2006-07-29 07:36:52 · 13 answers · asked by Brandy G 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I don't think it has to do with age. It has to do with intent and knowledge of their actions. Did the child know what they were doing when they were doing it and what the ramifications of said crime would be? If a child plots a murder, actually taking time to set up alibi's or lay out a plan on paper, or obtain a weapon through another well thought out crime, then yes this child knew what they were doing and should be tried as an adult (even if they are 6 years old.)
If a 6 year old is scolded and gets irrately mad and decided to lash out immediately at a parent somehow resulting in their death or at another child...resulting in their death and they didn't understand what happened...then I wouldn't think trying them as an adult would be in order.
2006-07-29 07:43:48 · answer #1 · answered by tjjone 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
If someone of an adolescent age can commit mass murder at their age, with no remorse, that entitles psychiatric treatment, not prison. Something that happens on accident, like Lionel Tate, the person definitely shouldn't be tried as an adult, because there was no adult-like criminal intent. At around 17 or 18, that's when I'd try someone as an adult as that's when the most maturity is available. It's around that time that most teens have picked the road they'll go on, and seems the most mature in the eyes of the public in the first place, so there'll be less sympathy forgiveness from the jury, let alone controversy.
2006-07-29 15:11:00 · answer #2 · answered by Huey Freeman 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think there is a certain age and a certain crime that surpases the realm of sending a juvenile to juvenile hall, or some other "correctional facility." many of these juveniles are just as aware as adults of the actions they are commiting. this being said, do you really believe grouping these jueniles with 30 year old psychopaths are going to make the kids any less dangerous to society in years to come. i believe juveniles who commit serious crimes should be grouped together by age group, and should recieve adult sentences WITH chance of parole under significant and long-term signs of a change in mindset. all these kids should recieve psychological therapy and therapy programs during their sentence that would help them understand why they committed crimes, and would teach how to be model ctizens.
2006-07-29 15:16:23 · answer #3 · answered by daniel_shmushmu 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe by the age of 16 that a person who commits a violent crime purposefully should be tried as an adult. You play with the big dogs, you get put down like the rabid big dogs.
2006-07-29 14:40:51 · answer #4 · answered by The Nana of Nana's 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Violent juveniles should be locked up in a psycho ward until they are adults and then they should be put to sleep.
2006-07-29 14:39:16 · answer #5 · answered by cannon1977 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe that it really depends on the crime. For example, if they commit murder at the age of 12, they should be tried as an adult. Then, if they are constantly into trouble (burglary, vandalism, etc.) by the age of 16 they should be tried as an adult.
2006-07-29 14:42:50 · answer #6 · answered by RainCloud 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
YES! As soon as they become violent juveniles
2006-07-29 14:42:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Violent offenders should be quarantined at any age. When they are old enough to be aware of the consequences of their actions, which I believe is around 12, they should be locked up.
2006-07-29 14:44:14 · answer #8 · answered by williegod 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only if they need serious, long-term rehab or counseling that the juvenile system could not provide, but if it is just to get back at them with extra punishment then no.
Any age if serious treatment is necessary.
2006-07-29 14:53:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
truly violent juves should always be tried as adults. also depends on the nature of the crime.
2006-07-29 14:40:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