How to Beat Someone into a Coma, and Serve no Time

MaggieD said:

I have a hard time disagreeing with that. I could agree is the punishments were still severe . . . Just not AS severe. But the idea that a 16-year-old would be out in two years or less with good behavior for a crime like this is ludicrous.

Click to expand...

When a four year old shoots someone, we don't throw them in prison for 20 years. Why? Because as a child they are, to some degree, not responsible for their actions. But that's four, not sixteen. Totally different? Well, sure, but the age cutoff for "adult" vs "minor" is largely arbitrary. An eighteen year old is not suddenly far more mature than a seventeen year old.

The end result is we leave a lot of discretion to the judges and prosecutors for individual cases. Not knowing details on this specific case, I couldn't comment on her rehabilitation. That is supposed to be the purpose of jailing a minor, yes? Punishment for the sake of punishment doesn't make someone less likely to reoffend.

I used to think, as some advocate, that minor/adult should be all or nothing... bam you're 18 here are all your adult privileges, responsibilities and liabilities.



The problem is real life isn't like that. When you're seventeen years 364 days old, you're not an innocent little kid and when the following day comes and you're 18 you're not suddenly world-wise and fully responsible.


Adulthood is a process.


You take on adult-level responsibilities in stages.


We do it by birthdays. In reality, every individual varies, but absent an individualized standard (which would be tough to administer, and expensive) we have to have some kind of middle-road compromise with reality.

In my state, in my day it was drive at 15... age of consent 16.... vote, marry without parental consent, contract and buy long guns at 18... buy booze or handguns at 21.


Juvenile Justice is predicated on the idea of children being less responsible and less aware of the consequences of their actions, and not fracking up their entire life because of a few bad choices made as a minor. Part of the issue though is that Juvenile Justice/Youthful offender operates mainly on the assumption that we're dealing with common and relatively minor juvenile crimes... underage drinking, fighting with minor injuries, vandalism, petty theft.


Murderer, attempted murder and rape were not considered common juvenile crimes. Unfortuantely that changed, and they system had to change to deal with people under 18 who acted as predatory criminals committing serious felonies.


Nowadays we have 200 lb twelve-year olds beating people to death or nearly so.

Thus, the possibility of trying some juveniles as adults when they committed serious felony crimes, particularly violent ones.


Everything isn't cut and dried, on/off.

Deuce said:

When a four year old shoots someone, we don't throw them in prison for 20 years. Why? Because as a child they are, to some degree, not responsible for their actions. But that's four, not sixteen. Totally different? Well, sure, but the age cutoff for "adult" vs "minor" is largely arbitrary. An eighteen year old is not suddenly far more mature than a seventeen year old.

The end result is we leave a lot of discretion to the judges and prosecutors for individual cases. Not knowing details on this specific case, I couldn't comment on her rehabilitation. That is supposed to be the purpose of jailing a minor, yes? Punishment for the sake of punishment doesn't make someone less likely to reoffend.

Click to expand...

I would say wholly arbitrary, but I agree with your point.

I do feel that we need to assess the individual regarding charges, but that there should be a baseline of sorts, too. 18 seems like a good baseline, just shouldn't be used without thought.

Now, individual assessment will also have anecdotal failures as we go along. Are we as a society ready for that? Probably not.

Kal'Stang said:

For driving and employment yes. Learning to drive and holding down a job is a transitioning type of thing into adulthood. Marriage, no. No minor should ever be allowed to marry.

Click to expand...

So is learning not to be a violent criminal, the point being that with privilege comes responsibility. Either the minor or their legal guardian should be held responsible - if the minor is held only 20% responsible then their guardian is 80% responsible. One is no less harmed, disabled or dead due to the age of their criminal assailant.

Kal'Stang said:

So you want minors to be tried as adults? Tell me, what are your thoughts about allowing minors to own handguns? Smoking? Drinking?

