NationStates

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.

The JELLEAIN Republic wrote:

Katganistan wrote: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.

Isint that because of the more egregious the crime, the higher reoffending rate ?

What's the rate of reoffending for murders again? And what's the rate of reoffending when it comes to minor drug crimes, traffic violations, and the like?

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Katganistan wrote:Give it up. You dismiss facts, no matter how credible the sources, for your fantasies of an Orwellian future.

And yet, you're the one who has no answer to how we know whether or not "if it weren't for their executions, their murder rate may have been even higher".

I feel like you have a lot of unwarranted confidence in this idea for what boils down completely to "Well it could be, you don't know!"

Well, in my nation, the teen will be executed! By crucifixion! And it will be televised, and in the Solar Square!

Tarchuna and Ravenna wrote:Well, in my nation, the teen will be executed! By crucifixion! And it will be televised, and in the Solar Square!

General is OOC.

The Holy Therns wrote:

Tarchuna and Ravenna wrote:Well, in my nation, the teen will be executed! By crucifixion! And it will be televised, and in the Solar Square!

General is OOC.

Forgive my ignorance, but what does that abbreviation mean?

Tarchuna and Ravenna wrote:

The Holy Therns wrote:
General is OOC.

Forgive my ignorance, but what does that abbreviation mean?

Out of Character (for future reference, IC means In Character). NSG tends to be for discussion that are not in character

Well, my nation is pretty much an exaggeration of my personal beliefs. I do believe in capital punishment, however.

The Holy Therns wrote:

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:And yet, you're the one who has no answer to how we know whether or not "if it weren't for their executions, their murder rate may have been even higher".

I feel like you have a lot of unwarranted confidence in this idea for what boils down completely to "Well it could be, you don't know!"

Unfortunately, this is the case for many dystopian authoritatian uber alles ultra-tough-laws/constant surveillance/disproportionate punishment threads LUNA has written.

Tarchuna and Ravenna wrote:Well, my nation is pretty much an exaggeration of my personal beliefs. I do believe in capital punishment, however.

That's fine, and you can roleplay your nation and its leader's exaggerated views in International Incidents or Nationstates.

General is, in fact, where we debate about current events.

So: do you think that teenagers should be prosecuted as if they were adults, and why?

Katganistan wrote:

The Holy Therns wrote:
I feel like you have a lot of unwarranted confidence in this idea for what boils down completely to "Well it could be, you don't know!"

Unfortunately, this is the case for many dystopian authoritatian uber alles ultra-tough-laws/constant surveillance/disproportionate punishment threads LUNA has written.

I know, I'm just trying to be as polite as I can.

The Holy Therns wrote:

Katganistan wrote:Unfortunately, this is the case for many dystopian authoritatian uber alles ultra-tough-laws/constant surveillance/disproportionate punishment threads LUNA has written.

I know, I'm just trying to be as polite as I can.

Certainly giving a lot of material to anyone who would like to write a YA novel.

Katganistan wrote:

The Holy Therns wrote:
I know, I'm just trying to be as polite as I can.

Certainly giving a lot of material to anyone who would like to write a YA novel.

I think more in terms of The Thinning.

I think OP is forgetting that the only time Teens are tried as adults is for the most heinous crimes (Rape, Murder, Terrorism, Kidnapping, Armed Robbery, ETC.)

So let's re write OP's post shall we.

2 people A and B.
A commits no crime until one day the Murder someone. As the law allows they are tried as an adult and more than likely go to jail.
B commits many petty crimes (unarmed Theft, Shoplifting, Breaking and Entering, ETC.) Served some time in the youth center and eather Reformed or commits a crime in adulthood going to jail like A.

Gravlen wrote: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.

The United States, for one. Curiously I looked up whether the "denies them welfare" part applies to Canada and only found stuff about denying welfare to those with outstanding warrants, not those who've actually been convicted.

What's the alternative, though? For criminals to be treated no differently than law-abiding citizens as far as access to jobs and welfare go? There's not enough jobs for everyone, so there's going to be a few jobless. What sounds more moral to you, for the few jobless to be law-abiding citizens who just didn't make the cut, (and then be on the welfare rolls alongside ex-convicts) or for the criminals to be the ones denied the jobs? I'm not claiming to have all the answers, just pointing out the nature of the dilemma.

Gravlen wrote: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)

France sounds like they have the right idea. It's consistent with the threshold used for adulthood in most societies throughout history.

That said, there's still a concern that 12-year-olds might want to get their crimes in while they can, whether for the thrill of it or for any other reason. It would make more sense for the severity of punishment to be a continuous function of age, not one with an arbitrary threshold.

Gravlen wrote: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.

Murder is a crime, self-defense is not.

Gravlen wrote:Happily, we often take into consideration if provocation took place.

Yeah, but in practice I doubt it's going to be that much of a defense.

Gravlen wrote: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?

Is the brain of a 20 year old the same as that of a 27 year old? Is the brain of a 27 year old the same as that of a 34 year old? Where do you draw the line?

Either people are responsible for their actions or they're not. "How" responsible, if distinguished at all, should be distinguished on a continuous scale, not have some arbitrary threshold.

Gravlen wrote:Wat

No.

...because?

Teenagers are generally speaking not fully mentally developed, and there is lot of room to grow in regards to empathy, impulse control, and reasoning ability.

