• 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
misterman said:
Well, that's one way, and it is used now of course, but it's a pretty lame one. It's still fitting these cases into the existing system instead of changing it.

I think we should start by giving serious juvenile crimes punishment that doesn't automatically end at age 21, but still keeps them out of the adult system. And above all, it should acknowledge that these are still children and still need to have guidance to grow up, or else they'll just commit another crime and end up in prison anyway.
Click to expand...

You are talking about building a new prison system...one for transitional offenders...that age from 21 till whenever they are released...IF they are ever released...and that simply isnt going to happen. You cant hold a 23 year old in the same system with a 12-13 year old, just like its not very wise to house aa 12-13 year old with a 35 year old banger. We still have finite budgets and the prison system and dollars for rehab isnt going to increase. You have to be able to create something tolerable.
 
VanceMack said:
You are talking about building a new prison system...one for transitional offenders...that age from 21 till whenever they are released...IF they are ever released...and that simply isnt going to happen.
Click to expand...

Why not?

You cant hold a 23 year old in the same system with a 12-13 year old, just like its not very wise to house aa 12-13 year old with a 35 year old banger.
Click to expand...

So you create two new systems instead of one.

This doesn't mean building new buildings necessarily, just converting existing ones.

We still have finite budgets and the prison system and dollars for rehab isnt going to increase. You have to be able to create something tolerable.
Click to expand...

If we can keep juvenile offenders from becoming adult offenders, we'll save money on prisons instead.
 
misterman said:
Why not?
So you create two new systems instead of one.
This doesn't mean building new buildings necessarily, just converting existing ones.
If we can keep juvenile offenders from becoming adult offenders, we'll save money on prisons instead.
Click to expand...

Get right on that. Attend many state budget meetings? You cant get taxpayers excited about increeasing taxes for education...you arent going to to get them excited about building a new system...even if it is converting old facilities you still have redundant admin costs that simply arent needed. Its ALWAYS easy when the answer is raise taxes and spend other peoples money. Its simply not necessary.

You are looking to create something that doesnt need to be created. Try violent offenders as adults. Hold and rehab them in juvenile facilities that already exist. Have them psy assessed at 21 and if they have been rehabed and deemed safe, submit them for parole. If paroled...great...they keep their record (no juvenile expungement) but they go free. If not...they go to adult prison til they do meet a parole board and are deemed worthy of parole.
 
VanceMack said:
Get right on that. Attend many state budget meetings? You cant get taxpayers excited about increeasing taxes for education...you arent going to to get them excited about building a new system...even if it is converting old facilities you still have redundant admin costs that simply arent needed. Its ALWAYS easy when the answer is raise taxes and spend other peoples money. Its simply not necessary.
Click to expand...

Like I said, building a whole new system isn't necessary. Just make changes to the current one. It probably wouldn't require new taxes.

You are looking to create something that doesnt need to be created. Try violent offenders as adults. Hold and rehab them in juvenile facilities that already exist. Have them psy assessed at 21 and if they have been rehabed and deemed safe, submit them for parole. If paroled...great...they keep their record (no juvenile expungement) but they go free. If not...they go to adult prison til they do meet a parole board and are deemed worthy of parole.
Click to expand...

Well, no, that's not quite good enough, which is the point of this thread. But we can make some relatively minor changes to this framework and get it done. Create a third category between juvenile and adult, with appropriate procedures in court and housing/services/whatever after sentencing.
 
Johnny Utah said:
It is not about the age, it is about the crime. Murder and such are not to be tolerated regardless of age. What the hell does age matter? What logical step is there that states that age matters in the damn slightest?
Click to expand...

Actually, it most certainly is about the age. The law makes a concession for minors that speaks to the fact that the minor is not fully in control of his or her self as they are developing morally, mentally, emotionally, and physically. The logical step is that rights are restricted and culpability is mitigated by this concession.
 
VanceMack said:
Place him in an age appropriate facility while he is being both held (punished) and rehabilitated (helped). Because maybe a 14-15-16 year old violent youth offender might continue to adopt survival techniques in an adult only facility that he might then take with him should he ever be paroled and BE that much more violent. How is that inconsistent? The sentnece would be the same...the difference would be where he is held as a youth.
Click to expand...

I can get down with that as long as he is tried as a juvenile and the goal is a rehabilitation. If, after he becomes an adult, he commits again, then the book can be thrown at him. No deviation from the standard.
 
spud_meister said:
why place him in juvenile if they're trying him as an adult?

semms rather inconsistent to me
Click to expand...


Because by law ... a juvenile cannot be house in the same facility as adult inmates.

The judge who heard this case and decided to try the boy as adult is in for a rude awaking when this issue is appealed. He will soon have a federal foot up his ass.
 
Vader said:
Because by law ... a juvenile cannot be house in the same facility as adult inmates.

The judge who heard this case and decided to try the boy as adult is in for a rude awaking when this issue is appealed. He will soon have a federal foot up his ass.
Click to expand...

I also think the DA who decided to pursue this in the first place should have a recall vote coming...this was a clear dereliction of his duty to remain objective.
 
jallman said:
I also think the DA who decided to pursue this in the first place should have a recall vote coming...this was a clear dereliction of his duty to remain objective.
Click to expand...

Oh... I agree with that. That prosecutor is after repuation points and a conviction rating... nothing more.

It's time for him/her to lose his/her license to practice law.
 
Vader said:
Oh... I agree with that. That prosecutor is after repuation points and a conviction rating... nothing more.

It's time for him/her to lose his/her license to practice law.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's worth him losing his law license, but if I were a citizen in his district, I would have serious misgivings about the justice system and my apprehensions would start with a DA that thought it was a good idea to try a disturbed 11 year old as an adult. :shrug:
 
jallman said:
I also think the DA who decided to pursue this in the first place should have a recall vote coming...this was a clear dereliction of his duty to remain objective.
Click to expand...

See...now thats the beauty of this whole thing. in this country you can voice your opinion, submit suggestions for legislation, get involved with the process...and vote. Dont like the system, you can at least have your say in it.

It IS a little ironic that in another active thread on this site there are many people clamoring for the UN Childrens Bill of Rights which promotes the idea that children have more autonomy and ultimately choice and responsibility. But at the same time children under 17 should be FREE from responsibility...or at least have their responsibility lessoned. I VAGUELY remember 12. I certainly remember 14. I did things which came with consequence and deservedly so. I knew right from wrong, yes, even then. I wlived on my own for quite a while when I was 12 til I moved in with my brother (NOT a great environment). I worked full time til they found out i was under 15.

We forget that barely 100 years ago people were married at fifteen...had families...farms...worked...were treated as adults. We have DEvolved to a large degree...taken AWAY the responsibility and burden from kids...to their detriment.

There ARE violent children out there. They arent the norm...and they shouldnt be treated as the norm. Arbitrary judgement based on age puts society at risk. We will disagree.
 
VanceMack said:
See...now thats the beauty of this whole thing. in this country you can voice your opinion, submit suggestions for legislation, get involved with the process...and vote. Dont like the system, you can at least have your say in it.

It IS a little ironic that in another active thread on this site there are many people clamoring for the UN Childrens Bill of Rights which promotes the idea that children have more autonomy and ultimately choice and responsibility. But at the same time children under 17 should be FREE from responsibility...or at least have their responsibility lessoned. I VAGUELY remember 12. I certainly remember 14. I did things which came with consequence and deservedly so. I knew right from wrong, yes, even then. I wlived on my own for quite a while when I was 12 til I moved in with my brother (NOT a great environment). I worked full time til they found out i was under 15.

We forget that barely 100 years ago people were married at fifteen...had families...farms...worked...were treated as adults. We have DEvolved to a large degree...taken AWAY the responsibility and burden from kids...to their detriment.

There ARE violent children out there. They arent the norm...and they shouldnt be treated as the norm. Arbitrary judgement based on age puts society at risk. We will disagree.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of that except one point: we aren't talking about a 15 year old here. We aren't talking about a 14 year old. We are talking about an 11 year old. There has to be some point at which society says "this is the cutoff", otherwise the arbitrary nature of our fallible human judgment overrides any sense of objective justice.
 
Any kid who is old enough to know how to use what is essentially an adult tool - such as a gun - is old enough to know the damage it can do. I say charge him as an adult.
 
One can punish the kid if found guilty. 10 years in a juvanal prison will be more than enough. In Germany it wouldnt even be possible to punish him until 15 years old, which is also frustrating.
 
bennyhill said:
One can punish the kid if found guilty. 10 years in a juvanal prison will be more than enough. In Germany it wouldnt even be possible to punish him until 15 years old, which is also frustrating.
Click to expand...

Miikey?

890
 
Hatuey said:
Any kid who is old enough to know how to use what is essentially an adult tool - such as a gun - is old enough to know the damage it can do. I say charge him as an adult.
Click to expand...

A five year old could probably figure out how to use a gun, too.
 
Gander said:
A five year old could probably figure out how to use a gun, too.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. My 4-year-old could easily do that. 4-year-olds do it with play guns now. Point and pull.

Would anyone here try a 4-year-old as an adult? Anyone?
 
Leo said:
Why does age matter? Because society (everywhere) says it does. I am not legally entitled to vote, I have only just become legally entitled to apply for a driver' licence, I am not legally entitled to drink alcohol, I am not legally entitled to buy cigarettes, I am not legally entitled to sign a contract, I am not legally entitled to hold public office, I am not legally entitled to be a director of a company, and I am not legally entitled to join the armed forces. And I am not 11 years of age - so if someone who is 16 and a half cannot do all these things, how can he be considered a responsible adult, and prosecuted as such? How much less so an 11 year old?
Click to expand...

I guess that I should have said that age matters regarding each matter differently, which is kinda the way that it already is. Voting should be left to age 18. Drinking could be 18, but it is 21. Driving should be 18. Murder or other felonies committed by a person should be assessed according to psychologist and generally any person over 7 or 8 knows that killing a person is wrong and bad. Any person over 10 should be tried as an adult. Held separately and perhaps eligible for parole faster if their behaviour warrents it, but depending on the crime, they could and should be able to face the death penalty if applicable.
 
Why dont they just throw the father in prison for life, if he can keep his guns locked up? Thats his responsiblity to protect his children from themselfs. How many small kids accidently shoot there friends, while trying to impress them with Dads gun and why is it loaded in the first place.? The father should do time not his son.
 
bennyhill said:
Why dont they just throw the father in prison for life, if he can keep his guns locked up? Thats his responsiblity to protect his children from themselfs. How many small kids accidently shoot there friends, while trying to impress them with Dads gun and why is it loaded in the first place.? The father should do time not his son.
Click to expand...

I tried to read the story, but the link keeps shutting down Did the kid shoot the pregnant mom on purpose, or was it an accident?
 
Flea said:
I tried to read the story, but the link keeps shutting down Did the kid shoot the pregnant mom on purpose, or was it an accident?
Click to expand...

It appears like he did it on purpose, but when a grade schooler does something like this, I have to wonder what in the hell is going on in the home. And, what the relationship was with his stepmom. This wasn't a random act, it was targeted at a specific person. The prosecutor's psychiatrist says that the boy can't be rehabilitated, but I'd say that there needs to be an unbiased psychiatric evaluation by the court FIRST before this proceeding is allowed to occur.

Something happened...I can almost guarantee it.
 
This is a kid living in a rural area. I have a few questions. For instance, how did he get access to a loaded shotgun? What was the family relationship with his dad/stepmom? Does he have a history of mental illness. When you see something like this, it's almost always related to something traumatic. For instance, did the kid feel like he was going to be replaced by his dad's new baby? Was there a history of violence in the home? Was the stepmom abusive?

All of these things play a role in why a kid might do something unthinkable. But, if you look at all the facts, there is usually something there that makes sense in a twisted kind of way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom