CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
If a 13 year old is treated like a child in every other aspect of their life, why should they be treated like an adult in only this one?
I understand the visceral disgust upon hearing about young children committing terrible crimes, but there is a reason we restrict the abilities of minors to drive, drink, work, enlist, get tattooed, and so on; because we recognize they are children and their ability to regulate their actions and exercise restraint and forethought are not fully developed. By no means should they 'get away' with their crimes, but minors should be tried as minors and adults should be tried as adults.
When it comes to how the law treats minors, it is black and white except in this one respect. A person who is 17 years, 364 days, and 23 hours old is a minor, no question about it as far as legislation is concerned. Until they hit 18, they are not afforded any of the privileges reserved for adults. There is the obvious exception of emancipated minor, but they are legally considered adults and thus should be treated as such.
A 13-year-old has never operated under the expectations and pressures of an adult, so they have not developed adult capabilities. Even if they are preternaturally intelligent, teenagers and younger have a notoriously poor ability to accurately predict and understand the consequences of their actions, and only more life experience can fix this. It is unfair to expect them to act like adults when they have never been treated like one. If 13-year-olds were expected to act like adults in other areas of their lives, then I think a case-by-case possibility of a death penalty is something to consider. Until then, it is not.
Specifically regarding sociopathy: unless trying a minor as a minor precludes mandated therapy and treatment alongside punishment, I see no problem with trying sociopathic minors accordingly.
Even if they are preternaturally intelligent, teenagers and younger have a notoriously poor ability to accurately predict and understand the consequences of their actions
I do hope you are making a general rather than a universal statement?
If a 13 year old is treated like a child in every other aspect of their life, why should they be treated like an adult in only this one?
I understand the visceral disgust upon hearing about young children committing terrible crimes, but there is a reason we restrict the abilities of minors to drive, drink, work, enlist, get tattooed, and so on; because we recognize they are children and their ability to regulate their actions and exercise restraint and forethought are not fully developed. By no means should they 'get away' with their crimes, but minors should be tried as minors and adults should be tried as adults.
If a 13 year old is treated like a child in every other aspect of their life, why should they be treated like an adult in only this one?
Are you really trying to compare a child choosing simple daily activities to murder?
If you don't know, murder is actually a big deal, it is taking the life of another human being.
there is a reason we restrict the abilities of minors to drive, drink, work, enlist, get tattooed
No, only government restricts the abilities of minors to drive, drink, work enlist and get tattooed. Remember, our society is based on laws, laws that permitted slavery and segreation because it was the law. People tend to follow the law.
It really should be up to the parents and the 13 year old. If they both seem uncomfortable about any, then it is best to wait. If the teen wants a drink, but the parent says no, yet if the child really wants a drink, he will pursue it even if it breaks the law. So, instead of nanny laws, it is best to leave it to parents.
because we recognize they are children and their ability to regulate their actions and exercise restraint and forethought are not fully developed.
Which is best to children consult with their parents, not the government's permission.
minors should be tried as minors and adults should be tried as adults.
No, basically, you are suggesting that murder for minors is acceptable and tolerable. Years ago, I heard that 16 year killed girlfriend by shooting her 12 times, he only got 8 years in juvenile hall. Is that your definition of justice for murder for minors? Apparently.
Murder is still a "really big deal" but does that mean you execute a 13 year old who is not done mentally developing.
The reason we don't let minors drink is because it is harmful to developing bodies, driving is a meticulous task that requires the responsibility and mental capacity that developing children tend not to have. I might want to have a drink, but I'm not of legal drinking age, I respect that, you say people tend to follow the law, and then you directly contradict yourself by saying if a child wants to have a drink, they will pursue it. You can't have it both ways. Laws set up the way we as a society agree to handle ourselves for the common good with respect for rights observed.
You say that parents know best, but tell me, how many parents would you trust to allow a child a firearm in Over-the-Rhine, Cincinnati Ohio? Ya, I don't even feel safe there as it is! Lest a parent trust their children to bare arms in a poverty ridden hole of crime! A child's passions are more easily flared than an adults, crime rates would shoot up for a period of time before falling down to a level higher if not much higher than the current one.
Yes that is justice, if your idea of justice is imprisoning a 7 year old for life or executing him/her for murdering?
OH! Lethal injection time for children? Goody! You want your government to kill children? Imprison them for life? This is justice? Apparently. Good Game Gentlemen.
Are you really trying to compare a child choosing simple daily activities to murder?
They differ in severity, but all a person's actions are based on the choices they make, and the choices one makes are influenced by their maturity and experience, as well as how they are expected to act. A person that is never expected to act with the restraint and maturity of an adult is probably not going to act like that.
If you don't know, murder is actually a big deal, it is taking the life of another human being.
Is the only way you can argue your point by pretending I don't think murder is a big deal? Please.
No, only government restricts the abilities of minors to drive, drink, work enlist and get tattooed. Remember, our society is based on laws, laws that permitted slavery and segreation because it was the law. People tend to follow the law.
By we, I was referring to the US as a whole. The government does not have agents on every corner; you said yourself people tend to follow the law. There does not appear to be widespread disagreement with the age limit laws. Not to imply that this alone makes them valid, but it does not make them invalid, either.
If the teen wants a drink, but the parent says no, yet if the child really wants a drink, he will pursue it even if it breaks the law. So, instead of nanny laws, it is best to leave it to parents.
Because people break the law, the law should not be instated?
No, basically, you are suggesting that murder for minors is acceptable and tolerable.
Oh, yeah, definitely. I love murder and I want to see more people do it, kids especially. Seriously, can't get enough of it.
Years ago, I heard that 16 year killed girlfriend by shooting her 12 times, he only got 8 years in juvenile hall. Is that your definition of justice for murder for minors? Apparently.
Firstly, what needs to happen to this criminal in order for you to feel that justice for murder has been served? How many years would you suggest?
You could fill in 8 with pretty much any number of years and the sentiment would be the same, because you are appealing to emotion. No amount of time that a perpetrator can spend in jail will undo the damage of their crimes, especially not when it comes to murder.
