Youth Rights - Criminal Responsibility

Great Debates
1

Whatever your position on this subject, it is a fact that in the United States, and many other parts of the world, people of differing ages have differing access to the criminal justice system.

The defence of infancy in Common Law holds that an individual under a certain age cannot be found criminally guilty due to it being presumed impossible for them to have understood that their actions caused whatever harm it was they would have been punished for had they been adults. For example, an infant, having somehow gotten its hands on a gun, and shooting its parent in the head would be subject to neither murder, nor manslaughter, nor even criminal neglegence prosecution because the courts (rightly) assume that the infant had no way of knowing that in playing with the gun, the death of the parent was a risk.

In between that age, and having full access to the criminal courts, many places have a juvinile court system. The specifics of such courts varry considerably from place to place. In some ways, the courts in the US treat juviniles with more leniency (lower caps on sentences, etc.), and in some ways some of them treat juvinilies more harshly (no access to juries).

A long-standing problem with this system is how one is classified as an “infant”, “juvinile” or an “adult”. One common choice in this is to use age lines. These lines, while simple to implement, leave much to be desired regardless of which of the underlying reasons for having such divisions one subscribes to.

If one is most concerned with the understanding of the criminal, as is the presumed case with the defence of infancy, mental competence to stand trial serves as a much more effective and accurate metric than an age line. Not that said assessment of comptentence need be particularly sophistocated in the case of actual infants.

Concerns about the possibility for reform, often cited as the reason behind so many of the differences in sentencing at the juvinile level seem to practically beg for a mental health treatment of the criminal behavior rather than a criminal justice treatment in the first place. As such, a mental health style evaluation regarding the liklihood of reoffence and treatment course would serve better this goal than drawing an age line and saying that people below it can be completely reformed, but people above it cannot.

Muddying the waters still further is the concept of trying juviniles in the adult court system. When the crime is severe enough, a juvinile will occasionally be tried “as an adult”, losing access to whatever protections their local juvinile court laws afford. This practice puts juvinile offenders in the worst of both worlds in terms of their ability to defend themselves, when it is the prosecutor, not the defence who gets to make this determination. Either they are denied the full slate of due process protections present in the adult court system, or they are denied the sentence caps of the juvinile court system, depending on the assessment of the prosecutor of the strength of his case.

Discuss:
-The reasons behind differing standards for criminals of different ages
-Alternative means of assessing the standards the accused should be held to
-Whether it is appropriate at all for criminals to be held to different standards
-The appropriateness of “trying as an adult”

2

This is not the case in my state. Prosecutors do not have the authority to make that determination. If they want to try a juvenile as an adult, they must file a petition in the Youth Court, and a hearing will be held. The juvenile is entitled to appointed counsel, and the Youth Court judge will make the final decision.

3

I think anyone who can genuinely tell the difference between right and wrong (over 10 or so) should be tried like an adult though of course kids shouldn’t be thrown in the same cell with adults.

4

I am quite aware that the specifics of implementation vary. That’s why I used the phrasing I did in the section you quoted.

5

In PA, certain violent crimes (murder, rape, etc) automatically require trial as an adult. However, the justice system here also recognizes kids have a much higher likelyhood of rehabilitation, and usually offer out of home placement/therapeutic treatment as an option. However, some kids go through the system, turn 18, do something stupid, and go to jail. It’s inevitable though.

I would argue that any kid (or adult) engaged in such activity is mentally ill and deserves at least the option of treatment (only if they are willing - if you want to refuse rot in jail then).

Not everyone can or will be rehabilitated, but too many are never given the chance.

6

Because we (society) generally hold that children lack the ability to fully be responsible for their actions.

Basing it on age is a great way to go. Is it arbitrary? Certainly, but I have yet to see a logical and viable alternative.

Depending on what those standards are, sure.

Admittedly I have a problem with the state saying that a child is not competent enough to be responsible for themselves on one hand and with the other being willing to prosecute underaged people as adults. Of course it’s possible for a child to be emancipated from their parents so there’s certainly a case to be made that you can make a child as responsible as an adult.

Odesio

7

It’s not enough to be mentally ill. I think you have to be mentally ill to the point where you are not responsible for your actions so far as the crime goes. Murder, rape, and other horrible crimes are done by people who understand what they’re doing is wrong.

8

I say there should be one standard for everything - what that standard should be I’m not sure.

9

So if someone does something stupid, we should assume they have no hope of being productive and are a monster?

Let’s talk Charles Manson, obviously he has no hopes of ever being a positive member of society. He needs to be locked away from us.

Let’s talk a kid who lived in an abusive household, was taken advantage of all through life growing up, never had any kind of positive role models or teachers to become a well rounded, healthy, functioning individual, and they make some bad choices as a result. What if spending 5 years in intensive psychological/therapeutic treatment resulted in them never being incarcerated or involved in the legal system again? If it fails, they go to jail, nothing really lost there. If they are successful, someone has been given back their life, society has gained another set of hands to help, and we don’t have to pay for the rest of their existance as taxpayers.

Someone kills their spouses lover in a fit of rage. Terrible thing, but are they a monster? Will they definitely kill again (assuming it was the first time)? I can’t answer those questions, and I doubt you can either. To assume that there is no hope is just more pessimistic than I care to be. There is already so little hope in the world, why not offer it to the people who need it most?

10

I’ve done a lot of stupid things in my life. I’ve never murdered, raped, or robbed anyone though. To answer your question, of course not. However, if competent, they should certainly be punished for their crime in some manner.

Unfortunately nobody really knows how to rehabilitate a criminal. I’m a big fan of holding people responsible for their own actions though I recognize that there may be mitigating factors involved.

Our justice system has a way to deal with that. There are different degrees of murder, for example. Killing your spouse because you walked in on her while she was in bed with your best friend is a lot different than planning in advanced to kill your wife for the insurance money. You’re right, I can’t answer the question because I don’t have a magical crystal ball with which to know the future.

You’re arguing against something I didn’t say. I simply said that that committing a heinous crime is not proof of a mental illness and that people need to be held responsible for their own actions.

11

Didn’t mean to put words in your mouth.

I agree, not necessarily proof (although everything is a mental illness these days…have you ever read the DSM IV?), but I’m also not talking illness in terms of a diagnosis persay.

Mental health is just like physical health. It’s a scale. If you eat fresh fruits and veggies, that’s healthy, but if you do that and are also a smoker, smoking is not healthy. We all have health and unhealthy mental characteristics. It’s not a black and white thing, it’s a spectrum. We’re all partly healthy and functioning and all partly fucked up in the head. It’s just the way it is. Most of us don’t let our little craziness interfere with life in general.

Someone involved in the most heinous of activities obviously does not have that luxury. They are mentally unhealthy, and most likely need assistance to try and change things, assistance they likely have not been given if we are talking about children.

Behaviors are systemic, and if a kid is raping and murdering, chances are they have been exposed those types of things in the past. Not necessarily victims, but witnesses perhaps. Studies have shown that even living in a violent neighborhood high in crime has similar psychological impacts to being a witness to domestic violence or witnessing sexual abuse of some type. There are multiple studies showing the link between witnessing anti-social behaviors first hand and an increased likelyhood of carrying out the acts. I’m not saying it causes it, but they are coorelated to each other.

I’m not saying there’s no personal responsibility, but have you ever been to the out of home placement systems? They are not fun places to be. It’s not like “Oh let’s not send them to jail and give them a cookie.” It’s more like, “Instead of federal ‘pound you in the ass’ prison, let’s give them a chance to become a more stable adult while we still consequence them.”

There have also been studies that kids and adults who are not truly criminals will be by the time they are done in jail. It is a traumatizing experience to say the least.

The younger you can try to give kids help, the more likely they are to be successful later on. Once they get into adulthood, it’s even harder. Again, some kids will refuse help, and if they choose jail, so be it. Again though, I think inmates should have a right to seek services if they desire and are abiding by the prison rules for the most part. Put power into the hands of people to make a choice to get better and move on with their lives or sit and rot. Shit, even Charles Manson still gets put up for parole and we all know he isn’t going anywhere. If he can get so many chances, why shouldn’t anyone else?

12

If some kid can be tried as an adult because they knew what they were doing is wrong, why can’t they get a drivers license at 14 because they know how to drive responsibly? Or vote because they are more informed than some Bubba in a trailer park?

Society deems unemancipated minors unfit for a wide variety of rights, often resulting in treatment and discrimination that adults would find utterly intolerable. The tradeoff is that they are also excused of a great number of responsibilities, or, if not excused, are held less accountable.

That one of these can be arbitrarily lifted and not the other is reprehensible. If we refuse to grant minors rights based on capability, knowledge, and maturity, then the idea of adding to their responsibility and accountability should be equally unlikely.

13

It should be pointed out, for the record, that even emancipated minors are denied a number of adult rights (the specifics varying by jursidiction), so even emancipation is not a remedy for this imballance.

14

I don’t think it should be called an “imbalance”. Emancipated minors gain control of their money, living and schooling choices but are still bound by the rather sensible, if somewhat arbitrary, age limits on certain activities. Just because it can be found that a child’s parents shouldn’t be running their finances doesn’t mean that a child should drive a car or vote.

That is utterly ridiculous. Because we decide a vicious murder who happens to be a child should be treated as an adult, we should somehow logically conclude that 12 year olds can drive lest we be “reprehensible” hypocrits? This is a perfect example of “foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.”

15

I’m closing this thread.

There’s nothing objectionable in the thread on its face. Were the OP anyone other than Cesario, I’d leave it open. However, its subject, the criminal responsibility of minors, is closely related to C.'s well-known views on the ability of minors to make informed decisions about sex. I warned C. to desist from any further discussion of pedophilia here:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12090763&postcount=347

I recognize the present thread doesn’t talk about pedophilia. However, the purpose of the exercise wasn’t to see how near C. could get to the line without actually crossing it, but rather to forestall any further attempts on his part to scratch his particular itch. I’m tired of this and am tempted to pull the plug. However, in the interest of fairness, I expand my previous ruling as follows:

Cesario, you are not to post anything ever again remotely related to children, sex, the law, relationships, or anything else in that in the opinion of the SDMB staff is an excuse to air your personal obsession. Furthermore, you are not to discuss this ruling or anything related to it on this board - if you have something to say to me or the staff, do so privately. If you give me the slightest excuse you’ll be warned and possibly banned without further notice.

The previous admonition to other posters about provoking or commenting about Cesario remains in effect. Please use the “report post” feature, e-mail, or other private means if you see something that merits intervention by staff. Thanks for your cooperation.