Do you support the legal practice of charging children who comit horrible crimes as adults?

[Stinky The Clown]

I do NOT defend the crimes. I do NOT make excuses for them. I do NOT wish to coddle criminals.

I AM concerned about two issues:

~ Children

~The blood vengeance that seems to permeate our culture and cause us to be so harsh, even with children. Who recalls the Florida 8 year old charged as an adult with murder a few years back?

I posted about this yesterday: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002906394

I have posted about this in the past, similar to my thread, above, whenever I hear about such incidents.

Today I'd like to see where others on DU are with respect to this issue. Obviously, if you'd care to comment or discuss, that would be great. But please at least share your view with a poll click.

23 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	4 (17%)
	No
	16 (70%)
	Other
	3 (13%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[lunatica]

1. No. I don't.

I just realized you can see who voted what by clicking on the show usernames at the bottom of the poll.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

2. No. Years of therapy at the most. nt

[lumpy]

3. Children should be treated as individuals and circumstances not according to strict penalties.

Every effort should be made to do what is best for the child as well as society.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. I had postulated that in the thread I linked in the OP.

The second half of that OP talked about alternatives and discretionary latitude.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. An ethical society does not do this.

[SoutherDem]

5. I voted other.

I read your other OP. I understand your concerns. You referred to both an 8 and 12 year old. I would say 3-11 always a juvenile. But for 12-18 case by case evaluation. This would not only be the choice of a prosecutor up for election so they need to look hard on crime but that of psychologist, social workers, and the judge. I just don't know if it can be a yes or no question.

[Xyzse]

6. No, just because...

There is too much fuck ups in this method.
I can understand wanting to do so with really heinous crime, particularly when it involves mixtures of pre-meditated versions of murder, rape and cannibalism. However, a majority of it, especially when it involves theft, peer pressure and so forth, I don't think so.

Besides, when such a method is provided, where children are charged as adults, it seems court systems use it far more widely than necessary, where it becomes the rule rather than the exception.

[Stinky The Clown]

14. Your final sentence/paragraph says a LOT about what's going on.

[Xyzse]

17. That's why I am against it.

I mean, in certain ways to me it makes sense to do with what I mentioned as heinous crimes, but it gets utilized far more widely than it should. So I rather they come up with something different.

It is also why I am against mandatory sentencing guidelines because they don't make sense and the punishment does not fit the crime.

When small time drug users get jailed far longer than a murderer or rapist, there is something wrong with the system.

[HappyMe]

7. It depends on the age of the kid.

[slackmaster]

8. Charging is one thing. Sentencing is a different issue.

[Stinky The Clown]

15. Can you expand on that?

Really. If there is a different sentencing structure for kids charged as adults (if that's what you're suggesting) then why bother to charge as an adult. Maybe we charge as Children, then as Adolescents, and finally as adults?

[slackmaster]

41. It varies by state. There are thresholds that determine who can and cannot...

...Be sentenced to adult prisons, whether the person can be transferred to an adult facility at a certain age, etc. It's a patchwork of laws, which makes the question you posed subject to context not specified.

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. There is a reason why there are age of consent laws. There is a reason why a 12-year-old can't buy

alcohol or drive a car. There is a reason why a 13-year-old can't just quit school and get a job. There is a reason why sane and rational people don't believe that a 12, 13 or 14-year-old child can be charged as an adult.

[Stinky The Clown]

16. I agree with you

[backtoblue]

43. If a child can be charged as an adult, then children of that age should have the right to vote.

If a 12 year old can make a cognitive decision to hurt someone than who's to say that child or another 12 year old doesn't have the basic cognitive functions to make an informed decision to vote? It's ridiculous that we would put 8 to 14 year olds on a stand and treat them as if they were grown. That is probably the only time in that child's entire life that they've been treated as an adult.

[GarroHorus]

10. Other

I can see the point on a case by case basis for teenagers of about 15 and up, but I think it should be used only in extraordinary circumstances and the bar to be able to charge a teenager as an adult should be kept very very high.

For example, in most cases when a child takes another person's life, they should not be tried as an adult, however, should a child engage in a shooting rampage on campus, killing and injuring numerous people, they should be tried as an adult.

[Stinky The Clown]

19. Not trying to be snarky or agumentative, but does the number of dead matter?

The manner of death?

The place of the murder?

Again, not tyring to be argumentative, but what is the criteria you're suggesting?

[GarroHorus]

32. On a case by case basis, yes.

A shooting rampage is planned mass murder. Definitely an adult decision except in cases of insanity.

So again, it would be very rarely applied.

[Stinky The Clown]

35. I'm not sure that's an "adult decision"

The issue with kids is their perception/cognition of actions as compared to adults.

Most children, for example, can't really understand the finality of death. Given that immature understanding, how can the decision they make be "adult"?

Again, not arguing.

[GarroHorus]

37. I am 100% certain premeditated murder is an adult decision

Furthermore, I would not hesitate to find a minor guilty as an adult if they were tried as an adult and the prosecution proved premeditated murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

Of course there is no death penalty in my state. I would never support trying a minor as an adult with the death penalty in play.

[Stinky The Clown]

49. One can premeditate and STILL be incapable of understanding the crime.

Children are unable to understand the finality of death. In that they are not able to understand, they are unable to premeditate on the same level as an adult.

[GarroHorus]

56. For most children, correct.

For a fifteen or sixteen year old, I don't agree.

Unless they meet the legal definition of insanity, I'd still have to go along with trying them as an adult.

[ieoeja]

11. "No" is easily winning. Yet, in every thread about such a crime ...

... DU howls for the child to be locked up forever. Or worse. Maybe not for an 8 or 12 year old. But certainly by the time they're 15 or so.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. Yes, that's quite a phenomenon, isn't it?

I don't understand it.

[BoWanZi]

24. Showing usernames in poll results skews results far more than anonymous results

I have not liked how the new DU shows the usernames of polls now. That to me skews the results far more than anonymous results.

A lot of people who are voting will not vote now since they don't want their choice to be made public.

I imagine that a LOT of more moderate DU members will want to vote yes but won't because they don't want to be branded as republicans or something since the yes choice would be much more akin to a conservative viewpoint.

[notadmblnd]

34. I don't believe that is true. Democrats tend to be independent thinkers

and don't usually succumb to peer pressure. Seriously, why would I care what a bunch of anonymous internet posters thought about my views? I'm not saying that there isn't some popular clicks here that tend to agree on everything and express their displeasure if you're not one of them, but I don't believe that there is anyone that is going to stalk you or hunt you down for not seeing an issue in the same light. If someone doesn't particularly like the views you express but you haven't said anything to earn yourself an x-tra large pizza with the toppings of your choice- your are more likely to be put on ignore by these individuals. Peer pressure and following the flock is generally more of a republican thing, I think

[Iris]

50. But they aren't anonymous when they are posting to string up the 8 year olds, are they? n/t

[Cairycat]

18. I voted yes. There are some crimes that warrant that.

Nineteen years ago, a friend of ours was brutally stabbed to death in her home by a young woman (14, but she turned 15 shortly after the crime took place) who was a complete stranger to her. My friend was stabbed with a knife 23 times by someone who had never met her, whose only contact with my friend was my friend letting her into her house earlier that day to use the phone.

The teen is now in her mid thirties. She has never expressed any real remorse for the killing. Her current sentence is life without the possibility of parole (Iowa does not have the death penalty). There are people trying to make it so that she and others who committed truly heinous crimes while minors can be eligible for parole.

Personally, I am very glad the young woman has to wake up every day of her life and remember why she is not free. I think it would be a real slap in the face to my friend's family if the young woman had a chance for parole. I might feel differently had the young woman ever expressed remorse or even the knowledge of how much her killing my friend hurt those left behind. But maybe not.

I am against the death penalty in any and all circumstances, and I am glad that the young woman isn't on death row. But I don't think she ever deserves a shot at freedom.

[Stinky The Clown]

21. Please go to the thread I linked in my OP and read the second half of it . . . . .

. . . . . would that play into your thinking about your friend's murderer's fate?

I agree with you that it was an awful, inexcusable, inexplicable crime. There are no easy answers.

[Logical]

25. I 100% think you are wrong. You want revenge, not justice. n-t

[Cairycat]

46. That is a possibility, I admit. But the lack

of remorse on the young woman's part shows that she has not learned anything from her imprisonment and so is still a danger to society. Until she does show that she fully understands all the implications of the horrible act she committed, I don't think she should have a chance for freedom.

I understand that the mind works differently in children before or just beginning puberty, and perhaps a date certain after which parole could be considered would be acceptable. Parole should not be granted, though, if the person has not been rehabilitated. After early puberty, it becomes more and more likely that a person can understand the consequences of their actions, and that a person could change into someone better. But with people who commit such atrocities, I think extreme caution would be needed before granting parole.

[Mojorabbit]

58. There are sociopaths in the population

I am ambivalent about this and the age matters as well as the crime.

[Bake]

20. Depends on the crime and the age of the offender.

Hard to make a bright line rule.

Bake

[Spider Jerusalem]

22. My answer to that is a qualified "no"

It depends on the age of the child and the nature of the crime. Are they 8, or 15? An 8 year old charged with murder shouldn't be tried as an adult. They should be sentenced to custody in a youth detention centre and to mandatory psychological/psychiatric evaluation and treatment and then on reaching the age of legal majority (18) evaluated and considered for release. This is a more humane and sensible way to deal with such things than "lock them up forever", really.

[BoWanZi]

23.

[RZM]

26. It all depends on the circumstances

There's a lot of gray area. I would have no problem trying a 16-year old mass murderer as an adult. But a 10 year old who kills their playmate? Probably not.

Maybe a useful marker would be whether or not the child has hit puberty (which different children hit at different ages).

[CBGLuthier]

27. So long as we agree a child is someone under the age of 13 or so and not 17.

I think no child 12 or under should be charged as anadult and more than a few up to 15 or so but around 16 I start to expect them not to do horrible things.

[jberryhill]

28. These are case-by-case determinations

[Stinky The Clown]

31. In the thread linked in the OP, I wrote this:

So what to do? The juvenile laws hold that they be released at some age/date certain. I guess because of this, prosecutors find it better to charge them as an adult and then throw the book at them. What's next? Executing them?

How about this?

How about if we change the rules for juveniles? How about if, for certain crimes, like homicide, for instance, we allow them to be held beyond that age/date certain? How about allowing them to be treated in a mental facility until "cured?"

My point is, let's create a way to hold a person who commits a crime as a child until they are no longer a danger to themselves or society? I can even accept that, at some age/date certain, the child can be reevaluated, and based on their progress, or lack thereof, have their sentence changed to an adult sentence. I would also like to see the age at which they must be released raised. It is usually 18 or 21. How about if it were 25? Or even 30? For kids who go to juvie for lesser crimes, I don't see any particular need for changes.

I think it preserves the notion of "child" but allows discretion at a number points along the way. The list of crimes to which such rules might apply would need to be defined. I mentioned homicide, but it could include more, like rape . . . . maybe even being a habitual offender. I'm okay with that as long as it is rational and not vengeful.

[99Forever]

29. Too many variables for me to give a blanket ...

... opinion. Actual age? Nature of the crime. The perpetrator's history, and other factors that might come to bear. I just don't see a one size fits all answer.

[sarisataka]

30. It should be on a case by case basis

it seems many gangs like to use shooters in the 15-17 range knowing if they get caught they are often charged as juveniles. It helps keep the records of the adults shorter as they would be looking at much longer sentences for previous crimes.

One thing which may help is if an adult is charged with a crime, any juvenile history may be used in the sentencing instead of giving a clean slate when you turn 21.

[Stinky The Clown]

33. I could go along with a limited version of your final paragraph.

The nature of the juvenile crimes and the nature of the adult crime to which such a record would be added need to be defined. I would - JUST as an example - hate to see a guy busted for pot possession go to jail for life as a three time loser because of two juvie pot busts.

[sarisataka]

40. Agreed

Perhaps limit it to violent crimes or felony only.

Youthful stupidity can be left behind.

[DrewFlorida]

36. I voted other because.

I don't think the format of this poll serves much valid use.
I think there is far too much gray area to have an either or poll.
If I had to choose one or the other I would choose "YES" due to the fact that there would be some instances in which I would agree that a minor should be charged as an adult, however those instances are very very few and for most practicle purposes my real intention is closer to no.

This poll is indicative of many questions put to the public in the political arena, where it is only postulated that there are two choices. And when choices are made from the only two choices available, generalizations are then turned into bedrock points of view, which limits both sides ability to slove important problems.

Once we have a poll which says x number of people believe yes, or x number of people belive no, then people start to draw conclusions which lack thorough understanding, and for the most part contribute nothing to finding intelligent effective solutions to problems.

Sincerely,
Andrew

[LadyHawkAZ]

38. Depends on both their age and the crime committed

I would argue that there is a large difference in cognitive ability between a 12 year old and a 17 year old. But BOTH factors need to be carefully considered, not just "how brutal was the crime" or "how young the child is".

ETA someone upthread brought in the issue of past criminal behavior, and that should probably be a consideration as well.

[backtoblue]

39. no, no, and no

There is a reason that the legal drinking, smoking, gambling, rated R movies, and so forth age prohibit children from partaking in them - they are not mature enought to handle the effects of being subjected to such things.

[LanternWaste]

42. There are legal circumstances in which a juvenile may be emancipated and thus, for many purposes...

There are legal circumstances in which a juvenile may be emancipated and thus, for many purposes, treated as an adult. However, looking closer into this practice, one finds out that age (and age alone) restricts that same emancipated 17 years old from buying liquor, or work as a dealer in a casino. Thus, we are forced to conclude that regardless of the minor's age and circumstances, we still create arbitrary distinctions between minors and adults. If we do this for something as socially benign as drinking, I believe it would only be ethically consistent to apply this to more serious matters, including crime.

For the most part, I believe that adolescents and children should be tried as such-- in the venue of Juvenile Courts. "The system sends too many children with good chances of rehabilitation to adult court, while pushing aside and acquitting children early on the road in crime instead of giving counseling, support, and accountability..." (writer and journalist Edward Humes)

I believe that when it comes to crimes committed by juveniles, There are no valid "Pros or Cons" to try the juvenile as an adult. The juvenile must be afforded the ability to benefit from the incarceration, and be given the opportunity to reform.

[AJTheMan]

44. Any person under the age of 18 should not face life imprisonment or the death penalty.

I believe that constitutes as cruel and unusual punishment. As for charging children, I believe they should be sent to psychiatric centers to determine their mental health and come to a conclusion as to why a child would ever do such a thing.

[mike_c]

45. most criminal justice is socially sanctioned revenge....

Not one of our nobler values. I think our entire approach to crime and justice is wrong-- and the fact that after thousands of years of punishing people for committing crimes they still commit them supports the notion that it's ineffective at deterring crime. But we still do it, because we want revenge. In that context, your OP essentially asks whether we should exact equally harsh revenge upon young children as we do upon adults.

No.

[Shankapotomus]

47. Absolutely not!

If someone doesn't have the full freedoms of an adult, namely where they can live and what they can do with their life, they shouldn't bear the full punishment of an adult. Absolutely not. If you're a minor in a situation with an adult parent where you don't have the freedom to leave the parent who is putting you under stress and then react violently when you can't take it anymore, why should you be charged as an adult if you didn't have the adult choice to leave the situation?

No way. I say, up until 18, the parent is responsible for the behavior of their child. If a child is responsible for their behavior there is absolutely no incentive for a bad parent to be anything other than a bad parent. It leaves wide open the possibility of a sadistic parent driving their child to insanity and to commit a violent act and with the parent getting off scott free.

[NightWatcher]

48. My faith in DU restored...No is winning

60% of DU wouldnt agree that water is wet

[littlewolf]

51. I voted other

it depends on the age ... 16 and 17 year olds by law are children ...
however they are able to premeditate ... and they are old enough
to understand actions and consequences ....
so I guess I am opening my self up for flaming ....

[Upton]

52. Not in my case..I agree with you

It's why I voted "other" as well..

[Stinky The Clown]

53. They're not old enough to understand all consequences

Only some.

[Live and Learn]

54. Absolutely not.

If the laws are to lax for juveniles, change them but trying them as adults when they aren't makes a mockery of the system.

[stevenleser]

55. Other: In general, I do not support charging people under the age of 18 as adults.

But there are exceptions for certain 16 and 17 year olds. Anything under that though is just too young.

[FedUpWithIt All]

57. An unwavering no.

Children are NOT adults and therefore should not be tried as adults. Simple.

The reason they are often charged as adults is because the courts cannot legally bind over most children past 18 if they are tried in a juvenile court.

The laws need fixed to protect these kids. There should be a juvenile exception for cases like murder so these kids are not forced into an adult system.

[FarCenter]

59. 13 and above may be charged as an adult unless there is some mental incapacity

By the age of 13 (which is almost double the canonical age of reason) a youth can understand that crimes such as murder, kidnapping, robbery, assault and battery, etc. are moral wrongs that are against that law, and that the law provides for corresponding penalties.

Youths of age 13 should be given the responsibilities of an adult, and at age 18 they should be given the privileges of an adult, provided that they have lived up to their responsibilities.

Children under age 13, should not be charged as adults.

[Douglas Carpenter]

60. do you believe the age of consent should be 13?

If a thirteen-year old youth can understand that crimes such as murder, kidnapping, robbery, assault and battery, etc. are moral wrongs that are against that law then surely they must be capable of consenting to a sexual relationship with someone of any age.

Or is possible that a 13-year-old does have some understanding of the moral and legal problems of serious crimes and some understanding of the meaning of a sexual encounter - but their understanding and their responsibility for their actions is still heavily compromised by the biological changes taking place during puberty as well as the far-from-complete development of nerve fibers that control impulse and regulate higher emotions like empathy.

I think there are very solid reasons why most people do not believe a 13-year-old has either a developed ability to consent to a sexual relationship or to be held to an adult level of responsibility for their actions. Their chemistry, their biology and their neurology to say nothing of their socialization into society simply is nowhere near an adult level of culpability.

[FarCenter]

61. No, the age of consent should be 18

Consenting to sex is an adult privilege.

[Douglas Carpenter]

62. well the basis for why there are age of consent laws in the same basis as why someone at that age

are not charged as adults. The same biological and sociological factors that prevent them from having a sound ability to consent for sex are the same factors that compromise their responsibility for their actions when it comes to crimes. If a child of 13 is fully responsible in the adult sense for crimes then there is no reason why they can't consent for sex, purchase alcohol or decide to quit school and look for a job. But society has decided that they are simply too young at that age. Science tells us that their biological and neurological development is simply not there yet.

[FarCenter]

63. Consenting to sex, forming contracts with other adults, voting, etc. are more complex

Understanding that it is wrong and unlawful to kill, rob, kidnap, steal, assault, etc. are basic, simple things that can be expected of a 13 year old.

Consenting to sex, buying real estate with a mortgage, analysing candidates positions and chosing one to vote for, etc. are complex things that a 13 year old cannot be expected to fully understand.

[Liberal_in_LA]

64. kick

[rug]

65. Not unless you give 8 year olds the vote.

[Spirochete]

66. Not on a "one size fits all" basis

but rather, on an individual case-by-case basis. Otherwise, no