Attempted murder is attempted murder no mather the age, Let the little fucker get what's coming to him.
If he were 10 or maybe 12, you would have a point. But at age 15, one understands the ramifications of one's actions when it comes to beating the shit out of someone lying on the ground. Sorry. You do.ruisleipa wrote:
Yes you should understand the difference between right and wrong. No, a fifteen-year old does NOT understand the ramifications of his actions in the same way we assume an adult criminal to have weighed up the pros and cons.FEOS wrote:
What it means is that at age 15 one absolutely DOES understand the difference between right and wrong and the consequences of crossing that line. That there is a distinct difference between beating someone up and repeatedly kicking them in the head as they are lying on the ground, not fighting back.
Again, I am not saying he shouldn't be punished, possibly receiving a sentence equivalent to what an adult might receive. But the process of arriving at that sentence should not take place under the same strictures under which an adult would be tried. Because he is 15.
lrn2sarcasmffsruisleipa wrote:
If you bothered to read my posts you would then see that I haven't said he shouldn't be held responsible at all, so this hilarious pastiche of my arguments:FEOS wrote:
Of course I'm reading the posts. Are you? Or are you just getting butthurt and reacting emotionally to every response?...is bollocks.FEOS wrote:
Because you couldn't have possibly known that it was wrong to do that at the age of 15 so you couldn't have been held responsible for it.
Behaves like an adult as in makes adult choices. Such as beating the shit out of someone lying on the ground by kicking them repeatedly in the head as they don't/can't fight back. The nature of the action has some bearing on whether the person should be considered to be tried as an adult, not just their age. There are things that any reasonable person can expect someone of a given age to know to be wrong. That is the key. Not that they don't understand the degree of the consequences for their actions...that is pretty much irrelevant. It is whether they know their actions to be wrong. You're focused on the wrong part of the equation.ruisleipa wrote:
Wtf. 'Behaves like an adult'? What, when they start walking? Like I've said before (you said you read the thread yeah?), I believe that a person should be tried as an adult when they are of voting age, because at that point you enter a social contract with the state. Admittedly you might not want to vote, but that's by the by. The state says you can partake in political life and have some say in the country, so now you're fully responsible. Any other age limit is just ad hoc.FEOS wrote:
When a 15 year old behaves as an adult, thay have to deal with the adult ramifications of their actions. Whether that be beating someone within an inch of/to death, making a baby, or any number of other choices they make. Because like it or not, unless it's self-defense, it's a choice.
And you're entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it is.ruisleipa wrote:
My opinion.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
To be honest, if 15-year olds cold understand the ramifications of their actions there'd be no more teen pregnancy. I think that's enough of an argument tbh. And WHY would a 12 year old NOT know the difference between right and wrong, then? Your distinction is arbitrary. Where does the line lie? 12, 13, 14, what?FEOS wrote:
If he were 10 or maybe 12, you would have a point. But at age 15, one understands the ramifications of one's actions when it comes to beating the shit out of someone lying on the ground. Sorry. You do.
well learn to make some decent posts like you sometimes do when you're not too busy posting inane sarcastic shit like that.ruisleipa wrote:
lrn2sarcasmffs
'Makes adult choices'? Doesn't work. Good luck using that in a court. ANY ACTION is 'adult' in that an adult can perform it. Of course the nature of the action has some bearing on the punishment. But again, I'm not saying they shouldn't be tried at all or not punished but that they shouldn't be tried as an adult BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL A CHILD. How many children you know have a fine understanding of the criminal justice system? they might know that you go to prison if you're naughty, but most wouldn't have a clue what that entails, or anything about courts or trials or whatever. I disagree that knowing the consequences of your actions is irrelevant. It is extremely relevant, and that's why the law, luckily, normally differentiates between the young and adults.ruisleipa wrote:
Behaves like an adult as in makes adult choices. Such as beating the shit out of someone lying on the ground by kicking them repeatedly in the head as they don't/can't fight back. The nature of the action has some bearing on whether the person should be considered to be tried as an adult, not just their age. There are things that any reasonable person can expect someone of a given age to know to be wrong. That is the key. Not that they don't understand the degree of the consequences for their actions...that is pretty much irrelevant. It is whether they know their actions to be wrong. You're focused on the wrong part of the equation.
