• 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
And here you go immediately devolving to appeals to the absurd. As usual.

Yes, just exposing the absurdity of your argument.

So 4-year-olds are treated differently?

Why not 11-year-olds? What's the cut off age if there is none? But there is one, huh, somewhere between 4 and 11?
 
I don't give a flying **** about your feelings. Who are you, anyway?

Sure you do, I'm Johnny Utah from years ago, been here since 2006.

Bull****. The reasons have been given right here in this thread if you were of half a mind to read it.

But they are illogical.

Buddy, if I throw an insult, it won't be off-handed and indirect and you will KNOW it was an insult. Until then, get over it.

I didn't say you threw out an insult. I said you threw out an off-handed and indrect insult. I am sure you see that upon review.

It's already been shown so you don't have to wait. But please, do us a favor and hold your breath for my response. :2wave:

You're so silly, you don't mean that. :2razz:
 
I don't want to start this all over again, actually. I've heard about all I care to hear out of you people for a while. You and flea enjoy patting each other on the back for being base barbarians. I don't really care anymore.

We have been downgraded to "you people"! oh, the horror. :shock:
 
And thank you for demonstrating exactly why I have no interest in continuing this discussion with you concerning children, your barbarism, and green tea or whatever the **** it was you were trying to say.

Have they proven that males have a time of the month yet?
 
It's the same logic that keeps mentally retarded and mentally ill people from being charged with a capital offense. :2wave:

Big difference. Metally challenged and ill people have issues with their brain. Regular kids don't. They might lack certain developmental stages. They are certainly able to differentiate between right and wrong, this is byond a doubt. The difference is substantial enough to negate the comparison.
 
And here you go immediately devolving to appeals to the absurd. As usual.

Wrong, it is an analogy that displays the absurdity of placing an age value to murder.
 
Sure you do, I'm Johnny Utah from years ago, been here since 2006.

So what you want? A cookie?

But they are illogical.

No, they are perfectly logical and objective rather than this subjective crap that keeps being spewed about.

I didn't say you threw out an insult. I said you threw out an off-handed and indrect insult. I am sure you see that upon review.

I see that I made a general comment about the barbarism of treating children as adults in criminal matters.

You're so silly, you don't mean that. :2razz:

No, I am glad you at least pick up on friendly jabs.:2wave:
 
I don't know...perhaps you should check your underwear for spotting and fill us in on the results.

I have, but I only found skidmarks. Wasn't sure till I stuck my nose into it.
 
What on earth is wrong with you?

Nothing is "wrong" with me. What makes you think something is "wrong" with me?

Okay, if you want to start this all over, what exactly defines a civilized society to you?

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 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.

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.
 
A civilized society is one that makes every consideration for protecting its weakest members, namely the young, the infirm, and the elderly.

Depends. According to one ethical position, Teleological Ethics, the ends or consequences of an act determines whether an act is good or evil. Well, trying and convicting a person, regardless of whether they are 11, 22 or 44 of murder is the best course of action for society. If society gets rid of it's worst members, then it is showing that it cares for the rest of its people.

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.

This has nothing to do with socio economic status of birth. Socialization reaches its negative zenith when a child kills a person, just as when an adult kills a person. Hoping that they might evolve or worrying about what might have been is ludicrous.

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.

You make my point for me, thanks! 21 to drink. 18 to vote or join the army. 16 to drive. 11 to stand trial as an adult for murder. Since none are consistent with any standard other than the very one and only situation that they are considering, the age for trial as an adult is open. Depending on the crime, younger age is suitable.
 
You make my point for me, thanks! 21 to drink. 18 to vote or join the army. 16 to drive. 11 to stand trial as an adult for murder. Since none are consistent with any standard other than the very one and only situation that they are considering, the age for trial as an adult is open. Depending on the crime, younger age is suitable.

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?
 
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! :2razz:
 
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! :2razz:

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.
 
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.
 
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? :confused:
 
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? :confused:

It has been set by international law, but we don't have to abide by laws that don't fit our society.
 
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?
 
Nothing is "wrong" with me. What makes you think something is "wrong" with me?

Emotional 180s tend to make me think something's wrong.

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?
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom