Adult Sentencing for Minors - How Young is TOO Young?

[Athena]

As many of you are aware, we currently have two front page stores regarding minors being sentenced as adults. One involves two near adult minors who beat a 7 year old to death, albeit unintentionally, it appears. The other involves a 14 year old who shoots and kills his stepfather.

These two stories hit me differently. Rather, the use of adult charges hit me differently.

How do we determine when adult charges are suitable for a minor? Well, more and more, the severity of the crime determines which brand of charges are applied. However, this logic nullifies the purpose of a separate juvenile justice system, which was created because kids do not have an adult grasp of consequence and are far more prone to impulsive behavior.

In the case involving the two 17 year olds, I wholeheartedly agree with adult sentencing. Why? Two reasons, really - not only are they already very close to the age when adult sentencing would apply anyway, but the drawn-out nature of their crime doesn't exactly make a case for impulse.

The other case, however, involved a spontaneous action provoked by an unworthy catalyst, committed by a very young person. This speaks to impulse AND an inaccurate grasp of consequence.

So much of sentencing depends on the defendant's understanding of their actions. Not only can you be found not guilty by reason of insanity, a defendant's grasp on the situation can be considered mitigating circumstance which warrants a lighter sentence. Heck, we established an entire parallel justice system for kids based on the belief that they do not understand action and consequence the way that adults do.

Now, we've got the science to prove it. Thanks to advancement in MRI technology, among other things, we now know for a fact that a significant amount of development occurs during the teenage years (http://www.preventionnetwork.org/PAM%20Page/New%20materials/Adolescent%20Brain%20Under%20Construction.pdf). Many areas of the brain are affected by this development, but changes in the prefrontal cortex, the portion of the brain responsible for things like a conscience, impulse control and emotion, is perhaps the most outwardly apparent. It is exactly why that reckless, moody stereotype exists for teenagers.

Given this information, how should we structure charging minors as adults?

[swivel]

10.

Wait. What is this thread about?

Shit, my bad. Revise my answer to 14, please.

[gprime]

I don't think that the division is one that we generally ought to have. While I understand that the justification behind it is that it allows for those less fully developed to be treated accordingly, I am not convinced that it is solid enough logic. Punishment should be the primary motivation behind any actions taken towards criminals. And, with that in mind, particular states of mental fitness would be of no consequence. While a 14 year old may not understand the consequences quite as well (though for murder I find that hard to believe), they still did the crime, and should suffer the full time.

[Dark Star]

Athena,
That is an excellent question for discussion. I am so mixed in my feelings. I look at an incident that happened near where I live...An 18 yr old boy watching a baby, becomes upset at the baby's crying and shakes the baby, baby died. I couldn't help but cry for both of them. The innocent baby, and the 18 year old boy who did something in a split second, and it turned horrid, and now will affect his whole life.
For me, I guess it would have to be the nature of the crime. The boy that beat his mother to death, in this instance, yes he was close enough to be an adult, he should sit in a mental institution (a lockdown facility of course) for the rest of his life. He definitely needs handled with medication. I recommend masses amounts of marijuana smoking, and some excellent prescription drugs.;)
Shit this made me think of a story from awhile back, and I'll have to research it now, because it has been so long. Does anyone remember the two English boys who murdered a toddler. Took him from the mall, beat him up, killed him and left him on the tracks. I believe these boys got harsh sentences....and I remember thinking, my god...children killing children, what will these boys do or feel when they "grow up".
Sensitive subject, but I still feel like it depends on the child's age and the crime committed. Every case needs to be looked at individually.
Peace

[kakihara]

You can find that case here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger) HP.

[Athena]

I don't think that the division is one that we generally ought to have. While I understand that the justification behind it is that it allows for those less fully developed to be treated accordingly, I am not convinced that it is solid enough logic. Punishment should be the primary motivation behind any actions taken towards criminals. And, with that in mind, particular states of mental fitness would be of no consequence. While a 14 year old may not understand the consequences quite as well (though for murder I find that hard to believe), they still did the crime, and should suffer the full time.

You think so, huh? It's a very hardline perspective, one that I can certainly appreciate. However, this logic suggests that even mitigating circumstances should not be considered, does it not? No more insanity pleas, etc.?

I'm legitimately up in the air on it, currently, despite much thought.

[gprime]

You think so, huh? It's a very hardline perspective, one that I can certainly appreciate. However, this logic suggests that even mitigating circumstances should not be considered, does it not? No more insanity pleas, etc.?

I'm legitimately up in the air on it, currently, despite much thought.

I would in fact abolish things such as insanity pleas. Now, I still buy into things like self-defense of justifiable homicide. But short of that, where the actions can be justified, I want no mercy.

[Athena]

I would in fact abolish things such as insanity pleas. Now, I still buy into things like self-defense of justifiable homicide. But short of that, where the actions can be justified, I want no mercy.

Hmmm...I can dig it.

However, I do foresee an issue with combining the criminally insane with general population in prison. How would you accommodate this, or would you? Would some prisons simply beef up their psych wards?

Also, would you still support different housing facilities for minors? They couldn't very well be combined with adult general population.

[swivel]

I would in fact abolish things such as insanity pleas. Now, I still buy into things like self-defense of justifiable homicide. But short of that, where the actions can be justified, I want no mercy.

I wouldn't abolish insanity pleas, I would just change the method we use to handle them after they are sentenced.

Right now, people claim insanity to stay out of jail, and serve easier time in a mental institution, and serve less time overall. What we should do is try and convict for GUILT or INNOCENCE first. Sanity does not come into the picture. We just need to determine if this human being committed the act (not why). Then, we sentence them appropriate to the crime and their priors. Only after the sentencing phase do we give the person the ability to claim insanity. If they are found mentally defunct, we give them appropriate (but not lavish) treatment. Once they are "better", we put them in jail and allow them to BEGIN their sentence. Their time in therapy does not count as punishment. This is a reward from a just and civil society.

What you would see from this is that 99.99% of insanity claims (which are fucking bullshit), would go away. Leaving you with just those that are completely bonkers, and need to be in a mental institution anyway, and will stay there forever because they will never get "better".

The system is flawed when you can say, "I'm fucking crazy", and you get rewarded for it.

[gprime]

Hmmm...I can dig it.

However, I do foresee an issue with combining the criminally insane with general population in prison. How would you accommodate this, or would you? Would some prisons simply beef up their psych wards?

Also, would you still support different housing facilities for minors? They couldn't very well be combined with adult general population.

I would split the population by age, but I wouldn't use 18 as the point of division. I think that any line would be somewhat arbitrary, but realizing that some division makes sense, I would split it between those under 16, and those 16 or over.

The mentally ill, I would probably split them out too, but only after rigorous screening, to ensure that nobody is "faking" it to get into a safer prison.

[Athena]

I would split the population by age, but I wouldn't use 18 as the point of division. I think that any line would be somewhat arbitrary, but realizing that some division makes sense, I would split it between those under 16, and those 16 or over.

You find 16 to be...less arbitrary than 18? Any reason in particular?

[gprime]

You find 16 to be...less arbitrary than 18? Any reason in particular?

No, not less arbitrary. Any cutoff is arbitrary, but I think 16 is a better number. It is the age of consent in most states, the age to drive, and the age at which one can drop out from school. The fact is, we treat 16 year olds as being essentially adults, minus the ability to drink and smoke. And frankly, there have been enough violent 16 and 17 year old thugs that I don't think they can remain in the same group as 11 and 12 year olds.