I'm still waiting to hear if anyone has any decent arguments against my right to vote=right to be tried as an adult theory.
You're entitled to your wrong opinion about how wrong my opinion is, it's OK.FEOS wrote:
And you're entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it is.
Invalid argument. If that argument was valid, there wouldn't be any unintended pregnancies at all, ruisleipa. Nor would there be any crime of any sort. Using that argument, at least.ruisleipa wrote:
To be honest, if 15-year olds cold understand the ramifications of their actions there'd be no more teen pregnancy. I think that's enough of an argument tbh. And WHY would a 12 year old NOT know the difference between right and wrong, then? Your distinction is arbitrary. Where does the line lie? 12, 13, 14, what?FEOS wrote:
If he were 10 or maybe 12, you would have a point. But at age 15, one understands the ramifications of one's actions when it comes to beating the shit out of someone lying on the ground. Sorry. You do.
The distinction is no less arbitrary than yours. I simply went three years the opposite direction.
You'll excuse me if I don't take posting technique advice from you? This is worse than the pot calling the kettle black, tbh.ruisleipa wrote:
well learn to make some decent posts like you sometimes do when you're not too busy posting inane sarcastic shit like that.FEOS wrote:
lrn2sarcasmffs
Here's some posting technique advice: When quoting, use the original poster's name, not your own. I went ahead and corrected it for you in my post.
How many adults do you know who have a fine understanding of the criminal justice system? They probably have as much of a clue as kids, and probably from the same sources (TV, books, etc).ruisleipa wrote:
'Makes adult choices'? Doesn't work. Good luck using that in a court. ANY ACTION is 'adult' in that an adult can perform it. Of course the nature of the action has some bearing on the punishment. But again, I'm not saying they shouldn't be tried at all or not punished but that they shouldn't be tried as an adult BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL A CHILD. How many children you know have a fine understanding of the criminal justice system? they might know that you go to prison if you're naughty, but most wouldn't have a clue what that entails, or anything about courts or trials or whatever.FEOS wrote:
Behaves like an adult as in makes adult choices. Such as beating the shit out of someone lying on the ground by kicking them repeatedly in the head as they don't/can't fight back. The nature of the action has some bearing on whether the person should be considered to be tried as an adult, not just their age. There are things that any reasonable person can expect someone of a given age to know to be wrong. That is the key. Not that they don't understand the degree of the consequences for their actions...that is pretty much irrelevant. It is whether they know their actions to be wrong. You're focused on the wrong part of the equation.
You may disagree, but the law doesn't. That's why "ignorance of the law" is never an excuse. You can't say "But I didn't know I would go to jail if I did that, judge" and have the judge say, "Well, that makes all the difference then...you're free to go". Seriously, man. Think about that for half a second. Knowing the consequences is utterly irrelevant. It is knowing that your actions are wrong. Period. And 15 is old enough to know that kicking someone in the head repeatedly is wrong. Full stop.ruisleipa wrote:
I disagree that knowing the consequences of your actions is irrelevant. It is extremely relevant, and that's why the law, luckily, normally differentiates between the young and adults.
"Right" is not really the correct word here for the latter part of your proposal, but that is essentially what we have right now in the US, barring extreme cases.ruisleipa wrote:
I'm still waiting to hear if anyone has any decent arguments against my right to vote=right to be tried as an adult theory.
The difference is, my opinion is right.ruisleipa wrote:
You're entitled to your wrong opinion about how wrong my opinion is, it's OK.FEOS wrote:
And you're entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it is.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
My opinion is always right, and I say at 15 everyone knows murder is bad, israel and hamas are as bad as eachother and gitmo doesn't rank within the worst 1000 places to be imprisoned. Anything else?