My thoughts? My thoughts are that if you are legally a minor then any crime you commit then you should be tried as a minor. If you are not going to treat them like an adult across the board then you cannot pick and choose when to treat them as an adult/minor. It's one or the other. And no amount of emotionalist argument is going to change my mind on that. You either treat them as adults across the board, or you treat them as minors across the board. There is no middle ground.

Click to expand...

There are plenty of minors who are as skilled, cunning and lethal, as any adult! The age of reason(knowing right from wrong) is reached at 7 years old for most children.
This woman who was 17 at the time surely knew exactly what she was doing....attempting to murder someone for whatever reason.

Not only should she be tried as an adult, she should be given the death penalty for such a heinous act.

Furthermore, an armed citizen in that park would have been well with in their rights, to shoot this monster in defense of the victim or themselves!

radcen said:

Minors are deserving of redemption because they're minors and adults are not because they're adults. If you weren't playing the emotional game you'd have the same consideration for both.

Click to expand...

I didn't read Kal's post that way. It sounded like "if they're legally minors, the law should treat them like minors." Sounded apathetic to me.

I think that, if we're letting people off because they don't understand the consequences, that should be demonstrated rather than simply assumed by age. I think we could actually go a lot easier on non-violent offenders across the board...

Not satisfied with positioning California for economic ruin, voters in November pushed the state even further into the alternate Universe by passing all the radical Progressive initiatives including this Proposition.

Consider the fact that Prop 57 passed 65% to 35%.

So, with violence on the rise, and job opportunities continuing to be a challenge, I wonder what the Progressives will do when they no longer feel safe to leave their government backed apartments?

ocean515 said:

Not satisfied with positioning California for economic ruin, voters in November pushed the state even further into the alternate Universe by passing all the radical Progressive initiatives including this Proposition.

Consider the fact that Prop 57 passed 65% to 35%.

So, with violence on the rise, and job opportunities continuing to be a challenge, I wonder what the Progressives will do when they no longer feel safe to leave their government backed apartments?

Click to expand...

I left California 11 years ago and no longer keep up with literally everything that they do. I suppose I could go look up Prop 57, but a little blurb in your post regarding it's subject would be helpful, too. Just sayin'.

radcen said:

I left California 11 years ago and no longer keep up with literally everything that they do. I suppose I could go look up Prop 57, but a little blurb in your post regarding it's subject would be helpful, too. Just sayin'.

Click to expand...

Well there is the link in the OP. Just sayin' radcen.

ocean515 said:

Well there is the link in the OP. Just sayin' radcen.

Click to expand...

There is that. I had forgotten about that. My apologies.

truthatallcost said:

Californians decided in November that violence ain't no big thang, when Proposition 57 was passed.

One question I have is, is this what a 'juvenile' looks like?

Imagine her coming after you with a baseball bat. She'll be let out with time served if the judge decides to not try her as an adult.

Thousands of violent adult and juvenile offenders are to be let out of prison when Prop 57 takes effect.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

She looks like she thinks whatever she is looking at looks like a huge stack of pancakes...

ocean515 said:

Not satisfied with positioning California for economic ruin, voters in November pushed the state even further into the alternate Universe by passing all the radical Progressive initiatives including this Proposition.

Click to expand...

I had to laugh at the results of the election. California proved its full of morons once again.

Consider the fact that Prop 57 passed 65% to 35%.

Click to expand...

The demographics of the state show that most people here provably have a family member that's incarcerated. I think that's why people are passing all these Get Out of Jail Free laws.

So, with violence on the rise, and job opportunities continuing to be a challenge, I wonder what the Progressives will do when they no longer feel safe to leave their government backed apartments?

Click to expand...

It depends. The progressives who are white flighting it, will move to Oregon, Washington, Nevada, & Arizona, bringing their inability to learn from mistakes with them. The remaining people are so used to crime that nothing phases them anymore.

Interesting that California was known as a sort of promised land when it was still a Red State, isn't it?