More than half of Americans feel that minor children should be tried as adults, starting at an average age of 15. This sentiment is so strong that the United States is the only country that has refused to sign the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Even human rights stalwarts Somalia and South Sudan have signed it!
I find this incredibly disturbing and hypocritical and I’m dismayed I’m apparently in the minority on disagreeing with trying minors as adults. I thought even ardent death penalty fans would shudder at the idea of putting kids in jail for life but I guess not. We don’t allow minor children and teens any of the privileges of being an adult, aside from driving when they are 15-16, so why the hell would we try them as adults?
Recently there was a case of two 12 year old girls who stabbed their friend in an attempt to kill her. Most people seem to think they should be locked up for life. Granted what they did was heinous, but they are still children!
Science says our brains don’t fully develop until we’re 25. I think that number is a bit high and personally I’d put it more at around 22 but even then a 12 year old is barely halfway done developing mentally. There is still plenty of time to rehabilitate these girls.
Think about it. Do you think these girls are old enough to rent an apartment and work? Do you think they’re old enough to consent to sex with an adult? Do you think they’re old enough to drink responsibly? Obviously the answer is no to all, so how can they be considered to have adult judgment when it comes to committing a crime? How can a 12 year old offender be mature enough to be thrown to the wolves in prison if they aren’t mature enough to do any things adults with normal lives do?
I think when it comes to punishing criminals most people are incapable of thinking rationally about what works best or is truly fair or reasonable - they just want blood for blood. Are Americans the most vengeful people on the planet?
The US actually has signed the Convention but has not ratified it. I don’t think criminal justice procedures are the main reason the US has refused to ratify it, it’s more due to the strength of the religious right who believe it would undermine parental rights within the family.
So what’s your solution? Say “Oh, well, murder happens” and move on?
And you’re right - we don’t allow twelve-year-olds to work or rent apartments or have sex or drink. And call me crazy but I don’t think we should allow twelve-year-olds to commit murder either.
The argument isn’t that twelve-year-olds should be able to commit murder (asinine, and it genuinely surprises me you would post it, Little Nemo), but that twelve-year-olds are incapable of committing murder, in the same way that they are incapable of entering into contracts and voting and consenting to sex.
Me? I’m of the opinion, and I’ve posted it many times here, that we should be consistent on this issue and all legal rights/responsibilities. The full age of majority should be 16 or possibly 15, and before that you are a child who will be dealt with in a juvenile way.
And the counter-argument is that some things are (or should be) far easier than others. The United States doesn’t trust anyone to drink alcohol until they’re 21, and they don’t trust people with other mind altering substances no matter how old they are. Is it really so hard to believe that a child can understand the command “Don’t kill anyone unless they try to kill you first”, but not a hundred page long contract?
False premise, we have been pushing the age of maturity later and later, it had historically been legal for a 12 year old [male] to have served his apprenticeship and be a full journeyman in his craft, to have been the junior midshpman on a naval vessel and able to advance in rank, and for enlisted to advance in rate. Children started performing chores when they were big enough to manage, and to take care of their younger siblings, so that by the age of 12 most girls could effectively run a household, cooking, cleaning, tending to children and making clothing and other common household items.
If you don’t expect a child to grow up mentally, then they won’t. Expect them to mature, and they will. There are many many children who are mentally able at a young age because they were allowed to learn and grow. WE are not yet Idiocracy, but I am afraid it is happening sooner rather than later.
I think you’re missing my point. The reason we don’t allow children to vote, use drugs or join the army and the reason we despise pedophile adults is because children’s minds are not developed enough to fully comprehend their choices and actions in the same way adults can.
If a 12 year old isn’t considered fully developed psychologically enough to do any of these things, which is in my opinion totally reasonable and correct - why should they be considered to fully comprehend the seriousness and permanence of murder? Even teenagers don’t have the same comprehension of consequences as people in their 20s and older and science has shown that they have poorer impulse control on average.
I just find America’s insistence on adult punishment for children creepy and sadistic. Sentencing those two girls to life in prison or death would be as bad if not worse as what they did to their poor friend who luckily survived the attack. Even though personally I think something is inherently wrong with these girls’ minds, I think out of principle we should give them the benefit of the doubt and have compassion because they are still only children. There is still some hope.
If we aren’t going to have a hard age cut-off, then we need to have a hard rubric for determining when an individual child has the mental capacities of an adult. Then require children to be tested against this rubric not just in the criminal matters, but also when it comes to driver’s licenses, alcohol consumption, voting, and sexual consent. But since I don’t think we’ve developed an objective tool that provides this function, we need to default to the hard age cut-off. With a bit more creativity, we can come up with another way of handling killer 12-year-olds that doesn’t involve them being charged as adults. Because that’s insane.
Murder is not rocket science. And this is not anywhere near an edge case for murder. They don’t even need to fully comprehend the seriousness and permanence of murder - just understanding that sticking a knife in your friend hurts your friend should have been enough.
By that logic, there is nothing to stop charging a toddler with murder as an adult, assuming he or she was physically capable of committing it. Even a toddler knows that some things hurt.
The reason we punish adults through the criminal system (as opposed to rehabilitate or protect the public from) is because adults are presumed to understand the full moral gravity of committing a crime. Thus, it is correct that society impose a certain degree of punishment on them - both to deter them from doing it again (assuming they are ever let out), and deterring others from doing it.
A child, or a toddler, is not presumed to understand the moral gravity of crime. Indeed, they may have no real understanding of such things as the permanence of death.; they certainly do not have an adult understanding of future consequences.: it makes no sense to imprision a toddler for life, to deter other toddlers fro m committing crimes. They are legally and morally “incompetent”, which is why parents and guardians are, by law, entitled to make decisions affecting them on their behalf.
Thus, it makes sense that in dealing with very young offenders, the focus should not be on “punishment”, but on the possibility of “rehabilitation” and, failing that, “protection of the public”. In short, on determining the mental health of the child, if it can be fixed, and if not - some sort of mental asylum.
This would mean that a five year old who picks up a gun some fool leaves lying around and shoots a playmate would not do hard time as punishment, even though he or she may be aware that “shooting hurts”.
Sucks to be twelve years old and facing the prospect of a long prison sentence. But it sucks even more to be twelve and have two of your friends attempt to kill you and very nearly succeed. Certainly by twelve, one should have learned that murder is not acceptable. They should also know that stabbing someone is not acceptable. I’m just not seeing any reason why these two girls deserve any leniency due to their age.
No, I oppose the death penalty for anybody. Prison is definitely appropriate, in my opinion. I just can’t see how we can say let them off due to their age. I don’t care how old you are, doing something like this is a sign of a very sick mind and not someone who should be in society.
… hence, the focus, when adhorrent crimes are committed by children, should be on “rehabilitation” (if possible) and ‘protection of the public’ (if not). Not on ‘punishment’.
Excellent points made in the rest of this post and I’d like to add to this one in particular.
It is often a mistake to think that those of us on this side of the fence want to be able to simply absolve the children of their crimes no matter what. Not the case at all.
It is not that I want the system of justice and punishment to be lenient, I want it to fit the crime but most of all I want it to stand the greatest chance of rehabilitating the youngster while there is still chance. It should punish accordingly, rehabilitate where possible and through ongoing assessment ensure that those who remain dangerous remain apart from the public, just as Malthus says.
It is not beyond the wit of man to create such a justice system (many countries have done so with very low recidivism rates)