Trying children as adults

[Marley23]

@Malthus

That’s a social decision, only kinda-sorta defensible on scientific grounds.

It’s defensible, I think, as long as it’s as accurate as we can realistically expect to be.

If a 12 year old cannot possibly be “adult” enough to meaningfully consent to sex, how could they be adult enough to meaningfully be held resposible for having an adult “guilty mind”?

Because society prohibits those things for different reasons. Sex with a child is held to be developmentally harmful for the child; murder is harmful to another person.

@SciFiSam

I was going on the science I’ve read, but my search terms are too vague to come up with anything right now. I meant that, on average, teenagers are far less likely to fully comprehend that murder is wrong. It’s not just about planning and thinking about consequences, but about frontal lobe development.

I’m leery of trusting any popular reporting on things like this, but here’s a story that says teenage brains access the frontal lobe more slowly - not that they can’t do it.

It would be better to make the maximum sentences for serious crimes longer for minors, so that they can still be tried in juvenile court, but they still know that they could go to prison for a long time. Make it less of a cut-off between minor and not a minor, where if you and your friend commit the same crime and he is two days older than you your sentences could be vastly different. Make the temporary consequences part really fucking obvious for those whose brains can take that in but not the long term, deeper stuff.

I think a more graded system might be an improvement, but I’m not sure making the consequences more obvious is going to fix anything.

[Blaster_Master]

Obviously, there is an issue when it comes to charging children with crimes, particularly since it’s an either/or situation. I do think that it’s quite possible that, say, an 7yo may not fully understand full consequences of his actions, maybe not really realizing that his attempt to really hurt someone might result in death or that death really was a permanent sort of thing, but I’d have a very hard time believing a 17yo didn’t. A 12yo is right in the middle, and not being a specialist in cognitive development, muchless knowing the exact development of those kids, I don’t know where they may lie on the continuum.

Personally, I’ve known someone who commited a felony as a minor. He was 16 at the time and stabbed someone claiming it was an accident of sorts. As I came to found out later, he had not onlt intended to stab him, but had intended to kill him, had lied about how it happened on the stand, and got another witness to lie about what he saw as well. He got convicted of a lesser crime, got out after a short time, and ended up attempting to kill at least two more people before he finally got a long term sentence, as the latter one was very severely injured. IMO, if he had gotten charged as an adult and gotten the proper psychological evaluation he needed, considering the signs of a psychopath were all there, maybe he would have gotten a more appropriate sentence and the later crimes might have been prevented.

Regardless, I don’t see why it’s inherently wrong to charge a kid as an adult, maybe we can argue that a 12yo doesn’t fully grasp the consequences of murder, okay fine, but surely those kids at least understand the idea of severely injuring and possibly disabling someone. So, in that regard, maybe they’re legally incapable of murder, but ought to be at least legally capable of assault with a deadly weapon, maiming, malicious wounding, or whatever other laws DO cover the intentions.

That is, my opinion would be that for someone over 18, it’s sort of a given that they understand these things, and it’s only a defense that they don’t if they have some sort of mental development problems. So why not just say if they’re under 18, the prosecution just has the extra burden of proving they are mentally developed enough to understand their action and to charge them with the appropriate crime based on that. And then, for those convicted of a crime under age, there’s an additional burden of doing mental health treatments and evaluations and possibly having that affect the sentence.

Either way, it seems patently ridiculous to me to never charge anyone under 18 as an adult, especially if we can show they fully understand their actions and are likely to repeat them, and just let them out of juvenile prison sometime between 18-21 just to potentially do the same or worse. Admittedly, my personal anecdote probably isn’t typical, but there are kids out there like that, and I suspect that a kid capable of doing a heinous crime is probably a lot more likely to be like him than not.

[Malthus]

@Marley23

Because society prohibits those things for different reasons. Sex with a child is held to be developmentally harmful for the child; murder is harmful to another person.

That’s not the actual distinction, though.

Sex with a child is illegal because a child cannot meaningfully consent to it. Hence the term “age of consent”. It is immaterial whether or not the child would be “developmentally” harmed. Harm is simply presumed to occur in any situation in which a person cannot give meaningful consent, and is subjected to sex nonetheless.

In short, it is illegal because the mind is not sufficiently developed to give consent.

Similarly, murder as a crime simply is not “harming another”. You can kill another person and it is not “murder”. The “harm to another” is only half the equation - the act of killing is not enough. For the killing to be “murder” and not (say) “manslaughter”, you need the killer to have a guilty mind - that is, have the intent and capacity to commit the killing as a crime. An insane person or, arguably, a young child, therefore cannot commit “murder”. They do not have the necessary capacity.

