English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Something that has long bothered me about our legal system is that minors can be tried as adults (read: http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/10/boy.sentenced.ap/index.html for an example). How is it possible to be so subjective in this way of treating young children like a legal adult? And how come this does not work in reverse ... why can a child not be "granted" adult privileges at the discretion of an adult (I'm not talking about emancipation here, rather purchasing cigarettes, etc. etc.)

2006-07-10 15:59:49 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

9 answers

Children who demonstrate the propensity to think and act as adults may be declared adults in the case of serious crimes because of the nature and severity of that crime. Take murder for example. The primary goal in prosecuting murders is to prevent future such crimes from being committed by the same individual. Now i am not talking manslaughter or homicide or any of the other forms of killing, only murder. Murder takes premeditation, malice, intent, what ever you want to call it, but the murderer planned out and executed his/her crime. A teenager capable of such an act is capable of repeating such an act again and again. He/she is a threat to society just much if not more than an adult, because; society gives them the benefit of the doubt in most circumstances. Sure the accused should have to be proven to have the mental ecumen and state of mind to be in fact a threat to society, but; if they do have such qualities; then why shouldn't they be treated as the danger that they present dictates they should be treated? I am not for prosecuting the mentally incompetent or criminally insane or the immature. But, the ability to willfully and knowingly do wrong at an early age is present in most if not all societies.

As for your other question which is apples and oranges. Children and adults are banned from certain materials and or products because it has been found that these things can and have caused damage to people in the past. It is under the concept of privacy, the idea that privacy only extends to the point that it is harmful to either yourself or to others. In that sense, the two arguments are similar, but not the same. Your first argument is about a threat to others. your second argument is about a threat to yourself. Apples and oranges.

2006-07-10 16:23:41 · answer #1 · answered by LORD Z 7 · 0 0

there's a very distinction in understanding once you've had sufficient to drink or blowing a paycheck on the on-line casino as against homicide, armed robbery, etc. Minors are in basic terms tried as adults in crimes consisting of those. Having 3 or 4 beverages once you ought to have stopped at one or 2 is an blunders in judgment. dropping a persons' nicely-merited money by playing it away is an blunders in judgment. Killing someone is going so a ways previous that, there is in simple terms no assessment. attempting a minor as an man or woman in simple terms imposes extra proper consequences on such moves, consequences that are patently necessary in the experience that they did something to warrant being tried as an man or woman in the first position.

2016-10-14 08:17:38 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

But it does! An emancipated minor has all of the rights and priveledges of an adult except for things like purchasing alcohol, cigarettes etc.

2006-07-10 16:08:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Good point.
Imagine being raised in an environment that is negative. Alcohol, drugs, strangers hanging-out, arguments that lead to violence and more violence. There's no food to eat, no clean clothes, in the winter no heat,etc.
Chronologically, this child does not have adult supervision to guide him/her in the right direction. Therefore, consequences for there actions is unrecognizable. Also, there is a badge of honor to go before the judiciary.

2006-07-10 16:18:38 · answer #4 · answered by SLOWTHINKER 3 · 0 0

First off smoking is bad for you I smoke and it's gross kids shouldn't be able to purchase cigarettes. Secondly if you're able to make a decision to take a human beings life, then you should be tried for that murder adult, child regardless a 15 year old knows right from wrong and taking a human life is wrong.

2006-07-10 16:07:45 · answer #5 · answered by MOVING 5 · 0 0

Kids for the most part know right from wrong. Kids now a days are committing more and more terrible crimes, rape, molestation, murder, etc....These kids are not nice and most of them have grown up in the system. Many kids know how to work the system. These kids are not stupid. They know how to play on people's emotions like you. They know when they are committing these crimes they are wrong and they love for people like you to get on the soap box to defend them. You'd be surprised what these kids today are capable of doing and they really have no remorse for their actions and take no responsibility for what they have done. Very scary...

2006-07-10 16:14:04 · answer #6 · answered by crash 4 · 0 0

Well if they're around the age og 16-17 when they commit the crime, they can easily be tried as adults for the exact reason that they are ALMOST adults.

2006-07-10 16:04:10 · answer #7 · answered by LoLa 1 · 0 0

Well if a minor wants to commit a felony then they should be tried as an adult. /you do the wrong you do the time.

2006-07-10 16:04:19 · answer #8 · answered by rainofshadows20 3 · 0 0

LOL your funny

2006-07-10 16:02:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers