The "can't try teenagers as adults" loophole

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Again, that would be unfair to those who didn't do something that stupid (and illegal) in their younger years, would it not? Do they not deserve to be chosen for certain jobs over people with a history of crime in their teen years?

No, because that is not what forgiveness is. We don’t let someone’s teenage mistakes ruin their entire lives. It’s neither fair nor practical. It’s also arbitrary. Should I get to cut in line of people with criminal records? Should I charge them more for a house?

Speaking for myself, I don’t want my fortune to be enlarged at the expense of someone who just got out of prison.

Right, and in theory one should be softer on adulthood crime AND tougher on teenage crimes until the difference between the two is erased. In practice, however, the same political pressure to be tough on adult criminals comes from that same majority of the voting public pushing to be soft on teenage criminals.

So, just pile on the unfairness until equality is reached, rather than actually adressing the unfairness?

In theory, yeah. In practice, no.

Also, unless their prison has prison labour, they didn't "serve" anything. They just ate and slept on the taxpayers' dime, albeit in a manner more miserable than some people like to pretend it is.

That’s what I am saying: we should make that theory practise, instead of changing our theory to fit unfair practices.

‘Serving your time’ is common English parlance, don’t you go picking on that. It makes for incredibly dull and indecisive arguments. Prisons are very rough, physically and emotionally.

[Galloism]

Usual rationalizations come in the form of the social "sciences" claiming adult brains are different than teenage brains,

This really isn't a social science thing. This is a straight up neurology thing. You can see the differences on brain scans with the naked eye.

despite that most societies throughout history treated teenagers as adults.

Throughout most of history, marital rape was legal in both directions. History isn't really a good judge of what is or is not a good idea.

[Vetalia]

That's not really how it works, though; if a juvenile is committing crimes repeatedly, depending on the nature of the crime they will most likely be ineligible for juvenile offender status or the prosecution will recommend they be tried as an adult unless these are truly minor misdemeanors or infractions. And of course, for the most severe felonies it will almost certainly result in trial as an adult barring exceptional circumstances. The thought behind trial as juvenile offender is rehabilitation, not a "get out of jail free" card; the same thought process applies to sentencing people to probation or a diversion program rather than jail.

Also, it is a common misconception that juvenile criminal records are automatically expunged at age 18. There is a process to do so just like any other expungement and certain crimes can't be expunged.

[Vetalia]

In theory, yeah. In practice, no.

Also, unless their prison has prison labour, they didn't "serve" anything. They just ate and slept on the taxpayers' dime, albeit in a manner more miserable than some people like to pretend it is.

The time incarcerated is what is being "served", it has nothing to do with labor. The loss of freedom, income, etc. in a sense compensates for the damage caused by the crime and also protects the public from the offender committing another crime.

[Andsed]

I´m pretty sure if a teen has a long history of crime then they will be getting higher sentences. I think that is a just fine solution. Honestly Lima I don´t think you understand the fact that teens and adults are different. Teens are less developed and thus tend to be more impulsive and reckless than adults. A lot of those kids grow out of it. There is no need to screw up their lives because they happen to be a bit rowdy as a teen.

[Vetalia]

I´m pretty sure if a teen has a long history of crime then they will be getting higher sentences. I think that is a just fine solution. Honestly Lima I don´t think you understand the fact that teens and adults are different. Teens are less developed and thus tend to be more impulsive and reckless than adults. A lot of those kids grow out of it. There is no need to screw up their lives because they happen to be a bit rowdy as a teen.

Really, the "juvenile offender" treatment isn't really all that different than the leniency shown first-time offenders in a lot of other crimes; the idea is to rehabilitate first and then use incarceration if they continue to commit offenses.

[Dome Artan]

If the crime is egregious enough, they will be, but generally speaking, most teens are not murderers.

In response to the OP:

Science does in fact show that human brains generally are not fully developed and therefore the impulse control section is not well defined until the early twenties. That's not 'social "science"', that's practical science.

In fact, teens tried as teens tend not to reoffend, while teens tried as adults end up having a high rate of recidivism. If you want to make a teen into a hardened, career criminal, then by all means, try them as an adult.

What of all the teenagers who wouldn't have committed crimes in the first place if they saw other teenage criminals tried as adults? How much incentive is it for them to obey the law, if teenagers who were law-abiding citizens throughout their teen years aren't treated that different from ones who spent them as criminals?

What of all the teenagers who are considering committing crimes, knowing the consequences would be so much more dire if they waited until they were adults, and realize it's "now or never"?

Physical sciences aren't immune from bribery either; we all know about GlaxoSmithKline bribing doctors to push pills. Psychology is the bridge between physical and social sciences, no doubt, but that means it's as high-stakes as the former with as much potential for bias as the latter.

Disregarding all science on the basis of potential bribery is rather foolhardy, you can of course believe whatever you want but these are well understood facts by this point.
On another note, the notion of harsher sentencing deterring potential criminals both from reoffending and committing their first offence is mostly fabrication. So trying teens as adults and serving them the harsher sentences that come with that probably wouldn't do all that much beyond costing the state more money.

[Vetalia]

What of all the teenagers who wouldn't have committed crimes in the first place if they saw other teenage criminals tried as adults? How much incentive is it for them to obey the law, if teenagers who were law-abiding citizens throughout their teen years aren't treated that different from ones who spent them as criminals?

What of all the teenagers who are considering committing crimes, knowing the consequences would be so much more dire if they waited until they were adults, and realize it's "now or never"?

Physical sciences aren't immune from bribery either; we all know about GlaxoSmithKline bribing doctors to push pills. Psychology is the bridge between physical and social sciences, no doubt, but that means it's as high-stakes as the former with as much potential for bias as the latter.

Punishment has never been a deterrent to crime, either now or back before juvenile and diversion sentencing became widespread. Most teenagers obey the law because they were raised by a stable, two-parent household who taught them right from wrong and the importance of obeying the law, not because they know they could "get away with it" and get sentenced as a juvenile. The vast majority of juvenile offenders are from poor, single-mother households with a young mom and without a father figure present that are growing up in a poverty and crime-infested environment devoid of real economic opportunity.

[Katganistan]

What of all the teenagers who wouldn't have committed crimes in the first place if they saw other teenage criminals tried as adults? How much incentive is it for them to obey the law, if teenagers who were law-abiding citizens throughout their teen years aren't treated that different from ones who spent them as criminals?

What of all the teenagers who are considering committing crimes, knowing the consequences would be so much more dire if they waited until they were adults, and realize it's "now or never"?

Physical sciences aren't immune from bribery either; we all know about GlaxoSmithKline bribing doctors to push pills. Psychology is the bridge between physical and social sciences, no doubt, but that means it's as high-stakes as the former with as much potential for bias as the latter.

Disregarding all science on the basis of potential bribery is rather foolhardy, you can of course believe whatever you want but these are well understood facts by this point.
On another note, the notion of harsher sentencing deterring potential criminals both from reoffending and committing their first offence is mostly fabrication. So trying teens as adults and serving them the harsher sentences that come with that probably wouldn't do all that much beyond costing the state more money.

Would you care to know where the most murders are committed? In states that have the death penalty. You know which states consistently have the lowest murder rates?

So no, the nuke-it-from-orbit option is pretty much the worst thing you can do and will only encourage more aberrant behavior.

[Dome Artan]

Disregarding all science on the basis of potential bribery is rather foolhardy, you can of course believe whatever you want but these are well understood facts by this point.
On another note, the notion of harsher sentencing deterring potential criminals both from reoffending and committing their first offence is mostly fabrication. So trying teens as adults and serving them the harsher sentences that come with that probably wouldn't do all that much beyond costing the state more money.

Would you care to know where the most murders are committed? In states that have the death penalty. You know which states consistently have the lowest murder rates?

So no, the nuke-it-from-orbit option is pretty much the worst thing you can do and will only encourage more aberrant behavior.

