• 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 these teens be tried as adults

Should the 15 and 16 year old also be tried as adults

  • yes and throw away the key

    Votes: 72 87.8%

  • no, they deserve a second chance

    Votes: 10 12.2%
  • Total voters
    82
TiredOfLife said:
Nature already did.
Click to expand...
Uh, no. If you think there is no right to life you need to make a specific case, we aren't speaking about the unborn, we are speaking of innocent people already born. So you can either make a proper case or drop the issue.
 
LaMidRighter said:
fair enough Chris. The problem in this particular circumstance is that these kids killed for the only reason of relieving boredom. If certain factors such as "during commission of another crime" are present it could be reasoned that these teens were caught in a heat of the moment situation and didn't have the emotional maturity to assess the situation properly, problem here is they killed specifically to kill, I just don't know how that can be reconciled.
Click to expand...

Here is a really good article. I hope you'll read it. :)

Juvenile Justice
 
sawyerloggingon said:
DUNCAN, Okla. (AP) — With the simplest of motives — breaking up the boredom of an Oklahoma summer — three teenagers followed an Australian collegiate baseball player who was attending school in the U.S. and killed him with a shot to the back for “the fun of it,” prosecutors said Tuesday as they charged two of the teens with murder.
As the boys appeared in an Oklahoma courtroom, a 17-year-old blurted out, “I pulled the trigger,” then wept after a judge told him that Tuesday’s hearing wasn’t the time or place to sort out the facts of the case.
Prosecutor Jason Hicks called the boys “thugs” as he told Stephens County Judge Jerry Herberger how Christopher Lane, 22, of Melbourne, died on a city street.
Chancey Allen Luna, 16, and James Francis Edwards, Jr., 15, of Duncan were charged with first-degree murder and, under Oklahoma law, will be tried as adults. Michael Dewayne Jones, 17, of Duncan was accused of using a vehicle in the discharge of a weapon and accessory to first-degree murder after the fact. He is considered a youthful offender but will be tried in adult court. 3 Teens Charged After Australian Player Slain « CBS Houston
Click to expand...


At 15 and 16 they know right from wrong.So yes they should be tried and punished as adults.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Uh, no. If you think there is no right to life you need to make a specific case, we aren't speaking about the unborn, we are speaking of innocent people already born. So you can either make a proper case or drop the issue.
Click to expand...
Where's this Right to Life for civilians during war? Did the people we dropped atomic bombs on have a right to life?
 
jamesrage said:
At 15 and 16 they know right from wrong.So yes they should be tried and punished as adults.
Click to expand...

Yes, 15-year-old is exactly the same as an adult, only they have to go to school, they have a bedtime, and you can still spank them when they're naughty. Sounds like an adult to me.
 
TiredOfLife said:
Yes, 15-year-old is exactly an adult.
Click to expand...

In many parts of the world a 15 year is legally an adult, still does not change the fact a 15 year old knows right from wrong.
 
jamesrage said:
In many parts of the world a 15 year is legally an adult, still does not change the fact a 15 year old knows right from wrong.
Click to expand...
Lots of kids know right from wrong but we still end up spanking them and sending them to their rooms. Now why is that?
 
ChrisL said:
Here is a really good article. I hope you'll read it. :)

Juvenile Justice
Click to expand...
No offense Chris but I was less than impressed, the article made lots of claims but it seemed to be a lot of speculation to me. I'm not saying give a child an adult sentence for drugs, burglary, or petty crimes. However when crimes involve high levels of violence such as murder, rape, or aggravated battery the standard changes.
 
TiredOfLife said:
Where's this Right to Life for civilians during war? Did the people we dropped atomic bombs on have a right to life?
Click to expand...

Pro-life and right-to-life is the opposition to legalized abortion.

Pro-life | Define Pro-life at Dictionary.com
opposed to legalized abortion; right-to-life.
Right-to-life | Define Right-to-life at Dictionary.com
pertaining to or advocating laws making abortion, especially abortion-on-demand, illegal; antiabortion: right-to-life advocates.



By your logic if you are against banning closed shops, oppose firearm ownership, and oppose school vouchers then you must not be pro-choice.
 
TiredOfLife said:
Lots of kids know right from wrong but we still end up spanking them and sending them to their rooms. Now why is that?
Click to expand...

I do know any 15 year who is spanked.
 
TiredOfLife said:
Where's this Right to Life for civilians during war? Did the people we dropped atomic bombs on have a right to life?
Click to expand...
Stop the games and make a case. All you are doing is "yeah but" right now. War is not a civilized condition, martial conditions are a collapse of civilized processes. In EVERYDAY peacetime you need to actually make a case against the right to life. Again, make a case, an actual case. It's your challenge, I'm telling you to live up to it.
 
I just think if you're gonna have a separate system for juveniles and adults, treat juveniles as juveniles, and adults as adults. If you're going to make exceptions all the time the distinction is rather useless.

If you're going to try 15 and 16 year-olds as adults, then 15 year olds should be able to drink alcohol and vote. And join the military. That's all I'm saying.
 
Last edited:
LaMidRighter said:
No offense Chris but I was less than impressed, the article made lots of claims but it seemed to be a lot of speculation to me. I'm not saying give a child an adult sentence for drugs, burglary, or petty crimes. However when crimes involve high levels of violence such as murder, rape, or aggravated battery the standard changes.
Click to expand...

These, among others, aren't just "claims."