At such young ages, people change quickly and dramatically, and I am willing to bet the man released from jail was very different from the teenager who went in. If what he has been through has ensured he will never hurt anyone like that again, then the job has been done. Maybe 8 years was sufficient for this, and maybe it wasn't, but the same uncertainty is attached to every prison sentence, regardless of length.
If a child murders someone, even if he's 13, we should recognize that he is beyond just any ordinary 13 year old.
Sociopath children are still sociopaths. They need to be omitted as criminally insane. Not just juveniles with problems. People need to understand how dangerous sociopaths (now known as anti-socials) really are.
In general, there's a certain point where we have to cut the bullshit and understand that kids can be criminals as well.
But, keep in mind that I believe in rehab for some crimes instead of punishment.
side note: we treat children differently from adults because on the most part we understand that children are inferior to adults. but there are times when children can do extraordinary things and the idea of them as an innocent child should be nullified.
This statement seems entirely antithetical to your overall position.
and action.
The law cannot consider one a juvenile for one crime, and an adult for another. To make it so would make a mockery of the law.
If a child murders someone, even if he's 13, we should recognize that he is beyond just any ordinary 13 year old.
We submit that it is not the duty of the law to judge the mental capacity of an individual, beyond the distinction between sanity and insanity. If you are suggesting that all murderers must be insane, we must voice disagreement, as such an analysis does not allow for crimes of passion.
They need to be omitted as criminally insane.
Omitted from what? The list of sane persons?
Not just juveniles with problems.
Sociopathy is a mental disorder. It is not common to all murderers.
In general, there's a certain point where we have to cut the bullshit and understand that kids can be criminals as well.
If we did not understand that children could be criminals, we would have no legislation distinguishing them from adults when under trial, would we?
we treat children differently from adults because on the most part we understand that children are inferior to adults.
If a society judges its children to be inferior to its adults, it is either tragically mistaken, or culturally dead.
We submit that inferior is an inappropriate word. We suggest vulnerable.
Bad choice of word. I shouldn't have used the word "Omit".
As for the law; the law is a joke, anyway. The idea that we must take it so concretely shows how dependent we are on our own government. I personally believe that everyone should just be let go for possession of marijuana. Currently, while being the right thing to do, will also be a mockery of the law. I'm fine with that.
If a 13 year old murders someone, it must be taken into account that this child is dangerous to society. Juvenile crimes don't lock kids up forever or treat them as mentally dangerous.
As stated before, I'm for most psychiatric research on criminals where plausible. I sometimes believe in rehab over imprisonment. It's easier to prevent others from going down that path if we just figure out what's wrong with them. Children who commit crimes would be the easiest to study since they're fresh in the crime world.
So your argument therefore is that motions which would otherwise make the law a laughable thing should be passed because it is already laughable?
The idea that we must take it so concretely shows how dependent we are on our own government.
It is better than anarchy.
I personally believe that everyone should just be let go for possession of marijuana.
So does everybody who uses or wishes to use marijuana.
Currently, while being the right thing to do, will also be a mockery of the law.
What is the grammatical object of this sentence? The amendment to the law or the law itself?
If a 13 year old murders someone, it must be taken into account that this child is dangerous to society.
We submit that if it were not so understood and accounted for, the child in question would not stand trial.
Juvenile crimes don't lock kids up forever or treat them as mentally dangerous.
Because children are impressionable and easier to reform. We also consider the lifetime imprisonment of a person, from childhood, to be barbaric.
As stated before, I'm for most psychiatric research on criminals where plausible.
We submit that plausible is the wrong word; if you are debating over whether to practice such based on the probability of its occurring, you shall be struck with apoplexy. We do not presume to know enough of your sentiments to suggest an alternative. Thus we cannot reply.
I sometimes believe in rehab over imprisonment. It's easier to prevent others from going down that path if we just figure out what's wrong with them.
We submit that in most cases it is parenting.
Children who commit crimes would be the easiest to study since they're fresh in the crime world.
No, my point is that you bringing up the law in a debate where we consider reforming the law is pointless. that's why I hate it when people counter my arguments about reform with "well, the people will decide when they vote." That's not an argument, that's bullshit.
Anyway, I'm for science and not old methods, so children actually treated like adults for shit crimes would usually not be "barbaric" in the sense... although, probably diabolical since you see "study" as diabolical.
Plausible: Considering that psychiatric research would result in cheaper methods of preventing crime, in that case, that's where rehab is better than punishment. If you want, I can make about 300 pages of crimes that should be considered for either rehab or punishment, but once again, that ruins the whole point in what we're trying to do here.
Hint: That's why I didn't do it in the first place.
No, my point is that you bringing up the law in a debate where we consider reforming the law is pointless.
The debate premise constitutes a legal reform. By your logic, any further debate is pointless.
that's why I hate it when people counter my arguments about reform with "well, the people will decide when they vote."
We have no love for democracy.
Anyway, I'm for science and not old methods, so children actually treated like adults for shit crimes would usually not be "barbaric" in the sense..
The Nazis were for science as well. Which is why they performed barbaric experiments upon medical patients. It is not our purpose to disparage science (indeed, such is a futile endeavour), but to state that conducting experiments upon children without their consent is deplorable.
probably diabolical since you see "study" as diabolical.
We submit that we know more of science than you know or shall ever know.
Plausible: Considering that psychiatric research would result in cheaper methods of preventing crime, in that case, that's where rehab is better than punishment. If you want, I can make about 300 pages of crimes that should be considered for either rehab or punishment, but once again, that ruins the whole point in what we're trying to do here.
Perhaps we were too subtle; look up the word plausible in a dictionary.
This is sad... spin is supposed to NOT be obvious... but damn you're good at it.
I merely said that since this debate is about whether the law should be different, it is not a mockery of the law to suggest that we do things differently from now on. Trying to defend the "honor of the law" in a debate on whether we should change it is POINTLESS FOR DEBATE. If you believe that a law is perfect as it is, than debate on WHY it's perfect... don't pull that "the law is the law" bullshit.
And really? Because I support science over punishment, that makes my thinking related to the Nazis? Damn dude... I guess there would be no point in continuing this debate, since all I am is one of dem science supporting Nazis.
"science? dat some nazi stuff! just put 'em in a cell for so many years and not give a shit about their mental health. like a true American".
I merely said that since this debate is about whether the law should be different, it is not a mockery of the law to suggest that we do things differently from now on.
That is obviously dependent upon the proposed changes.
An analogy: In a debate concerning how we should change cars, suggesting triangular wheels is not a valid suggestion by virtue of the debate concerning changes to cars.
If you believe that a law is perfect as it is, than debate on WHY it's perfect... don't pull that "the law is the law" bullshit.
As we have already said: The law cannot consider the defendant an adult or a minor based upon the crime. Nor can it consider one an adult when one is not an adult.
Example Case
If a juvenile is capable of committing a crime, you believe that they should be tried as an adult. If a minor has sex with an 21 year old, he has broken the law. However, if he is tried as an adult, he has not. Thus the law would be rendered ineffectual and laughable, unable to enforce itself.
Because I support science over punishment, that makes my thinking related to the Nazis?
That's a misrepresentation. We submitted that experimenting upon prisoners without consent is exactly what the Nazi's did. That is what you are proposing.
"science? dat some nazi stuff! just put 'em in a cell for so many years and not give a shit about their mental health.
There is a difference between providing therapy and experimenting upon people.
Holy shit... you don't even remember how this all started.
anyway, it doesn't matter. i propose that we make ramifications to the law. Ramifications include a non-black-and-white view on minors and crime.
First, minors can't all be determined to have more advanced minds in the ethical/moral area. That means that we can't truly determine if a minor is old enough to have truly consensual sex with an adult at a certain age. Therefore, it's safe to set up consent laws (example, some States have consent laws as low as 14, even though 14 year olds are not legally adults).
Sex is not seen as taboo as it used to be. Most people understand that it's okay to have sex at younger ages. As well, most people understand that if a 19 year old has sex with a 16 year old, he/she is doing nothing wrong.
However, the ability to murder someone is far different from sex. Trying to use the two in conjunction to support your argument is an exact representation of the problem with concrete viewing of not only the law, but all aspects of life.
As for imprisonment vs. rehab... forcing someone to live in a cell for 25 years, to me, is far more barbaric than giving them psychiatric treatment (if we want to get relative).
I believe that a child murderer (going back to the 13 year old killer) should receive intense psychiatric treatment. Now, a child murderer can't always be cured. Hell, it's unlikely. Even if the child murdered a bully, the very fact that they looked to murder (a 13 year old, mind you) is psychological proof that this kid is, for lack of a better term, fucked up. Should they be put in prison for the rest of their lives? No... but I believe that murder done by a sociopath or someone with another type of psychological disorder should be put into an asylum for treatment. If it's a child, so be it. Better than letting him go to just kill again. And who knows; maybe a psychiatrist will find them cured.
And experimentation (mental and such) is merely probing into their thoughts... seeing how a murderer tick. If you equate that to Nazi science (which mainly consisted of butchering them physically; chemically or by the knife) that is merely a logical fallacy.
Once again you display your extraordinary vocabulary. A ramification is a consequence of an action, usually implying complexity and undesirability.
Ramifications include a non-black-and-white view on minors and crime.
If one is a minor, one is restricted by numerous laws on driving, procreation, alcohol consumption &c;. A law system cannot punish anybody for breaches of these laws, if juveniles are to be tried as adults (which we shall remember is the premise; look up and smile). However, those laws (well, two of them) are designed to prevent young people from being placed in situations they are not experienced or mature enough to deal with. As aforesaid, the law cannot, without nullifying itself, try juveniles as adults.
Sex is not seen as taboo as it used to be. Most people understand that it's okay to have sex at younger ages. As well, most people understand that if a 19 year old has sex with a 16 year old, he/she is doing nothing wrong.
Completely immaterial. Public consensus has little infringement upon the law.
However, the ability to murder someone is far different from [underage] sex.
In what regard? Comprehend that moral arguments are insupportable in debate.
As for imprisonment vs. rehab... forcing someone to live in a cell for 25 years, to me, is far more barbaric than giving them psychiatric treatment (if we want to get relative).
You did not speak of mere treatment, you spoke of experimentation.
I believe that a child murderer (going back to the 13 year old killer) should receive intense psychiatric treatment.
Not all murders are the result of mental disabilities.
Now, a child murderer can't always be cured.
Of what disease?
Hell, it's unlikely.
By what precedent?
Hell, it's unlikely. Even if the child murdered a bully, the very fact that they looked to murder (a 13 year old, mind you) is psychological proof that this kid is, for lack of a better term, fucked up.
While we have no doubt that you are an expert on mental deficiencies, we cannot accept this argument. We would argue that pubescent children are far more likely to commit crimes of passion than adults.
Should they be put in prison for the rest of their lives? No
Which we have not suggested.
If it's a child, so be it. Better than letting him go to just kill again.
Are you under the illusion that juveniles are not punished at all?
And who knows; maybe a psychiatrist will find them cured.
If they are found cured, why was the psychiatrist called in the first place?
And experimentation (mental and such) is merely probing into their thoughts... seeing how a murderer tick.
Such experimentation would naturally involve the use of untested drugs.
Considering how unfairly the law has treated us, I find that the word is perfectly fit. I find it sad, though, that instead of making a proper rebuttal you instead decide to make a horrid attempt at attacking my vocabulary. lol.
And the cases you posted are fine with not treating children like adults. I was referring to murder (as an example). I made this quite clear a numerous amount of times. Anyway, those laws are still unconstitutional, so i don't support them anyway (except for driving, but I accept that driving is a privilege). Shit like alcohol is up to the parents, however. Not government.
My point for sex was that the law has made little edits on to protect younger people who engage in sex (based on state, of course).
Murder is an infringement on someone's right to life. Consensual sex is not... it's way too obvious and I'm pretty sure you knew that. Stop with the bullshit, please.
Everytime you treat someone with psychological problems, you are, as well, conducting an individual experiment (centered on that one person, to be redundant). Either way, now you know (if it wasn't obvious to you, before).
And it's good that we both agree that children shouldn't just be sent to prison forever. but I think that most criminals shouldn't. Instead, once again, psychiatric treatment.
And juveniles get off for murder pretty easily... refer to PrayerFails' case for further insight.
And I mean found cured after years of treatment. If that's the case, they can be let go (on probation, of course). In fact, the system is slowly changing into this for all types of people. They find that psychiatric treatment sometimes works better than prison punishment.
And it seems that you don't understand psychological experimentation. Probing someone's thoughts does not require untested drugs... Whoever told you that should be shot for just being a complete moron.
No. Probing thoughts comes from Psycho-analysis (or other forms of psychology, I just prefer to do psycho-analysis more than anything... but I do like using the others).
Considering how unfairly the law has treated us, I find that the word is perfectly fit.
Alas, if it were so easy as to consider a word fit to make it so, we should all be Shakespeare. Sarah Palin, however, is a living example of how such is not the case.
We care nothing for what you find or infer. One cannot design a ramification unto something unless it is subsequent to an immediate action or series of actions. What you propose is an amendment, or a change; a ramification of which would be, as you perceive it, a greater prevalence of justice and fairness.
I find it sad, though, that instead of making a proper rebuttal you instead decide to make a horrid attempt at attacking my vocabulary. lol.
What rebuttal can be made to a brief summation of intent? What rebuttal was necessary, when a more specific and technical description existed beneath such, and was countered?
I was referring to murder (as an example).
The ability to commit murder does not make one an adult. Nor does it imply the mentality of an adult. In fact, we should say (again) that pubescent, being emotionally volatile, are more likely to commit murder than adults.
Anyway, those laws are still unconstitutional, so i don't support them anyway
Whether they infringe upon the U.S constitution and whether you care for them or not, are immaterial to me.
except for driving, but I accept that driving is a privilege
Driving is hardly a privilege in an age when it is so necessary to move quickly from one place to another.
Shit like alcohol is up to the parents, however. Not government.
That strikes us as a misconception. The decision belongs to the young person in question, as they are the ultimate authority on the matter.
My point for sex was that the law has made little edits on to protect younger people who engage in sex (based on state, of course).
Edits on what? Do you mean very few, or very small?
Murder is an infringement on someone's right to life.
Now you're countering with law, which is something you previously argued against.
Consensual sex is not... it's way too obvious and I'm pretty sure you knew that.
We meant more in physical, psychological terms. Sex is the consummation of passions, or chemical impulses. So are many murders. An inadvertent poetry; creating life bears similarities to destroying it.
Stop with the bullshit, please.
Would you prefer some other variety?
Everytime you treat someone with psychological problems, you are, as well, conducting an individual experiment (centered on that one person, to be redundant).
The difficulty here is that to publish the findings is a breach of confidentiality, unless the subject is a volunteer. The use of such as a response to a crime, with the aim of furthering knowledge, would therefore be experimentation without consent.
And it's good that we both agree that children shouldn't just be sent to prison forever. but I think that most criminals shouldn't. Instead, once again, psychiatric treatment.
This is a rather narrow-minded view, and quite ignorant. Most criminals are not given life sentences, and not all criminals have psychiatric problems.
And juveniles get off for murder pretty easily... refer to PrayerFails' case for further insight.
We'd rather not. PrayerFails is a sadly inarticulate fellow. He has no doubt illustrated an exceptional case.
The law is gay so that results in ramifications. In what sense? Who cares. But please, make up more excuses for attacking my vocabulary... I love your sentence structure. Reminds me of this guy
But here's what I'm getting from your latest post:
Pubescent children are more likely to commit murder than adults. According to the US Department of Justice, 1 in 5 child murders are committed by children. Now, this statistic consists of all children under 18. This means that for every 1 underage murderer (of a child) there are 4 adults who murder children.
Even better, only 11% of murders in the US (during 1994) were by children. That means that adults are FAR more likely to commit murder than children... reasons why? Well, obviously you made shit up so let's skip the psychology of reasons why adults are more likely to kill than children. It should have been obvious... but people still tend to surprise me.
As for the Constitution bullshit, you brought those laws up, not me. I was responding to you pointing out that other laws exist. Well, that's like saying "this shit's wrong, so it's okay for other shit to be wrong as well". No... it's bad to defend the current law by using the current law as a defense.
As for the edits, I mean they've made small edits. I notice how that part could be confusing.
And you are completely ignoring the simple part:
Murder - take away someone's life... which most accept is the most important thing to living.
Sex - stuff that creatures have been doing for a long time.
I don't know where you're going with this, but it seems that you're against teens having sex... since it's just as bad as murder. And if you believe that sex isn't as bad as murder, than you'd agree with me (since I said that sex isn't as bad as murder, which resulted in you telling me to prove it, so I did, and then you countered by saying sex and murder are physiologically the same thing... because of chemicals. Well, same with smoking weed or smiling a lot).
As for consent of publishing results; you have a small point. That isn't part of the argument, though. If a patient refuses to consent of the publishing of finds, that would be a later issue. I never said they should be forced to sign a release form. But they should, never-the-less, be forced to receive treatment (unless they prefer prison time... if that's the case, than put them in prison... children, however, will have to be dealt with in another way, but children who do not agree to psychological treatment [after they murdered someone] can't be released into the public... shit's dangerous).
And I'll edit my statement on psychiatric treatment (since it went way over your head). Most criminals (whether facing life sentences or not) should be considered for psychiatric treatment instead of prison time. And it's true... most criminals don't have psychiatric problems, but most of them DO have psychological problems. Well, my theory is that most people have psychological problems. Going into a criminal's mind can help him/her sort out their life. But I mean considered... not automatically sent to an asylum instead of a prison. We would need professional opinions before making that final decision (Psychologists and Psychiatrists).
The law is gay so that results in ramifications. In what sense? Who cares.
Well, sounding like an idiot is your prerogative.
Pubescent children are more likely to commit murder than adults. According to the US Department of Justice, 1 in 5 child murders are committed by children. Now, this statistic consists of all children under 18. This means that for every 1 underage murderer (of a child) there are 4 adults who murder children.
As pubescent children comprise only 11% of the Us population, their child murder rate is twice as high as adults'.
Even better, only 11% of murders in the US (during 1994) were by children.
As 11% of the population consists of pubescent children, this does not surprise me.
As for the Constitution bullshit, you brought those laws up, not me. I was responding to you pointing out that other laws exist. Well, that's like saying "this shit's wrong, so it's okay for other shit to be wrong as well". No... it's bad to defend the current law by using the current law as a defense.
It was your responsibility to respond to the arguments I raised; you did so in a hypocritical manner.
I don't know where you're going with this, but it seems that you're against teens having sex... since it's just as bad as murder.
The point is that the ability to commit a crime knowingly is the issue at hand. Your focus on murder is narrow-minded.
I never said they should be forced to sign a release form.
So why experiment on them? Personal fulfilment of the psychiatrist?
But they should, never-the-less, be forced to receive treatment
That's a different issue, which has my support so long as the prisoner is deemed mentally unstable; not a prerequisite to murder.
And I'll edit my statement on psychiatric treatment (since it went way over your head).
Very few things go over my head. This is not one of them. What you gave me was garbled nonsense. I am waiting for you to express it in something resembling English. Are you a psychiatrist or is it the particular phraseology you prefer to practice?
Most criminals (whether facing life sentences or not) should be considered for psychiatric treatment instead of prison time. And it's true... most criminals don't have psychiatric problems, but most of them DO have psychological problems.
I have several ways to interpret this:
A) You believe that most criminals should be given psychiatric treatment, but that most of them do not have psychiatric problems.
B) You are unaware of the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist.
C) You have yet to think your plan through.
I suggest you give some thought to your position, and try to write it out concisely. Then perhaps we can agree. Fine points require fine tools; you need to familiarise yourself with the contents of your linguistic toolbox and make absolutely sure that you're saying what you mean, rather than saying what you think you mean. You need to be sure that the word you are using is the correct one, else you are confusing me and continuing to blunder on in ignorance of the substance of your own speech.
But I prefer science over traditional methods.
Oh, stop passing yourself off as a scientist, you fool. Aveskde, protozoa and I are scientists, you are not.
My responsibility to respond to "the law is good because of the law"? No...
And why "experiment" on them? As stated, psychology (and psychiatry) itself is a constant experiment. You can call it personal fulfillment since, in all honesty, I do enjoy studying people's personalities and NOT writing it in a journal. Either way, it helps me when dealing with other people. Psychologists (and psychiatrists) don't need to publish the results of every patient in order to learn from them. The very act of reading a person's mind is an experiment in it within themselves. It would be best, though, if more information IS published into journals in order to expand the science of the psyche. But whether we call it experimentation or not, my main point is that it's better to treat people than to merely put them in prisons for x amount of years. It's understandable that we can't put every criminal into an asylum, which is why I proposed that professional opinions from psychologists (or psychiatrists) be given in the side-lines of the courtroom when deciding the final sentence.
As for psychiatry vs. psychology; it's annoying to constantly put "psychological treatment and/or psychiatric treatment" ALL THE FUCKIN' TIME. I understand that you do not like to make an assumption that I mean both, so from now on, just assume that (because I mean it). If you can't, than it's obvious that you're arguing words in order to avoid the discussion at hand. After all, you did make up statistics when staying on topic. The rest of your post was "you said psychiatric instead of psychological". Oh yeah, and that psychiatrists, apparently, don't like to learn (on the whole "why experiment")?
As for you claiming to be a scientist (along with aveskde and protozoa), I hardly have anything to say about that. I'm sure that you're lying, but it's the internet, so, I can never prove this.
As well, I have never claimed to be in the field of science. To do so would be idiotic because, once again, this is the internet, so, I can never prove this (without posting credentials that could be used to hurt my reputation in the future).
I think that in some cases, it really depends on the age of the child and the cuelty of the crime itself. But i also think that if a child chooses to commit a murder gruesome in its very nature, then punishment may have no effect on the mind of that child because the source of criminal action is a mentality disorder which should first be treated by putting them in a maximum security treatment facility or something like that. Also, in some cases, children kill for many reasons, and one of the major reason is the simple fact that even though they understand the concept of not to kill someone, they do not understand what the law is. If we punish every children in a severe manner or as an adult, then society would be filled with recidivism rather than reformation so i really think it depends on the age and the circumstances surrounding the crime itself and the driving factors behind the criminal action(s) of the child.
Also, in some cases, if the adults in the life of a child are the driving forces behind the criminal actions of that child, then punishment should come out of the picture and rehabilitation should become part of the main focus. Children can be criminals but their minds are not as mature as the minds of an adult. The causes of their actions should be indentified and those causes should be treated with either punishment or rehabilitation depending on the driving factors in association with the criminal actions of the child.
It depends on the crime that was committed. If a sixteen of seventeen year old can willingly make the choice to kill another, then I think they can be tried as an adult.
A 17 year old isn't a young child. He is is able to think and comprehend in most cases. There is no "magic age" and the day he turns 18 he automatically knows about things like murder and death, and that is the distinction we now use.
If this is your view, then perhaps we should lower the age of adulthood to 17. It's simply unfair to expect the same maturity from someone who has considerably less rights than someone else.
As some have already said: It depends on whether or not they can comprehend as an adult. The age that young people become mature and truly aware of the world around them varies so you can't make a blanket statement that an 18 year old should be tried as an adult but a 13 year old can't or shouldn't. BUT just because a 10 year old doesn't completely comprehend that he just took someone's life, and the seriousness of that action, doesn't mean he shouldn't be tried to the fullness of the law, or that he should do "easy time". There still should be some justice for the victims in the trajedy.
If they have the same comprehension as an adult and can be tried as an adult, then they should have the rights of an adult. Also justice should not be delivered to satisfy the victims (i.e. revenge) but instead to do two things: A: keep them from committing more crimes during their sentence and B: punish them so they think twice before committing another crime when they are freed. There is no justification for revenge in modern society.
If a juvenile has committed a crime, then he should serve the punishment. What if, say, a juvenile has murdered or kidnapped someone, and is let go just because he is only 17? He should go to jail for the rest of his whole damn life! Why would you not try them as adults anyway? What is the difference anyway? They should just try them as adults and be done with it!
What if, say, a juvenile has murdered or kidnapped someone, and is let go just because he is only 17?
Who said anything about a juvenile being 'let go' after they committed a crime? Are you under the impression the law does not punish juveniles for crime at all?
Why would you not try them as adults anyway?
Because they are not adults. They are juveniles. Why would you?
What is the difference anyway?
Perhaps you should devote 5 minutes of research to a topic before you make a decision about it.
I think it should depend upon what crime has been commited?! if a 16 or 17 year old child murders somebody, kidnaps a 5 year old, or robs a jewlery store for $150,000,then yes they should be tried as an adult. on the other hand if a 16 or 17 year old child steals a pair of bluejeans from Wal-Mart, accused of kidnapping another person his/her age or older,or blows a frog up with a bottle rocket, then the child shouldnot be tried as an adult!! The other day in my hometown a local high school called the police on a 15 year old student and had the kid arrested for theft under $500 after stealing 1 Mozzerella cheesestick . The kid went to court and the judge dismissed the case saying no trial!I think law enforcement needs to get a grip and use a little more common sense an fairness with this particular issue!!
yes! becaus eit will teach them not to do it again!its not good for kids to go out and kill people and get no punshiment and adults to do the same and go to prision or jail.
We have to take into account that children have considerably fewer rights than adults. Why? Because society has decided that children like myself are not emotionally mature enough. I can't drive a car, own or carry a firearm, have sex or even move about freely. So why should I be held to the same standard as someone who does posses those rights and is supposedly mature enough? I'm not saying that children should go unpunished. They should just be held to a standard based on what rights they have.
How can you judge something as something they are not? Should vegetables be judged as fruit?
I believe the process is that it's determined whether the juvinile was acting in an adult capacity at the time of a crime when the crime is major.
I have no problem with the process. Sure a blanket "yes or no" is simple, attractive, and makes a good bumper sticker, but pursuing justice by its nature can rarely be both simple and just.
When a juvenile is on trial for a serious offence that carries a heavy penalty - like murder - I think the court should consider their individual maturity. It's a serious matter to sentence anyone to death or long periods of imprisonment, and especially so for juveniles; they deserve to be judged individually. (And I think that does tend to happen at least in the cases of younger children, with child psychologists and all being called to the stand.)
But for minor everyday offences, I would agree that this is too great a burden, hence a simplified system of juvenile courts and adult courts.
If a minor is committing crimes of this caliber, odds one side or another will plead insanity, which will inevitably call their entire mental state- maturity and comprehension of their actions included- into question.
According to a study conducted in 1990 of criminal cases, less than 1% of defendants plead insanity and of that 1% only a quarter of them (0.25%) won acquittals.
pleading insanity, especially for juveniles, is on the rise
"When lawyers observe indications of mental disorder or retardation in their clients, ...they frequently request a sanity evaluation. They then review the evaluation report...to decide whether to plead insanity."
I do not disagree that pleading insanity can be a slippery slope. In fact I am against it as a defense in general for outstanding crimes like murder or rape. If one is insane after all, they have even less capacity to rehabilitate, so why give them more opportunity to do such?
However, I think you are overestimating the number of violent crimes commited by juveniles. It is no great cost I think in the grand scheme of State budgets - less than they spend on road signage I believe.
And I think you'll find psychiatrists are employed either way as it is, and as is the Constitutional right of the defendant. And so society would be spending no more or less than they currently are I think.
pleading insanity, especially for juveniles, is on the rise
"When lawyers observe indications of mental disorder or retardation in their clients, ...they frequently request a sanity evaluation. They then review the evaluation report...to decide whether to plead insanity."
from the American Bar Association (the national representative of the legal profession, nothing to do with pubs)
on an article specifically addressing juvenile cases
I believe my evidence is more credible than a 20-year old study that discusses insanity for the entire judicial system at large.
Suspiciously absent from this argument is a counter-figure which would dispute the 1% who plead insanity. Do you have any evidence to suggest this number has significantly risen? Or would you concede, that the number of insanity cases is VASTLY overrepresented in the media and offers little in the way of argumentation of your previous point?
"actual statistics show that insanity cases are quite rare"
yes, for adults.
However, there is absolutely no way that I can tell you the statistic of juveniles that should plead insanity because
1) Studies suggest high rates of psychiatric illness in the general prison population. Many mentally ill defendants never get a chance to plead NGRI; some obviously psychotic defendants fight to prevent their attorneys from mounting an insanity defense for them.
2) The "not guilty by reason of insanity" defense is being disallowed by a growing number of states, which means that percentages will be substantially lower due to deflation
3) pleading insanity is usually done in major cases, whereas your statistic of 1% is referring to all cases, major and minor: further watering down the actual number
my "facts" were not irrelevant at all. You gave statistics about pleading insanity in general. That is nice, except that your statistics described the wrong population (all criminals rather than juveniles).
which meant they were entirely skewed from the actual population being discussed (juveniles rather than all criminals)
and if you have any argument that my objections to your skewed statistics were without merit, I would love to hear them.
However, there is absolutely no way that I can tell you the statistic of juveniles that should plead insanity...
Then your argument is untenable.
You made the statement that juveniles would plead insanity in major cases, and now you are telling me that you don't have any evidence to support this statement. If i am not mistaken, you carry the burden of proof, and have nothing to show but speculation. You are correct in saying the 1% figure is in regards to all defendants , and not just minors, but there is a huge gap between 1% and 100%. Even if the figure was significantly higher for juveniles this still doesn't make a case for all juveniles (or even a majority) pleading insanity in major cases.
I'm aware that you probably spoke too soon or in too general of terms, and thus sabotaged your own argument from the start.
that is not the case. The problem with saying how many SHOULD plead insanity is entirely different than how many COULD plead insanity.
I made the statement that juveniles would plead insanity in major cases
and I found evidence that suggests that 2:1 are mentally unstable
the fact that I acknowledged an ambiguity does not give my evidence any less credence.
"a huge gap between 1% and 100%"
yes. but I found the statistic. 2:1. that is 67%
this still doesn't make a case for all juveniles (or even a majority) pleading insanity in major cases
67% is a majority
"I'm aware that you probably spoke too soon or in too general of terms, and thus sabotaged your own argument from the start."
so are you simply running out of arguments and resort to misinterpreting what you considered vague statements?
My goal of discussing how many should plead insanity was to emphasize the inconcrete reasons. After all, some people resort to penitentiary because it takes less time than going to a mental ward. Some refuse to acknowledge that they are mentally unstable. However, there are ways to diagnose how many could plead insanity, which is what I did. If you cannot see through such intricacies between could and should, why are you debating in the first place?
I made the statement that juveniles would plead insanity in major cases
Okay and where is the statistic showing actual number of juveniles who plead insanity? Until you can provide this, you are arguing on speculation.
and I found evidence that suggests that 2:1 are mentally unstable
Mentally unstability is not synonymous with insanity. Insanity is a legal term. But even if I were to go out on a limb, and grant you this assumption this says nothing of those who actually PLEAD insanity.
My goal of discussing how many should plead insanity.
Whatever your "goal" was, your statement was that "odds are the one side or another >>>>WILL<<< plead insanity" This is what you said. You cannot change past statements. You can either admit your error, or your you can drag this out.
There are no odds or statistics that even remotely show this. The number of insanity pleas are exceedingly rare, adult or otherwise.
"Okay and where is the statistic showing actual number of juveniles who plead insanity? "
If you recall, this entire discussion is under the hypothetical situation that everybody criminal psychoanalyzed.
It is not a matter of pleading insanity: everyone would be under scrutiny.
If 2/3 juvenile criminals were found to be insane by a psychoanalyst in retrospect, it is safe to assume that 2/3 juvenile criminals would be found to be insane by a psychoanalyst in the hypothetical situation.
"Mentally unstability is not synonymous with insanity"
actually, mental stability is, literally, synonymous with insanity
"The term insanity, sometimes used colloquially as a synonym for mental illness, is often used technically as a legal term"
"odds are the one side or another >>>>WILL>>ODDS ARE>>>ODDS ARE<<< that these juveniles would be eligible to plead insanity.
Also, this entire argument is based on the hypothetical situation that every criminal is psychoanalyzed for levels of maturity, and therefore any mental illness/ mental instability/ insanity would be apparent. If the time in jail is greater than the time in a mental ward, the defense would probably plead insanity.
"There are no odds or statistics that even remotely show this"
except for the 2:1 ration of juveniles in custody found to be mentally unstable
"The number of insanity pleas are exceedingly rare, adult or otherwise."
1) you have no statistics for 'otherwise' so you cannot say this with any confidence
2) in the hypothetical situation that was based on the premise of all people being psychoanalyzed people who were insane would be found no matter what
3) 2/3 of juveniles in custody were found to be psychologically insane
4) therefore, in this hypothetical situation, around 2/3 of juvenile cases would have the insanity plea.
actually, mental stability is, literally, synonymous with insanity
No it is not.
Insanity In criminal law, a disease, defect, or condition of the mind that renders one unable to understand the nature of a criminal act or the fact that it is wrong.
This is different than being mentally unstable. One can be mentally unstable and still recognize what is right and wrong. A friend of mine has a child who has an emotional disorder, he is by definition, mentally unstable....as is any child who suffers from bipolar personality disorder, chronic depression or Attention Deficit disorder (ADD), which is why your figure for mental instability in juveniles is so high.
you have no statistics for 'otherwise' so you cannot say this with any confidence
I need no proof in dismissing an argument which lacks evidence.
in the hypothetical situation that was based on the premise of all people being psychoanalyzed people who were insane would be found no matter what
In non-hypothetical cases where people actually are psychoanalyzed after pleading insanity 70% of those pleas are dropped, and of those who actually do plead insanity, an acquittal is won only 25% of the remaining pleas. You are much better off just pleading not guilty.
2/3 of juveniles in custody were found to be psychologically insane
Incorrect. Mental Instability and Insanity, are not the same thing. Nor is there such thing as "psychologically insane". Insanity is not a scientific (nor psychological) concept.
.
.
.
.
.
I am disputing this false notion that an Insanity plea is an "easy out", and that people will always jump to that plea given the chance. Successful insanity pleas are so exceedingly rare that it is virtually a non-issue to the main topic.
I am disputing this false notion that an Insanity plea is an "easy out"
in which case we are in agreement.
Pleading insanity does not get you off the hook: it simply puts you in a mental ward rather than a prison. Both result in the offender being detained.
I think we can both agree that many people who should be treated for psychological disorders are thrown in prison simply because it is cheaper
which is a point I brought up earlier.
In reality, this whole situation would be unrealistic.
By the way, concerning the definition of insanity, there are over 51 different legal definitions. The fact of the matter is that some people with mental illnesses are considered to be within the 'insane' spectrum. The fact that I found a scholarly article that defined the two does not mean that you can find another definition that does not link the two as synonyms. If you wanted to counter this definition, find one that states the difference between the two.
also, Bipolar disorder probably is considered to be within the spectrum, if it severe enough. ADD is not. The article I found was specifically searching for cases that had mental disorder that would have been able to argue insanity, and thus get the treatment they needed, had the system not determined it would be too expensive.
If a person with bipolar personality disorder took on an extremely violent mood and attacked a stranger who was irritating them slightly, would it not make more sense to treat them for bipolar personality, rather than lock them up without treating the root cause of the problem?
and ADD would, under any circumstance, be considered mentally unstable- nor do I suggest that all mental disorders are mentally unstable or .
I think we can both agree that many people who should be treated for psychological disorders are thrown in prison simply because it is cheaper.
I agree more people should be rehabilitated, whether this is due to cost differences I cannot say. I know that defendants force to undergo rehabilitation for drug offenses are often required to pay for their own treatment. I do not know how it works for insane asylums, it would vary by state.
By the way, concerning the definition of insanity, there are over 51 different legal definitions.
A common facet of all of them is they all say something in regards to knowledge of crime, it's affects or of right and wrong.
The fact of the matter is that some people with mental illnesses are considered to be within the 'insane' spectrum. The fact that I found a scholarly article that defined the two does not mean that you can find another definition that does not link the two as synonyms. If you wanted to counter this definition, find one that states the difference between the two.
Insanity is something generally determined on a case by case basis, usually in regard to some specific crime. Realistically I can guarantee you will never see anyone declared legally insane on the basis of Bipolar disorder.
This definition specifically states that mental illness being defined as insanity is no longer in scientific usage:
Also your dictionary defines mental disorder as synonymous with mental illness. Not insanity. In fact the word "insanity" is only used once in the whole page and this is what it says:
"The term insanity, sometimes used colloquially as a synonym for mental illness..."
In other words, in informal, non-scientific, non-legal terms it might be used as a synonym by lay-folk. We use a lot of terms colloquially as synonyms that simply aren't.
Maturity of each individual is unimportant. It is simply unfair to treat someone as an adult who is judged by society as being a child(thus having much fewer rights) simply because they committed a severe crime. Society has judged them as immature, so they should be treated as such. Perhaps some fourteen year old is mature enough to vote, or some 33 year old is not, but our society has judged that the average age when someone becomes mature enough to vote is 18. If we change the rules for one person, we have to change them for everyone. It is simply unfair(to the defendant) to make exceptions. Thus, children should be treated as immature children and adults should be treated as mature adults.
I agree with you on principle, but I would take it the other way around. A person who is judged old enough to be held criminally responsible for their actions (10 years old in my country, don't know what it is in the US) should also be given the right to vote. It is unfair for children to be subject to the law but have no right to determine what the law is.
In any case, it will be very difficult to unquestioningly judge all children as immature and all adults as mature without leading to clearly unfair decisions. If a 17-year-old holds a woman at gunpoint and rapes her, do we let him off or just give him counselling, without thinking about what crime he has committed and what his state of mind was, because his age dictates it? Or if a 30-year-old person with a severe mental illness commits that same crime without having a clue what he's done, should he be judged as guilty and subject to the same penalty as if he were fully mentally aware?
Under an umbrella "treat children as immature, treat adults as mature" policy, rather nonsensical decisions like these would arise. The justice system seeks not only to identify crimes and match fixed penalties to them; it also seeks to consider the individual circumstances of each offender to determine how guilty they are and what would be the most useful means to rehabilitate them. A judge of their intellectual maturity is one of the many factors a court should, and does, take into account.
people who are able to recognize the result of their actions are not necessarily more 'intelligent'. The go-to example would be autistic children, of which there are many cases where the autistic child is disconnected from the world around them- and so one would presume they would not understand the crimes they committed- and yet are absolutely brilliant ins mathematics of various fields of science.
and you assume that the 'intelligent' get thrown in jail whereas the 'unintelligent' do not, but both are tried under justice.
After all, both are dangers to society.
A person who comprehended their crime could learn from their penitence in jail, and so become behaviorally corrected.
However, if a person did not comprehend their crime, they could not learn from their penitence in jail: so they are instead 'imprisoned' in a mental ward, so that they can be behaviorally corrected in a manner that could actually work.
You would have to define justice. I don't believe the point of our penal code is punishment - thus justice. I believe the position is removing those who cannot function in society from society. And that it is the opinion of the crafters of this that we are insignificant to actually achieve true justice, but can only strive toward it.
At any rate, I have little problem holding more accountable those with more power over their own actions than those with perhaps minimal power over their own actions.
As such, an 8 year old who steals sees "less justice" than a 30 year old who steels the exact same thing.
When we are talking teenagers and major crimes though, this is where the line becomes blurred.
I am not for letting any murderer or rapist above a certain age "off" at any point in the future. I also feel that if it is found one is too dumb an individual, or too crazy to change, they also should never be free.
Where my difference in these cases lies is the death penalty, and where these individuals are to be imprisoned. Perhaps I should have made that clear.
If a vegetable goes through an unpredictable mutation that technically makes it a fruit, we would then use that vegetable as fruit. It will still look like a vegetable and have many characteristics of a vegetable, but the important foundations (let's say, the extract we need from it) that make it a vegetable have mutated into fruit extract.
Same with kids who commit crimes. We need to study them. And children who are sociopaths technically aren't acting in an adult fashion... sociopaths are a separate mindset from child/adulthood.
I think it all depends on what the crime may be. If it's cold blooded murder, then there's a problem there. If it's stealing, vandalism, fighting, breaking into cars, then the answer is HELL NO, what do you think, we live in Saudi Arabia??? When I was a juvenile(delinquent), I was a bad MF. I broke into cars, cut stems off tires, snipped head ornaments, got into countless fights with bats, clubs, knives etc. I went to juvenile detention, went through a boot camp program, got off probation when I turned 18(7 years ago-feels like more) and started off a normal life. I am now married with two children and am staying away from that shit lifestyle. However, I knew a kid who was a junior in high school, T. K.(Initials), who went up behind his buddy who was taking a piss and for no reason whatsoever, bashed his skull in with a rock. Should he be charged as an adult and probably checked for mental problems, HELL YES! But for petty crimes, juveniles should always be given second chances and third chances and given a rehabilitation program. It is a FACT. Teens and kids wil be teens and kids. I'd love to know why people would want kids and teens who would say, shoplift, lose a hand? Ridiculous...
Juveniles are developing individuals, a 10 year old can appreciate the sanctity of life as well as an 50 year old. Juveniles are also developing individuals, they have not developed, mentally or physically, enough to be considered adults.
I feel that not every child is perfect and yes we all make mistake young and old but after that mistake you should learn from it and most kids will im not saying just because you are young that you shouldnt be punished for you mistake but to charged as an adult would be is wrong because as an adult you know better and you know everything that you do has something behind it and not all kids know that. But even then theres alot of kids who have seen alot growing up and was raised a sertain way which makes them do the things that they do but once again not saying that is ok but its not right for a mislead child to be charged as an adult would be.
It is really all up to how serious the crime is and how many times that juveninle has been charged with an serious crime because we do have some juveniles that are repeat offenders and that will keep committing crimes into something serious happends to them but even then a child should never be treated like an adult no matter what cause if so why call them a child if they are being treated as a adult .
Juveniles are developing individuals, a 10 year old can appreciate the sanctity of life as well as an 50 year old. Juveniles are also developing individuals, they have not developed, mentally or physically, enough to be considered adults
How can you judge something as something they are not? Should vegetables be judged as fruit?
I believe the process is that it's determined whether the juvinile was acting in an adult capacity at the time of a crime when the crime is major.
I have no problem with the process. Sure a blanket "yes or no" is simple, attractive, and makes a good bumper sticker, but pursuing justice by its nature can rarely be both simple and just.