Thats...what I said

[Vetalia]

So no, the nuke-it-from-orbit option is pretty much the worst thing you can do and will only encourage more aberrant behavior.

'
Technically speaking, Kat, the nuke-it-from-orbit option if properly applied would indeed end juvenile delinquency.

[Cetacea]

If the crime is egregious enough, they will be, but generally speaking, most teens are not murderers.

In response to the OP:

Science does in fact show that human brains generally are not fully developed and therefore the impulse control section is not well defined until the early twenties. That's not 'social "science"', that's practical science.

In fact, teens tried as teens tend not to reoffend, while teens tried as adults end up having a high rate of recidivism. If you want to make a teen into a hardened, career criminal, then by all means, try them as an adult.

What of all the teenagers who wouldn't have committed crimes in the first place if they saw other teenage criminals tried as adults? How much incentive is it for them to obey the law, if teenagers who were law-abiding citizens throughout their teen years aren't treated that different from ones who spent them as criminals?

What of all the teenagers who are considering committing crimes, knowing the consequences would be so much more dire if they waited until they were adults, and realize it's "now or never"?

Physical sciences aren't immune from bribery either; we all know about GlaxoSmithKline bribing doctors to push pills. Psychology is the bridge between physical and social sciences, no doubt, but that means it's as high-stakes as the former with as much potential for bias as the latter.

Do you understand what lack of impulse control means? The whole argument is predicated on the FACT that Teens do not consider long term consequences and that ‘Making an example” of someone else as a form of negative reinforcement Of behaviour does not have significant effect.

Adults supposedly have greater capacity to rationalise and weigh consequences, which in the case of Person B, could give him/her a ‘temporary insanity’ plea for why the suddenly changed from law abiding to major criminal

[Galloism]

So no, the nuke-it-from-orbit option is pretty much the worst thing you can do and will only encourage more aberrant behavior.

'
Technically speaking, Kat, the nuke-it-from-orbit option if properly applied would indeed end juvenile delinquency.

And unemployment.

[Dumb Ideologies]

The justice system is odd and inconsistent because a) it's trying to balance a lot of different principles and interests, and b) the moment you set up any adversarial system both sides will try to "game" it.

[Katganistan]

Would you care to know where the most murders are committed? In states that have the death penalty. You know which states consistently have the lowest murder rates?

So no, the nuke-it-from-orbit option is pretty much the worst thing you can do and will only encourage more aberrant behavior.

Thats...what I said

I'm agreeing with you, and trying to put a stop to this silly authoritarian nightmare.

[Katganistan]

'
Technically speaking, Kat, the nuke-it-from-orbit option if properly applied would indeed end juvenile delinquency.

And unemployment.

And, well, everything. Except the cockroaches, which would take over the earth.

Perhaps, "Stop trying to use an elephant gun to kill a mouse"?

[Samadhi]

Thats...what I said

I'm agreeing with you, and trying to put a stop to this silly authoritarian nightmare.

Aren't we all trying to put a stop to this silly authoritarian nightmare?

[Dome Artan]

I'm agreeing with you, and trying to put a stop to this silly authoritarian nightmare.

Aren't we all trying to put a stop to this silly authoritarian nightmare?

Unfortunately it doesn't seem that way when the most powerful nations are all essentially run through the executive.

[USS Monitor]

What of all the teenagers who wouldn't have committed crimes in the first place if they saw other teenage criminals tried as adults? How much incentive is it for them to obey the law, if teenagers who were law-abiding citizens throughout their teen years aren't treated that different from ones who spent them as criminals?

What of all the teenagers who are considering committing crimes, knowing the consequences would be so much more dire if they waited until they were adults, and realize it's "now or never"?

Physical sciences aren't immune from bribery either; we all know about GlaxoSmithKline bribing doctors to push pills. Psychology is the bridge between physical and social sciences, no doubt, but that means it's as high-stakes as the former with as much potential for bias as the latter.

What teenager sits there and thinks, "Wow, if I get caught doing this terrible thing, I won't get tried as an adult and my future adult self will be less affected by my actions than if I was to commit this crime after I turn 18!"

