What is your point of view on this topic?
What is your point of view on this topic?
I'm hesitant to say "Yes, they should be." There were things I did when I was a bit younger I would never do now.Quote by: giomanach
Grandpa h.
giomanach by youth[I] i take you mean those aged between 12 and 18? ie teenagers!
No. If we consider that youths are behaviourally too irresponsible to drink alcohol, buy weapons, drive cars etc, why do you think they are any more responsible in regards to the law?
(formerly G.Adams)
"You can avoid reality but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality" ~ Ayn Rand
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Because we are a law-driven, literalist society, we try to fit all feet into one shoe, leading to untenable choices. The circumsntaces should determine what can be done.
I understand your point. This kind of discussion brings about questioning the very nature of law.
For example, I am on one hand opposed to mandatory sentencing, yet I also don't like double standards. Both views have merit--maybe even equally so. It can be challenging to create a position on such an issue.
But, to me, children are generally different than adults.
Now, if there is a 14 year old serial killer, he poses a danger to society.
Grandpa h.
It depends on the crime and the age. It makes no sense for a kid who is 17 years and 364 days old to get a different sentence than he would if he was just one day older. Serious crimes should always result in adult criminal prosecution and crimes committed after the age of 16 should not be sealed when the kid gets to 18. A kid who doesn't know that murder is wrong at age 16 certainly isn't worth saving IMO.
There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.
And what do we do with the 18 year old boy who gets a 17 year old girl pregnant? Surely he's no pedophile. Deplorable, but no more than that. That's not double-standards, but common sense. The law has to have some sense of proportion and justification to it. Justice can't be blind.
I'm not sure about your laws, but in a comparable situation in the UK of a 16 getting a 15 year old pregnant (we have lower age of consent), it wouldn't make it anywhere near a court. I very much doubt you would get a hearing if the boy was 16 and she 13 as long as she gave consent. Our law is rather flexible regarding such situations.
(formerly G.Adams)
"You can avoid reality but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality" ~ Ayn Rand
Maybe that's why the UK has the highest teenage pregnancy rates in Europe ?
Possibly sparing the rod has spoiled the child. There need to be rules and any exceptions should be referred to the highest court for consideration. Murder and manslaughter should be tried as adult crimes regardless of the age of the child 17, 13, even 8 - on the bright side if the 8 year old gets life (25yrs) they'll only be 33 when they get out and they sure as hell won't be reoffending!
We all feel the law is unfair when we fall on the wrong side of it, but if we keep limping off these weak ass 3 year suspended sentence for rape or 6 years served for murdering a child how can we ever expect to stop people comitting the crimes?
PS if we're gonna ban smoking 1st place should be prisons.
Perhaps it is, but do you really think having a tougher line would lead to fewer pre-16 teens having sex? That's about as likely as making drug use illegal curbing it's use. You'll cut off a tiny number maybe, but won't put a dent in the stats. Frankly, I don't care about the teen pregnancy rates. Europe's birth rate is dropping to numbers that make even me feel uneasy.
If you feel 8 year olds are as responsible for their actions as an 18 year old, to maintain legal consistancy they would have to be treated as adults for all other aspects of life. So, they should be allowed to work where they like at min. wage, buy weaponry, apply for the army, buy alcohol etc If you think the idea of a drunk, crossbow wielding 8 year old miner is ridiculous, it's because it is. They are 8 years old, irresponsible and in need of care and protection, not 25 without parole.
Sometimes the law is genuinely unfair, because those who are legislating are bastard scumbags who have no interest in protecting the freedoms of this great nation. For example, the UK government is currently pushing for a situation where if a man sleeps with a woman who is under the influence, he can be charged with rape, regardless of whether she gave consent or not. This is because, under the eyes of the law, a woman under the influence is incapable of giving consent. Of course, the law does not go the same for men. A man, if he has 14 pints in him, is fully capable of consent. This means the law considers women unequal to men. Fantastic situation eh?
When it comes to sentencing, I think the jury should set the minimum sentence and whether parole should be an option or not. It would give our sentencing some credibility, instead of having rapists getting out so early.
(formerly G.Adams)
"You can avoid reality but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality" ~ Ayn Rand
I dont think you should try someone as an adult if you dont treat them like one. You cant have double standards based on convenience. If you are going to sentence 13 year old to the electric chair, you chould let 13 year olds vote and drink.
Clean toe caps and a filthy mouth!
Low morals and high morale!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks