The "can't try teenagers as adults" loophole

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

You do know that the most common victims of sexual assault and exploitation in jails and prisons are juveniles sentenced as adults, right?

Source on this one? And even if it's true, is it age that does it, or physical vulnerability? If the latter, does this not suggest they need to be sorted into their cells in order of physical strength? If the former, does this not suggest they need to be sorted in order of age within the prison?

The laws regarding felony convictions are inherently unjust because they essentially amount to a life sentence regardless of the actual punishment for the crime

The idea is to have the outside world be not quite as brutal as prison was, therefore giving them something to lose by committing a life sentence worthy crime. I'll grant that we could be giving them relatively more to lose. (The ban on welfare never made sense to me; sounds like an incentive to steal; "slightly less welfare money" than law-abiding citizens makes more sense than no welfare at all.)

That means they should not face discrimination in employment, should not be barred from voting, and should not be barred from owning firearms.

How would you enforce the former? What if the latter results in them misusing those firearms?

Here's another interesting question - how on earth would members of the public know they are being "served" by a criminal to begin with?

There's all kinds of possible ways they might figure it out. Evidently competition among businesses has responded to the risk and deemed it not worth it.

[Gravlen]

After having served their sentences? Yes. Absolutely.

People say that, and then go on to re-elect officials who support the private prison industry that lets criminals rape each other until their AIDS infection follows them outside the walls of the prison.

I do not support the private prison industry. But regardless, I don't see how the failure of the prison system to safeguard the health and wellbeing of its inmates is an argument in favor of criminals to be treated differently than law-abiding citizens as far as access to jobs and welfare go.

As well, that businesses competing with each other to meet consumer demand have no incentive to hire criminals, and every incentive not to, that reflects the public's refusal to be served by a criminal; at least directly, in a context other than prison labour. Actions speak louder than words.

With the exception of a few careers, I don't see that it's an issue one way or another at all. I don't refuse to board a bus driven by an individual who was once sentenced for using a fake passport, and I doubt anyone else would care about that either. The waiter in his 50's bringing me pizza stole a cassette player when he was a teenager and a car in his 20's? I couldn't care less, and it's in no way reflective of his current job performance.

This isn't a dilemma. You don't exclude peple from the labor market after they've paid their debt to society, without any other additional compelling reasons. That would be immoral and counterproductive. There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to work as a cook just because you at some point in your life decided to drive to fast on the freeway.

Okay, but all else held constant, shouldn't the individual's lawful vs. unlawful nature be a factor? It's hardly less relevant than all the nepotism that also influences hiring decisions.

No, it should not. The question of lawful v. unlawful behavior (not "nature") is one between the individual and the State. A potential employer does not need to concern themselves about it (barring certain circumstances).

So you would support an age of criminal responsibility of 13? What about your claims of arbitrariness?

I meant compared to other arbitrary thresholds. How was this not obvious?

Probably because of the words you used.

What exactly did you think I meant?

I thought you meant France had the right idea, setting the age of criminal responsibility to 13 years old. You know, like you wrote.

I have no comment here, I just needed to let this part of your post shine by itself. It's glorious

Guess it's easier to dismiss something than refute it, huh?

No, no, you misunderstand.

The statement refutes itself due to the level of absurdity it contains. No effort necessary on my part.

You... don't know that that's exactly how we do it today?

Well, civilized places, where we have an age of criminal responsibility. It's not a binary function, and we look at everything from age, circumstance, the severity of the crime, prior behaviour, alternatives to punishment, and alternative punishments.

So basically, a "we know it when we see it" thing, up to individual judges' bias.

Sure, if you disregard the letter of the law, judicial instructions, sentencing guidelines and case law.

A bit more than "We know it when we see it", but you do you.

At least if the maximum and minimum sentences were continuous functions of age they'd have a narrower range of options to work within.

Better to have good sentencing guidelines. Focusing on the maximum sentence will be misleading and not very helpful in these circumstances, as they rarely will come to a head - even if the range is narrower and subject to age.

Exactly. Someone can be punished for breaking the law while someone in completely different circumstances would not be punished for the same act.

But it's not the same act. The very definition of the crime is negated by the circumstances they were in.

No, it's the same act.

In example one, John - carrying a gun - goes to Andy's house. Andy - also carrying a gun - leaves his house, and is shot dead in front of his door. This act of killing is murder due to the circumstances, and John is punished.

In example two, John - carrying a gun - goes to Andy's house. Andy - also carrying a gun - leaves his house, and is shot dead in front of his door. This act of killing is self-defence due to the circumstances, and John is not punished.

Circumstances differ, but the acts are the same.

Other circumstances have been deemed by the law itself to NOT negate it being a crime. Don't double-dip here.

I have no idea what this means.

Your unfounded doubt isn't worth anything, though. Since you acknowledge that it is actually happening, you'd need a better objection than simply pressing X.

Again, you're counting on the biases of a judge and jury not to do more harm than good. Look at this social experiment on how the sexes of people in a confrontation affect bystanders' conclusions about whether or not it was provoked:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GccCWo_eZdw

If a judge and jury gets to assess "provocation," that's just going to make things worse.

Your YouTube video doesn't justify your general doubt in the legal system. Please find me a credible source, preferably from the realm of law since, you know, that's the topic at hand.

You seem to agree that 13 is a nice place to draw the line.

No, I do not. See above.

Ah, so you mistyped. Does this mean you think the brain of a 13 year old is as developed as the brain of a 20 year old?

It's not all that arbitrary. Well, as long as you don't out of hand dismiss the developmental science behind the rule.

Again, as I mentioned in the OP, the developmental science defends only the soft bigotry of low expectations on teenagers.

And as have been mentioned, your assertion is bunk and not in line with science. It's not about being "pre-disposed to crime", it's about understanding the consequences of one's actions, the long-term effects, and having the capability to weigh different factors against each other.

However, the soft bigotry of low expectations on teenagers does not constitute a defense of the "can't try teenagers as adults" loophole anyway, because the lower your expectations of teenagers, the greater the extent to which law-abiding teenagers
exceed those expectations.

This doesn't follow logically. You're basically saying that since we know children generally aren't as developed cognitively as adults are, the fact that some children would be more developed than others means we should ignore that children generally aren't as developed cognitively as adults are. Nonsense.

And therefore, the greater the extent to which law-abiding teenagers prove themselves more worthy of the better jobs than everybody else.

Suddenly over to jobs? Why bring this irrelevant factor into play? Sure, give law-abiding teenagers good jobs, what do I care about that?

[Page]

I do not think it makes sense that the age of majority is flexible when it comes to the criminal justice system but nothing else. If some teenagers can be tried as adults, shouldn't some be able to vote as adults or drink as adults? There is no discretion involved in voting or drinking. If you're 17 and 364 days old, the state says you're too immature to vote, that you're not responsible or informed enough, but somehow crime is different.

In theory, we might assess each individual minor and assess their capacity for adult responsibilities, but since there are billions and no chance that those who decide would be fair or even rational, an age of majority is a necessity. It is an arbitrary line and it has to be drawn somewhere. Some would prefer to put that arbitrary line at 16, others 21, and regardless of where that line is drawn it will still be problematic that a single day can make the difference between having no responsibilities and having all of them, but it's a necessary evil. But it can at least be consistent.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

I do not support the private prison industry. But regardless, I don't see how the failure of the prison system to safeguard the health and wellbeing of its inmates is an argument in favor of criminals to be treated differently than law-abiding citizens as far as access to jobs and welfare go.

It just seems to indicate hollow, dishonest virtue signaling on the part of the American people. They say "when you've served your sentence, you've served your sentence" but Americans' behaviour seems to suggest they don't mean it. Why on Earth would businesses stack the deck especially severely against ex-convicts, other than because they expect their customers to do the same?

I don't refuse to board a bus driven by an individual who was once sentenced for using a fake passport, and I doubt anyone else would care about that either.

If they meant it, there'd be enough people who'd board one to fill such a bus.

You're free to get in an Uber driven by one though.

No, it should not. The question of lawful v. unlawful behavior (not "nature")

If a person is not their behaviour, what are they?

is one between the individual and the State. A potential employer does not need to concern themselves about it (barring certain circumstances).

The public sector reflects the will of the voters. The private sector reflects the will of the customers. (Barring exceptional circumstances like nepotism.) The voters are essentially the customers of one business plus the customers of all its rivals. (Minus the customers who don't vote, who while numerous aren't quite a majority.) There is not a 1 to 1 relationship, but there's a lot of overlap.

Probably because of the words you used.

Next time, when one statement is at odds with everything else I said in the post and thread alike, I would suggest assuming it's an outlier and asking for clarification.

The statement refutes itself due to the level of absurdity it contains.

Anyone could claim that about anything, reducing such claims to meaninglessness.

Better to have good sentencing guidelines.

Fine, but even within those guidelines, how society should respond to age should be a very gradual gradient, not a "get 'er done before the age of 18 so it's not on your permanent record" incentive.

In example one, John - carrying a gun - goes to Andy's house. Andy - also carrying a gun - leaves his house, and is shot dead in front of his door. This act of killing is murder due to the circumstances, and John is punished.

In example two, John - carrying a gun - goes to Andy's house. Andy - also carrying a gun - leaves his house, and is shot dead in front of his door. This act of killing is self-defence due to the circumstances, and John is not punished.

Circumstances differ, but the acts are the same.

Um... what? I'm not seeing any described differences in circumstances or actions.

I have no idea what this means.

All right, glad to see you asked for clarification this time.

If someone retired from a particular profession; and then returned to that profession to collect a pension while also collecting income from the job; that'd be considered "double-dipping," as the pension money is redundant with the income.

If something isn't even counted as a crime because of the intent with which it was committed, any "can't try as an adult" loophole would be redundant.

Your YouTube video doesn't justify your general doubt in the legal system.

The YouTube video is a sample of how members of the general public react to situations. Where do you think the legal system gets its jurors from, outer space?

Ah, so you mistyped. Does this mean you think the brain of a 13 year old is as developed as the brain of a 20 year old?

Of course not. Again, poor choice of words notwithstanding, my point is that the distinction is continuous and setting arbitrary thresholds incentivizes crime by applying deterrence too heavily to adulthood, not heavily enough to youth, and creating a visible incentive opposite deterrence between the two.

Even the end of puberty, which is more consistent with what our ancestors throughout history would have considered adulthood, is really more of a continuous gradual slowing of the changes one is going through than an abrupt stop.

And as have been mentioned, your assertion is bunk and not in line with science.

Science is not just science. The social sciences have less incentive to be objective and more incentive not to. Just look at all the polls respondents lied to in late 2016. Not a peep from "scientists" about correcting for the effects of lying.

Suddenly over to jobs? Why bring this irrelevant factor into play? Sure, give law-abiding teenagers good jobs, what do I care about that?

I meant, as in, when they are adults. If teenagers are supposedly so innately barbaric, then the few who are of such exceptional virtue as to suppress this barbarity are owed something in return for it. Preferably a future of getting the jobs those who were less civilized than them would have otherwise gotten.

[Page]

Preferably a future of getting the jobs those who were less civilized than them would have otherwise gotten.

What constitutes "civilized"? Teenagers aren't roving marauders raping and pillaging and burning down towns. Most teenage criminality is petty.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Preferably a future of getting the jobs those who were less civilized than them would have otherwise gotten.

What constitutes "civilized"? Teenagers aren't roving marauders raping and pillaging and burning down towns. Most teenage criminality is petty.

Right, but not committing a crime at all is more civilized than even that.

[Purpelia]

It just seems to indicate hollow, dishonest virtue signaling on the part of the American people. They say "when you've served your sentence, you've served your sentence" but Americans' behaviour seems to suggest they don't mean it. Why on Earth would businesses stack the deck especially severely against ex-convicts, other than because they expect their customers to do the same?

Maybe because they distrust them inherently, and rightly so. Would you trust someone who has been convicted of a crime with your money, property and financial future? Would you give someone who has demonstrated them self to be subhuman scum to such a degree that society had to stand up, take notice and do something about it with the safety of your workers and business? Or would you, and rightly so, consider such a person to be a risk just not worth taking?

