. The justice system should seek to remove the subjective taint of its officers' world views as much as possible.

Click to expand...

I addressed this in my last post. Applying the same standards to multiple subjects is not subjective. Applying different standards to different subjects (for example, treating an 11 year-old differently than an 18 year-old who commits the same crime) is. A teacher grading a math quiz is not subjective.

We use psychiatric reviews to decide if an adult is competent to stand trial. I see no problem with expanding it to under-age offenders.

jallman said:

May I suggest you scroll back and read the thread then?

Click to expand...

I have. I have seen no standards that you or the others have provided that will work for both child and adult defenders to decide what court to try them under other than "if they're under the age of 15...or 18....or 21."

Kelzie said:

I addressed this in my last post. Applying the same standards to multiple subjects is not subjective. Applying different standards to different subjects (for example, treating an 11 year-old differently than an 18 year-old who commits the same crime) is. A teacher grading a math quiz is not subjective.

Click to expand...

It becomes subjective when the math teacher decides that Little Kung Pao is smarter at the maths than Little Suzy Q and applies a curve based on that subjective decision. It is only objective when the answer is either right or wrong, or in the case of this discussion when the mean age is established by a baseline and never deviated from based on the feelings of an evaluator.

We use psychiatric reviews to decide if an adult is competent to stand trial. I see no problem with expanding it to under-age offenders.

Click to expand...

That is a completely different issue and only performed in preparation for a plea of "not guilty by reason of mental defect" or in the case of obvious psychological distress that mitigates culpability even further. It is not a baseline evaluation for whether the subject is an adult or a child and whether the law should be applied differently to that subject.

Kelzie said:

I have. I have seen no standards that you or the others have provided that will work for both child and adult defenders to decide what court to try them under other than "if they're under the age of 15...or 18....or 21."

Click to expand...

Then I don't know what to tell you because I have read exactly what you keep denying a total of 3 times in the last 12 pages.