A 15 year old commits a horrendous crime there is a good likelihood that they can be reformed. A 25 year old commits a horrendous crime there is far less likelihood that they can be reformed.

Greed and Death wrote:Teenagers are generally speaking not fully mentally developed, and there is lot of room to grow in regards to empathy, impulse control, and reasoning ability.

A 15 year old commits a horrendous crime there is a good likelihood that they can be reformed. A 25 year old commits a horrendous crime there is far less likelihood that they can be reformed.

Eh, Norway manages to do it. It's not about "reform," it's about to what extent deterrence is made the priority.

Besides, not much incentive for a 15 year old to reform when they think the law can't touch them.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Greed and Death wrote:Teenagers are generally speaking not fully mentally developed, and there is lot of room to grow in regards to empathy, impulse control, and reasoning ability.

A 15 year old commits a horrendous crime there is a good likelihood that they can be reformed. A 25 year old commits a horrendous crime there is far less likelihood that they can be reformed.

Eh, Norway manages to do it. It's not about "reform," it's about to what extent deterrence is made the priority.

Besides, not much incentive for a 15 year old to reform when they think the law can't touch them.

15 year olds in generally think they will never get caught and they are immortal, that is why we try them as juveniles.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Greed and Death wrote:Teenagers are generally speaking not fully mentally developed, and there is lot of room to grow in regards to empathy, impulse control, and reasoning ability.

A 15 year old commits a horrendous crime there is a good likelihood that they can be reformed. A 25 year old commits a horrendous crime there is far less likelihood that they can be reformed.

Eh, Norway manages to do it. It's not about "reform," it's about to what extent deterrence is made the priority.

Besides, not much incentive for a 15 year old to reform when they think the law can't touch them.

I didn't know we gave people diplomatic immunity based on age.

Gravlen wrote:

The JELLEAIN Republic wrote:
Isint that because of the more egregious the crime, the higher reoffending rate ?

What's the rate of reoffending for murders again? And what's the rate of reoffending when it comes to minor drug crimes, traffic violations, and the like?

Interesting...

Katganistan wrote:

Tarchuna and Ravenna wrote:Well, my nation is pretty much an exaggeration of my personal beliefs. I do believe in capital punishment, however.

That's fine, and you can roleplay your nation and its leader's exaggerated views in International Incidents or Nationstates.

General is, in fact, where we debate about current events.

So: do you think that teenagers should be prosecuted as if they were adults, and why?

The severity and impact of the crimes is the same, and such a despicable person must be punished!

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Gravlen wrote: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.

The United States, for one. Curiously I looked up whether the "denies them welfare" part applies to Canada and only found stuff about denying welfare to those with outstanding warrants, not those who've actually been convicted.

What's the alternative, though? For criminals to be treated no differently than law-abiding citizens as far as access to jobs and welfare go?

After having served their sentences? Yes. Absolutely.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:There's not enough jobs for everyone, so there's going to be a few jobless. What sounds more moral to you, for the few jobless to be law-abiding citizens who just didn't make the cut, (and then be on the welfare rolls alongside ex-convicts) or for the criminals to be the ones denied the jobs? I'm not claiming to have all the answers, just pointing out the nature of the dilemma.

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.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Gravlen wrote: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)

France sounds like they have the right idea. It's consistent with the threshold used for adulthood in most societies throughout history.

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

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:That said, there's still a concern that 12-year-olds might want to get their crimes in while they can, whether for the thrill of it or for any other reason.

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

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:It would make more sense for the severity of punishment to be a continuous function of age, not one with an arbitrary threshold.

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.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Murder is a crime, self-defense is not.

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

You're fine with this apparent unfairness here, but you have a problem with it when it comes to age. Why?

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:
Yeah, but in practice I doubt it's going to be that much of a defense.

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.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:
Is the brain of a 20 year old the same as that of a 27 year old? Is the brain of a 27 year old the same as that of a 34 year old? Where do you draw the line?

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

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Either people are responsible for their actions or they're not. "How" responsible, if distinguished at all, should be distinguished on a continuous scale, not have some arbitrary threshold.

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

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:
...because?

That part of your post made no sense, and seemed to add a premise without any foundation for no reason at all.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Greed and Death wrote:Teenagers are generally speaking not fully mentally developed, and there is lot of room to grow in regards to empathy, impulse control, and reasoning ability.

A 15 year old commits a horrendous crime there is a good likelihood that they can be reformed. A 25 year old commits a horrendous crime there is far less likelihood that they can be reformed.

Eh, Norway manages to do it. It's not about "reform," it's about to what extent deterrence is made the priority.

Besides, not much incentive for a 15 year old to reform when they think the law can't touch them.

Norway has an age of criminal responsability set to 15 years. The best way to reform underage criminals is to go a route of support, education and protection, not punishment.

Gravlen wrote: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. 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.

Gravlen wrote: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.

Gravlen wrote: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? What exactly did you think I meant?

Gravlen 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?

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

Gravlen wrote: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.

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

Gravlen wrote: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.

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

No, I do not. See above.

Gravlen wrote: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.

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.

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

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote: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. 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.

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

The laws regarding felony convictions are inherently unjust because they essentially amount to a life sentence regardless of the actual punishment for the crime; once someone has served their sentence, unless there is a very good justification for it I see no reason for them to face any subsequent punishment or restrictions on their rights as free members of society. That means they should not face discrimination in employment, should not be barred from voting, and should not be barred from owning 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?