Preferably a future of getting the jobs those who were less civilized than them would have otherwise gotten.

What constitutes "civilized"? Teenagers aren't roving marauders raping and pillaging and burning down towns. Most teenage criminality is petty.

Petty crimes are just the way criminal individuals probe and poke society in their attempts to figure out how far they can go. It is no different than any other exploratory behavior. And if the reaction is insufficiently swift and terrible they won't know that they have reached that line. There is a reason why every time you watch a true crime show the suspects turns out to have a criminal record for some petty crime or another.

Like it or not, criminals are not humans. They are defective evil things in human skin. And crime, petty or not, is how they show their true nature to us. And we are fools not to act on it immediately and remove them from society before they graduate to more serious acts of evil.

[Gravlen]

I do not support the private prison industry. But regardless, I don't see how the failure of the prison system to safeguard the health and wellbeing of its inmates is an argument in favor of criminals to be treated differently than law-abiding citizens as far as access to jobs and welfare go.

It just seems to indicate hollow, dishonest virtue signaling on the part of the American people. They say "when you've served your sentence, you've served your sentence" but Americans' behaviour seems to suggest they don't mean it. Why on Earth would businesses stack the deck especially severely against ex-convicts, other than because they expect their customers to do the same?

Still not an argument in favor of criminals being treated differently than law-abiding citizens.

I don't refuse to board a bus driven by an individual who was once sentenced for using a fake passport, and I doubt anyone else would care about that either.

If they meant it, there'd be enough people who'd board one to fill such a bus.

Such busses are filled every day.

No, it should not. The question of lawful v. unlawful behavior (not "nature")

If a person is not their behaviour, what are they?

The sum of their behavior, not any single actions, in addition to a shotload of other factors.

is one between the individual and the State. A potential employer does not need to concern themselves about it (barring certain circumstances).

The public sector reflects the will of the voters. The private sector reflects the will of the customers. (Barring exceptional circumstances like nepotism.) The voters are essentially the customers of one business plus the customers of all its rivals. (Minus the customers who don't vote, who while numerous aren't quite a majority.) There is not a 1 to 1 relationship, but there's a lot of overlap.

Not an argument in favor of making a person's behavior outside of work something a business should care about.

Probably because of the words you used.

Next time, when one statement is at odds with everything else I said in the post and thread alike, I would suggest assuming it's an outlier and asking for clarification.

Alright, I won't expect that your written statements accurately reflect what you are trying to say from now on. It's going to be difficult though, because I can only ask you to clarify using... written words...

The statement refutes itself due to the level of absurdity it contains.

Anyone could claim that about anything, reducing such claims to meaninglessness.

*shrug*

Get back to me when you have examples of children deciding to get their crimes in before the age of criminal responsibility, and I'll reassess. Until then, I'll stand by my post.

Better to have good sentencing guidelines.

Fine, but even within those guidelines, how society should respond to age should be a very gradual gradient, not a "get 'er done before the age of 18 so it's not on your permanent record" incentive.

That's... in part what the guidelines do. And why we can seal records, like this:

Sealing refers to closing records to the public but keeping them accessible to a limited number of court or law enforcement personnel connected to a child’s case. For example, in Nebraska, once a juvenile record is sealed, no information contained in that record may be disclosed to potential employers, licensing agencies, landlords or educational institutions. However, the record does remain accessible to law enforcement officers, prosecutors and sentencing judges for purposes of investigating and prosecuting any future crimes in which the youth may be involved.

Expungement, on the other hand, involves the complete physical destruction of a juvenile record. All references to the juvenile’s arrest, detention, adjudication, disposition and probation must be deleted from the files of the court, law enforcement, and any other person or agency that provided services to a child under a court order. An expunged record is to be treated as though it never existed.

All states have some sort of procedures that allow juveniles to petition to either seal or expunge their records in certain cases. However, these procedures can be confusing and cumbersome, and in many instances, the young person is never notified if, when or how the record can be expunged. In some states, a juvenile has no power to initiate the sealing process because sealing or expungement can only occur at the direction of the prosecutor or judge. A recent legislative trend is to make it easier for young people by providing for automatic sealing or expungement of juvenile records, meaning the records are sealed or expunged without any action on the part of the youth.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/automatically-sealing-or-expunging-juvenile-records.aspx
It's almost as if people have thought about this issue in the past. Huh.

In example one, John - carrying a gun - goes to Andy's house. Andy - also carrying a gun - leaves his house, and is shot dead in front of his door. This act of killing is murder due to the circumstances, and John is punished.

In example two, John - carrying a gun - goes to Andy's house. Andy - also carrying a gun - leaves his house, and is shot dead in front of his door. This act of killing is self-defence due to the circumstances, and John is not punished.

Circumstances differ, but the acts are the same.

Um... what? I'm not seeing any described differences in circumstances or actions.

Exactly. Because intent isn't always visible, but the actions are. In these cases, John's actions are the same, but the intent of the people involved are different. In one of the examples, John has planned to kill Andy, and he carries out his intended murder when he gets to his house. In the second example, Andy has previously threatened to kill John, and John fires in self-defence.

As I said, someone (John) can be punished for breaking the law (murder) while someone in completely different circumstances (self-defence) would not be punished for the same act (shooting and killing).

I have no idea what this means.

All right, glad to see you asked for clarification this time.

If someone retired from a particular profession; and then returned to that profession to collect a pension while also collecting income from the job; that'd be considered "double-dipping," as the pension money is redundant with the income.

If something isn't even counted as a crime because of the intent with which it was committed, any "can't try as an adult" loophole would be redundant.

Further clarification is required.

Your YouTube video doesn't justify your general doubt in the legal system.

The YouTube video is a sample of how members of the general public react to situations. Where do you think the legal system gets its jurors from, outer space?

A sample size of one, an edited video of a non-scientiffic experiment which purports to show certain reactions in a manipulated setting, is not particularly persuasive as a measuring stick for how the "general public" would react.

Ah, so you mistyped. Does this mean you think the brain of a 13 year old is as developed as the brain of a 20 year old?

Of course not. Again, poor choice of words notwithstanding, my point is that the distinction is continuous and setting arbitrary thresholds incentivizes crime by applying deterrence too heavily to adulthood, not heavily enough to youth, and creating a visible incentive opposite deterrence between the two.

Even the end of puberty, which is more consistent with what our ancestors throughout history would have considered adulthood, is really more of a continuous gradual slowing of the changes one is going through than an abrupt stop.

You've thus far failed to show that crime is actually incentivized, and have only made an unsupported assertion in that regard. You hinted that you liked the age of criminal responsibility set to 13 years, as in France, but I don't see any evidence of 12-year old french children running rampant to get their crimes in before their next birthday.

Further, you don't seem to consider the existence of dealing with criminal activity outside criminal courts either, like with conflict resolution mechanisms that aren't based in the criminal justice system or other age-appropriate reactions. In France, a child below the age of 13 (but above the age of 10) may not be punished through incarceration or fines, but that doesn't mean that other reactions can't be given. A child in this age range may be put in an educational institution or a medical institution if appropriate, or child welfare services may become involved, or they may be required to participate in "daytime activities". These aren't penal reactions, but they are suitable reactions put in place in order to rectify bad behavior. It acknowledges that the threat of punishment has little if any preventative effect on developing minds, and acts accordingly.

And as have been mentioned, your assertion is bunk and not in line with science.

Science is not just science. The social sciences have less incentive to be objective and more incentive not to.

Oh look, another unsupported claim.

Just look at all the polls respondents lied to in late 2016. Not a peep from "scientists" about correcting for the effects of lying.

Just because you haven't been paying attention...

The Bradley effect
‘Shy’ Voters Probably Aren’t Why The Polls Missed Trump

Of course, that's irrelevant here. Developmental science is not the same as opinion polling.

Suddenly over to jobs? Why bring this irrelevant factor into play? Sure, give law-abiding teenagers good jobs, what do I care about that?

I meant, as in, when they are adults. If teenagers are supposedly so innately barbaric, then the few who are of such exceptional virtue as to suppress this barbarity are owed something in return for it. Preferably a future of getting the jobs those who were less civilized than them would have otherwise gotten.

The only one asserting that teenagers are "innately barbaric" is you. I'm arguing that teenagers and children aren't as developed as adults, and have difficulties with impulse controls and risk taking, cost-benefit analyses, and understanding long term consequences. They are also behind when it somes to social and emphatic development, and all of these factors have to be taken into consideration when it comes to determining the future of a child.

[Purpelia]

Still not an argument in favor of criminals being treated differently than law-abiding citizens.

Why do you even need an argument to treat apples differently than oranges? Do you also need proof that salt is to be used differently than sugar and that there is more light during the day than during the night?

[Andsed]

Still not an argument in favor of criminals being treated differently than law-abiding citizens.

Why do you even need an argument to treat apples differently than oranges? Do you also need proof that salt is to be used differently than sugar and that there is more light during the day than during the night?

Not seeing any argument here. If a convict has served their time and are now law abiding citizens I don’t see why we should not treat them as such.

[Purpelia]

Why do you even need an argument to treat apples differently than oranges? Do you also need proof that salt is to be used differently than sugar and that there is more light during the day than during the night?

Not seeing any argument here. If a convict has served their time and are now law abiding citizens I don’t see why we should not treat them as such.

You should read my other posts than. My entire argument is that criminals are a subspecies of human that are inherently corrupt and thus irredeemable. And that the social conventions of catch and release we practice are a stupid, misguided and ultimately harmful form of behavior we need to abandon.

[Andsed]

Not seeing any argument here. If a convict has served their time and are now law abiding citizens I don’t see why we should not treat them as such.

You should read my other posts than. My entire argument is that criminals are a subspecies of human that are inherently corrupt and thus irredeemable. And that the social conventions of catch and release we practice are a stupid, misguided and ultimately harmful form of behavior we need to abandon.

Your argument is not only absurd and just fucking wrong it is also very naive. Those who commit crimes are just like everyone else. Very few if any commit their crimes because they are “inherently corrupt.” They do it because of things like the thrill of it or money. And don’t even start with the idea that those who commit crimes cannot change for the better cause it is wrong. The only harmful thing here is people who spout ideas like this making those who have actually changed for the better harder to live a normal life.

[Purpelia]

Your argument is not only absurd and just fucking wrong it is also very naive. Those who commit crimes are just like everyone else. Very few if any commit their crimes because they are “inherently corrupt.” They do it because of things like the thrill of it or money. And don’t even start with the idea that those who commit crimes cannot change for the better cause it is wrong. The only harmful thing here is people who spout ideas like this making those who have actually changed for the better harder to live a normal life.

It's nice to see you providing evidence and general quality argument to support your claims as opposed to empty rebuttals. Not.

Fact is that no matter where you are in the world people who commit crime once are far more likely to do it again once released than people who newer did it at all. There are only two types of people, those that obey laws and those that think laws only apply to them if they are caught. The later can't be fixed. And the former need to be protected from them.

[Andsed]

Your argument is not only absurd and just fucking wrong it is also very naive. Those who commit crimes are just like everyone else. Very few if any commit their crimes because they are “inherently corrupt.” They do it because of things like the thrill of it or money. And don’t even start with the idea that those who commit crimes cannot change for the better cause it is wrong. The only harmful thing here is people who spout ideas like this making those who have actually changed for the better harder to live a normal life.

It's nice to see you providing evidence and general quality argument to support your claims as opposed to empty rebuttals. Not.

Fact is that no matter where you are in the world people who commit crime once are far more likely to do it again once released than people who newer did it at all. There are only two types of people, those that obey laws and those that think laws only apply to them if they are caught. The later can't be fixed. And the former need to be protected from them.

Your post here lacks any nuance it’s funny. Repeat offenders do happen but that is no reason to lock someone up for life because they shoplifted. And those who commit crimes can change. I would give examples but I am on mobile at the moment.

