posted on January 17, 2003 06:58:16 PM new
mlecher
<quote>
"We set those using the only criteria we CAN accurately measure, age. But in all aspects of mental, spiritual and physical development, it is extremely arbritrary. If you truly believe that something magical happens to a person at the stroke of 18 years, then you need to decrease your dosage.".
<end quote>
Nothing "magical happens to a person at the stroke of 18 years." Where did you come up with that idea? If anybody is in need of a dosage adjustment, I believe it is you.
Tell me how you would make these decisions in our society without using some constant such as age as a guideline. It would be total chaos to use any other criteria to determine when an individual is ready to drive, vote, buy alcohol or become a soldier. The people of America have been using this system for years. Are you indicating that you believe we should change the age requirements?
Helen
[ edited by Helenjw on Jan 17, 2003 07:07 PM ]
posted on January 18, 2003 06:48:11 AM new
To me, it's a question of fairness. Our society seems to have settled on the idea of a person being 18 defines them as an adult. Ok, fine - then *ALL* the benefits and liabilities of adulthood should start then. This includes drinking, signing a contract, getting married, going to war, driving a car, being tried as an adult, etc.
It's simply not fair to say 'you're not old enough to drink but you're old enough to be tried as an adult'.
As far as I'm concerned, that (13? 14?) year old boy in Florida that was tried as an adult is a miscarriage of justice.
posted on January 18, 2003 06:54:39 AM new
You came up with that idea, not me. YOU are the one who says the age is 18, not me. I just admit the truth. The age was arbitrarily set at 18. No mystery to that. The Federal age of majority was set at 18, the Federal age to die for the securing of foreign oil was set at 18. The age to drive, have sex, get married is set by the States. The federal set the age to drink alcohol at 21? Gee whiz, you are ADULT enough to die for your country, vote for the leaders of the most powerful country in the world, drive a motorized machine that can kill multiple people in a instant, be tried as an adult, but aren't old enough to consume beverage alcohol(Drink all the Nyquil and Robitussin you want. Listerine also) You can get married and have children(the toughest, hardest job in the world requiring the most mature mind to get it halfway right), yet be 4 years away from being and "Adult" and 7 years from taking a drink.
You don't consider THAT arbitrary? What color is the sky in your world?
.................................................
We call them our heroes...but we pay them like chumps
[ edited by mlecher on Jan 18, 2003 06:56 AM ]
[ edited by mlecher on Jan 18, 2003 06:56 AM ]
posted on January 18, 2003 07:12:03 AM new
mlecher
I just don't understand your problem or what is motivating your rant. I, personally did not establish the age of 18 so why are you so upset with me?
Do you think that the age should be 12 or do you think that there should be total anarchy and have no age requirement?
The age is set at 18 to be fair and to insure that most people will be able to responsibly handle the situation. You are right that some children could behave even better than some adults but we have to have a consistent policy and that is why we have, with the consultation of psychologists, teachers, lawyers and the judicial system established the ages that are used. We have not just arbitrarily chosen some number out of the air.
Most states, for example, use 16 as the age for driving. I'm not sure that I would feel safe if all 12 year old children were given drivers licenses...would you???
posted on January 18, 2003 12:00:50 PM new
OK, I see what you're saying now mlecher and you're right... it's totally unfair to be old enough to go to war but not old enough to drink, etc. Just like I'm saying you could be in public school and still be tried as an adult for a crime. It doesn't make sense because there are suppose to be laws to protect juveniles from this very thing, no matter what crime they committed.
