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.