LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote: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.
A society where having a criminal record - for any type of crime - makes people unemployable and denies them access to welfare?? To be honest, this sounds like something which should concern you a whole lot more than the "loophole" you're talking about. This is a society in dire need of reform.
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote: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.
Since you're talking about a hypothetical, you're not bringing up a very interesting discussion. It would be more interesting to know where specifically you would draw the line: Are you in favour of not having any age of criminal responsibility (Like in a majority of states in the US), or do you just want it to be higher? (Age 10 in the UK, 13 in France, 15 in Scandinavia)
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:At best, this is unfair to those who were law-abiding citizens in their teen years.
How is it unfair to someone that they can be punished for breaking the law while someone in completely different circumstances would not be punished?
This is like saying that it's unfair to murderers that they will be punished while I can kill in self-defence without getting thrown in jail.
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:At worst, person B may have been the one who provoked person A in the first place.
Happily, we often take into consideration if provocation took place.
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:For what purpose is this loophole even in place? 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. 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.
As others have pointed out, the "loophole" is there because the brains of children are still developing. Do you seriously believe that the brain of a thirteen year old is the same as the brain of a twenty year old?
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote: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?
Wat
No.