3. With appropriate treatment most children who commit crimes, even the most violent crimes, can be rehabilitated and become responsible adults. Precisely because their brains are still changing. The prefrontal cortex - which regulates aggression, long range planning, mental flexibility, abstract thinking, and perhaps moral judgment (See Bower Study) has not yet developed in children. The amygdala, the center of impulsive and aggressive behavior is the center piece of the child brain and is left unchecked by the under developed prefrontal cortex.

4. Psychological research confirms what every parent knows: children, including teenagers, act more irrationally and immaturely than adults. Studies further confirm that stressful situations only heighten the risk that emotion, rather than rational thought, will guide the choices children make. The Supreme Court recognized just this! In Roper v. Simmons, Justice Kennedy wrote: "any parent knows" and "scientific and sociological studies ... tend to confirm "that children possess a "lack of maturity" .. an underdeveloped sense of responsibility .. [and take] impetuous and ill-considered actions and decisions."
Click to expand...
 
USA-CRIME_AUSTRALIA175136--525x215.jpg

Off to the gallows.

Why hasn't Obama politicized this yet.
 
ChrisL said:
These, among others, aren't just "claims."
Click to expand...
Right, but what is getting me here is there are no numbers. All I'm seeing is "research confirms", and I don't know what the data is supposed to mean according to the article. Are we rehabilitating misdemeanor and borderline criminals, and is there promise shown with heinous crimes?
 
LaMidRighter said:
Stop the games and make a case. All you are doing is "yeah but" right now. War is not a civilized condition, martial conditions are a collapse of civilized processes. In EVERYDAY peacetime you need to actually make a case against the right to life. Again, make a case, an actual case. It's your challenge, I'm telling you to live up to it.
Click to expand...
The Right to Life only applies when we aren't killing people for our own benefit? That's very interesting. This Right to Life thing is tricky? Apparently in all depends on what you see as worthy of life and all those innocent Japanese civilians weren't? Tell me, what did they do to deserve death, being Japanese?
 
LaMidRighter said:
Right, but what is getting me here is there are no numbers. All I'm seeing is "research confirms", and I don't know what the data is supposed to mean according to the article. Are we rehabilitating misdemeanor and borderline criminals, and is there promise shown with heinous crimes?
Click to expand...

I believe in an earlier link I posted it claimed close to 80% of teens have been successfully rehabilitated. I'll have to go back and check.
 
TiredOfLife said:
The Right to Life only applies when we aren't killing people for our own benefit? That's very interesting. This Right to Life thing is tricky? Apparently in all depends on what you see as worthy of life and all those innocent Japanese civilians weren't? Tell me, what did they do to deserve death, being Japanese?
Click to expand...
Okay, here's the deal, you are just throwing things against a wall to see what sticks. I gave you a specific parameter and you've ignored it. War is a declared condition, get it? War is a specific breakdown of diplomacy and yes, innocents are harmed which is why most times it is avoided.

We are speaking to peace time. You aren't making a case, rather you are engaging in a very weak game. The fact is when someone is born, minus the condition of abusing their life they have a legal right to exist, if you can't make a case against it, we're done.
 
ChrisL said:
I believe in an earlier link I posted it claimed close to 80% of teens have been successfully rehabilitated. I'll have to go back and check.
Click to expand...
Cool. My thing is, the types like the kids in this story are probably within the 20%.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Right, but what is getting me here is there are no numbers. All I'm seeing is "research confirms", and I don't know what the data is supposed to mean according to the article. Are we rehabilitating misdemeanor and borderline criminals, and is there promise shown with heinous crimes?
Click to expand...

...Having [been a prosecutor] now for nearly 12 years, I have seen time and time and time again kids who were lost causes turn their lives around. And 80 percent of the kids that come before us one time never come back. . . .
... Based on your experience, what works with serious juvenile offenders and what doesn't work?

There is no one answer with respect to rehabilitation for anyone. Juvenile rehabilitation is an art and not a science. What works for one kid may not work for another. And so what you try to do is to do as many things as possible, hoping that something works. Juvenile rehabilitation might be a lot like taking swings at a piñata. And the more swings you take, the better the chance is that you will hit it right and something will come out. I do think that if you take a look at the thousands of kids that I've dealt with over a decade or more, the idea is to do something that is significant early on. If you reach a kid early, chances are they won't re-offend. But with each additional entry into the system our success, our potential for rehabilitation gets slimmer and slimmer. . . .
Click to expand...

From Both Sides Of The Bench - What Works? | Juvenile Justice | FRONTLINE | PBS
 
LaMidRighter said:
Okay, here's the deal, you are just throwing things against a wall to see what sticks. I gave you a specific parameter and you've ignored it. War is a declared condition, get it? War is a specific breakdown of diplomacy and yes, innocents are harmed which is why most times it is avoided.

We are speaking to peace time. You aren't making a case, rather you are engaging in a very weak game. The fact is when someone is born, minus the condition of abusing their life they have a legal right to exist, if you can't make a case against it, we're done.
Click to expand...
Innocents are harmed? You do mean "killed" don't you?

And if there's no Right to Life during war then this Right of yours isn't much good now is it? I means it's not like it comes from God or something because all you have to do is go to war and there goes that right, right? It applies only when the conditions are right? That's not much of a right eh? And if it was, shouldn't the families of all those innocent Japanese people have a claim against those who killed them, us? Why does this right of yours have so many exceptions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom