Trying minors as adults

xoa said:

So you also think 15-year-olds should be allowed to vote, drive, and buy alcohol?

Click to expand...

Pat said:

Probably not, They can be so reckless

Click to expand...

Right...

Yet you argue kids should be treated as adults and sent to adult prisons. I can see that working out really well.

Come on people, not a whole lot of thought going on here.

The premise that a lot of this is based on, is that people can't change once they are 15, 16 or whatever. I think that is a terrible outlook. Who here honestly believes they are the same as they were then? I'm sure as hell not.

I acted up when I was young, because I had such a **** home life. I suspect it is the same in a lot of these cases. You really can't judge people on their actions until they are fully autonomous. They aren't below 18, that's for sure.

It's Snake Pliskin said:

Sorry, that is wrong. As a kid I knew murder and death were bad and not be committed. According to your comment if that is the way people think nowadays we are in for a rough ride in the future. Perhaps it explains the violence that is happening.

Click to expand...

Did you even read past that part you highlighted? When you are a minor, of course you know murder is "bad", but you dont fully appriciate how how bad it is at that age. You can possibly understand exactly why its bad, without having some life experience.

Children only know right from wrong through discipline. You can't reason with a 2 year old, and you are struggling with a 15 year old.

I didn't learn reason till I was about 35.

However, under Sharia Law, the age of consent for a female is 9, so they must be more advanced than us.

Back to the question, imo, no.

Hey Prawn, interesting question, of course there are no easy answers. It's an unfortunate fact of life that teenagers have poor impulse control and their brains are still changing and developing. I think a huge determinant of whether some kid should be charged as an adult depends upon intent. Decisions that get made very quickly in the moment are then subjected to a table top style of analysis in an adult frame of mind.

Let me give you an example.

At the age of fifteen the hulking neanderthal at the school I attended decided that it was little Sir O's turn to be his source of amusement and fun. I was a pretty even tempered kid, and also a late bloomer so this guy outweighed me by 20 kilo's and about 10 inches in height. It took six months of bullying before I lost my temper, and not because of the words that this guy used...because he decided to take it to a physical level, and turn verbal bullying into physical bullying.

I lost my temper and broke his jaw in two places.

Even though I had been the target of this guys aggression for six months I was suspended and very nearly expelled from school - which to my young mind was very unfair. I'm very lucky in fact that Neanderthal decided not to press charges against me. Needless to say my actions now would be vastly different from what they were then, but in the moment I didn't care. So intent becomes paramount. In the moment did I intend to hurt Mr Neanderthal...hell yeah my fifteen year old brain told me he deserved it. So lets take the example a little further. In my blind to the consequences temper if I had killed Mr Neanderthal (which could have happened at the time), what should have happened? My intent was not to kill him, but it could have happened. Should I have been tried as an adult for a impulsive mistake with extenuating circumstances?

In some cases detention or jail is justified (because of the intent) but what is the purpose of prison? Is it a) to make them more dangerous criminals when they are released or b) to rehabilitate these young offenders so that they can become members of society? The aim is the latter, frequently it's the former.

What's the solution? I don't think there is one unfortunately.

Pat said:

I think removing the above individual from society for 13 yrs is a fitting punishment, though I feel if he's put in any normal gaol It would not be for the better... not a perfect world...

Click to expand...

chops_a_must said:

Right...

Yet you argue kids should be treated as adults and sent to adult prisons. I can see that working out really well.

Come on people, not a whole lot of thought going on here.

The premise that a lot of this is based on, is that people can't change once they are 15, 16 or whatever. I think that is a terrible outlook. Who here honestly believes they are the same as they were then? I'm sure as hell not.

I acted up when I was young, because I had such a **** home life. I suspect it is the same in a lot of these cases. You really can't judge people on their actions until they are fully autonomous. They aren't below 18, that's for sure.

Click to expand...

No I don't think they should be going to an adult prison, but the punishment they are dealt should be harsh for serious crimes.

I can understand the issues here, If we had a perfect system they would recive a just punishment and the proper treatment... but who decides?