Maybe a few, but a good portion of teenage crime is pretty impulsive and this idea of yours simply doesn't factor into teenage crime in any meaningful way.

^THIS!!!!

[Paxiosolange]

The justice system is odd and inconsistent because a) it's trying to balance a lot of different principles and interests, and b) the moment you set up any adversarial system both sides will try to "game" it.

Both sides will also claim that the powers that be in the justice system are biased in favour of their adversary.

[The Holy Therns]

Literally no form of circumstance exists, everyone is the same 40 year old balding man with a bladder problem who lives in Denmark.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Disregarding all science on the basis of potential bribery is rather foolhardy, you can of course believe whatever you want but these are well understood facts by this point.
On another note, the notion of harsher sentencing deterring potential criminals both from reoffending and committing their first offence is mostly fabrication. So trying teens as adults and serving them the harsher sentences that come with that probably wouldn't do all that much beyond costing the state more money.

Would you care to know where the most murders are committed? In states that have the death penalty. You know which states consistently have the lowest murder rates?

So no, the nuke-it-from-orbit option is pretty much the worst thing you can do and will only encourage more aberrant behavior.

The death penalty is functionally equivalent to prison at this point. Whether your appeals process delays execution by years or get let out into a society that won't pay you welfare or give you a job and you're dead in a few years, the result is the same. "Liberal" states' hypocritical virtue signaling about "not having executions" is cold comfort to criminals who've been beaten to death by their cellmates, or pepper-sprayed to death by the guards, etc.

For the death penalty to be a real deterrent, it'd have to be used on people who still have some fear of death left in them (eg. stock fraudster types, instead of street criminals) and who have reason to believe they wouldn't rather just die. Giving prisoners the option to kill themselves if they choose to do so of their own accord might at least give them the "well, if I decide it's a fate worse than death, I always know how to escape" sense of choice in their minds.

As well, your case does not rule out deterrence value. Death Penalty states, for all we know, might've only resorted to the Death Penalty because they anticipated a surge in murders. For all we know, if it weren't for their executions, their murder rate may have been even higher.

[Purpelia]

As far as I am concerned treating teenagers as children is fundamentally harmful to those of us who did in fact not act like uncontrolled animals during our teenage years.

As for deterrence I shall say only this. You can not prevent first offenders. Not ever. Unless you literally have a magic crystal ball that looks into the future you can't tell who is going to turn out human and who isn't. What you can do however is make sure their first offense is their last. And you do this by removing their ability to re offend by removing them.

[Andsed]

As far as I am concerned treating teenagers as children is fundamentally harmful to those of us who did in fact not act like uncontrolled animals during our teenage years.

As for deterrence I shall say only this. You can not prevent first offenders. Not ever. Unless you literally have a magic crystal ball that looks into the future you can't tell who is going to turn out human and who isn't. What you can do however is make sure their first offense is their last. And you do this by removing their ability to re offend by removing them.

How is it unfair? And also what do you mean by ¨removing their ability¨?

[Purpelia]

How is it unfair?

And also what do you mean by ¨removing their ability¨?

TLDR I am a subscriber of the doctrine of: Hate the criminal and not the crime.

The way I see things crime is something that is very much misunderstood by modern society. Criminal acts are not something done by good people who just happened to lapse. Good people are in fact incapable of being serious criminals. That is what defines them as being good. Rather everyone who commits a serious act of criminality, regardless of their age or any other category, does so because they are at their very core inherently corrupt. And acts of criminality are simply the outward symptom of this corruption. Much like a person with the plague is inherently sick on the inside and all the coughing and boils are just the outward symptoms.

Therefore it is pointless trying to deter these individuals from crime. For you can no more do so than you can deter a wolf from feeding on sheep. Nor does punishing them have any purpose. For violence or threat of it can not alter their nature. And reforming them is just a joke. You can no more reform a criminal than you can teach a fish to breathe out of water.

The only thing you can do is make sure they are identified and removed from society as quickly as possible, which means at their first offense, so that the rest of us actual human beings can keep living our lives unmolested.