In short, it is illegal because the mind of the killer is sufficently developed to be culpable and the requisite intent is proved.

Both cases require, as an essential element, that the mind be sufficiently developed - to consent to sex, or to commit murder. An argument can be made that different thresholds should apply, but not that development of the mind isn’t necessary in both cases.

[Kinthalis]

The very notion of why these two wanted to kill their friend shows why they should not be treated as adults. It’s straight out of a 12 year old’s fan-fiction storybook.

Either they are children and should be treated as such, or they are adults and treated differently. You can’t have ti both ways.

[Marley23]

@Malthus

Sex with a child is illegal because a child cannot meaningfully consent to it.

Yes, and we’ve decided they can’t meaningfully consent because we think children can’t comprehend the act and its consequences, and they might be harmed.

Similarly, murder as a crime simply is not “harming another”.

I never said it was. I was saying that murder and sex can be treated differently because of their different consequences. I don’t think this comparison works; there’s no mens rea for sex. There’s concern about the welfare of a child.

@Kinthalis

The very notion of why these two wanted to kill their friend shows why they should not be treated as adults. It’s straight out of a 12 year old’s fan-fiction storybook.

Or a crappy reporter’s notebook, or a defense lawyer’s playbook, or the mind of a crazy person. We shouldn’t be too quick to jump to conclusions based on these kinds of reports because they often don’t pan out.

[Malthus]

@Marley23

Yes, and we’ve decided they can’t meaningfully consent because we think children can’t comprehend the act and its consequences, and they might be harmed.

Harm is immaterial. Proving the child was not harmed by underage sex will not have any effect on a conviction (though it may on sentencing).

I never said it was. I was saying that murder and sex can be treated differently because of their different consequences. I don’t think this comparison works; there’s no mens rea for sex. There’s concern about the welfare of a child.

Certainly the conseqences of two acts are different - as are (for example) the age for voting in elections, and the age for allowing people to drink booze or to drive a car. However, it seems a stretch to me to say that all of these things are fundamentally different.

It seems obvious to me at least that even though the concern in driving a car is “harm to others” while the concern in sex is “lack of consent” and the concern in voting is “harm to society” and the concern in booze is “harm to self”, they all share a fundamental similarity - and that is, ‘you are, or are not, sufficiently mature’ for ‘X’.

[Marley23]

@Malthus

Harm is immaterial. Proving the child was not harmed by underage sex will not have any effect on a conviction (though it may on sentencing).

The presumed harm is the reason children can’t give consent.

Certainly the conseqences of two acts are different - as are (for example) the age for voting in elections, and the age for allowing people to drink booze or to drive a car. However, it seems a stretch to me to say that all of these things are fundamentally different.

It seems obvious to me at least that even though the concern in driving a car is “harm to others” while the concern in sex is “lack of consent” and the concern in voting is “harm to society” and the concern in booze is “harm to self”, they all share a fundamental similarity - and that is, ‘you are, or are not, sufficiently mature’ for ‘X’.

Right, that’s the underlying idea. But when you consider the differences between sex and drinking and driving and trial as an adult, my view is that we’re not obliged to come up with a single answer: either you are mature enough for all of these things or you’re not mature enough for any of them.

[wolfpup]

As Malthus and others have already said, probably the most important principle in the treatment of children who commit crimes should be the fact that there is usually high potential for rehabilitation. It’s just that simple. It’s not that they shouldn’t be punished for serious crimes, or that the punishment should be particularly “lenient” (a subjective term if ever there was one), it’s that both the child and our society stand to benefit if there is a pragmatic focus on rehabilitation instead of this obsession with lengthy incarceration that seems to afflict American society, whether from some sense of vengeance or a misguided quest for safety.

I’m reminded of the story of a troubled young man with a history of violence who once tried to strangle a friend. Worse still, when he was at Cambridge he took a dislike to his tutor and tried to poison him. I would imagine the normal recourse would be automatic explusion and a lengthy jail term for attempted murder. Instead, Cambridge officials put him on probation and ordered him to undergo psychiatric therapy. Instead of becoming a career criminal, the young man went on to become a renowned theoretical physicist. His name was J. Robert Oppenheimer, and he later became the scientific head of the Manhattan Project.

[Marley23]

In which role he helped kill tens of thousands of people.

[wolfpup]

@Marley23

In which role he helped kill tens of thousands of people.

