• 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 Tennessee Fire Starters be Tried as Adults?

Physiology isn't always the best standard either. Just because you have the physiological capacity to make adult adult decisions doesn't mean that you have the emotional/psychological maturity to make adult decisions.

Of course not. But how do you make a law that fits with everyone's personal development? It'd be like making a one size fits all shirt. The law is what it is and it has some scientific basis for it.
 
Shouldn't be tried for 1st degree murder, that's for sure. But the individual was an adult, and the assumption is that as an adult, it's reasonable to assume he should understand the consequences of drinking and driving before he gets to the bar, and that's why he's still fully culpable.

The consequences of this case are dire indeed, 14 people killed, immense property damage, etc. I don't know what the kids thought or if they were really aware of what could be the consequences for those actions. But my generalized take on trying someone as an adult vs juvenile is based on whether or not the individual is an adult or a juvenile. I think we should stick to that and not float things around because a particular crime may be heinous and we want greater "justice".

Nevertheless, in most cases we do have laws pertaining to juveniles acting as adults and being punished as adults.

In this case we know nothing as of yet. IMO it is better to wait until we do before passing judgement.
 
Nevertheless, in most cases we do have laws pertaining to juveniles acting as adults and being punished as adults.

We do, but it sort of defeats the purpose of having a separate juvenile system. The reasoning behind this was supposed to be that kids don't fully understand the ramifications of their actions and consequences, so we have a juvenile system so that kids are punished for crime, but we don't institutionalize them and put them on a path for a life of crime.

So either that's true or it's not, and if it's true and we're going to make a juvenile system, then juveniles go through that system even for horrible crimes. Their cognition doesn't suddenly become adult level just because the crime they committed is horrible.
 
We do, but it sort of defeats the purpose of having a separate juvenile system. The reasoning behind this was supposed to be that kids don't fully understand the ramifications of their actions and consequences, so we have a juvenile system so that kids are punished for crime, but we don't institutionalize them and put them on a path for a life of crime.

So either that's true or it's not, and if it's true and we're going to make a juvenile system, then juveniles go through that system even for horrible crimes. Their cognition doesn't suddenly become adult level just because the crime they committed is horrible.

Not really. It supposedly takes away the age only criteria as being the determination of acting in an adult manner by those under an arbitrary age.
 
Not really. It supposedly takes away the age only criteria as being the determination of acting in an adult manner by those under an arbitrary age.

Except that there's not like an "adult test" they give. It's just that a crime is so bad, that we want the kids punished harder than they can be in the juvenile system, so we try them as adults. But the point is, either kids are fully able to understand their actions and consequences and are thus equally culpable to an adult, or they are not. But the mere fact that we have a juvenile system at all, we are saying that they are not. And thus we need a cut off, and it's going to be age related. We need to stick to that then, not flop it around because we want someone punished harder than we otherwise could punish them for.

It's stupid to have a juvenile system, claim that kids by fact that they are kids and still developing cannot be held as culpable for their actions as adults, and then turn around and try these kids we've already said don't quite understand the consequences of their action as adults as if they do fully understand the consequences of their actions.
 
To add to the discussion: a burn ban was in place for two weeks before the major fire that went into Gatlinburg. And I have heard and seen many a report that have all said the same thing: that they have been charged with arson - meaning it wasn't just an out of control campfire or accidental...
 
Except that there's not like an "adult test" they give. It's just that a crime is so bad, that we want the kids punished harder than they can be in the juvenile system, so we try them as adults. But the point is, either kids are fully able to understand their actions and consequences and are thus equally culpable to an adult, or they are not. But the mere fact that we have a juvenile system at all, we are saying that they are not. And thus we need a cut off, and it's going to be age related. We need to stick to that then, not flop it around because we want someone punished harder than we otherwise could punish them for.

It's stupid to have a juvenile system, claim that kids by fact that they are kids and still developing cannot be held as culpable for their actions as adults, and then turn around and try these kids we've already said don't quite understand the consequences of their action as adults as if they do fully understand the consequences of their actions.

That's why I said supposedly. I tend to dislike arbitrary age identified limits.
 
Depends on the age. 16 or 17 is no different than 18. They clearly know starting fires is wrong and can clearly understand implications. Hell. Just talked about this with my 11year old and she was talking about consequences like deaths... homes burnt... forest destroyed... animals dead.

Try them as adults.

**** em.
 
We do, but it sort of defeats the purpose of having a separate juvenile system. The reasoning behind this was supposed to be that kids don't fully understand the ramifications of their actions and consequences, so we have a juvenile system so that kids are punished for crime, but we don't institutionalize them and put them on a path for a life of crime.

So either that's true or it's not, and if it's true and we're going to make a juvenile system, then juveniles go through that system even for horrible crimes. Their cognition doesn't suddenly become adult level just because the crime they committed is horrible.

Yes it does suddenly become adult level. Talk to any kid about stealing an I Phone... breaking a store sign or murdering a person.
 
Hmm...seems to me this should not even be up for debate. But, I imagine that every little bit of extenuating circumstance will be used to keep them not only anonymous, but to also try them as juveniles.

Could juveniles in Gatlinburg fire face murder charges? - CNN.com

IMO, these kids need to do 50 years or more behind bars...if not get the death penalty.

14 dead and 175 injured?

If it was intentional, then Screw Em................hang em in the city square while the tune "beer for my horses" plays loudly in the background.

Accidental...... Gotta have some compassion for them.
 
I would say it depends on their capacity and intent. If they were just two dumbass kids that let a campfire get out of control, probably not. But if they were capable of reason and intent and intentionally started the fire in order to watch it develop into a wildfire, then yes...they should be tried as adults. Actions have consequences.
 
Depends on the age. 16 or 17 is no different than 18. They clearly know starting fires is wrong and can clearly understand implications. Hell. Just talked about this with my 11year old and she was talking about consequences like deaths... homes burnt... forest destroyed... animals dead.

Try them as adults.

**** em.
I believe that is correct. Try them as adults. They knew what they were doing even if they didnt calculate the long term consequences. They can take their age into consideration during sentencing as appropriate.
 
Yes it does suddenly become adult level. Talk to any kid about stealing an I Phone... breaking a store sign or murdering a person.

Cognition doesn't speed up just because you want it to. The idea of the juvenile system is that a kid cannot know well know the ramifications of actions. We either have it or we don't, but you cannot pretend that just because one crime is so bad that the reasoning behind the juvenile system is moot. That's just stupid.
 
Cognition doesn't speed up just because you want it to. The idea of the juvenile system is that a kid cannot know well know the ramifications of actions. We either have it or we don't, but you cannot pretend that just because one crime is so bad that the reasoning behind the juvenile system is moot. That's just stupid.

That is the point. Cognition is different depending on the action already... but you ignored that. A 14 year old boy knows punching a girl in the face is wrong almost universally... but taking her sandwich without her permission, which is stealing, might often been seen as teasing or even flirting. One needs to understand kids to make a reasoned argument here.
 
Cognition doesn't speed up just because you want it to. The idea of the juvenile system is that a kid cannot know well know the ramifications of actions. We either have it or we don't, but you cannot pretend that just because one crime is so bad that the reasoning behind the juvenile system is moot. That's just stupid.

The essential problem i see is that a 17 364/365ths old minor is not about to suddenly learn reality in a day.

If mental incompetence is the defense, then it should be demonstrated rather than assumed.

I could see an 8 year old getting the little kid gloves, but if these kids were 16+ and they started this fire on purpose, i have little sympathy for them.

Then again, i still don't know- was this a cigarette butt or a campfire or something? To some extent, i think that emergency services dropped the ball, and they shouldn't rake these kids over the coals to deflect from that.
 
They're kids. They're not legally adults. Society has drawn a legal age line at which adulthood is reached. If they haven't reached that line, then they're a kid. You may want to review whether the age of majority needs to be changed, but till then, it smacks of vengeance to change the rules depending on the crime.
How many kids, setting a fire in the woods as a prank, take into account the amount of underbrush, the dry weather for the last year, and the gusting 70mph winds in the forecast, causing the fire to divide into ten different blazes, with one approaching a major town over a week later and killing a dozen people?
 
The essential problem i see is that a 17 364/365ths old minor is not about to suddenly learn reality in a day.

If mental incompetence is the defense, then it should be demonstrated rather than assumed.

I could see an 8 year old getting the little kid gloves, but if these kids were 16+ and they started this fire on purpose, i have little sympathy for them.

Then again, i still don't know- was this a cigarette butt or a campfire or something? To some extent, i think that emergency services dropped the ball, and they shouldn't rake these kids over the coals to deflect from that.
Yet the law says so. If they were one day older they'd be charged as adults and their individual maturity would make no difference whatsoever.
 
Yet the law says so. If they were one day older they'd be charged as adults and their individual maturity would make no difference whatsoever.

Which is why i think the kind of "inability to understand" should be demonstrated by the defense rather than assumed by a line in the sand.
 
Jesus people... its like many of you have never actually known a teenager and absolutely nothing about cognitive development. When things are happening kids logic is less available. Driving a car. Fights. Arguments. Talk to kids about speeding to a concert... no biggy. Running people over to make the concert. Bad.

Kids arent stupid and minor laws are generally stupid. The real reason for a juvenile system is not because a kid doesnt know starting a wild fire isnt bad but to keep kids away from adults in prison for safety.
 
IMO, commit an adult crime, be tried as an adult.

Agreed. Those kids are old enough to understand that mass destruction and manslaughter are very bad.
 
Jesus people... its like many of you have never actually known a teenager and absolutely nothing about cognitive development. When things are happening kids logic is less available. Driving a car. Fights. Arguments. Talk to kids about speeding to a concert... no biggy. Running people over to make the concert. Bad.

Kids arent stupid and minor laws are generally stupid. The real reason for a juvenile system is not because a kid doesnt know starting a wild fire isnt bad but to keep kids away from adults in prison for safety.

They can regurgitate why it is wrong, but most don't understand. They haven't had to pay bills, they don't know what pictures and momentous mean and how it affects people, they may not have even lost anyone important in their lives. Do they know fires can kill? Probably. Do they understand fires can kill? It is impossible to say without talking to them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
They can regurgitate why it is wrong, but most don't understand. They haven't had to pay bills, they don't know what pictures and momentous mean and how it affects people, they may not have even lost anyone important in their lives. Do they know fires can kill? Probably. Do they understand fires can kill? It is impossible to say without talking to them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Try talking to some teenagers then. As an expert i dont need more research.
 
Back
Top Bottom