Recent scientific evidence shows that a human brain continues growing until age 25. Until then axons and dendrites continue to grow and the myelin sheath is not fully developed to allow their growth. (Sorry, I do not have the link to that statement which I read in a journal, but here’s a similar link, which does not give those specifics: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/253786/new_studies_shows_human_brain_reaches_pg2.html?cat=70:
In view thereof, should we continue to construe these younger individuals as adult criminals and sentence them accordingly? Certainly, IMHO, they should not be given the death sentence. Since it can be argued they are not fully responsible due to their incomplete neural development, should they even be considered criminals?
The difficulty comes in how we define responsibility. And as our understanding of the brain advances, this will become more of a problem.
What about an adult whose impulse control system did not develop correctly? Or if we find an aggression gene? Do they have diminished responsibility?
It seems to me the line drawn by the legal system between a juvenile crime and an adult one is somewhat arbitrary anyway.
Nevertheless, all crimes and punishments are not equal, nor does the punishment necessarily match the crime.
Like Mijin states, the more we try to involve a scientific viewpoint in understanding impulse, the less trying to quantify punishment makes sense. It could help on the rehabilitation end, but the punishment should fit the crime and the individual’s history. It’s the best we can do.
That’s ridiculous-making exceptions for the mentally handicapped and the like starting from the age of 16, criminals should be treated and punished like adults.
Well, yes, it would. Then we could legally allow minors who are mentally adult to leave home, enter into contracts, marry, drive, drink, and have sex. Very possibly in that order.
Given that we have a bright line in law for recognizing adulthood in many other things that have far less of a lifetime repurcussion than going to jail for life or being executed, I’m fine with the law drawing a bright line for criminal responsibility as well, and I wish it would.
I don’t know what purpose of “justice” is served by treating criminals differently based on age.
But that said, I don’t know what “justice” even means, or what a justice system should set out to accomplish, so there ya go. It certainly doesn’t include execution in my book. Hell, I’m not even a big fan of the system of law in general so maybe I should just bow out of this one.
The only rationalization I can see for justice/criminal punishment is to mitigate criminal activity by purpose of setting an example. If you want to partake in social freedoms, you have to respect and abide by the laws established, or else you’re subject to a verdict by your peers, and/or the sentence dealt you by the judge.
And, of course, to remove those who are a real danger to others from the world at large.
That’s where I think a jury of peers should really come into play. Before they declare their verdict, I feel the severity (juvenile or adult) of the sentencing should fall on them, then let the judge follow suit.
A significant number of violent criminals have some kind of cognitive impairment. There are also factors like low activity MAO-A genes in combination with childhood maltreatment that increase the likilihood of anti-social behaviour. Once you start focusing on those factors you could argue that reduces the culpability of some of those people too?
I don’t like the idea of treating people under the age of 18 as adults when they break the law, but as children the rest of the time. Either they are children, or they are adults, and that needs to be defined much more strictly than it is now. It’s like when people talk about how you can go to war at 18, but you can’t buy a beer or a lottery ticket. If you are old enough to be tried as an adult, you should be treated as an adult with regard to everything else. I think 18 is a fine line for all of these things.
Well the first thing you have to ask if the primary purpose of incarceration is punishment or just a way to protect the general public from people with poor impulse control. After all the purpose of habitual criminal statutes is identify people that show little tendency to reform and the only way to protect the general public it to lock them up.
Well, the purpose could be deterrence: I may lack the moral maturity/risk assessment skills of an adult, but I might be deterred from behaving in immoral and dangerous ways by the likelihood of a criminal sanction. Or the purpose could in fact be more or less educational/developmental; the development of my moral faculties might be assisted, or my weak moral appreciation might be focused, by the sending of a strong social signal that the behaviour is immoral. Or something similar for my risk assessment skills.
Precisely because there exists a class of people who are permitted to drive, marry, drink etc and whose skills for handling these activities safely and responsibly are not fully developed, we need to reinforce the factors which might lead them to behave responsibly, by sending clear signals as to what is permitted and what is not, and offering appropriate incentives/disincentives for safe behaviour.
The point is, we can treat crime by the under-25s (say) as a serious matter, while at the same time not treating it as a long-term problem affecting the individuals concerned. Provided they survive, most of them will grow up. We would do best to avoid sanctions which discourage growing up (like sending people to prison) or which would label or otherwise adversely affect people well beyond the time in which we might hope they would have grown up.
The suggestion above that it would be good if there were tests for “mental adulthood” is an interesting one, but I think people are missing the point. The likely effect of such tests is not that it would show a large class of people under 18 with the mental and moral development to drive safely, drink responsibly, leave home, marry, own a handgun, avoid criminality, etc, but rather that it would show a significant class of people between 18 and, say, 25 who lacked that development. What is the appropriate reaction to that? Restrict the leaving home, driving, drinking, marrying etc of a large proportion of young adults? Is that practicable? And, if it is practicable, are we willing to make the social changes that that would involve?
Theoretically, the primary purpose of incarceration is reformation. The idea is to reform a person’s thinking and way of life. Repeat criminals, admittedly, probably are not reformable and must be incarcerated for the safety of the public. A minor (or, actually, anyone under 25) given to quick impulse due to lack of development of his brain may commit a rash act. He definitely is reformable. In fact, after his brain completely develops, he wouldn’t think of doing that again, perhaps. Would capital punishment be the proper sanction for that person? Would even throwing him into jail with hardened criminals, where he would face possible sexual abuse, proper? If a person is tried and convicted as a minor, he is entitled to be released upon reaching majority. So why do we try some as minors and other as adults where they are all mnors? Some acts seem so revolting that trying them as adults appears to be the proper punishment, but the purpose of incarcerating them is not punishment but reform.
Often after a minor is jailed, he becomes a hardened criminal, and not reformed, due to association with such people. Many of them are subject to sexual abuse. So is incarceration the proper sanction for a young person who committed one dastardly act due to lack of control over his impulses caused by his very youth?