So, reading http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/boy-faces-battery-charge-in-new-mexico-school-shooting article about a recent school shooting, it got me to wondering: Is it really fair to try premeditated school shooting suspects as juveniles? I mean, those are pretty serious things to consider doing, so you should face very serious charges. Anyway, I was curious about the diverse opinions of C.D. on the topic.

(Also, as a reminder, let's try and keep away from the politics of gun control/regulation please. I don't want to see this locked because of off topic bickering)

are they doing it for childish reasons or for shaping society?

In America?

Why shouldn't they? It is an anatomical fact that teens don't have fully developed brains yet, thus they reason differently than advlts.

Children know it is wrong to kill, unless they have useless parents.

My view is we need to remove premeditated killers from the population before they can infect the gene pool. If a kid accidentally or in an act of passion kills someone, then they go to Juvenile Court and face the music there. Premeditated planned murder? Try them as an advlt, then send them into General Population.

Ehm, yes, since they are juveniles. Their brain has not fully matured yet. To try them as advlts is anologous to calling cheese a tomato, it just does not pan out.

Evolution does not work like that. Psychology does not work like that. Society should not work like that. Blanket statements like that are always unproductive when dealing with people, each case should be tried on a case-by-case basis. Since each circumstance is unique, each method of dealing with the situation must be unique as well. Some may require therapy. For some murder may have been their only escape. Children below six or seven are biologically and psychologically incapable of true remorse. Children below 21 or so have very different cognitive and mental abilities and patterns as does an advlt. To throw people away forever before they reach the age of maturity is a waste.

So, let me propose a scenario. If a 14 year old has been found to be responsible for a recent spat of serial killings of, let's say thirty people, should we still expunge this from their record the moment they turn 18 because 'they're minors, their brain has not fully matured'. You can't pick and choose when it's okay and not okay to charge juveniles for serious crimes as advlts or as children.

I wouldn't agree with the cheese/tomato argument, because we can demonstrate that a juvenile's brain somewhat resembles and will eventually become and advlt brain.

My thoughts on the matter haven't changed since the last topic of this sort, their brains aren't developed enough to truly grasp the consequences. They still need a lot of help and guidance, but throwing them in prison (at least as the system is now) doesn't do much to help and improve the situation.

Yes I can, because that is either a slippery slope or a non-sequitur. It does not follow from my statements. I said that each case should be tried and treated individually, never with a blanket decision that applies to everyone. One they reach maturity we can assess their potential risk and use a lot better.

If you have the capacity to kill someone, I believe you have the capacity to be considered an advlt and to be tried as such. Too bad, you messed up. Now die.(or rot).

Ehhh, maybe I'm just overly rigid. My whole point of view is 'The law is the law and there are no exceptions'. To me a murderer is a murderer regardless of age and a teenager should be no less or no more judged than an advlt. The way I see it, if you have the capability of understanding general social right and wrong, you understand you should never have done it.

I'm pretty sure a teenager understands the consequences of murdering someone. If they don't they must be mentally impaired and should spend a few years (or decades) under supervision and getting exorcised.

I believe that rehabilitation should come before punishment, so I'm not fond of punishing people severely for the hell of it, rather than trying to fix them. That being said I do think that teenagers in general should be held responsible for their idiotic actions and face the consequences and pay a fine or serve their sentence.

That is exactly the thing. People who are not advlts really do not have that capability, or at least not to the extent an advlt with experience and a mature brain has. Children under seven have no real remorse whatsoever. Children under 21 have difficulty assessing the consequences of their actions. Damaged children can be prone to lashing out. It's the same thing as that we don't allow young people to drink. They are too young to understand the consequences and their developing brain is too vulnerable to permanent damage.

I've always been of the belief that 16 years of age ought to be the cutoff. Under 16, and you spend until your 21st birthday locked away in juvenile hall.

Do you really want to get into a Nature vs Nurture Argument over this? Nature gives you the potential, Nurture develops or tempers the potential. How much one has an impact on the other is something people with a lot more knowledge on this subject than us have been arguing for years.

But, none of that really matters as that was not why I said what I said.

Nurture or Nature, I would not want a killer to be fathering/birthing babies or raising babies. So, yes it is a blanket statement, but not for the reasons you state. If someone commits capital murder, they need to be removed from society. No matter what the reason/excuse for it.

Bottom line, you can whine all you want about not being nurtured properly as a child, or not having the right parents, but capital murderers get no consideration from me.

14 is the new 18....

Depends on the severity of the crime but I do believe that most of the time they should be tried as advlts.

Only if they have Call of Duty in their collection. Parole will be granted if they supply information about the hackers.

#2Birds1Stone

Age of Criminal Responsibility is always a difficult slope. It would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis, but if mens rea can be proved then the juvenile should be charged as an advlt for serious crimes in my opinion. Here in Australia our system states that a child under 10 cannot be charged with a criminal offence as they supposedly cannot tell the difference between right and wrong, and we presume this unless proven otherwise for 10-14.

However if we're talking about say, a 17 year old, then it's a little different. At 17, you're well aware of what is right and what is wrong. At 17, if you go on a murdering spree, you're aware that what you're doing is wrong, you're aware that you're commiting murder (unless you have a condition that would obviously change the considerations of the case) and you should therefore in my opinion be charged as an advlt. Even though a teenager is undergoing significant development, from 14 onwards you're well aware of what is wrong, and if you willingly commit the crime anyway, then the courts have grounds for mens rea. If a 16 year old commits a serious offence, it shouldnt be wiped from their record when they reach advlthood.

Then again, Australia hasnt had a shooting spree since we brought in incrediblty successful gun laws after Port Arthur in 1996, so our experience and reactions to such matters is different to the U.S.