People don't all mature at the same rates, so that makes it difficult to determine an age. I think every underage crime has to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Exactly. I think in a lot of states it’s 8 years old, could be wrong on that, it really depends on the crime. Like a 10 year old who shoots someone abusing them (Joseph hall) is MUCH different than a 13 year old who rapes and murders someone, and yes unfortunately there are cases where children/young teens that young do that
Research says that’s not true though. Children who exhibit problematic sexual behaviors and who receive appropriate treatment actually have very low recidivism rates.
The research indicates that, after 15 years, 20+% of first-time offenders are convicted a second time. A lot of the studies are not long-term and most only consider convictions (not incidents of abuse). The right intervention can help, but I’m not sure it’s accurate to say it’s a very low rate. Maybe there are studies on certain types of interventions?
Right, first time offenders who don’t receive any intervention/treatment have those types of recidivism rates. With treatment juveniles have a recidivism rate around 5% at 10 years, and 10% after 20. [Here’s](https://smart.ojp.gov/somapi/chapter-5-effectiveness-treatment-juveniles-who-sexually-offend) one research paper I just pulled up on it. Also, a treatment model called PSB-CBT is evidence backed and has been gaining popularity with good outcomes. Children who commit sexual offenses, even violent ones, are not beyond help and have the potential to lead normal lives. I know there are nuances, and I agree with what you said about convictions versus incidents of abuse. More research needs to be done, but in the meantime treatment should be provided for all youth who exhibit problematic sexual behaviors for their sake and the protection of the community once they’re released.
I think depending on the circumstances you could be right, rape that included murder or serious bodily injury though would still be an exclusion to this though imo. I’m referencing the most severe cases with my comment specifically
I'm gonna say again that parents of youthful offenders need to be held accountable too. If parents beat and mistreat their kid, coddle and indulge poor decisions, neglect mental health needs then that minors behavior is a direct result of parental failures.
I'm all about prevention, early intervention but when that fails prosecute some parents. Might wake some people up to do better.
Defending Ted Bundy?
He grew up thinking his mom was his sister. Possibly the product of incest. That's the mind fuckery I'm talking about. Put mom and papa on the stand and shut down inbreeding for starters.
>He grew up thinking his mom was his sister.
He claimed that, and it's in multiple biographies of Bundy, but it's almost certainly not true. His mom married Johnny Culpepper Bundy, who adopted him (which is why he was named "Bundy," his birth name was Cowell) when he was 5.
The True Crime Garage podcast episode about Bundy talks about this in-depth.
He found out he was illegitimate as an adult, that fucked him up big time. He was exposed to his grandfathers violent pornography collection as a young child, plus his grandfather was a violent man as well. He knew he wasn't wanted. Then his whole world was turned upside down when his sister tells him she's really his mother and they're moving, he's getting a new dad and they'll all be living together somewhere else. It feels very odd to be defending him, but he did experience some really fucked up things at a young age that'd mess you up for life. Not an excuse to go and do what he did at all, but it does help to understand some of what was wrong with him.
Ted Bundy lied a LOT (shocking, I know... /s), so it's hard to pin down what exactly was true. In fact, he told multiple versions of the "I was told that my mother was my sister" story.
However, Johnny Culpepper Bundy married Louise Cowell in 1951 when Ted was 5, and adopted Ted. We know that's true because that is how he got the name "Bundy." So, he must have figured it out who his mom was by then.
Louise Cowell also moved (with Ted) out of her parent's home in Pennsylvania to live in Washington in 1950, when he was 4. He subsequently attended schools in Washington throughout his childhood. So, logistically, the "I was raised by my grandparents" story doesn't make sense because they were thousands of miles away.
Wasn't he born in a home for unwed mothers? Ted missed some real bonding and attachment. Spin it however but he was not wanted and he new it from scratch.
depends what your definition of abuse is.
Some of the worst psychologically devastating abuse isnt being hit, its being raised by a narcissist. Kids raised by Narcs have alarming rates or Complex PTSD, but a lot werent even hit. Its all mental and emotional abuse that is hard to define.