Let’s take it back some steps.

I honestly feel the major cause of kids doing things wrong comes from their immediate environment. Children can remember various traumatic events from young ages, how they cope with them is very much an individual outcome. The severity of the action can have life altering effects.

Do we accept bullying in schools? The attitude from schools is - no tolerance.

I would question this from personal experience with a child who was seriously physically abused at school; I ended up taking the principle on at government level for not seeing her Duty of Care.

What encourages bullies? Peer pressure. Acceptance into a group. Lack of discipline from home. Boredom. Lack of discipline at school through limited resources. Shocking examples of acceptable behavior from home - screaming parents, parents beating each other up, incest etc. Some kids do have cerebral chemical imbalances that if not treated professionally with medication don’t change and are not deemed disabled.

School councilors are generally so over loaded with multiple problem kids, under appreciated for the work / hours they do their performance to assess and implement guidelines can be flippant.

Do they actually discipline the bullies? To an extent. Some children / teens will always indulge in aggressive behavior despite being thrown out of school.

What happens then? Anything

Crime at any age is bullying from a person who is insecure, unstable and unloved.

Not every child is lucky to have a loving, safe and supportive home. At some point, an individual must be responsible for their actions regardless of age. They can break the chain of events or continue down the path. It is their self will.

Being a perfect parent is impossible but being a parent who takes responsibility for your child and their future begins the day the child is born. I look at some juvenile cases, remove the emotion of the case and really question the parents up bringing and how did they raise their own children?

You shouldn't have to be told that strangling, hitting or constant derogatory screaming at a child is wrong - apparently we live in a civilized society. Some sadly think that shutting the front door ends in civilized treatment.

Unfortuantely- some adults do not see their actions with long term negative effects. Refusing to take responsiblity when their kid plays up. Crying carrying on saying they didn't mean it.

Prawn I feel each case should be treated in court individually. This may never happen for many reasons. Setting an age limit for society is probably easy but not the right choice. I also think if the source was punished their would be less of the crime at any age.

When reading through various papers it seems to me the government's decision in mainly money orientated.

There are some interesting articles if you like to read.

Difficulties faced by courts in sentencing children[/I]
Chris McRoberts, Magistrate, Children’s Court, New South Wales

This paper will endeavor to consider and suggest ways to ensure that the "punishment fits the crime" in a manner most likely to promote rehabilitation and to deter reoffending, and will cover issues such as peer pressure, poor self-esteem, and the offender who does not understand the meaning of "NO

Click to expand...

".

http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/juvenile/index.html

Green08 said:

Let’s take it back some steps.

Prawn I feel each case should be treated in court individually. This may never happen for many reasons. Setting an age limit for society is probably easy but not the right choice. I also think if the source was punished their would be less of the crime at any age.

Click to expand...

Green I deleted the bits I have no problem with....which leaves us with the above....

Ahem - you didn't just advocate punishing the parents for their children's behaviour did you? Did you?

Young Juvenile offender's mate: "So Big D, what was your punishment for robbing that old lady and running over her cat?"

Big D "Ha! The olds got a smack on the wrist and a fine but the silly sods threatened me with a leather strap and I've got it on video and now I can blackmail them for whatever I want. I'm getting an Xbox."

Kids aren't stupid Green. What you are suggesting takes away from the authority of the parent because the child realizes that they do not have to take personal responsibility. Isn't that presumably we want to achieve? Personal growth and maturity to realize their potential and to take responsibility for their actions?

If we make the parents responsible where does it end? Should we make people take an exam before they can procreate to cut down on the no hopers and apply some chlorine to the gene pool?

Sir O

Sir Osisofliver said:

Should we make people take an exam before they can procreate to cut down on the no hopers and apply some chlorine to the gene pool?

Click to expand...

Im all for that idea. The world has a chronic over population problem as it is. Topic for a different thread however...

most certainly!

especially those bastards who bashed the flamingo at the adelaide zoo

Sir Osisofliver said:

Kids aren't stupid Green. What you are suggesting takes away from the authority of the parent because the child realizes that they do not have to take personal responsibility. Isn't that presumably we want to achieve? Personal growth and maturity to realize their potential and to take responsibility for their actions?

If we make the parents responsible where does it end? Should we make people take an exam before they can procreate to cut down on the no hopers and apply some chlorine to the gene pool?

Sir O

Click to expand...

Sir O,

I know kids aren't stupid - who do you think the best hackers are?

Are you having a bad day? Your sarcasm to think that I am that close minded is appalling. I’ve stated each case should be treated individually. You have never held your own child accountable?

Each child should be held responsible for their actions. Mine have been disciplined since they were little. They were not hit but verbal correction set down. They grew up with breakable items around them and as a result treat objects with care. Sure they push the bar and pretty much know the outcome which is not to their liking more house work. But that is the system I began. I.e. My kids have only had water as an accessible drink in my home, when they go out a juice or occasional fizzy to them is a huge deal.

I.e. they know should they get detention I won't step in. Happened once.

If any of my children were to commit a heinous crime I would question what I had done wrong in the up bringing, what did I miss. Wouldn't You?

I've witnessed shocking behavior right in front of me from a child whose parent is watching with not one hint of pulling them into line. It just perpetrates more daring acts - how far can I push the boundary before something serious happens?

What I was trying to say is that serious crime in youth can usually be traced back to parental dysfunction of some degree. In those RARE cases murder, rape yes the parent should be liable if the child is young.

Are you telling me that slovenly parents on drugs, alcohol, smoking and no discretion on violence and sex are not in some way to be accountable? Parents in crime set the bar?

It is a balance of both held accountable, different degrees, on age, crime, etc.

As I said the answer is not easy. But being a parent doesn't mean you give birth and rescind all responsibility for the outcome of the child. If you do you should be punished.

As a parent you pretty much set the standard of acceptable behaviour from the word go.

Agree, juvenile's shouldn't be sent to adult prisons since the last thing you
want is a Chopper Reed like character turning you into a crim for life. Like the
late Mladenic, who as a minor shared a cell with Chopper for a year and was
never the same again. (Source: Leadbelly)

But you can't have the crims exploit the loop holes in the law either, like in Cabramatta where the drug lords have the minors sell heroin as the laws are more relaxed in Oz than say Asia, and there's no way a 10 yr old will be sharing an over-crowded cell with 20-30 yr olds. (Source: interview with a Chinese/Vietnamise local drug lord).

So what to do? instead of having them in 'juvi' homes where they sit around
watching 'teli' all day or as recently reported, particpating in group sex sessions why not make them work 8 hours a day? You know, clean off graffiti, pick up rubbish off streets and parks, maintain public places, etc. Little honest work is good for the self-esteem as well. They might pick up a skill or be inclined to work those jobs that are 'beneath' them like graveyard shifts at petrol stations or local McDonalds that are going to foreign workers.

Even if this measure saw a minor improvement in the number of juvenile offences, it's still better than the success rate social workers and the pc crowd are getting using current methods of rehabilitation.

On a different note, just wait till the latest 'craze' in the US comes to a
neighbourhood near you...private jails, that's right governments 'outsourcing'
jails...I mean, correctional facilities to private contractors who make money not on how many inmates are rehabilitated but on continual head count. What incentive would they have for rehabilitation...NONE! it'll affect bottom line.

Should we make people take an exam before they can procreate to cut down on the no hopers and apply some chlorine to the gene pool?

Click to expand...

The Slovaks it was reported not long ago are sterilising their local gypsy population. I'm all for the bogan class of single mothers who *need* a new Louis Vuitton bag, so decide to stroll on down to the local RSL, open their legs to some drunk git and pop out another social misfit for society to deal with, while they spend their $5K and wait for another $1K per child as part of the $10 Billion dollars of reforms to cop the same treatment.

But then the problem with society is we can never be centralists, we either go too far right or too far left with these kinds of decisions, so best left on the wish list

Prawn

Another view would be to question not just the criminal handling of juveniles in the adult system but the criminal handling of intellectual persons in the same situation.

This is a horrendous situation

Are people with an intellectual disability more likely to commit crimes?

No. The increased rate of contact with the criminal justice system is due to:

1.

people with an intellectual disability being treated differently by police and the courts; and​

2.

the psychological and socio-economic disadvantage experienced by people with an intellectual disability.​

Different treatment by police and courts

People with an intellectual disability are more likely to be arrested, questioned and detained for minor public order offences. People with an intellectual disability are more likely to admit to offences, including ones they did not commit, perhaps from a desire to please the police officer or because they do not want to acknowledge that they did not understand the police officer’s questions. They are refused bail more often and are more likely to be given a custodial sentence because of a lack of adequate support in the community. People with an intellectual disability serve longer sentences or a greater part of their sentence before being granted parole.

Even though people with an intellectual disability are entitled under the law to have a support person present for any police interview, the reality is that it is not always possible to get a support person, especially someone who is well trained to support the rights of people with intellectual disability.

Click to expand...

www.beyondbars.org.au/BBA FINAL FACTS/IntellectualDisabilityfinal.doc

Young people with an intellectual disability at risk of contact with the criminal justice system

The Department of Education and Training has lead agency responsibility for this project, which aims to engage a whole-of-government community program to assist young people with an intellectual disability at a special school in a disadvantaged area. The aim of the project is to improve education, training, employment, and social outcomes for the young people and to reduce the likelihood of them offending. DADHC has told us that the project commenced in February 2006. In October 2006, DADHC advised that theproject had involved preliminary meetings between the partner agencies, and the creation of four working groups. In November 2007 and May 2008, DADHC told us that it was awaiting updated information from the Department ofEducation and Training on the progress of this project.

Click to expand...

www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/.../supporting people with an intellectual disa

As the mother of an autistic son I feel for these young neglected people.

chops_a_must said:

The premise that a lot of this is based on, is that people can't change once they are 15, 16 or whatever. I think that is a terrible outlook. Who here honestly believes they are the same as they were then? I'm sure as hell not.

I acted up when I was young, because I had such a **** home life. I suspect it is the same in a lot of these cases. You really can't judge people on their actions until they are fully autonomous. They aren't below 18, that's for sure.

Click to expand...

Chops,
I think you are still young in your twenties? When you will be in your 50's you might consider your twenties as so childish/stupid It is a constant evolution and no do decades are the same in a person's life. Some change for the better, some change for the worse.

Another problem with the thinking that adult responsibilities (vote/drive/drink) are prerequisite for adult justice. I think both of them are mutually exclusive to a large extent.

I also think corporations and governments have vested interests in keeping the adult age under 18. They get cheap labor out of these young souls, without proper reward IMO.

Green08 said:

Sir O,

Are you having a bad day? Your sarcasm to think that I am that close minded is appalling. I’ve stated each case should be treated individually. You have never held your own child accountable?

Each child should be held responsible for their actions. Mine have been disciplined since they were little. They were not hit but verbal correction set down. They grew up with breakable items around them and as a result treat objects with care. Sure they push the bar and pretty much know the outcome which is not to their liking more house work. But that is the system I began. I.e. My kids have only had water as an accessible drink in my home, when they go out a juice or occasional fizzy to them is a huge deal.

I.e. they know should they get detention I won't step in. Happened once.

If any of my children were to commit a heinous crime I would question what I had done wrong in the up bringing, what did I miss. Wouldn't You?

I've witnessed shocking behavior right in front of me from a child whose parent is watching with not one hint of pulling them into line. It just perpetrates more daring acts - how far can I push the boundary before something serious happens?

What I was trying to say is that serious crime in youth can usually be traced back to parental dysfunction of some degree. In those RARE cases murder, rape yes the parent should be liable if the child is young.

Are you telling me that slovenly parents on drugs, alcohol, smoking and no discretion on violence and sex are not in some way to be accountable? Parents in crime set the bar?

