Abolish the juvenile courts

Great Debates
21

2sense:

Not sure what you mean by simulpost, but I can assure you I was not trying to “ambush” you in any way. Exactly how would I have known you were going to post? Perhaps I am missing something. Or perhaps I am just being paranoid (actually I am not paranoid, that is just what people say about me behind my back). I assume that your “snake” comment was made in jest?

Actually, that aside, I would be happy to address some of the points you made in the “simulpost” or whatever. you raised some good points.

quote:


lol...I guess this was the part you said that I "savaged" before you posted it. Actually I think this is a pretty common misconception. As I noted most people raised in bad/violent homes do not become criminal, and not all criminals are raised in violent/bad homes (again I would suggest you check out INSIDE THE CRIMINAL MIND by Stanton Samenow, 1987. Not that it ends the debate, but raises many good points from an empirical perspective).

quote:

~~~It is my understanding that psychopathic personalities are not caused by circumstances but by problems within their brains.

This has never been empirically validated. Biological positivist approaches (ones that say our behavior is due to neurology alone) started with Lombroso in the 1800s. They have largely been discredited. Modern versions include supposed links between testosterone and crime, Jacob's Syndrome (XYY chromosome pattern) and the work of Robert Hare with criminal EEGs. None of these lines of research have demonstrated any biological cause of crime. Certainly research continues, and who knows what the future might bring, but at the present time, our understanding of crime is an interaction of individual and his/her society. Biology plays little, if any role that we are aware of.

quote:

~~~. However, most violent criminals are not psychopaths

this also is false. Empirical research has demonstrated quite the opposite. I will grant you that not ALL criminals are psychopaths, but the majority are. What is true, however is that not all Psychopaths are criminals. Perhaps you mixed the direction up.

quote:

~~~They are people who can understand that violence is wrong, but do not.

I ALMOST agree with you here. Research actually shows that violent criminals understand that violence is wrong, but choose to be violent anyway. Oftentimes they blame the victims ("If only he had given me the money from the register like I had asked, I wouldn't have had to shoot him. Now look at the trouble he has got me into") One promising area for POTENTIAL treatment comes from confronting criminals with this rationalization pattern. To my knowledge, however, it has not yet been proven empirically valid.

quote:

~~~So they don't need to be cured, they need to be taught

Believe me it isn't like psychologists and psychiatrists haven't already thought of this. The trouble is, and stop me if I get repeatative, No empirically validated treatment for these problems has been developed. Once one is that can return people to the streets with full morality, I will be the first in line to demand their release.

quote:

~~~This "solution" ignores the fact that there are plenty more children living in situations that will not teach them how to avoid violence. Should we wait until they murder and rape before we become concerned?

No it is only acknowledging that we have no other viable solution at the moment. The alternative is allowing psychopaths to victimize other innocent people, and that we can not allow. I hope you will see my concern stems from compassion for future victims, not a desire to punish. Research continues into treatment for psychopathic children, but until such time as one is developed, we can not allow such children to engage in assault, rape, murder, etc. And you are correct, we must identify potential offenders as quickly as possible.

quote:

~~~The concept of minor that she is talking about is a legal concept, not a social concept.

I suspect the two go hand in hand. Although I THINK I understand what you are getting at (though I acknowledge I might be having a blond moment and miss the point.) You mentioned something about me giving up authority of my children...I am not sure why changing the law on violent child crime would do this...unless my children become violent. I am wondering if you are implying that parents would lose their rights over their children. I don't suspect so, though I don't claim to have any expertise over law (perhaps a lawyer might offer an opinion). However if children are violent, they should come to state attention. If my child brought an M-16 to school, I would not expect to be bringing that child home later that night, no. I would love him/her, and hope some therapy changes his/her behavior, but I would also be terrified that he/she might offend again.

By the way, I do appologize if I am being a bit "No here's what the research says..." Actually I am doing my dissertation on violence (female not child, though some of the literature overlaps) so I have come across a lot of the scientific literature on the topic.
22

I agree with Avalongod and 2sense that minors need to be held responsible. Yay! What a wonderful concept! Let’s treat minors like adults and that’ll teach them. Fine, great idea.
However, do you not see that legally it’s not possible?!?!?! So instead of wasting time talking about giving them more responsiblity why don’t you talk about reforming the current system so it stays in the confines of the current laws?

Well let me draw you a parellel. The legal voting age was 21. But the draft was 18. So since the kids were old enough to die for their country in Viet Nam, they were old enough to vote. See? They were old enough to take the responsibility of killing, so they were old enough to take the responsibility of voting. So they passed a whole new amendment to make it possible. Obviously this didn’t apply to everybody. People who never got drafted. People who stayed in college, people who moved. And it certainly has nothing to do with me, but this year I will get to vote.
Now, if you decide that children are capable of being tried as adults, you have to include the entire Constitution, and give them rights. If children can be seen in the eyes of the Federal Court system as adults because of crime, it has to carry everything over. If that happens, children will no longer be legally children. They will no longer be “second class citizens” They’ll have every right you have.
You cannot apply Ammendments 5,6,7 to a minor unless you are willing to apply ALL the Ammendments to a minor. If that happens, who decides who is legally a minor? A minor will all of a sudden have all the rights adults have.
You may argue that that has nothing to do with it. But think of it this way.
Amendment 1-Freedom of Speech. Children can be censured. They have been censured. If a teacher suspends a student for drawing a picture with a gun on it, nobody is going to take that to court and win under the Freedom of Speech. Dress Codes in school blatantly disregard Freedom of Speech in some cases.
Amendment 2-The Right to Bare Arm. Nobody under 18 can buy a gun. I can’t even SELL guns under 18.
And it goes on and on like this. That is what distinguishes minors from adults.
This is one debate you can banter back and forth about what children understand. But that’s not what the OP wanted. He wanted to abolish JCs and treat children as adults, which is a legal impossibility.

23

Avalon, what pepperlandgirl is saying is correct. Responsibility must be balanced by authority. Let’s look at the extremes.

  1. All responsibility, no authority. That is, holding one man responsible for EVERYTHING. Ridiculous. Entirely.

  2. All authority, no responsibility. The worst kind of despot. Not good for anyone.

You have to equate responsibility and authority by tying the responsibilities to the freedoms given. If someone is free to do something, you hold them responsible for the results of those actions.

You are proposing to hold children to the responsibilities of adulthood without giving them the freedoms adults are given. Not a good thing.

The reason children are NOT given the freedoms of an adult is because we feel they do not have the faculties to exercise that authority wisely. It used to be that a person at puberty was an adult. This was when all he had to learn was killing things and sex. As the amount that a person has needed to know has increased, the longer it took to reach maturity and adulthood. Now people are expected to be able to hold down a somewhat complicated job, hold diverse interpersonal relationships, be aware of a much larger world, hold opinions on them, and try to influence them through the vote.

That’s why they’re children, and not adults, because they DON’T have the faculties to fully appreciate the world around them. They are humans in training, apprentice people. You expect them to screw up. There’s no such thing as a juvenile delinquent. You said it yourself, people are born without morals.

So? So a person acheives adulthood when he has a fully formed moral system. You either have a child who has done something wrongbecause he didn’t fully appreciate the consequences of his actions, or you have an adult who, knowing an action is wrong, did it anyway. One is someone who must be corrected and taught, the other someone who must be punished.

That is the purpose of the juvenile system, to try and teach children not only that actions have consequences, but some actions are wrong. You cannot treat them as adults unless you’re willing to make them adults in all ways.

You propose to allow someone to be given to the electric chair who cannot even own property.

24

Ok, I think I understand what you are getting at. The trouble is you keep telling me (and perhaps Surgoshan was more responsible of this than pepperlandgirl) that you are arguing the penal code, yet you bring psychology into it, and your psychology tends to be faulty.

Without meaning to nitpick the psychology:

quote:


Uh, there has NEVER been this time in the evolution of the human species. Sure evolution has brought about greater complexities, but generally the social structure of human kind is largely the same as that of Australiopithenes (at least in regards to family structure and tribe..obviously they had no TV influences)

quote:

~~~As the amount that a person has needed to know has increased, the longer it took to reach maturity and adulthood.

Yes of course this is true, I don't believe I was arguing children and adults were equal in all senses.

quote:

~~~because they DON'T have the faculties to fully appreciate the world around them

Wrong, in fact they do. Yes they are still "apprentice" people, but they are also rational people capable of making choices. They lack wisdom, which is gained with experience, but (by age 6) typically have some sense of morality. We are arguing morality, are we not, not wisdom.

quote:

~~~You expect them to screw up.

We expect them to spell "Receive" wrong, to occaisionally lie, and perhaps forge our signatures on a bad report card. When they take a weapon to a classmate, we have entirely different animals. As I mentioned before, violence in children can not be TAUGHT away. As of this moment, they become violent adults. we must weight the rights of their victims to be into this equations.

quote:

~~~You either have a child who has done something wrongbecause he didn't fully appreciate the consequences of his actions, or you have an adult who, knowing an action is wrong, did it anyway. One is someone who must be corrected and taught, the other someone who must be punished.

Again, children DO appreciate the consequences of their actions. This is NOT a distinction between children and adults. Children do not always have the wisdom to make the best decisions...they can not manage money well, nor hold down jobs perhaps, but they do have a sense of morality. Again you are mixing cognitive and moral development up somewhat.

quote:

~~~That is the purpose of the juvenile system, to try and teach children not only that actions have consequences, but some actions are wrong.

Again, you are living in a fantasy land. This "teach our children well" approach does not work. It has been tried from countless angles and, once more, stop me if I repeat myself: There is No, none, nada, nonexistant, not one treatment approach of any kind, manner or form which works with children who commit acts of severe violence. Did I mention that there aren't any? As in they commit more violent acts when you let them out. As in more murder, rape, assault victims? If an empirically validated treatment approach pops up, believe me I will be all about it, but there are none.

No offense Surghoshan, but I don't think you read some of the earlier posts.

Pepperlandgirl...thanx for reading them at least. :(

quote:

~~~However, do you not see that legally it's not possible?!?!?!

Ok, arguing penal code I am way out of my league. I know nothing about it, don't claim to know a thing. That said, I am not sure why this is so...I think you are saying it is ethically wrong (in your opinion) that put extra restrictions on minors without giving them added plusses. But I believe (again could be wrong) that there is plenty of precedent for doing so. I believe up and until the present century, England had much more severe penalties for violent youth crime. Also, the US does seem to be moving in that direction treating more serious violence in juveniles in adult courts.

So I suspect (but may be wrong) that most of our approach to children can be left in place and simply change the rules for violent crime, knowing that these particular children are different qualitatively from "normal" children and must be dealt with pragmatically.

Given the empirical reality that treatment for these kids does not work, exactly WHAT is your alternative. Think pragmatically here. If you let them loose after criminal kindergarten, there WILL be more victims. Give me a pragmatic solution and I will listen.
25

Sorry if I was obscure. My ambush comments were in jest, that’s why I threw you a wink. When a post appears while I am composing my own, I refer to this as a simulpost. I believe that this is the common usage of this term. On 1 page threads if you preview your reply, then any new posts will appear on the Topic Review under the reply box where you type your message. I neglected to check this before I posted my message. If I had then I would have read your message and could have reworded my reply.
I also try to remember to check the profile of people before I reply to them. If I had done so I would have known that you were a psychologist.

I would be interested in your definition of a psychopath. Perhaps I was thinking of a sociopath? Also, do you think that violent enviroments do not reenforce violent behavior?

I am interested in the latest research and opinion on this topic. Not interested enough to read a whole book about it, but I like to have my facts straight. I like to think that I have an understanding of how science works. I do know what “empirically validated” means. When I encounter new ideas then I tend to ask questions. I am not afraid to discard preconceptions.

On the legal side of this issue, I am thinking that pepper and Surgo are correct. Actuality and legality are not the same thing. If a moral code cannot be learned after age 6 then this fact has no bearing under the law. Legally we assume that until you are 18 then you are still capable of learning and are still doing so, with some legal loopholes as always.

Threads on message boards tend to spawn other related threads. This leads to the appearance of topics coming in waves. I am also a member of OpalCat’s board, which is mostly made up of people who also post here or at least lurk over here. Lately these 2 boards have been seeing a wave of crime related threads. When I saw capaciter’s OP proposing to extend punishment to children, I am afraid that I became slightly overcome with emotion.

Having previewed this post I now can read your latest post.
Again I point out that facts in the real world are not necessarily relevent to the law. And the law is not always pragmatic. But, as you point out, the law can be changed.