Well, there’s that! The truth is, though, that after the war Oppenheimer was a peace activist and advocate for nuclear arms control and non-proliferation treaties. The real warmongering asshole in that group of scientists was Edward Teller (supposedly the inspiration for the “Dr. Strangelove” character) who so opposed Oppenheimer’s post-war activities that he was instrumental in getting his security clearance revoked.

[drewtwo99]

@Little_Nemo

What’s the way to deal with a juvenile who commits murder? If you accept the argument that he shouldn’t be held accountable for the act then I’m sticking with my original statement: you’re allowing him to commit murder. There seems to be no practical difference between allowing somebody to do something and not allowing somebody to do something but taking no notice of it when they do it.

A normal twelve-year-old understand that stabbing somebody is wrong. A normal thirty-year-old understands that as well. Obviously, there are children and adults who lack this understanding and stab other people. Pretty much by definition, anyone who intentionally commits murder lacks a complete sense of right and wrong. If you accept the argument that people who have an incomplete sense of right and wrong shouldn’t be held accountable for their crimes then you have to ask why any criminal should be held responsible regardless of whether he’s a child or an adult.

I never said they shouldn’t be held accountable.

I imagine that any 12 year old that commits murder or attempts murder should be found clinically insane, and placed in a state facility for rehabilitation. This could go on indefinitely if they never are found by psychologists to be sane/rehabilitated/whatever. In essence, any 12 year old who commits murder should be treated just like someone who is found to be “innocent by reason of insanity.” They don’t just “get away” with it. They get locked away, possibly forever, and treated for their illness.

All the science I’ve seen shows that teenagers and early 20-year-olds do not and cannot fully comprehend the consequences of their actions. They make irrational decisions, even “well planned” ones that required aforethought (not just heat of the moment), that they would not have made if they had had fully developed brains. A 12 year old, no matter how well planned out and how much aforethought there was, does not and cannot commit murder in the same way that an adult can and does. A 12 year old who commits murder or attempts it is mentally ill, and should be removed from society and treated, and if rehabilitation is impossible, they should be kept in an insane asylum for ever.

(Yes I understand asylums are not a thing anymore, but I’m just using it as shorthand)

[Kenm]

Thompson and Venables. The murder of James Bulger. Wikipedia.

James Patrick Bulger (16 March 1990[1] – 12 February 1993) was a boy from Kirkby, Merseyside, England, who was murdered on 12 February 1993, at the age of two. He was abducted, tortured and murdered by two ten-year-old boys, Robert Thompson (born 23 August 1982) and Jon Venables (born 13 August 1982). . . .

[protoboard]

@Annie-Xmas

Try them as youths and put them in a youth facility. When they reach 18 or 21, let them out, proving how easy it is to get away with attempted murder.

And if they kill again?

So you don’t think spending your teen years away from your parents is a huge punishment? I admit there is a chance they could do it again but at the same time I think it’s more important to have a fair system than to keep “society” safe from one person. Those who value security over liberty will ultimately get neither.

[Grumman]

@protoboard

Those who value security over liberty will ultimately get neither.

“First they came for the cult murderers, and I did not speak out - because I was not a cult murderer.” :rolleyes:

[Cheesesteak]

@Malthus

Sex with a child is illegal because a child cannot meaningfully consent to it.

I disagree. An adult having sex with a child is illegal because the adult can unduly influence the child’s decision to consent.

Children under the age of majority do consent to sex, and that consent is generally accepted if the other participant is a similar age. You do not often hear about 14 year olds being charged with statutory rape for having sex with each other. But, if one of those kids did not consent, rape charges would be appropriate.

You can give more weight to the child’s decision making when there isn’t an adult influencing them. The big trouble is that there’s no bright line, at 5 it’s hard to claim the child knows enough to how wrong it is, but at 16, they better well know that beating someone to death with a baseball bat is just incredibly wrong.

[Malthus]

@Cheesesteak

I disagree. An adult having sex with a child is illegal because the adult can unduly influence the child’s decision to consent.

Children under the age of majority do consent to sex, and that consent is generally accepted if the other participant is a similar age. You do not often hear about 14 year olds being charged with statutory rape for having sex with each other. But, if one of those kids did not consent, rape charges would be appropriate.

You can give more weight to the child’s decision making when there isn’t an adult influencing them. The big trouble is that there’s no bright line, at 5 it’s hard to claim the child knows enough to how wrong it is, but at 16, they better well know that beating someone to death with a baseball bat is just incredibly wrong.

No, on this you are simply incorrect.

