What do you think?
2007-05-02 17:55:41 · 8 answers · asked by Elisa O 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
If they didn't argue then they wouldn't be opponents. It is a natural debate. People just believe different things. It is normal. Should you argue? No. You should be able to state your point without arguing. Why can't people just debate any more.
Hugs
2007-05-02 17:59:40 · answer #1 · answered by Mawyemsekhmet 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm all for the equal punishments of children and adults. If a kid does not know the difference between right and wrong, they should not be allowed away from their parents side. If anything it is worse when a child commits crime because we are all led to believe that children are innocent. The killers of Jamie Bulger knew what they were doing was wrong, but they got sent to a juvenile detention centre where they got three good meals a day, snacks, pocket money, their own tv and playstation. In all, it was a better life than what they had at home. And that was meant to be punishment.
2007-05-02 18:14:51 · answer #2 · answered by Sarcasma 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe that in order to judge a minor you have to have in-depth knowledge of the developmental stages of childhood through adolescence. Without that you couldn't possibly understand the motivation behind a crime.
There are three elements that define certain acts as crimes; actus reus (the act itself), the attendant circumstances, and mens rea (state of mind).
State of mind is a difficult thing to determine without the knowledge to back up your conclusion. This is part of the reason there is controversy over whether or not minors should be given the option of a jury trial or a bench trial.
It's a tough debate. One that has many arguments to both sides that are valid.
2007-05-02 18:05:16 · answer #3 · answered by KJ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would break the argument down into two parts: responsibility and redemption.
1) Is the minor's mentality sufficiently developed for him or her to fully understand the possible consequences of what he or she did?
2) Because minors are still in a state of development, there is a greater chance of their "coming around" and developing into decent, law-abiding citizens with proper guidance.
2007-05-02 18:02:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Quite frankly, I think most of us argue against the execution of minors because we remember when we were that stupid. Kids do things for a lot of reasons but most of all it is because they do not really understand the consequences of their actions...or they refuse to believe it can happen to them. Thank God, we grow out of it. At least most of us do.
2007-05-02 17:59:58 · answer #5 · answered by Poohcat1 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Supposedly minors don't relize the extent of what they have done. Some would say otherwise though by many of the actions they take.
2007-05-02 17:58:55 · answer #6 · answered by Stahn 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They can't even vote or enjoy a beer.
And you're gonna hold them responsible for their actions?
Double-standard.
2007-05-02 18:02:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
what?!?!?!?!!?
2007-05-02 17:59:31 · answer #8 · answered by silly girl 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