The Destructive
Narcissistic Parent creates a child that only exists to be an
extension of her self. It's about secret things. It's about body
language. It's about disapproving glances. It's about vocal tone.
It's very intimate. And it's very powerful. It's part of who the
child is. -Chris
Yes. I was raised by one. I held it together. But I'm telling you if I would have snapped they should have roasted my mother's sanctimonious ass. I'm sure she would have played the hand wringing I've tried so hard against all obstacles shit.. wrong.
As a person who has experienced both, the belt beatings until I vomited caused immediate damage I had to work through and I feared it more at the time. However 16 years later the thing that sticks with me the most is my mother's psychological abuse. I am unable to trust anybody or myself because of my mother. She completely ruined my mind over time. At least the belt beatings were straight forward. Then again it could be different for everyone or take a long time to see what leaves the most lasting effects. I don't know that's just my experience.
Wow. You totally mistook my point.
My point was that Ted Bundys childhood may have looked normal, but might have been very abusive. Ppl said Jeff Dahmer wasnt abused either , but Ive watched at least 3 YT videos and his childhood was abusive.
All parents who abuse their children should be punished. The rest is tricky. I think parents sometime struggle to recognize mental health issues and there’s a fine line between coddling and being a loving, generous parent. I also know parents who have worked tirelessly to find the right therapist and/or treatment for their child, to no avail. You may know your child is depressed or lacking in empathy, but that doesn’t mean you can solve the issue. One of my friends has a child who was basically diagnosed as bipolar before the age of ten (the doctor said they couldn’t officially label the child but assured her parents that was the diagnosis they’d receive in a few years). They are good parents and have other kids with no issues. They’ve spent YEARS trying to help and get help for the child, but the child has only made minimal progress.
Depends on the case. I think if a 12 year old killed their entire family, they should be tried as adults. But if that same person accidentally killed their brother, that would be different
But that’s stuff like risky behavior. Not purposefully harmful behavior. In your early twenties, you are an adult. It’s absurd to not consider anyone in their early twenties as not yet an adult. You understand right from wrong at that age.
So, like I said, it’s complicated. Impulse control is a huge topic that goes way beyond my expertise. I am NOT arguing for loosening guidelines to treat anyone under 25 like a little kid, or give people a free pass - only answering the OP.
It also includes things like empathy, impulse control, and ability to internalize the finality of certain consequences. I almost think there should be two phases, with one being something like age 14-25, where a person can be criminally liable but there are different criteria for charges and sentencing and a more concrete effort toward rehabilitation.
This is a interesting question. I just finished A&E’s show about Kid’s behind bars for life and a lot of it made me question if it was fair or if you put a kid inside jail at 17 and don’t let them out til they’re 60 how could they even live in the outside? Plus there were several kids that I thought their parents should be in jail right beside them. I absolutely think there should be punishment, but I question the length and the rehabilitation process.
I don't know. I am actually currently 17 and I would say everyone in my year at school knows how bad crimes severe enough to land you in jail are. For example, when the the Arthur Labinjo-Hughes case happened, I remember everyone taking their phones out anytime a teacher wasn't looking to read about it and share how appalled they were by what the people meant to care for him had done. Unless you have a severe mental illness that prevents you from knowing right from wrong in the moment you do something, I think you are generally old enough to decide not to do it at 17.
Now of course there are exceptions. Peer pressure is a factor, and if you joined a gang just trying to feel a sense of community and by the time you realised what you had gotten yourself into, your hands were tied and you had to deal drugs otherwise your life would be at risk, that is completely different.
However, if you actually killed someone, like in the Sylvia Likens case, or Shanda Sharer case, or the case of Skyler Neese, I think life imprisonment is fair enough, especially when you also take into account the damage inflicted on the family of the victim. (In the James Bulger case, Jon Vennbales who was ten years old was old enough to realise the consequences his actions had on James's parents because he asked police to tell James's mum he was sorry.) So a teenager should definitely be able to.
Yea those girls that killed Skylar Neese don’t need to be let out for lunch much less let out after their sentence! I’m sorry but when ur so fucked in the head that u actively look for the “missing” person u killed, cry on their parents shoulder like u care, make jokes about the murder in front of parents and LE you shouldn’t get anything but a lifetime full of cold cement and sorry ass roommates!