My pragmatic solution would be to ensure that as few children turn into irreversable psychopaths as possible. Got any ideas on that?

26

I think Surgoshan summed it up perfectly with his two points

Look at it this way.
Let’s say you are my older brother. Because you are older than me, you have more privilages than me. With those privilages comes responsibilities. With those responsibilities comes the need for consequences that match the responsibilities. Greater responsibilites lead to greater consequences. So, for that to hold true, greater consequences MUST come with great responsibilities.
IE, my parellel about the VietNam war. Those 18 year olds had HUGE consequences for their actions. They were fighting a WAR. But they didn’t have the responsibilities of their country. In order to make it make sense to be sending kids over there, the Government was FORCED to give them the right to vote.
THis is how it is now–
Adults=Greater responsibilites (to country in general)=greater consequences=prison
Children=Minor responsibilties (To country in general)=minor consequences=Juvenile Court.
If you abolish Juvenile Court for kids you have–
Prison=which is a greater consequence, which should logically =greater responsibility (ie the right to vote)

Common sense, psychology, criminolagy, none of it matters. This is LEGALLY.

27

Let me say right up front that I find most of the post on this thread depressing and terrifying. In equal measure. People called “destructive machines”, children written off as “psychopaths” and, having been given that name, banned from the human community.
First of all let me point out that abolishing the JC system would effect thousands of children- the majority effected- who are not psychopaths (an exact definition of that term would be nice) but children who commit some kind of illegal act. In most cases, like most crime in general, non-violent. The capacitor, in the orignal post mentioned kids being used by drug dealers. A mule is not a violent offender, just some kid swayed by the promise of too much money. Hmmm, kind of like the stupid things middle class kids do, except they’re not in as dangerous an enviorment. Why, in a thread about abolishing the entire juvinal system, are we talking almost exculsively about the most violent extreme?
An who are these psychopaths? A different class than the rest of us humans. They’re not created by bad enviorment. Because lots of kids are abused and grow up just fine. And they’re not organic because “biology plays little, if any role we are aware of”. All we know is that they’re out there, and, apparently, once identified, should be destroyed as soon as possible (starting at six), because there is no treatment. They’re just evil.

I have not said enough. I wish I had the eloquence to really speak about consigning whole groups of people to non-human status. Or about you’re simplistic take on the cause of human evil- “it was the psychopaths!”. I’ll just say this:
I worry about your paitents.

28

2sense:

Thanks for the clarity on the simulpost…I am a bit new here and don’t know all the lingo. I THOUGHT you were kidding (hence my paranoia comment) but if I had faux-pased I would have wanted to know.
quote:


In all fairness I would refer you to the DSM-IV antisocial personality disorder, which lists a set of symptoms. Generally though psychopath/sociopath/ASPD are all essentially the same thing, boiling down to a flagrant disregard for the rights of others.

quote:

~~~Also, do you think that violent enviroments do not reenforce violent behavior?

Not in the typical sense no. But part of the symptom list for ASPD suggests that such people are at least typically immune to the reward/punishment stuff most of us are sensitive to.

quote:

~~~I do know what "empirically validated" means.

Just means has been scientifically demonstrated to be effective.

quote:

~~~and legality are not the same thing.

Ooops, I cut off part of that quote. Yes, and as I noted I am out of my league when it comes to penal code. My thoughts are to change the law, but I don't know the mechanics and possible negative repercussions of that.

quote:

~~~My pragmatic solution would be to ensure that as few children turn into irreversable psychopaths as possible. Got any ideas on that?

I absolutely agree, and this is where a big part of more recent research is applied. Apparently providing children with some form of positive modeling opportunity helps. Thus the Head Start/Big Brother/Sister/YMCA programs all seem to be partially effective at prevention. Also as uncles/aunts adults can provide good role models even to kids in bad homes. This seems to help a good deal, and may be party responsible for the declines in crime we have seen. HArd to say of course.

Pepperlandgirl:

You bring up good points of course, and again, it seems we could change the law to accomodate this problem, but I do not pretend to have adequate understanding of law to suggest how.

quote:
~~~I wish I had the eloquence to really speak about consigning whole groups of people to non-human status.

Again, the research evidence being discussed is simply a reflection of "the way things are." It seems like you are sticking your fingers in your ears and singling lullabyes not to listen. This is indeed an unfortunate reality, however, 1.) psychopaths of all ages choose their actions. 2.) the well being of future victims must be considered. Have I ever mentioned there are no treatments for psychopathy. I think I mentioned it. Tell you what dude, kid sets his little brother on fire shows no remorse. He gets let out, starts playing with your kid. I suspect you would be the first person screaming "How could the psychologists let this monster out when they knew he was a psychopath." It's easy to be a bleeding heart until you or your family are victimized. I would like to see that happen to as few people as possible. If that makes me heartless, I am not sure how.

quote:

~~~I worry about your paitents.

Dude, save the hyperbole.
29

2sense:

Oh geeze, you think I could read. I thought you said you DIDN’T know what empirically validated meant. Sorry, I didn’t mean to sound condescending (that’s when you talk down to people)

:slight_smile:

30

Did we come to the conclusion that completely abolishing the juvenile justice system would not be feasible? We also have to realize that each state, county, and city has different guidelines for youthful offenders. Perhaps that could be the answer, more uniform guidelines. I personally am in favor of more “parental responsibility”. Second generation “gang” moms should go to jail along or even before their child offenders. Parents who do not take measures to secure their weapons should be held responsible when a child uses them to commit a crime. But to completely abolish the juvenile justice system and try every child as an adult is just not prudent. The determination as to whether or not a youthful offender is tried as an adult should continue to be done on a case by case basis, a determination of the presiding court. This seems to me the only way to separate the truly criminal young person from a young person that has made a mistake and might be worth saving. We sure as hell give enough grown men and women the same benefit of the doubt. Why not a child that may actually have a chance at rehabilitation?

Need2know

31

Needs2Know:

quote:


I agree with you here. I was trying to think, this morning, of some sort of measure that would 1.) protect society and 2.) differentiate between the truly antisocial, and kids who are "savable." Perhaps what we could do is a 2-step process...give the "kids" a full sentence for a violent crime, but once their juvenile period is over (18 or 21 depending upon state) bring them up for evaluation by a board of psychologists and psychiatrists. If the board is convinced the individual is no longer a threat to society, then probate the remainder of the sentence. If the individual still displays psychopathic personality, remand for carrying out the full sentence in adult prison. I think this MIGHT be a good measure which could serve to protect the rights of those children who might still be productive in society, without setting pychopaths free to do more harm.
32

Psychopath is an antiquated term. It conjures up a picture of Norman Bates and Janet Lee in the shower scene from “Pscho”. Antisocial Personality Disorder is the more modern and PC term for the type of disorder you are talking about. Granted there have been very few studies done on this particular character disorder outside of prison populations but I have seen documentation speculating that there are many more individuals just walking around among us with this than we might know. To lump all juvenile offenders, even violent ones, into this category is just not sound. Although you do have a point. While the psychiatric community does not yet know what causes Antisocial Personality Disorder, there does seem to be evidence that it can manifest itself in two ways. Some people who have been diagnosed with the disorder, such as Dahmer and Bundy appeared to be “born” that way. They were serial killers that displayed certain behaviors at a young age that would evenutally indicate that the disorder was genetic. (The serial killer trinity being just part of it; bed wetting, fire facination, and torturing animals.) But there are many other offenders in prison now who show many of the symptoms of the disorder; lack of conscience, inability to delay gratification, etc. that are obviously victims of their environment. Even several of our famous serial and spree killers like Richard Speck and Henry Lee Lucas were obviously created by their childhood environments.

I don’t think anyone would agree that every child that commits a violent offense is psychopathic.

Need2know

33

Needs2know, some comments:

quote:


Yes and if you read back through my posts you will note I mentioned they are the same thing myself. Psychopath does continue to be used in the literature (definitions of antisocial PD often use the term) and you will still see articles, particularly by Robert Hare (one of the leading authorities) that still use the term. So it continues to be appropriate.
quote:

~~~To lump all juvenile offenders, even violent ones, into this category is just not sound.

Well there are subtypes of psychopathy in children, though none of them are really good. Perhaps you might have heard of socialized or unsocialized, or child-onset and adolescent-onset. Again the DSM-Iv lists out the symptoms, and children who commit severe violent crimes almost always meet the criteria, so this category is in fact sound. Depends on what you mean by violence I suppose...getting into a schoolyard fight, of course not. Setting a dog on fire or bringing a pistol to school to shoot your teacher...yep you make it into the category. I am sorry if you do not like this generalization, but it is empirically validated. OF course individuals are heterogenous, but the outcome tends to be the same...more violence.

quote:

~~~Some people who have been diagnosed with the disorder, such as Dahmer and Bundy appeared to be "born" that way. They were serial killers that displayed certain behaviors at a young age that would evenutally indicate that the disorder was genetic. (The serial killer trinity being just part of it; bed wetting, fire facination, and torturing animals.) But there are many other offenders in prison now who show many of the symptoms of the disorder; lack of conscience, inability to delay gratification, etc. that are obviously victims of their environment. Even several of our famous serial and spree killers like Richard Speck and Henry Lee Lucas were obviously created by their childhood environments.

You are making causal inferences that are not empirically validated. There is NO evidence of a biological cause for ASPD in anyone. Also Richard Speck and Lucas were not CREATED by their environments...please see my former posts regarding causality.

quote:

~~~I don't think anyone would agree that every child that commits a violent offense is psychopathic.

Depends on what you mean by violence once more. But children who engage in severe acts of brutal violence that violates the rights of others fit into the category, because that IS the criteria for the category.

By the way I was impressed you knew the Trinity, but I should point out this also is not empirically validated (not all serial killers have these childhood manifestations).

As an aside (and not meant to be directed at N2N or anyone else in particular)...I have seen a lot of posts which seem to follow the trend of "I just don't want to believe all these kids are psychopaths" which I think is a normal reaction...especially when you do not have to actually interact with these kids, or let your children interact with these kids. But I have seen little input regarding a pragmatic solution to the problem. given that Therapy absolutely does NOT help these children, exactly what do you suggest we do with children who murder, rape, sadistically assault others?
34

The truth is Avalon I actually contradicted myself on that post. I stated that I had read somewhere that there are many more people than belived afflicted with this disorder. And then I said all violent juvenile offenders shouldn’t be categorized this way…Oh me! The truth is I have been a first hand witness to antisocial traits in several teens. My own teenage daughter at times would fit the description. But then selfishness, the inability to delay gratification, and an obvious lack of conscience could at one time or another be attributed to many or most teens. To say that a teenager is antisocial by an older person’s standards might be a moot point. It’s the nature of the beast. That is why I am a little leary of lumping teens in with what we know to be the truely antisocial type. Yes the description states that certain behaviors in the antisocial personality should be present by the age 13 and in some instances at a younger age when what’s it called…“something Combative disorder” is present even before then.

What I’m saying is that in many instances normal teenage behavior could be construed as antisocial. Should we be diagnosing a 14, 15 or even 16 year old with an incurable personality disorder at such a young age? Since you do seem to know, isn’t this one of the the disorders that can only be accurately diagnosed by behavioral observation over a period of time? Do we want to write these kids off as damaged goods and not worth saving? Because you do know the studies show that a true sociopath cannot be cured through therapy or medication. The only program that has even shown a tiny amount of success has been a behavior modification program designed to teach the sociopathic personality that to obey the rules of society is advantageous to them and will keep them out of trouble only. There is no pill or doctor that can give one of these people a set of emotions or a conscience. They are people doomed to go through life never knowing the depth of feeling that a normal human being enjoys.

Need2know

35

Needs2Know:

lol…I didn’t even notice the contradiction. :slight_smile:
Just some responses:

quote:


This is absolutely true. You will notice I have never said to lump all teenagers even who commit crimes together under "psychopath." I have been specifically talking about brutal crimes of physical force. It is probably my fault for not making a clearer distinction. This true case example might help illustrate: It is fairly common for teens (particularly males) to get into physical fights. Though technically simple assault, this is psychologically no big deal and I would in no way label these teens "psychopath" or ASPD. However I once saw a kid in therapy who got into a fight, beat the other kid up, and once the other kid was beaten so bad he could no longer move, this kid took his face, opened his mouth and placed it against a street curb, and smashed his foot down on the kids head, shattering many of the kids teeth. This kind of force is WAY more than was necessary to win the fight. Furthermore the teen bragged about this, showing no remorse in my office. This is the kind of "child psychopath" I am discussing. Obviously most if not all teens show moments of selfishness, combativeness, anger, and lack of remorse, but it is usually not such a pervasive behavioral trend. also most teens do not flagrantly disregard the health and well-being of others. So we would also be looking for a consistent behavioral pattern. Even one incident such as the above would not always warrent a ASPD (perhaps the other kid raped his girlfriend or something, and the rage might be situational), but this kid had a long history of such trouble. I could regale you with all kinds of tales of things I have seen in therapy that I promise you would make your skin crawl (not to give the wrong impression, 95% of the kids I have seen in the JV system are good kids, just with poor opportunities, but the do not commit THESE kinds of brutal crimes).

quote:

~~~Do we want to write these kids off as damaged goods and not worth saving?

Not exactly. For the present we should acknowledge that we can not let them victimize other children, adults. but we keep doing more research and hope treatment is developed. Also we look into preventing further cases.

quote:

~~~The only program that has even shown a tiny amount of success has been a behavior modification program designed to teach the sociopathic personality that to obey the rules of society is advantageous to them and will keep them out of trouble only.

Samenow also has a program that he claims is somewhat effective in treating psychopaths (old or youthful) though I think the jury is still out. His is more of a "reality therapy" approach...sort of the "Look, Slappy, I for one am not gonna buy your sob story, if you wanna straighten out, I wanna here you take some responsibility first." Obviously I am simplifying it, but it is a harsh confrontational therapy, but seems to show some long-term success, but again, the jury is still out.
36

Then we really are in agreement here Avalon. Since you work in the system what do you think? The OP implies that all children should be tried as adults, but you must know from working in the system that most juvenile crime is the same old stuff that kids have been doing for generations, vandalism, running away from home (not a crime by the way but subject to court intervention), petty theft, do these kids need to be thrown in with adults?

Need2know

37

Nonononononoo! God no! They’ll get slaughtered!!!
I guess I had assumed people were talking about serious violent offenses, not smoking pot or tagging subway cars. OF course teenagers do dumb stuff, hell I did illegal stuff (shhhh!) and they need a stern talking to, perhaps therapy, mabey even community service, but not jail.

Brutal violent crimes though need to be treated with all the seriousness they deserve, and that may include “adult” like treatment. But misdemeanor offenses and non-violent felonies, no of course not. They prison population would eat the poor kids alive.

38

Okay, avalon, I was responding to the idea of abolishing the juvenile system, for the most part. And a lot of my material was aimed at your posts, under the assumption that that’s what you were arguing for. I see now that was wrong. I agree with a lot of what you’re saying (and you’re right, we’ve never just had to learn how to kill things and have sex, just hyperbole to show the increased complexity of society).

So, where does that leave us? Agreeing on almost all aspects.

And I like the sound of that confrontational therapy thing.

39

The error was entirely mine as I misunderstood the point of the OP, and lept to an assumption. No WONDER I must have seemed Draconian to everyone!

:slight_smile:

That therapy I referred to is researched by Stanton Samenow. I’ll poke around and see if I can find any more recent research on it.

40

To avalongod, pepperlandgirl, et al. Thanks for the information you supplied.

I speak not as a lawyer, nor as a phychologist. I speak as someone who sees these miscreants every day of my life. These juveniles today will sneer at phychological attempts to ‘fix’ them. They laugh when they brag about aiming a gun at someone’s head and shooting. They think of nothing wrong with forcing a girl when she says, “No.” They are proud to be wrong. They are so scary, even the old-time hustlers are getting out of the street life because of them.

They will continously abuse those with pepperlandgirl’s good-nature. I ought to know, I had one. That was before I got mugged and shoved against a car near a bus stop buy two of the juveniles I was talking about. No one stopped their getaway. And when I asked for witnesses (there were over 50 people across the street at the time), they all dispersed.

The only good thing about them is that they are a few. However, they do the most damage to the community, my community and others, while institutions twiddle their thumbs, saying, about, “Oh my. What are going to do about them.”

We have to start teaching about life to them young, very young. Otherwise, they will learn it either the hard way, or the wrong lessons.