I'm not sure commision of a crime is really about knowing right from wrong. Unless a person is completely psychotic, he or she probably knows that violent crimes are wrong. Even a four year old who sneaks a cookie out of the cookie jar knows he is not supposed to do this. He simply gives into the impulse because he is not mature enough to weigh all of the consequences and ramifications. He is not mature enough to put himself in his parents' shoes and understand all the many and complex reasons why he should resist snagging a treat. Perhaps he even gets a thrill from the theft.

In the first ten years of my career, I worked with many adults who had suffered traumatic brain injuries (TBI). As a population, TBI sufferers show poor judgment and high impulsivity. They do and say utterly outrageous things. They often lash out violently. Family members are often shocked and appalled at what their loved ones have become. There are developmental correlations with traumatic brain injury. Violent adults with TBI's no longer have full control of their ability to reason well, empathize with others, exercise sound judgement and control impulses. Young people, who are still developing these skills, do not have full control of them as well.

As a society we have decided that people of certain ages are not cognitively mature enough to make decisions for themselves. People under 21 cannot legally drink alcohol. People under 18 cannot pose for magazines like Playboy, vote for President, or enlist in the military. Our criminal justice system is set up to treat juveniles as people who do not yet have full cognitive maturity and control. In general, I think this is a good thing.

Actually, prosecution of any crime is dependant on showing that the accused knows right from wrong. In criminal prosecutions (of adults or juveniles), the prosecutor must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused both: did the prohibited act (or omitted doing what was required), and that the act was done with a requisite "state of mind" specified under the law, e.g. that the person "intentionally" or "knowingly" did the act. That is why the mental defense is in use in American jurisprudence: if a person does not understand that what was done was wrong, they can not be convicted.

The theory behind treating juveniles differently is that they have not matured enough to understand the difference between right and wrong. When it can be demonstrated to a juvenile court judge that the child did understand right and wrong, and justice otherwise requires, a juvenile may be tried as an adult.

Yes, some "thing" or some group of factors drove these two young people to commit an act that should never happen to anyone in any place or at any time, but the point of this thread is not to try Blurf's assailants out of court. The point is to discuss, in general, if we should stick to our society's rules and customs about treating juveniles and adults differently in the criminal justice system.

[Edit]:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. As for something driving them, well that is simply too vague--hunger drives us to eat and fatigue drives us to sleep, so to speak.

Juveniles should be (and are, when the system is working) treated according to their own level of culpability. If, as happens in some street gangs, a "child" is recruited to commit violent crimes because of an expectation that the juvenile justice system will be more lenient than the adult courts, and the child clearly knows what is going on and the morality of the act, then should such a juvenile be automatically given more lenient treatment simply because of age?

Just heard from the authorities...

One of the suspects said in the interrogation that "a cripple is an easy mark. How could I turn down the chance?"

That signifies (to me) experience and a true lack of caring about what they did.

---

hunger drives us to eat and fatigue drives us to sleep

Being hungry with nothing to eat, and being fatigued with nowhere to sleep, drives us to crime... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

hunger drives us to eat and fatigue drives us to sleep

Being hungry with nothing to eat, and being fatigued with nowhere to sleep, drives us to crime... ;)

Sometimes that is true. It can also drive us to improve our lives.

Just heard from the authorities...

One of the suspects said in the interrogation that "a cripple is an easy mark. How could I turn down the chance?"

That signifies (to me) experience and a true lack of caring about what they did.

You made a point: They don't care. I think they aren't even aware that it is egally and morally wrong, because they have learnt to do not care anymore.
I met such individuals myself when I worked as a store detective a couple years ago. Those I met (children from either level of society) just shrugged when I caught them, not caring about consequences: at home there were none, and the trial before the juvenile court was just a necessary inconveniencce, mostly because of (an original quote, translated by me): "the blabber of some old morons who need to feel important".
School? They just skipped entire weeks. "We won't get any chance after school anyway, so why should we finish it in the first place?" Consequences in school? Hah! In classes with about 30 pupils one more or less is hardly noticed. Consequences at home? None at all, because their parents were either too busy with their jobs or with mourning at themselves to care about such behavior. Or there were beatings anyway so that one trouble more or less didn't matter. So where and how should they have learned to be respectful, helpful, empathic? With no good examples at all? With no opportunity to learn that every deed causes a consequence? In my opinion, most nowadays sociopaths are MADE by circumstances caused by society.

And that's STILL no excuse for such deeds.
But some of these individuals get easily caught by people who do actually (pretend to) care, and who teach them that to be helpful is weak, and only the strong will rule, and who mislead them with rules like "do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them", or "If someone in your lair annoys you, treat them cruelly and without mercy", or "When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him". I heard these rules years ago when overhearing those juvenile shoplifters and their "friends" talking to each other - and learnt quite recently that these rules are borrowed from the teachings of Anton LaVey. :(

---

Account frozen...

Sometimes that is true. It can also drive us to improve our lives.

. . . or, it can drive 'bad people' to bring down other peoples lives... <-- I know because it happened to me... ;)

(There are two sides to every coin, unfortunately, people only want to see the side they are on.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Maybe one solution is to only have one set of courts, do away with the distinction of separate juvenile and adult courts. Then in the initial stages determine if the accused is capable of distinguishing right from wrong etc. and proceed from there.

Assuming the individual is convicted of the act they were accused, and they have a track record of the crime. Then is the punishment (adult or otherwise) of prison, where the only differences between crimes is length of time served, seems to be the only option.

Why not bring back some of the old fashion ones which lead to a real punishment, like the stocks or birching?

The former stocks) leads to public humiliation and seen to be uncool! The latter gives the physical pain of being caught.

The learning lesson is stop or not be caught.

The downside is resentment and the escalation of crime, for those badly damaged individuals.

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

Assuming the individual is convicted of the act they were accused, and they have a track record of the crime.

Why are we allowing people to have a " track record " of crime in the first place???

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Assuming the individual is convicted of the act they were accused, and they have a track record of the crime.

Why are we allowing people to have a " track record " of crime in the first place???

That also often strucks me. Either they have been punished enough for / rehabilitated enough from the former crime, then there should be no track record at all - or the police suspects beforehand that the offender will sure do their crime another time, despite of having gone through the former punishment (or, dspite of being rehabilitated) and keeps the record for that reason...

---

Account frozen...

Just heard from the authorities...

One of the suspects said in the interrogation that "a cripple is an easy mark. How could I turn down the chance?"

That signifies (to me) experience and a true lack of caring about what they did.

Yes..it could be taken that way..or it could be the typical response of a very immature person who doesn't quite understand what they have done..or as often happens with teenagers..understands very well what they have done but can't bear to admit it and so dig themselves deeper into a hole. Typical teenage 'f*** you' bravado. I see it everyday. :(

---

Reality Internet Personality

Typical teenage 'f*** you' bravado. I see it everyday.

I see it everyday too, but usually not from teenagers... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

The parents should also be punished. They didn't bring their kids up right and they should go to jail. Maybe those kids were beat up for some small infraction or none at all, and then they took it out on the innocent public. The parents are often more responsible for the kids crimes than the kids.

---

Yes..it could be taken that way..or it could be the typical response of a very immature person who doesn't quite understand what they have done..or as often happens with teenagers..understands very well what they have done but can't bear to admit it and so dig themselves deeper into a hole. Typical teenage 'f*** you' bravado. I see it everyday. :(

Yes, and since this was witnessed by a police officer, that young person's words can (and most certainly will) be used against him in a court of law. All the more reason to have separate systems for juveniles, run by professionals who understand that hurtful words are not necessarily indicative of what that young person is thinking and feeling.

Yes..it could be taken that way..or it could be the typical response of a very immature person who doesn't quite understand what they have done..or as often happens with teenagers..understands very well what they have done but can't bear to admit it and so dig themselves deeper into a hole. Typical teenage 'f*** you' bravado. I see it everyday. :(

Yes, and since this was witnessed by a police officer, that young person's words can (and most certainly will) be used against him in a court of law. All the more reason to have separate systems for juveniles, run by professionals who understand that hurtful words are not necessarily indicative of what that young person is thinking and feeling.

But shouldn't those professionals, that you speak of, be available to all immature persons accused of a crime.
Is it not an injustice that expensive help be available to one teenager and not to another one year older when the pair of them are accused of committing the same crime. And that the juvenile one could get a more lenient sentence because he/she was tried in a different court with different rules.

But shouldn't those professionals, that you speak of, be available to all immature persons accused of a crime.
Is it not an injustice that expensive help be available to one teenager and not to another one year older when the pair of them are accused of committing the same crime. And that the juvenile one could get a more lenient sentence because he/she was tried in a different court with different rules.

I think that is a really good point and I'm sorry that I don't have an equally good answer.

I would hope that a competent defense attorney assigned to defend a nineteen year old would recognize that there might be an issue of cognitive and emotional immaturity, have some psychological batteries done, and use the resulting data accordingly. For that matter, I would hope that a defense attorney would bring up the issues of cognitive age and emotional maturity in ANY "adult" case where he or she suspected it might have relevance.

With my current work caseload, I certainly serve many children who demonstrate cognitive, social and linguistic skills well below expectations for their chronological ages. Someday they will be "adults" functioning as children. I would hope, that should any of them end up in the criminal justice system, their developmental issues would be considered in all aspects of their trials.

I certainly do think it is quite possible that an 18 year old tried in juvenile court could end up with more help and a more lenient sentence than a 19 year old tried for the same offense in adult court. I cannot imagine any system in which there would not be this wishy-washy grey cut-off age that would complicate matters.

Are there any defense attorneys out there? Any prosecutors? How do you legal eagles handle sticky situations like this one?

The UN brought out the Convention of the Rights of the Child in 1989 and stated that a child means every human being under the age of eighteen years. UN Convention of the Rights of the Child

Children are at the very bottom of the heap in terms of human rights. If they transgress they are treated more harshly than an adult would be. They do not have the developmental maturation that an adult would have and are demonised by a society which projects many of it's fears upon them. They have no control over their lives or the start they have had in life. Yes, some children are born more resilient than others and can overcome early abuse and function normally in society, but if you look backwards at children that have gone wrong you will probably find that most of them had difficulties in their early lives.

Human Rights Watch has also put out a report on children in the U.S. who have been tried and sentenced as adults Thousands of Children Sentenced to Life without Parole

This is heartbreaking...

The parents should also be punished. They didn't bring their kids up right and they should go to jail. Maybe those kids were beat up for some small infraction or none at all, and then they took it out on the innocent public. The parents are often more responsible for the kids crimes than the kids.

What???
So we will now have public witch hunts for parents of Juvenile criminals.
Don't blame the Parents, Blame the Criminals

---

Join Calm Chaos

If we are to treat minors as adults for criminal acts, why not treat them as adults in other walks of life? Let them drive cars, buy alcohol, bear arms (in the US at least), fight for their country, get married, vote ...

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...