The man speaks truth.jord wrote:
My opinion is always right, and I say at 15 everyone knows murder is bad, israel and hamas are as bad as eachother and gitmo doesn't rank within the worst 1000 places to be imprisoned. Anything else?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Sorry, I think the argument is valid because I'm saying that 15 year olds don't understand the consequences of their actions, therefore (or one reason for) teen pregnancies. A 12, 13 or 14 year old wouldn't either. Where's the invalidity? My distinction is not arbitrary at all. I say the age of criminal responsibility (as an adult) should be the same age you can vote in a national or local election, because at that age society has said that now you have a stake in the country and you have to act in accordance with its laws, generally speaking at least. But before that there's no such 'agreement'. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any punishment, or that it should necessarly be less than what an adult would receive, just that under the voting age for legal punishment the standards should not be exactly the same, in general (although I admit I haven't considered every single crime possible).FEOS wrote:
Invalid argument. If that argument was valid, there wouldn't be any unintended pregnancies at all, ruisleipa. Nor would there be any crime of any sort. Using that argument, at least.ruisleipa wrote:
To be honest, if 15-year olds cold understand the ramifications of their actions there'd be no more teen pregnancy. I think that's enough of an argument tbh. And WHY would a 12 year old NOT know the difference between right and wrong, then? Your distinction is arbitrary. Where does the line lie? 12, 13, 14, what?
The distinction is no less arbitrary than yours. I simply went three years the opposite direction.
You are excused. I bow to your superior posting skills.FEOS wrote:
You'll excuse me if I don't take posting technique advice from you? This is worse than the pot calling the kettle black, tbh.
Here's some posting technique advice: When quoting, use the original poster's name, not your own. I went ahead and corrected it for you in my post.
They still know more than a 12-15 year old, unless you're an idiot.FEOS wrote:
How many adults do you know who have a fine understanding of the criminal justice system? They probably have as much of a clue as kids, and probably from the same sources (TV, books, etc).
But knowing the consequences is more than just knowing its wrong or against the law. Fully understanding the ramifications for one's life if you get a criminal record etc isn't something a 15 year old can do. Or most of 'em anyway. That's why you get your record wiped clean at 21 (I think it's 21 isn't it?). Of course the judge won't let you off if you plead ignorance, but you may well get a lesser sentence. While the law itself (as in the written word of the law) might not make a distinction - I dunno, I haven't read every law ever - the courts often do.FEOS wrote:
You may disagree, but the law doesn't. That's why "ignorance of the law" is never an excuse. You can't say "But I didn't know I would go to jail if I did that, judge" and have the judge say, "Well, that makes all the difference then...you're free to go". Seriously, man. Think about that for half a second. Knowing the consequences is utterly irrelevant. It is knowing that your actions are wrong. Period. And 15 is old enough to know that kicking someone in the head repeatedly is wrong. Full stop.
No, right wasn't the best word, true, but you got the idea. You can vote when you're 15?FEOS wrote:
"Right" is not really the correct word here for the latter part of your proposal, but that is essentially what we have right now in the US, barring extreme cases.
LolFEOS wrote:
The difference is, my opinion is right.ruisleipa wrote:
You're entitled to your wrong opinion about how wrong my opinion is, it's OK.FEOS wrote:
And you're entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it is.
And in this case, society is saying you (at age 15) are responsible enough to be tried as an adult for your crimes. If you are allowing society to be the judge of adulthood for things, then you must allow society to be the judge...as it is here.ruisleipa wrote:
Sorry, I think the argument is valid because I'm saying that 15 year olds don't understand the consequences of their actions, therefore (or one reason for) teen pregnancies. A 12, 13 or 14 year old wouldn't either. Where's the invalidity? My distinction is not arbitrary at all. I say the age of criminal responsibility (as an adult) should be the same age you can vote in a national or local election, because at that age society has said that now you have a stake in the country and you have to act in accordance with its laws, generally speaking at least. But before that there's no such 'agreement'. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any punishment, or that it should necessarly be less than what an adult would receive, just that under the voting age for legal punishment the standards should not be exactly the same, in general (although I admit I haven't considered every single crime possible).FEOS wrote:
Invalid argument. If that argument was valid, there wouldn't be any unintended pregnancies at all, ruisleipa. Nor would there be any crime of any sort. Using that argument, at least.ruisleipa wrote:
To be honest, if 15-year olds cold understand the ramifications of their actions there'd be no more teen pregnancy. I think that's enough of an argument tbh. And WHY would a 12 year old NOT know the difference between right and wrong, then? Your distinction is arbitrary. Where does the line lie? 12, 13, 14, what?