It is a balance of both held accountable, different degrees, on age, crime, etc.

As I said the answer is not easy. But being a parent doesn't mean you give birth and rescind all responsibility for the outcome of the child. If you do you should be punished.

As a parent you pretty much set the standard of acceptable behaviour from the word go.

Click to expand...

Ahh Green 'twas only a little bit sarcastic for the purposes of illustration - didn't mean to offend - I don't think you are close minded at all. I just think it's an incredibly slippery slope is all to make parents accountable for the actions of their children. It's taking power away from where it should be exercised with maturity and consideration and potentially punishing those people who for whatever reason are unable to control their kids. If a child learns there are no consequences for their actions of course they are going to push the boundaries to see how far they can go, but punishing the parents just perpetuates this atmosphere of no consequences instead of teaching them personal responsibility.

It's easy to sit on the sidelines and comment from the comfort of our chairs about these situations but the reality is that once the bar is changed for accountability inevitably there will be those who get crushed.

Yes an ideal situation would be for all parents to be proper role models for their kids and of course the drunken slovenly drug taking criminal baby factories are not proper role models... but even in this extreme example... how does punishing the parents act as a deterrent to the young offenders? Isn't that what we are going for...deterrence and hopefully rehabilitating these young offenders so they don't commit crimes in the future?

In regards to parental dysfunction, if we take my example I gave earlier (and I had killed Neanderthal instead of just breaking his jaw in two places), my parents were divorced (not an uncommon thing), but should this "dysfunction" excuse my personal responsibility at all. Oh woe is me I'm the product of a broken home with no strong male role model your honor. Punish my mother for not raising me right.... Is this enough of a "dysfunction" to have my mother punished for my stupid impulse? Who gets to decide what is dysfunctional or not? Slippery slippery slope Green

Sir O

Sir Osisofliver said:

.
Slippery slippery slope Green

Sir O

Click to expand...

Yes Sir O it is an extremely slippery slope.

I had a pretty abusive childhood my father thought I was the new punching bag! My mother never intervened. I wish they had never met to be honest.

I have had very little contact with them since I left home. Somehow I kept my head above the water and knew what they did was not right but I was terrified of them. When I left I sourced books and help to understand what happened. The last time my father hit me in my 20's I called the police who read him his rights. I've gone the opposite way of being protective of my children, helping less advantaged people, maybe a sign of over compensation to understand. My brother and sister dealt with it differently. In my brother's case I would drag my parents through court to be held liable and not bat an eye.

I was referring to extreme cases of murder and rape. They don't occur often and to just persecute the child is maddening. Would you not question the death of little James in England and any relation to the actions of 10 year old killers and their up bringing?

In reference to 'disciplining' parents this seems a viable civil solution:

"require parents to participate with their children in counseling or education programs and at adjudicatory (court) hearings. Based on preliminary findings, involvement of parents in their child's case processing can be effective in deterring repeat offenses."

http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/462/Juvenile-Crime-HOLDING-PARENTS-RESPONSIBLE.html

Some of the other punishments dealt to parents in USA are questionable. Fines yes. Being chained to your youngster - No. But then it maybe the only way .............

chops_a_must said:

Why?

They can't vote, half aren't allowed to drive a car. So why should they be?

You can't give them that responsibility when they don't have the corresponding rights as well.

Click to expand...

Ahh Chops thank god you are here

sam76 said:

Every generation grows up faster than the last.
Therefore 18 should not be consider an adult anymore.
16 should.

Click to expand...

Nope before BC the powers to be used to put boys and old men in the front row for battle.

The Greek philosophers complained of similar issue's with the youth of their day just like today.

No, I don't agree with trying adults as minors. I agree with much of what chops, prawn and fimmwolf said.

Yes, a child might understand that something is wrong to do, but do they actually comprehend why it is wrong? Do they have the ability to analyse the complexities of what makes something wrong?

We (rightly) make allowances for people with mental illness, why shouldn't we make allowances for people who aren't sufficiently emotionally and/or intellectually developed?