As far a Helen goes, you won't find a more passionate person in regards to unfair laws, especially against children, so you're barking up the wrong tree there.
posted on January 18, 2003 12:15:39 PM new
You could have adulthood be declared and the person's ID changed to reflect that. It would require the person desiring to assume the responsibilities and having either a certain number of people sponsor them or rather extensive testing. Going by an arbitrary age is just lazyness. And they would have to figure out what to do with the few people who although not retarded or otherwise handicapped would never qualify for adulthood. People want to feel superior to younger folks whether they have reason to or not. And police would go nuts to not be able to tell at a glance if someone was eligable to drive for example. All just fussy details.
posted on January 18, 2003 01:56:58 PM newAnd they would have to figure out what to do with the few people who although not retarded or otherwise handicapped would never qualify for adulthood.
posted on January 18, 2003 02:11:09 PM new
If I thought for one minute that the juvenile facilities "rehabbed" the youth that are sent there, I would say send him there. I know from experience that a majority of the youths placed in these facilities come out just as bad if not worse. The same can be said for adult prisons. At 16, you are old enough to be given your driver's license, and in some (if not most) states be emancipated. By that time, you should know the difference between right and wrong. If not, you may never know the difference. In that case, you are a threat to society. I think this boy is a threat and should spend life in prison. Society as a whole failed this child and society paid a heavy price for it. I'm not a proponent of the death penalty because I don't believe anyone has the right to take another life. That's not what's meant by "an eye for an eye." I think this is a tough one for most people. On one hand, I feel compassion for the boy because of the life he led and the opportunities he missed. On the other, I think he actually derived some pleasure out of what he did. I don't think there are any easy answers to this one. I sure would not want to sit on that jury. I think this is a good example of it taking a village to raise a child.
posted on January 18, 2003 02:51:28 PM new
Do you really believe society has failed this boy (Malvo)? Isn't it really the parents who have failed him? Society provides infinite opportunities for parents to provide their children with knowledge and values, so how can society be to blame?
It's the law that's at fault. If people under the age of 18 are considered juveniles, then they should be tried as juveniles. It's the law that's failing this child regardless of what he's done.
posted on January 18, 2003 06:08:42 PM new
Dont' get me wrong, I'm not absolving the parent's of any of the responsiblity. In fact, they should bare the brunt of it. I just think that somewhere down the line some intervention was needed, but there was none to be found. We offer parenting classes where I work and it's amazing that some parents don't have a clue! Where I think the "law" has failed is that it has taken a parent's right to discipline their child away. Teachers fear their students and parents fear their children. Three swats to me if I ever talked back to a teacher - more if I talked back to my mother. Granted, a child needs a stable home life and there are too many that aren't afforded that luxury. These are the "Malvo's" of the world that we are locking away. I just don't think it should ever have gotten to this point. Forgive me if you think I'm wrong, but if we as a society turn our backs on a child who is in need even if they aren't our own, aren't we at least a little bit to blame?
posted on January 18, 2003 06:47:10 PM new
Up until about the 20th century, England used to hang children as young as 10 years old for criminal wrongdoing as little as petty theft.
posted on January 18, 2003 07:25:50 PM new1908. The execution of persons under 16 outlawed by the Children's Act of that year. This was raised to 18 by the Children and Young Persons Act in 1933.
1922. The Infanticide Act of 1922 made the killing of new born baby by its mother no longer a capital crime.
. The youngest child hangings ever alleged to have taken place, were those of Michael Hammond, aged 7, who with his sister, aged 11, was reportedly hanged at (Kings) Lynn in 1708 for an unspecified felony (probably burglary or arson).
1931. Sentence of Death (Expectant Mothers) Act 1931. Pregnant women were no longer to be hanged after giving birth. (Mary Ann Cotton became the last to suffer at Durham Castle on 24th March 1873, her baby being taken from her before execution)
1933. The Children and Young Persons Act prohibits the death sentence for persons under 18 at the time of the crime.
27th January 1999. The Home Secretary (Jack Straw) formally signed the 6th protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights in Strasbourg, on behalf of the British government formally abolishing the death penalty in the UK. It had been still theoretically available for treason and piracy up to then but it was extremely unlikely that even if anyone had been convicted of these crimes over the preceding 30 years that they would have actually been executed. Successive Home Secretaries had always reprieved persons sentenced to death in the Channel Islands and Isle of Man where the death sentence for murder could still be passed and the Royal Prerogative was observed.