The distinction is no less arbitrary than yours. I simply went three years the opposite direction.
As well you should.ruisleipa wrote:
You are excused. I bow to your superior posting skills.FEOS wrote:
You'll excuse me if I don't take posting technique advice from you? This is worse than the pot calling the kettle black, tbh.
Here's some posting technique advice: When quoting, use the original poster's name, not your own. I went ahead and corrected it for you in my post.
The average reading level for an adult in the US is eighth grade. That's about 13 years old. Extrapolate that.ruisleipa wrote:
They still know more than a 12-15 year old, unless you're an idiot.FEOS wrote:
How many adults do you know who have a fine understanding of the criminal justice system? They probably have as much of a clue as kids, and probably from the same sources (TV, books, etc).
And again...knowing all those ramifications is utterly irrelevant in the eyes of the law. You will not get a lesser sentence if you plead ignorance. In the US, the courts use the "reasonable person" concept when weighing a person's actions. You'll note there is a section in there dealing specifically with children.ruisleipa wrote:
But knowing the consequences is more than just knowing its wrong or against the law. Fully understanding the ramifications for one's life if you get a criminal record etc isn't something a 15 year old can do. Or most of 'em anyway. That's why you get your record wiped clean at 21 (I think it's 21 isn't it?). Of course the judge won't let you off if you plead ignorance, but you may well get a lesser sentence. While the law itself (as in the written word of the law) might not make a distinction - I dunno, I haven't read every law ever - the courts often do.FEOS wrote:
You may disagree, but the law doesn't. That's why "ignorance of the law" is never an excuse. You can't say "But I didn't know I would go to jail if I did that, judge" and have the judge say, "Well, that makes all the difference then...you're free to go". Seriously, man. Think about that for half a second. Knowing the consequences is utterly irrelevant. It is knowing that your actions are wrong. Period. And 15 is old enough to know that kicking someone in the head repeatedly is wrong. Full stop.
No, you are treated fully as an adult at age 18 (except for drinking and handgun ownership), and you can vote.ruisleipa wrote:
No, right wasn't the best word, true, but you got the idea. You can vote when you're 15?FEOS wrote:
"Right" is not really the correct word here for the latter part of your proposal, but that is essentially what we have right now in the US, barring extreme cases.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
facts aren't allowed in DST, ban
you have a point. why have the option of charging as a minor if your not gunna charge minors??Chou wrote:
15 cannot be charged as adult because 15 isn't adult.
Seriously.. are they fucking crazy?
15 more years! 15 more years!
Already covered... The problem is that charging someone as a minor isn't often a reasonable option in many states when handling a serious crime like this.Mitch wrote:
you have a point. why have the option of charging as a minor if your not gunna charge minors??Chou wrote:
15 cannot be charged as adult because 15 isn't adult.
Seriously.. are they fucking crazy?
For a good high profile case of this, see the one about the teens in Florida who burned that kid over a video game and snitching.
Oftentimes, the difference between charging someone as a minor and charging someone as an adult is the difference between holding someone in custody and releasing someone.
Clearly, kids willing to burn someone over a video game and snitching are too dangerous to release. This is why they were charged as adults, so that the police could keep them in custody. This crucial difference in the handling of suspects is usually the primary reason why minors get charged as adults in serious cases.
Granted, some states have amended the system to allow longer times that minors can be held.