A child cannot meaningfully consent, the word of importance here being “meaningfully”. They can certainly say they want sex - even initiate it - but their apparent consent is not, legally, “meaningful” because they lack capacity.

Thought it varies by jurisdiction, Texas is typical. Cite:

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=29517

If a person under the age of 17 engages in sexual activity with anyone who is more than three years older than him or her, the adult is committing statutory rape. The law does not take into consideration whether or not the minor consented to the sexual relations, because as a minor they are legally deemed incapable of making sound decisions for themselves in regards to sexual activity. Unlike other rape convictions, force and lack of consent are not necessary factors for a statutory rape conviction.

[emphasis added]

Two children under the age of consent, typically this is not a crime (assuming they are the same age) because the statute is drafted so that it is not a crime. It has nothing to do with their “consent being accepted” because, in statutory rape cases, lack of “consent” isn’t a necessary element of the crime at all. Though lack of consent, and force, can certainly add to the seriousness of the crime.

[Malthus]

@Marley23

The presumed harm is the reason children can’t give consent.

No, it isn’t. It is lack of capacity. If presumed harm was the basis, you could lead evidence to rebut the presumption - and you can’t. Even if you were to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (thus fully reversing the usual onus) that the child was not harmed by sex, you would still be convicted of statutory rape.

Right, that’s the underlying idea. But when you consider the differences between sex and drinking and driving and trial as an adult, my view is that we’re not obliged to come up with a single answer: either you are mature enough for all of these things or you’re not mature enough for any of them.

Certainly, I’ve already said one could make an argument that different levels of maturity should be necessary for different activities. Only, such arguments tend to be extremely unconvincing, or in fact, not made at all - the age diferences are usually more the product of social history, rather than reasoned debate. For example, in some jurisdictions one can volunteer for military service at a younger age than one can legally drink booze. It is difficult to defend the notion that one is mature enough to make decisions of life or death affecting oneself, but not mature enough to make decisions as to drinking.

[Marley23]

@Malthus

No, it isn’t. It is lack of capacity.

Do you not understand that I’m talking about why our society has decided children can’t give consent?

[Malthus]

@Marley23

Do you not understand that I’m talking about why our society has decided children can’t give consent?

I understand it - but it is simply wrong.

Historically, statutory rape laws laws exist for a whole host of reasons. For example, Wikipedia mentions several. Not one of them is “because society has decided that underage sex presumably harms the child”.

Statutory rape laws are based on the premise that until a person reaches a certain age, that individual is legally incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse. Thus, the law assumes, even if he or she willingly engages in sexual intercourse, the sex is not consensual.[10] Critics argue that an age limit cannot be used to determine the ability to consent to sex, since a young teenager might possess enough social sense to make informed and mature decisions about sex, while some adults might never develop the ability to make mature choices about sex, as even many mentally healthy individuals remain naive and easily manipulated throughout their lives.[11]

Another rationale comes from the fact that minors are generally economically, socially, and legally unequal to adults. By making it illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor, statutory rape laws aim to give the minor some protection against adults in a position of power over the youth.[2]

Another argument presented in defense of statutory rape laws relates to the difficulty in prosecuting rape (against a victim of any age) in the courtroom. Because forced sexual intercourse with a minor is considered to be a particularly heinous form of rape, these laws relieve the prosecution of the burden to prove lack of consent. This makes conviction more frequent in cases involving minors.[11]

The original purpose of statutory rape laws was to protect young, unwed females from males who might impregnate them and not take responsibility by providing support for the child.[11] In the past, the solution to such problems was often a “shotgun wedding”, a forced marriage called for by the parents of the girl in question. This rationale aims to preserve the marriageability of the girl and to prevent unwanted teenage pregnancy.[10]

Historically a man could defend himself against statutory rape charges by proving that his victim was already sexually experienced prior to their encounter (and thus not subject to being corrupted by the defendant).[11] A requirement that the victim be “of previously chaste character” remained in effect in some U.S. states until as late as the 1990s.[12]

Statutory rape

Perhaps if you wish to make the argument more convincingly, you could provide something in the way of evidence for it. I realize Wikipedia is not a real source. Show me a real source that states that the purpose of statutory rape laws is because “our society has decided children can’t give consent …” because the sex would presumably harm the child.

The problem here is not my lack of understanding of your point. It is the fact you have asserted a point without any evidence and one that is, in my opinion, incorrect.

[robert_columbia]

Is your daughter a fantasy horror, or SF fangirl? Consider one of our residential treatment centers to help her grow up to be the lady she was meant to be. 1-555-BAD-GIRL.