And what sign should be followed that someone has the judgment capabilities of an adult when most serious crimes are committed by ADULTS? Does that not prove that Adults, those over 18, do not have proper judgment capabilities?
I would say that you were attempting to introduce emotion and personal bias into an otherwise logical thread. I didn't take the bait, but still - the "Dukakis" question doesn't really jive with cold academia. Also, the weasel words and tonal bias in the question is really glaring.
Your entire post was this:
There is nothing hypothetical at all in that statement. There is nothing hypothetical implied in those words. You stated that reading the opposing point of view made you want to hurt someone but your sense of right and wrong kept you from doing so. Period. There was no "what if" or "for example" or "just suppose" stated or implied.
In contrast when you did want to make an actual hypothetical you used different wording:
"For example" distinguishes this as hypothetical. Using it in the second case and not in the first implies a different in the thoughts you were expressing. Personal vs. hypothetical.
I have no idea if you are actually upset enough about the topics you post to want to hurt someone or not. But your intent in the first post had nothing to do with hypothetical and everything to do with personalizing the debate.
The kid will end up in a mental ins ution. 10 years after his release he will kill his psychiatrist blaming him for all his problems. Maybe even going on a killing spree. Best to put the boy down now. He does not have a chance in life. Mercy law.
excellent post
sorry your skills of discernment are so weak. sorry your perception is so charred......I shudder to think what horrors you endured as a child. you poor girl
Your entire post was this:
There is nothing hypothetical at all in that statement. There is nothing hypothetical implied in those words. You stated that reading the opposing point of view made you want to hurt someone but your sense of right and wrong kept you from doing so. Period. There was no "what if" or "for example" or "just suppose" stated or implied.
In contrast when you did want to make an actual hypothetical you used different wording:
"For example" distinguishes this as hypothetical. Using it in the second case and not in the first implies a different in the thoughts you were expressing. Personal vs. hypothetical.
I have no idea if you are actually upset enough about the topics you post to want to hurt someone or not. But your intent in the first post had nothing to do with hypothetical and everything to do with personalizing the debate.
Actually I had the happiest childhood of anyone I know, so please direct your sympathy toward the 8 year old child this thread is about. Or you might try turning it in upon yourself, as I'm not the one talking about wanting to hurt people because of their opinions on a message board.
Not hypothetical.
So you had a horror-filled childhood too, eh?
He had to try to change the subject somehow.
When I think of the word projecting I can't help but see the word implaceable as well.
Just stop. You lost. You've lost on every single point, and you know it.
Thats a fair point and I can see how you would think I was implying that very idea. But I wasnt.
To be quite honest, Manny, I dont even know the difference in sentencing between the two categories.
In my layman's understanding, being charged as minor is of less consequence than being charged as an adult. Which is all I need to know when it comes to capital murder.
Again, I am not talking about this 8 year old situation. I want to be clear on that.
I am not using this 8 year old as an example.... , to be honest, even if you changed this exact story with a 13 year old, given the nature of the crime, I am not even sure my entire line of logic applies (again, I know little to nothing about the OP subject).
This thread has reached beyond this story (IMO) and has stretched into the quasi-what-if scenarios.
So, to be clear, lets use a different case all together and say the murderers from Columbine were apprehended by authorities. If you dont like that example for the obvious reason that it is a touchy subject that no one wants to look soft on or whatever, I'll make one up. Lets say we're talking about a teenager who kidnaps and kills another teenager (or under).
Because, IMO, there is a marked distinction between death and all other forms of harm/crime (monetary, personal, sexual, etc).I have issue with the notion that this is a simply matter and that he should simply "know better". What exactly does that encompass and why should he know better on murder and not other crimes? What delineates that distinction?
I dont want to broadbrush too young for the sake of argument, but I'll go on the high side and say that kids by the age of eight know the difference between alive and dead.
I would also venture to say those same kids have a survival instinct. In that, they know not to run in front of a moving car (intentionally) because you could die. They know not to hit their sibling because it hurts them. They know the difference between accident and intentional.