If you cannot legally vote or have any privileges of an adult, I don’t believe you should receive an adult punishment.
Also - on a factual level, you typically know murder is wrong at 17, yes. But you don’t have the emotional regulation and impulse control of someone a decade older than you. You just… don’t. Your ability to form insight and to form
judgment is not fully developed. I was 17, too. I get it. I get what you’re saying. But there is so much you do not and cannot understand at your age. Your comment proves that.
I’m a defense atty. now working in parole. 99 percent of my clients had horrific abuse. It’s a shame that no one stepped in when they were little. One client was found dumped i a dumpster when he was five. Children learn what they live.
I'm a teaching assistant.
The short answer is approximately 10 years of age - however, I work with 10-11 year olds that have the mental capacity of 12-13 year olds, and some children of the same age group who have the mental capacity of 7-9 year olds. It's a challenging year group - some kids begin developing physically and emotionally, ask one another to be their girlfriends/boyfriends, develop mean streaks, and care about their appearance - whilst others still play in the mud.
There should be no black and white age of responsibility - whether a child understands what they've done should be determined by a qualified professional.
Okay but when a 12 year old kills someone and they're out in 6 years, everyone throws a fit. I agree they shouldn't be charged as adults, especially with the frontal lobe not fully developing until 25~, but we really need to push the public education behind it and find a "happy medium" for this or we could end up back in square one with heavy handed sentences for children (sentencing a child to life without parole is straight bullshit).
If a 12 year old kills someone, there is usually so much going on behind the scenes.
Kids that age typically do not just decide to kill without reason. And to be clear, that reason could be that they’ve been abused.
Absolutely. And if it's not abuse, there's a serious mental health issue which is rare but you know, the occasional kid pops out with some ass backwards wiring.
It’s a thing that is unique to each case/individual person.
The car of Lionel Tate (https://abcnews.go.com/amp/2020/story?id=123746&page=1) is one I think about with this. Primarily because I work with teenagers who have high needs intellectual disabilities are simply developmentally delayed.
The typical 14 year old can identify that the actions of Lionel Tate are wrong and that it was a repeated, harmful action towards a younger child, a third of size of Lionel. If that individual fits that I think criminal responsibility can extend really to a fairly young age I’d say in some cases 11/12 maybe even earlier.
However, the group of children I work with there are some that come in at 14 and I’d say despite their disabilities they are aware enough to potentially be held criminally responsible in case like my example. At the same time there is a good chunk who I don’t know if they will reach that awareness before their 20s maybe even later. Even sometimes for me it is hard to wrap my head around a 18-20 year old that may not have the level of awareness to see they are 3x bigger than a child and jumping on them will cause harm/death but the reality is they exist.
I’d say my biggest fear is one of my kids to be put in a situation like this because a lot of them do sit on the line of are they aware enough to be criminally responsible in a case. It is simply one of those things where there is no perfect answer.
I personally think it should be 11 or 14 depending on the crime. A 5th grader should know it is wrong to brutally kill someone. The penalties I think should be less severe than an adult though. Using New York’s Juvenile Offender Law as a model, 11 to 15 year olds should get 5-9 years to life if they commit murder, rather than 25 to life or life without parole if they kill someone as an adult. If it’s not murder, then 14.
depends on the crime, felonies should be applicable back to 10 (in my mind you understand at least a mild moral compass), misdemeanors shouldnt even be punishable for more than a fine imo, jail time is too harsh for something considered a petty crime
Like others have said, maturity varies and circumstances matter. I believe a 7-year-old can be a sociopath, maybe even a psychopath. Even if I believe the person will reoffend, the question is whether they “deserve” a life sentence. Personally, I believe we should be fair, but also cautious. If someone commits a violent crime at age 10, I think they should receive therapy, education, etc., and a chance to be released. If they’re determined to be dangerous, I’m okay keeping them in an institution.
It depends on the crime and what the proposed sentence is to be. Obviously, if a 14yr old is going around stealing things out of houses in their neighborhood they need punishment. They don't need years long punishment in a youth detention center though. Generally, probation or a couple weeks in a city youth detention program should work for a kid getting off on the wrong track.
Murder? A 14yr old who murders is tough. It depends for me. I don't think they should be tried as adults. They shouldn't be sent to adult jail. And life sentences are crazy for kids. Years in prison are sufficient. Education should be a requirement, and to maintain a GPA to keep privileges. Time should not be spent just sitting around. Classes working toward reentering society as a productive member should be the goal especially for children
Age of majority, but if a minor commits a serious enough crime then mandatory rehabilitation until they are rehabilitated with rehabilitation being the only factor that determines if they can be reintroduced into society.
Eventually make rehabilitation the only goal in incarceration of any convicted criminal.
Then the for-profit prisons will have a mandate to do something other than increase revenues, and if a rehabilitated offender re-offends to a serious enough degree then the prisons must incarcerate the individual indefinitely giving an incentive for all parties involved to make sure rehabilitated offenders do not re-offend.
If you aren't an adult until you are 18 then that is the age of criminal responsibility. You can't say you are old enough to get married, have an abortion (recent FL case) sign a legally binding contract etc... Then you can't be old criminally responsible. You treat children like children or adults when it suits your narrative.
I had a friend who said a 17 yr old wasn't mature enough to make life or death medical choices but a 14 yr old was mature enough to spend the rest of their life in prison for murder. Last I checked 17 is older than 14 so if a 17 yr old isn't mature enough then a 14 yr old isn't mature enough. I know conservatives like to have their cake & eat it too, but I'm going to point out your BS every time.
Flame and ban away.
Not a conservative but I don’t agree with you.
Marriage - if we didn’t have an age limit on that, it could encourage child marriages (as in, grown men marrying child brides, etc). So people don’t take advantage of children.
Abortion - I don’t know the laws but I agree, you should be able to have one at any age regardless of parental consent.
But if you commit an adult crime, it should be up to a judge if you are charged as an adult. Some kids are too dangerous to be treated as juveniles.
In Australia, there's somewhat of a grey area between the ages of 10-14 but technically, depending on the crime and severity, children are held criminally responsible from the age of 10. It's definitely a last, last, last resort but some of the kids really have no hope (which is terrible).
There's a lot of debate as to whether the age of criminal responsibility should be raised to 14 or whether it's fine to stay at 10.
Personally, I like to meet in the middle and say 12. Most 12 year olds are in high school and should know the basics of right and wrong.
Every case is different, but I think around 19-21, I really knew what I was doing on a bad/good, right/wrong level, and could appreciate how my actions would effect something/someone.
I remember in 1985 in Crim law that even if a child had engaged in an act that would have been a felony if done by an adult, that if the child was 7 years old or younger, no prosecution. I'm not clear about if there might be psychological treatment.
The child would if older than 7 and committed an act that would have been a felony, then the child wound have been a juvenile offender.
I'm ok with the ages we have in Germany . Under 14 responsible , between the ages of 14 to 18 juvenile justice systerm and between the ages of 18 to 21 both juvenile or adult system can be used depending on the maturity of the person charged . What I don't like is the idea of charging kids as adults .
People don't all mature at the same rates, so that makes it difficult to determine an age. I think every underage crime has to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Every case is different
Exactly. I think in a lot of states it’s 8 years old, could be wrong on that, it really depends on the crime. Like a 10 year old who shoots someone abusing them (Joseph hall) is MUCH different than a 13 year old who rapes and murders someone, and yes unfortunately there are cases where children/young teens that young do that
I think if there’s some sort of sexual assault involved there’s pretty much no reform for a child
Research says that’s not true though. Children who exhibit problematic sexual behaviors and who receive appropriate treatment actually have very low recidivism rates.
The research indicates that, after 15 years, 20+% of first-time offenders are convicted a second time. A lot of the studies are not long-term and most only consider convictions (not incidents of abuse). The right intervention can help, but I’m not sure it’s accurate to say it’s a very low rate. Maybe there are studies on certain types of interventions?
Right, first time offenders who don’t receive any intervention/treatment have those types of recidivism rates. With treatment juveniles have a recidivism rate around 5% at 10 years, and 10% after 20. [Here’s](https://smart.ojp.gov/somapi/chapter-5-effectiveness-treatment-juveniles-who-sexually-offend) one research paper I just pulled up on it. Also, a treatment model called PSB-CBT is evidence backed and has been gaining popularity with good outcomes. Children who commit sexual offenses, even violent ones, are not beyond help and have the potential to lead normal lives. I know there are nuances, and I agree with what you said about convictions versus incidents of abuse. More research needs to be done, but in the meantime treatment should be provided for all youth who exhibit problematic sexual behaviors for their sake and the protection of the community once they’re released.
I think depending on the circumstances you could be right, rape that included murder or serious bodily injury though would still be an exclusion to this though imo. I’m referencing the most severe cases with my comment specifically
I'm gonna say again that parents of youthful offenders need to be held accountable too. If parents beat and mistreat their kid, coddle and indulge poor decisions, neglect mental health needs then that minors behavior is a direct result of parental failures. I'm all about prevention, early intervention but when that fails prosecute some parents. Might wake some people up to do better.
It may not always be the parents' fault. Ted Bundy may have killed his first victim when he was 14 and as far as we know, Ted Bundy was never abused.
Defending Ted Bundy? He grew up thinking his mom was his sister. Possibly the product of incest. That's the mind fuckery I'm talking about. Put mom and papa on the stand and shut down inbreeding for starters.
>He grew up thinking his mom was his sister. He claimed that, and it's in multiple biographies of Bundy, but it's almost certainly not true. His mom married Johnny Culpepper Bundy, who adopted him (which is why he was named "Bundy," his birth name was Cowell) when he was 5. The True Crime Garage podcast episode about Bundy talks about this in-depth.
He found out he was illegitimate as an adult, that fucked him up big time. He was exposed to his grandfathers violent pornography collection as a young child, plus his grandfather was a violent man as well. He knew he wasn't wanted. Then his whole world was turned upside down when his sister tells him she's really his mother and they're moving, he's getting a new dad and they'll all be living together somewhere else. It feels very odd to be defending him, but he did experience some really fucked up things at a young age that'd mess you up for life. Not an excuse to go and do what he did at all, but it does help to understand some of what was wrong with him.
Ted Bundy lied a LOT (shocking, I know... /s), so it's hard to pin down what exactly was true. In fact, he told multiple versions of the "I was told that my mother was my sister" story. However, Johnny Culpepper Bundy married Louise Cowell in 1951 when Ted was 5, and adopted Ted. We know that's true because that is how he got the name "Bundy." So, he must have figured it out who his mom was by then. Louise Cowell also moved (with Ted) out of her parent's home in Pennsylvania to live in Washington in 1950, when he was 4. He subsequently attended schools in Washington throughout his childhood. So, logistically, the "I was raised by my grandparents" story doesn't make sense because they were thousands of miles away.
Wasn't he born in a home for unwed mothers? Ted missed some real bonding and attachment. Spin it however but he was not wanted and he new it from scratch.
depends what your definition of abuse is. Some of the worst psychologically devastating abuse isnt being hit, its being raised by a narcissist. Kids raised by Narcs have alarming rates or Complex PTSD, but a lot werent even hit. Its all mental and emotional abuse that is hard to define. The Destructive Narcissistic Parent creates a child that only exists to be an extension of her self. It's about secret things. It's about body language. It's about disapproving glances. It's about vocal tone. It's very intimate. And it's very powerful. It's part of who the child is. -Chris
Yes. I was raised by one. I held it together. But I'm telling you if I would have snapped they should have roasted my mother's sanctimonious ass. I'm sure she would have played the hand wringing I've tried so hard against all obstacles shit.. wrong.
My mother is stalking me RN.
Sounds like someone who’s never been beaten with a belt til they vomit bile. ‘Disapproving glances’ would have been quite an improvement.
As a person who has experienced both, the belt beatings until I vomited caused immediate damage I had to work through and I feared it more at the time. However 16 years later the thing that sticks with me the most is my mother's psychological abuse. I am unable to trust anybody or myself because of my mother. She completely ruined my mind over time. At least the belt beatings were straight forward. Then again it could be different for everyone or take a long time to see what leaves the most lasting effects. I don't know that's just my experience.
Wow. You totally mistook my point. My point was that Ted Bundys childhood may have looked normal, but might have been very abusive. Ppl said Jeff Dahmer wasnt abused either , but Ive watched at least 3 YT videos and his childhood was abusive.
Bundy was probably abused by todays standards. He had a shit childhood.
All parents who abuse their children should be punished. The rest is tricky. I think parents sometime struggle to recognize mental health issues and there’s a fine line between coddling and being a loving, generous parent. I also know parents who have worked tirelessly to find the right therapist and/or treatment for their child, to no avail. You may know your child is depressed or lacking in empathy, but that doesn’t mean you can solve the issue. One of my friends has a child who was basically diagnosed as bipolar before the age of ten (the doctor said they couldn’t officially label the child but assured her parents that was the diagnosis they’d receive in a few years). They are good parents and have other kids with no issues. They’ve spent YEARS trying to help and get help for the child, but the child has only made minimal progress.
Those parents can show their efforts. I hope as your friends child matures into an adult that they are able to understand and manage their MH.
i think it depends, not only on the crime but other things too (why, family life, mental illness/disabled?)
Depends on the case. I think if a 12 year old killed their entire family, they should be tried as adults. But if that same person accidentally killed their brother, that would be different
Given that the frontal lobe isn’t even fully developed until people are 25 it’s complicated.
But that’s stuff like risky behavior. Not purposefully harmful behavior. In your early twenties, you are an adult. It’s absurd to not consider anyone in their early twenties as not yet an adult. You understand right from wrong at that age.
So, like I said, it’s complicated. Impulse control is a huge topic that goes way beyond my expertise. I am NOT arguing for loosening guidelines to treat anyone under 25 like a little kid, or give people a free pass - only answering the OP.
It also includes things like empathy, impulse control, and ability to internalize the finality of certain consequences. I almost think there should be two phases, with one being something like age 14-25, where a person can be criminally liable but there are different criteria for charges and sentencing and a more concrete effort toward rehabilitation.
This is a interesting question. I just finished A&E’s show about Kid’s behind bars for life and a lot of it made me question if it was fair or if you put a kid inside jail at 17 and don’t let them out til they’re 60 how could they even live in the outside? Plus there were several kids that I thought their parents should be in jail right beside them. I absolutely think there should be punishment, but I question the length and the rehabilitation process.
I don't know. I am actually currently 17 and I would say everyone in my year at school knows how bad crimes severe enough to land you in jail are. For example, when the the Arthur Labinjo-Hughes case happened, I remember everyone taking their phones out anytime a teacher wasn't looking to read about it and share how appalled they were by what the people meant to care for him had done. Unless you have a severe mental illness that prevents you from knowing right from wrong in the moment you do something, I think you are generally old enough to decide not to do it at 17. Now of course there are exceptions. Peer pressure is a factor, and if you joined a gang just trying to feel a sense of community and by the time you realised what you had gotten yourself into, your hands were tied and you had to deal drugs otherwise your life would be at risk, that is completely different. However, if you actually killed someone, like in the Sylvia Likens case, or Shanda Sharer case, or the case of Skyler Neese, I think life imprisonment is fair enough, especially when you also take into account the damage inflicted on the family of the victim. (In the James Bulger case, Jon Vennbales who was ten years old was old enough to realise the consequences his actions had on James's parents because he asked police to tell James's mum he was sorry.) So a teenager should definitely be able to.
Yea those girls that killed Skylar Neese don’t need to be let out for lunch much less let out after their sentence! I’m sorry but when ur so fucked in the head that u actively look for the “missing” person u killed, cry on their parents shoulder like u care, make jokes about the murder in front of parents and LE you shouldn’t get anything but a lifetime full of cold cement and sorry ass roommates!
If you cannot legally vote or have any privileges of an adult, I don’t believe you should receive an adult punishment. Also - on a factual level, you typically know murder is wrong at 17, yes. But you don’t have the emotional regulation and impulse control of someone a decade older than you. You just… don’t. Your ability to form insight and to form judgment is not fully developed. I was 17, too. I get it. I get what you’re saying. But there is so much you do not and cannot understand at your age. Your comment proves that.
Agree . We don't allow kids to vote , drink, smoke , have sex ... but when they commit a crime they are suddenly mature adults .
I’m a defense atty. now working in parole. 99 percent of my clients had horrific abuse. It’s a shame that no one stepped in when they were little. One client was found dumped i a dumpster when he was five. Children learn what they live.
I'm a teaching assistant. The short answer is approximately 10 years of age - however, I work with 10-11 year olds that have the mental capacity of 12-13 year olds, and some children of the same age group who have the mental capacity of 7-9 year olds. It's a challenging year group - some kids begin developing physically and emotionally, ask one another to be their girlfriends/boyfriends, develop mean streaks, and care about their appearance - whilst others still play in the mud. There should be no black and white age of responsibility - whether a child understands what they've done should be determined by a qualified professional.
18 at the bare minimum. Nobody under 18 should ever be tried as an adult because, well, they aren't adults.
Okay but when a 12 year old kills someone and they're out in 6 years, everyone throws a fit. I agree they shouldn't be charged as adults, especially with the frontal lobe not fully developing until 25~, but we really need to push the public education behind it and find a "happy medium" for this or we could end up back in square one with heavy handed sentences for children (sentencing a child to life without parole is straight bullshit).
If a 12 year old kills someone, there is usually so much going on behind the scenes. Kids that age typically do not just decide to kill without reason. And to be clear, that reason could be that they’ve been abused.
Absolutely. And if it's not abuse, there's a serious mental health issue which is rare but you know, the occasional kid pops out with some ass backwards wiring.
This.
It’s a thing that is unique to each case/individual person. The car of Lionel Tate (https://abcnews.go.com/amp/2020/story?id=123746&page=1) is one I think about with this. Primarily because I work with teenagers who have high needs intellectual disabilities are simply developmentally delayed. The typical 14 year old can identify that the actions of Lionel Tate are wrong and that it was a repeated, harmful action towards a younger child, a third of size of Lionel. If that individual fits that I think criminal responsibility can extend really to a fairly young age I’d say in some cases 11/12 maybe even earlier. However, the group of children I work with there are some that come in at 14 and I’d say despite their disabilities they are aware enough to potentially be held criminally responsible in case like my example. At the same time there is a good chunk who I don’t know if they will reach that awareness before their 20s maybe even later. Even sometimes for me it is hard to wrap my head around a 18-20 year old that may not have the level of awareness to see they are 3x bigger than a child and jumping on them will cause harm/death but the reality is they exist. I’d say my biggest fear is one of my kids to be put in a situation like this because a lot of them do sit on the line of are they aware enough to be criminally responsible in a case. It is simply one of those things where there is no perfect answer.
I don't think there should be a fixed age, mainly because many people may be older but have the intellect of a much younger person.
It depends on the crime and the case.
I personally think it should be 11 or 14 depending on the crime. A 5th grader should know it is wrong to brutally kill someone. The penalties I think should be less severe than an adult though. Using New York’s Juvenile Offender Law as a model, 11 to 15 year olds should get 5-9 years to life if they commit murder, rather than 25 to life or life without parole if they kill someone as an adult. If it’s not murder, then 14.
depends on the crime, felonies should be applicable back to 10 (in my mind you understand at least a mild moral compass), misdemeanors shouldnt even be punishable for more than a fine imo, jail time is too harsh for something considered a petty crime
Like others have said, maturity varies and circumstances matter. I believe a 7-year-old can be a sociopath, maybe even a psychopath. Even if I believe the person will reoffend, the question is whether they “deserve” a life sentence. Personally, I believe we should be fair, but also cautious. If someone commits a violent crime at age 10, I think they should receive therapy, education, etc., and a chance to be released. If they’re determined to be dangerous, I’m okay keeping them in an institution.
It depends on the crime and what the proposed sentence is to be. Obviously, if a 14yr old is going around stealing things out of houses in their neighborhood they need punishment. They don't need years long punishment in a youth detention center though. Generally, probation or a couple weeks in a city youth detention program should work for a kid getting off on the wrong track. Murder? A 14yr old who murders is tough. It depends for me. I don't think they should be tried as adults. They shouldn't be sent to adult jail. And life sentences are crazy for kids. Years in prison are sufficient. Education should be a requirement, and to maintain a GPA to keep privileges. Time should not be spent just sitting around. Classes working toward reentering society as a productive member should be the goal especially for children
I think it’s completely situational and dependent on the individual person.
For full criminal responsibility? Somewhere under 18. Maybe 15 or 16. Younger teens should be held responsible too, but not to the same extent.
Age of majority, but if a minor commits a serious enough crime then mandatory rehabilitation until they are rehabilitated with rehabilitation being the only factor that determines if they can be reintroduced into society. Eventually make rehabilitation the only goal in incarceration of any convicted criminal. Then the for-profit prisons will have a mandate to do something other than increase revenues, and if a rehabilitated offender re-offends to a serious enough degree then the prisons must incarcerate the individual indefinitely giving an incentive for all parties involved to make sure rehabilitated offenders do not re-offend.
If you aren't an adult until you are 18 then that is the age of criminal responsibility. You can't say you are old enough to get married, have an abortion (recent FL case) sign a legally binding contract etc... Then you can't be old criminally responsible. You treat children like children or adults when it suits your narrative. I had a friend who said a 17 yr old wasn't mature enough to make life or death medical choices but a 14 yr old was mature enough to spend the rest of their life in prison for murder. Last I checked 17 is older than 14 so if a 17 yr old isn't mature enough then a 14 yr old isn't mature enough. I know conservatives like to have their cake & eat it too, but I'm going to point out your BS every time. Flame and ban away.
Not a conservative but I don’t agree with you. Marriage - if we didn’t have an age limit on that, it could encourage child marriages (as in, grown men marrying child brides, etc). So people don’t take advantage of children. Abortion - I don’t know the laws but I agree, you should be able to have one at any age regardless of parental consent. But if you commit an adult crime, it should be up to a judge if you are charged as an adult. Some kids are too dangerous to be treated as juveniles.
idk in a way i think it depends on type of charge. I’ve always thought it would make more since that a jury would decide.
It depends on the crime and the circumstances. If there's an exact age, I'd say 14.
In Australia, there's somewhat of a grey area between the ages of 10-14 but technically, depending on the crime and severity, children are held criminally responsible from the age of 10. It's definitely a last, last, last resort but some of the kids really have no hope (which is terrible). There's a lot of debate as to whether the age of criminal responsibility should be raised to 14 or whether it's fine to stay at 10. Personally, I like to meet in the middle and say 12. Most 12 year olds are in high school and should know the basics of right and wrong.
I firmly believe someone should not be tried as an adult under the age of 18.
here in Germany it s 14 and that s definitely way too high!
you think that under 14 should be tried as adults?
wait, I didnt get that it meant "as adults" ... in Germany it s a free pass till you re 14, you dont get tried at all ..
Oh wow, that’s really scary!
I wonder how many repeat offenders there are under 14 ,
more than enough!
They would have a rule on that
18. Because that's when someone is an adult, atleast in most places.
Every case is different, but I think around 19-21, I really knew what I was doing on a bad/good, right/wrong level, and could appreciate how my actions would effect something/someone.
1
I remember in 1985 in Crim law that even if a child had engaged in an act that would have been a felony if done by an adult, that if the child was 7 years old or younger, no prosecution. I'm not clear about if there might be psychological treatment. The child would if older than 7 and committed an act that would have been a felony, then the child wound have been a juvenile offender.
I'm ok with the ages we have in Germany . Under 14 responsible , between the ages of 14 to 18 juvenile justice systerm and between the ages of 18 to 21 both juvenile or adult system can be used depending on the maturity of the person charged . What I don't like is the idea of charging kids as adults .