Should poverty exclude a juvenile from responsibility for delinquent behavior? Why or why not?

Answer 1

Absolutely not! Just because you don't have as much as others do is not a free pass to do as you please. If anything, it should make you more driven to succeed--to give your children what you didn't have.

Answer 2

No people can still learn right from wrong regardless of their financial situation. In other countries that are poverty stricken the children are extremely well behaved. Only in the US do we use poverty as an excuse for juveniles to be delinquent. In the US we come up with all kinds of excuses for children when in reality we should be blaming the parents and punishing the parents because parents now a days don't want to take responsibility for their children they want the someone else to. That is why we have to have all the stuff like V-chips, in school discipline, juvenile hall, foster homes, etc. I personally think that kids will be kids and they are going to do wrong things but if the parents took control it would be kept to a minimum. I think that when a child becomes a juvenile delinquent then the parents should also be tagged and punished as well for being lazy, unassertive parents. My parents always took control of us kids and there were four and none of us has ever been in trouble, arrested or a menis. My parents decided what we were going to do, what shows or movies we were going to watch,. the friends we could hang out with, where we would go and they tought us the value of money and work. I see absolutly no reason for out of control kids. I am sure there are a lot of children who have had bad things happen to them but those are the things in life that make you stronger and I don't care who you are there is support out there for you whether it be from teachers at school, friends, group leaders etc. Our society provides more support than anyother society. Whatever your problem is there is something or someone there to support you.

Answer 3

Because the question concerns juveniles, as opposed to adults, I think the answer is "Maybe the first time, sometimes..." Depending on the juvenile's age and the nature of the crime, it is possible that he/she was not supervised or able to obtain food or shelter, etc., and if this is the case, many Judges would give Probation, Dismissal with Prejudice (meaning that if there is another offense within a certain period of time, the first offense will be revived and prosecuted - this has different names and acronyms in different states and municipalities.), or simple Dismissal of Charges. Many Judges would make supervision, community service, attendance at an after-school or counseling program part of the sentence, so that the juvenile has a chance to get better support and direction.

I don't think that the real issue is poverty itself, it is the hardships and lack of support and assistance that can be caused by poverty. I know that many poor people are law abiding and many middle and upper class people commit crimes - there is no one indicator of criminal predilection, but I do think that when it is a juvenile and the crime is not felonly/violent in nature or code, it makes sense to try to help before punishing.

Answer 4

no. true necessity may be an excuse (e.g., if the juvenile was literally starving and stole a loaf of bread), but criminal laws are not there only to penalize the criminal, but to protect innocent members of society. every exclusion from responsibility represents another negative impact on society.

so we have excuses (necessity, self-defense, etc.) that are well-recognized defenses to criminal liability, but adding any more to that list would do more net harm than good.

whether it is moral? criminal laws are enforced equally on the smart and the dumb, the tall and the short, etc. The only time that we exculpate someone for what they _are_ is insanity - when the person literally cannot control his or her actions. And then they're usually involuntarily committed anyway, which is the functional equivalent.

So no, no exculpation for poverty.

Answer 5

NO! It absolutely should not! there is too much information on life without poverty, and how to achieve it to exclude, excuse, or even nod and wink at delinquent behaviour from juveniles. Besides affluent juveniles engage in delinquent behaviour too, should they be exempt because their families can afford lawyers?

Answer 6

It may be a mitigating ciorcumstance, but choices were still made by the individual that they, themselves, are responsible for.

Then let's exclude drunkeness when a person has an accident that kills someone else, or road rage when some guy pulls a driver out fo a car and beats them.

You are still responsible for what you do

Answer 7

No, because everyone has a sense of right and wrong. And they are all taught that at some point in their life. Just because you are poor doesn't mean you can do whatever you want and blame it on your living conditions.

Unfortunately, if you're rich that's usually the case.

Answer 8

Hey I'm here for the first time. I found this question and I find the answers really helpful. I'm hoping to offer something back to the community and help others too.

Answer 9

I don't believe so. I think this society has created a class of people that don't believe anything is their responsibility. There is always someone to blame for your failures. Bull Hockey........

Answer 10

No, because then that would essentially make it legal for poor people to steal. Values are free, not bought and sold.