So if they themselves have a conscious understanding of their own mortality and the need to preserve it, by extension, they know others have the same instincts.
To illustrate the point, I used the boogeyman earlier. Young kids know that the boogeyman is evil and that he will kill you/get you.
Now take those obvious observations and fast forward 5 years (13 years old).
In this example, I can only use my knowledge of being 13. At 13 I was old enough to have had a job for 2 years. I was old enough to have no curfew. I was old enough to do a lot of things a 13 year old shouldnt be doing, activities that are reserved for adults (use your imagination).
I also remember the other kids I was hanging out with at the time, their maturity levels (or levels of immaturity if you please). The things we used to do together and the knowledge that we were young enough to get away with it, because even if caught, our transgressions would be chalked up as indicative of being young and dumb.
I preyed on that assumed ignorance throughout my adolescent life. It was not often I would get caught, certainly never caught doing the worst things, but I did get caught and I was always punished as a youth because of my preconceived ignorance.
Which, to be very clear and concise, was complete bull . I knew damn-well what I was doing, that it was sometimes illegal or dangerous and I knew "adults" would allow me to get away with it because I was young (if caught at all).
My father wasnt nearly as sympathetic to my age bracket (thus the best reason not to be caught). He wasnt dumb or ignorant nor did he have any doubt as to the awareness level of my peers and I. He never treated me with kid gloves in any situation. He demanded accountability and honesty from everyone of us. He was so damned good at it, he became a pseudo-surrogate father to 10+ kids/friends of mine who had clueless/alcoholic/abusive parents. Many nights I had friends and older brothers/sisters of friends coming to my house in tears wanting to speak with my father because he never treated you like a child, nor were you to act like one in his presence.
I knew kids that were into strong-arm robbery who "graduated" to armed robbery. I knew kids who were dealing drugs at 13 who still continue to do so. I know what it was like to be a teenager, and in my experience through out that time of my life, we all knew from the outset to the conclusion that the things we were doing were wrong...but we did it anyway, even knowing the consequences if caught.
So when you defend a 13-16 year olds in this vain, I have hard time understanding the distinction when it comes to capital murder (outide the cir stances I laid out before of abuse, neglect, etc).
There is just no damn good argument I have ever heard or could even conceive that could tell me that a 13+ year old does not know murder is the highest possible crime a person could commit. Not with the sheer amount of information that tells you otherwise, whether its from your parents, school officials, friends or media.
Its fine if you were, but I appreciate the disclaimer.I'm not trying to do anything here other than to get to the core reasoning behind your opinio, btw. I say that just in case it comes off as though I am attacking you which is not the case. I am simply questioning your logic and trying to understand it.
This is where you and I patently disagree. On the more or less vague notions of society like theft and vandalism, we agree that an adolescent doesnt have the same understanding of their actions.I think most people will agree that any normal human in our society should understand that killing another person is wrong. I don't see that as the end all be all of these situations, however. My main reasoning is because humanity as a whole does not avoid certain actions because they are wrong, but rather because of the repercussions and i don't think a 13 or 14 year old is capable of understanding the ramifications of their actions until much later in life and I believe that most scientists who study human behavior and development would agree with both of these assertions.
In even more severe crimes like rape and assault, one could even say they have the same lack of understanding in that they think women want to be objectified like they are in any number of other areas in life (media, mostly). Or that "jumping" the poor bas who talked in 3rd hour is a good conflict resolution in accordance with what theyve seen and heard in their so-far short jaunt in life.
But the moment you start plotting the murder of another human being is where I draw the line. Yes its arbitrary, but it goes back to the mutual knowledge of survival instinct and your willingness to violate that well-developed concept. I would also argue that the government designated age of 18 is arbitrary as well. But that is beside the point.
