I was reading this story:

http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/khou061211_ac_turnertrial.1a991b54.html

And what drew my attention for a good debate is the age of the defendent, 17.  I was wondering...at what age do we charge kids for adult crimes?  If 17 is still not an adult in other places (smoking, gambling in places without alcohol, driving unsuspended) then why is it different in the court system?  If an age requirement is arbitrary then can the benefits of turning older also be given to younger people based on arbitrary values we assign?  For example, let's say a 12 y/o is really smart and has a "good head on his shoulders"...can we allow him to drink?  Can an 8 y/o girl strip for money to feed her starving family?  Can the 14 y/o have sex with the 60 y/o because she's in college because she's "like totally smarter than High School"?

This isn't the only story when children are charged with crimes.  In fact in MI, a few years ago there was a heated debate on whether to charge a 12 y/o as an adult.  If kids who are 10 can rape 8 year old girl and 8 year old who can bring guns to school and shoot their kids do those acts...how do we charge them?  Also someone who is charged as a child when he's 17 gets out at 21...if you murder 72 people and are charged as a child; your main punishment is 4 years in Juvy.  Is that just?  Or just how the system works?

To boil down my question it would be something like the following:
Is charging children under the age of 18 as adults right or wrong?  Why?  If yes, why do we not do this for other "benefits"?  If no, what do we do with them?

X
(I'll hold my comments and beliefs until later)

If a 5 year old steals a crayon, cut off his hand. It will teach him later to never steal again.


The oppressive regime has spoken!

(I'll answer the question later)

LOL Briney that made me literally LOL!

Well either you're a very radical puritan (all they did was brand people) or an orthodox Muslim.

If you were the Bush administration you'd write the Crayola act that makes all acts of stealing crayons terrorism and put the kid in an "internment camp" without trial or representation....or without his juice box.

X

I don't think that comparison holds up Pat.  First, by charging a minor as an adult, we are punishing them for acting badly (in a manner beyond their years, normaly).  Allowing a kid to drink at 14 because he is smart would be rewarding good deeds with bad things.....it defeats the purpose...so your logic is flawed.

The Juvinile court systems are meant to charge juviniles on MINOR charges.  Normal 16 year old kids are doing things like vandalism....petty theft etc.  If a 16 year old picks up a gun and kills a man in cold blood, then in my eyes he has done that as an adult, and therefore he will not escape punishment AS an adult.

Charging minors as adults is fine with me.  And saying that because we do that, we should allows minors to do other things (Bad things), is flawed, as stated above.

If a kid murdered 72 people, it would be madness to let them off with only four years.  I heard a story on Oprah :P, in April, 2005 a little black kid was getting picked on by a bigger white kid and the black kid took out his baseball bat and killed the bigger kid.  The black kid was 13, and I think he is still in jail.
I found this article at CNN.com
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/14/baseball.killing/index.html


Quote:

Under California law, children younger than 14 cannot be tried as adults. If convicted in juvenile court, the boy could face a sentence ranging from probation to confinement in a juvenile detention facility until he turns 25.

I checked with the local magistrate about getting out of a ticket if the officer does not wear his hat.  Its false.

-Stick-