[Gravlen]

I don't understand how driving without a license a couple of times makes turns a person into a subspecies of human, and why they should be denied access to the job market and to welfare.

[Andsed]

I don't understand how driving without a license a couple of times makes turns a person into a subspecies of human, and why they should be denied access to the job market and to welfare.

Or stealing a candy bar or tossing a rock and that accidentally hitting someone and causing them to fall and become injured. It’s almost like crime and why it happens and how it should be addressed is a nuanced thing.

[Gravlen]

I don't understand how driving without a license a couple of times makes turns a person into a subspecies of human, and why they should be denied access to the job market and to welfare.

Or stealing a candy bar or tossing a rock and that accidentally hitting someone and causing them to fall and become injured. It’s almost like crime and why it happens and how it should be addressed is a nuanced thing.

Nah. We should treat stealing bread because you're hungry and killing someone for kicks as the same, and ship them all off to Australia.

[Ifreann]

I don't understand how driving without a license a couple of times makes turns a person into a subspecies of human, and why they should be denied access to the job market and to welfare.

I believe the idea is that if they weren't H. s. criminalis they they wouldn't have driven without a license in the first place. Which doesn't sound to me like how biology works at all.

[Estanglia]

Picture two people; person A and person B.

Person A obeys the letter of the law throughout his/her teen years, and well into adulthood. One day, for whatever reason (desperate circumstances, stress-related mental breakdown, etc.) they wind up breaking the law. This criminal record will make them unemployable for the rest of their lives, and prohibit them from access to welfare. Unless someone takes enough pity on them to feed them, they will die.

Person B commits crime after crime throughout their teen years. Because of the "you can't try teenagers as adults" loophole, their criminal record doesn't stick, and no one gets to know what crimes they committed. So they can do it again and again with absolute impunity until their adult years, walking away from it with a smirk, knowing that they've gotten away with it forever.

At best, this is unfair to those who were law-abiding citizens in their teen years. At worst, person B may have been the one who provoked person A in the first place.

Solution: Don't make having a criminal record make people unemployable and prohibit them from access to welfare, with the exception of a couple of crimes.

For what purpose is this loophole even in place?

Because teenagers are dumber than adults.

Usual rationalizations come in the form of the social "sciences" claiming adult brains are different than teenage brains, despite that most societies throughout history treated teenagers as adults.

Societies throughout history also practised slavery and other things we'd consider evil today. Should we go and re-instate slavery on that basis?
"Societies in the past did it" is a really shitty basis for anything.

Of course, social "sciences" also invoke surveys respondents can lie to in order to justify some of their conclusions, so take their other conclusions with a grain of salt.

But even if we grant this assumption... doesn't this actually make the case for the "can't try teenagers as adults" loophole weaker, instead of stronger? If teenagers are so pre-disposed to crime, doesn't that suggest that law-abiding teenagers are of exceptional moral character, and therefore worthy of better lives than everyone else?

So, we should reward people who follow our laws instead of breaking them?

Well, people following the law typically get better lives than those not following it already, so I don't see what changes need to be made.

Why should we give someone another chance for say, idk, massacring a bunch of kids in a school?

Because you have no right to interfere in someone else's life. You can protect your own all you like, you can organise a group to not interact with anyone you want for any reason you want. But you don't get to just decide a person doesn't get to do shit because of something they once did.

So, I can't stop a person from interfering in other people's lives (by, you know, killing them?) because I'm not allowed to interfere in other people's lives.

Either there's some hypocrisy in here or your idea doesn't work. Or both.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Anyone could claim that about anything, reducing such claims to meaninglessness.

*shrug*

Get back to me when you have examples of children deciding to get their crimes in before the age of criminal responsibility, and I'll reassess. Until then, I'll stand by my post.

That's not what you said. You didn't say it was about the burden of proof (how could you even prove OR disprove it anyway?) but about the notion that it "refutes itself due to the level of absurdity it contains."

But hey, I could just as easily dismiss the rest of your post as "refuting itself due to the level of absurdity it contains." And you could no more disprove it than I could yours.