All fair points and to be honest, I wouldnt exactly cry in my beer if all minors were suddenly not allowed to be charged as an adult in our society. I wouldnt agree with it, but I would just add it to the ever-expanding list of other things I dont agree with.I do not advocate that children not be held accountable of their actions, but I think our society recognizes that a child is NOT the same as an adult and because of that has them treated differently by the criminal justice system in the vast majority of cir stances. That then begs the question why do we do this? Why do we hold children on a separate plane than a normal fully developed human? Why do we not allow children to drive until a certain age and why do we not allow them to own weapons or make their own decisions until a certain age? The answer of course is because we understand that children are not capable of making the same decisions as an adult is.
So, given that, why is it that when a child makes a decision that almost everyone would universally decry as a poor decision are they suddenly elevated to a stature that says they are capable of making sound decisions? Its fundamentally at odds with itself and it makes absolutely no sense when viewed in the context of what the delineation between a child and an adult in the criminal justice system is meant to represent.
But, IMO, I keep coming back to this Columbine business or a 13 year old kidnapping, raping and then killing someone else. I just dont see how, especially in the Columbine case, you can look at those pukes thru an adolescent perspective. They knew damn well what they were doing, what the consequences would be if caught, so they chose the cowards way out and committed suicide when the rampage looked to be done.
Same with a rape/muder case. The very act of kidnapping must be done with some level of concealment, meaning they know if caught, theyre in trouble. The very act of rape requires the lowest form of a human there is, lets spare those details. The act of murder is done for many reasons, in a rape case, it could be for revenge or concealment (so she/he doesnt talk) which, again, implies they know what they did is wrong and will go to any measure to hide it.
Again, we disagree. On matters less than first degree murder, I agree to those rights never being revoked. But one must consider what a murdering teenager is if they hadnt been abused/neglected/etc. I am sort of a fatalist and have no pity for most...well, everyone. Maybe that makes me a heartless bas , my wife certainly thinks so, but it doesnt change my opinion much.its not about excusing anything, its about allowing children the protections they are en led to under the law. We do not strip people of their rights simply because the level of the crime repulses society so why are we doing this to children?
A plotted murder is the absolute worst thing anyone can do. The worst. In those special cases with the numbers of contingencies I have placed upon my verdict considered, I stand by my assertion.
13+ unabused, nelgelcted or mentally challenged, first degree murder...welcome to adulthood.
Last edited by DarkReign; 11-12-2008 at 03:37 PM.
I dontknow anything of the sort. I haven't lost on any point because we are talking pure opinions and interpretations. just because this is akin to being a conservative guest on the bill maher show doesn't mean I lost. I don't believe anyone can lose. makg has her opinion..dark reigh his or hers...and dung is just dung.
DR,
I think neither of us agree's with the others reasoning but I at least understand where you are coming from thanks to your post.
Reciprocated as well.
Dark, would it be fair to say that your basis is that at some cut-off (like, say, 13) we draw the line that an act appearing to be premeditated should be punished on the same level as an adult because at 13 we should assume the criminal knows right from wrong and the greater implications of life and death? (I understand you're just using 13 as an example and I'm just using it as such).
If I'm to understand, basically what you're saying is that a 13 year old committing predicated murder is the same as a 30 year old for all intents and purposes and should be brought to justice accordingly?
By that token why shouldn't a crime-of-passion killing at age 13 be punished as harshly as a crime-of-passion killing at age 30?
You say that lesser crimes like rape and kidnapping might not meet the same standards because of misconceptions of youth. But you believe the concept of death is something a 13 year old has a firm grip on?
I'm just trying to follow the logic because it seems you're finding distinctions with the crimes - saying that a 13 year old might not be as mentally developed in one case, but would be in the other?
I 100% agree that dangerous people of all ages need to be dealt with for society's best interest. But I just don't understand how you draw the conclusion that the more heinous a crime is, the more responsible the child becomes for their actions.
MAKG, I believe he said upthread that the idea of 'death' is much more firm in the minds of the young than things such as rape, theft, etc etc.
That's one of the things I'm trying to clarify and understand the reasoning behind.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
