The "can't try teenagers as adults" loophole

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

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.

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.

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?

[Earthbound Immortal Squad]

Hate to be the one to say this but life isn't fair. And often it is the good people which bad things happen to.

[Kubra]

A criminal record ain't as bad as folks suppose, nor is it inevitable if you commit a crime. And in any case, repeat offenders have a good chance of getting sent to adult court despite being minors.

[Katganistan]

A criminal record ain't as bad as folks suppose, nor is it inevitable if you commit a crime. And in any case, repeat offenders have a good chance of getting sent to adult court despite being minors.

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.

[Bear Stearns]

A criminal record ain't as bad as folks suppose, nor is it inevitable if you commit a crime. And in any case, repeat offenders have a good chance of getting sent to adult court despite being minors.

Depends on the record. Violent crime in general ensures you are an outcast.

[Albrenia]

While not perfect, it does seem preferable to give those who grow out of being criminal assholes the chance at a normal life than to condemn them with a criminal record for the rest of their lives.

Also as mentioned above, it also doesn't do much to prevent re-offending to treat them as adults when they are not.

The fact it is not 'fair' on those of us who don't break the law as teens is unimportant. There's plenty of benefits to not being a criminal even without the being tried as an adult and getting a criminal record part.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

A criminal record ain't as bad as folks suppose, nor is it inevitable if you commit a crime. And in any case, repeat offenders have a good chance of getting sent to adult court despite being minors.

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.

[Samadhi]

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.

Literally no one thinks about the consequences.

[Albrenia]

I'm unsure who would be bribing Psychology researchers to make them fabricate evidence to let teens commit crimes... are teenager crime lobbies a thing in the US?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

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.

Literally no one thinks about the consequences.

If that were true, there'd be no point of having laws at all.

[Samadhi]

Literally no one thinks about the consequences.

If that were true, there'd be no point of having laws at all.

Pretty much yeah.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

I'm unsure who would be bribing Psychology researchers to make them fabricate evidence to let teens commit crimes... are teenager crime lobbies a thing in the US?

No, but the infantilization of teenagers plays right into the hands of those who want an excuse to keep them in school for historically unprecedented amounts of time to stack the deck in favour of the older generations' worldview for longer than they would otherwise.

Teenagers didn't ask to be infantilized, but they don't seem to fully realize how much they benefit from the same infantilization that keeps them from being tried as adults.

[Idzequitch]

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.

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.

[Fartsniffage]

Literally no one thinks about the consequences.

If that were true, there'd be no point of having laws at all.

Ridiculous. People simply don't think they're going to get caught. Or believe the chance of getting caught is worth the risk.

Teenagers are notoriously bad at making risk/reward calculations.

[New haven america]

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.

Literally no one thinks about the consequences.

Hello, former teen who would think about the consequences of their actions here.

[Samadhi]

Literally no one thinks about the consequences.

Hello, former teen who would think about the consequences or their actions here.

Ahem.

Nerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd.

[New haven america]

Hello, former teen who would think about the consequences or their actions here.

Ahem.

Nerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd.

I've been called worse.

[Saiwania]

Some people are just more naturally inclined towards evil than good. It is one of those things you grow out of or you don't. I consider myself to be more evil than good overall, but on the other hand; I'm not as evil as I wish I could be deep down. I really admire ruthless individuals who're perceived as "terrible" people but still get their way.

If I had a military background from an early age (with no obstacles preventing such a destiny) and nothing changed, I'd aspire to be more like Wilhuff Tarkin. He displays the command style and qualities that I like and most impress me.

When a lesser sentence is given out, there is some nepotism involved or the jury/judge is gambling that the individual in question won't reoffend or do something worse later on if they're caught again.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Hello, former teen who would think about the consequences or their actions here.

Ahem.

Nerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd.

No, this is, according to your own reasoning, someone more responsible as a teen than the rest of us are as adults.

Which brings me back, full circle, to the last paragraph in the OP. If it's really true that teenagers are less responsible; and that this is a product of the teenage brain and not of this loophole itself; is it not unfair to give the ones responsible enough to obey the law, even during their teen years, so little more than everyone else in return for doing so?

[Samadhi]

Ahem.

Nerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd.

I've been called worse.

Been called better?

[Albrenia]

Ahem.

Nerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd.

No, this is, according to your own reasoning, someone more responsible as a teen than the rest of us are as adults.

Which brings me back, full circle, to the last paragraph in the OP. If it's really true that teenagers are less responsible; and that this is a product of the teenage brain and not of this loophole itself; is it not unfair to give the ones responsible enough to obey the law, even during their teen years, so little more than everyone else in return for doing so?

What could we give to law-abiding teens, though? A not-a-criminal record?

[Fartsniffage]

No, this is, according to your own reasoning, someone more responsible as a teen than the rest of us are as adults.

Which brings me back, full circle, to the last paragraph in the OP. If it's really true that teenagers are less responsible; and that this is a product of the teenage brain and not of this loophole itself; is it not unfair to give the ones responsible enough to obey the law, even during their teen years, so little more than everyone else in return for doing so?

What could we give to law-abiding teens, though? A not-a-criminal record?

Generally the reward is not having to spend time in young offenders institutes.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

"You can't try teenagers as adults" does not mean "you can't try teenagers".

If a teenager commits a crime, they is subsequently tried before a court of law. If they commits a lot of crimes, they gets a higher sentence. The only difference is that the criminal record is expunged, because reasonably, you should not hold teenagers accountable for their entire lives for something stupid they did in their younger years.

Of course, a criminal record should not be treated as harshly as it is in the US nowadays. If you served your sentence, you served your sentence. That's it. If they judge didn't give you a lifetime ban from a certain profession or place, you should be fine. If anything, we should, as a society, make sure ex-felons are treated humanely, because that is the way you discourage recidivism.

One last nitpick: certain actions lose their criminality if they are performed under duress.

[Idzequitch]

Ahem.

Nerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd.

No, this is, according to your own reasoning, someone more responsible as a teen than the rest of us are as adults.

Which brings me back, full circle, to the last paragraph in the OP. If it's really true that teenagers are less responsible; and that this is a product of the teenage brain and not of this loophole itself; is it not unfair to give the ones responsible enough to obey the law, even during their teen years, so little more than everyone else in return for doing so?

It's impossible to make a correct blanket statement on the issue. Some adults never mature. Some teenagers are very mature for their age. So we have to average things out and make the law based on that. Is that ideal? No. Is it completely fair? No. But it's as fair as we can reasonably get.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

If a teenager commits a crime, they is subsequently tried before a court of law. If they commits a lot of crimes, they gets a higher sentence. The only difference is that the criminal record is expunged, because reasonably, you should not hold teenagers accountable for their entire lives for something stupid they did in their younger years.

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?

Of course, a criminal record should not be treated as harshly as it is in the US nowadays.

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.

If you served your sentence, you served your sentence. That's it.

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.