If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Children being tried as adults?
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Was watching a programme yesterday, which was about a boy who had shot someone and after 2 years (when he was 13) the case finally went to court and he got tried as an adult.
During the sentencing, the judge had to deicde whether to sentence as he normally would an adult or to sentence him as a child.
Is it right that a child should be tried as an adult? Someone please tell me, in this country, are children tried as adults or is it just an American thing?
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/weird/kids2/disorders_4.html is the link to the case I'm talking about.
During the sentencing, the judge had to deicde whether to sentence as he normally would an adult or to sentence him as a child.
Is it right that a child should be tried as an adult? Someone please tell me, in this country, are children tried as adults or is it just an American thing?
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/weird/kids2/disorders_4.html is the link to the case I'm talking about.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Well, children aren't adults are they? Question answered.
A child murdering someone is has little difference to an adult murdering one.
But children do not have the same emotional capacity as adults. They do not understand consequences in the same way as adults. So to try them as adults would be wrong.
What it has to do with it is everything. Children who commit violent acts like that do not have the same understanding of what it means to do those things as an adult does. If a child is committing rape at 11, then that child has some serious problems. I would guess that they may well have been sexually abused themselves, or have witnessed extreme violence done to a family member. They may well have the beginnings of a psychosis or personality disorder.
Leaving all that aside, they are not adults. An 11 year old does not have the same emotional capacity or reasoning ability as an adult - so they should not be tried as adults. They don't have the same ability to understand their actions as an adult does. End of.
So they don't have the same reasoning. That doesn't give them an excuse to commit crimes. I'd be damned upset if a child had commited a crime against one of my friends or family, and certainly wouldn't declare "It's OK, he didn't have the same emotional capacity. He'll do two years in the little prison and come out a much better person."
Agreed.
Yes. Adults have a greater capacity to understand that while they may be unconsciously acting out past traumas, they should also have the ability to process those experiences without inflicting them on others. Taking responsibility and understanding consequences is part of growing into an adult.
No, they don't. It's what makes them children.
Who mentioned anything about excusing?
No shit.
But that's what the effect of trying them as adults would be - a couple of years in prison. Much better to make them understand why it is wrong and horrific to do those things and to help them with any emotional problems they may have.
I guess 'cos it was a nasty piece of hate filled vitriol.
Indeed, graphically describing the rape and then execution of a 13 year old isn't adding anything to the debate other than bile.
As much as I hate the twats who use the argument I'm about to:
What then, defines an adult with better emotional reasoning than a kid?
I call them twats because it's hard to draw a line between when someone has reasoning and when one doesn't.
Kids vandalising stuff and beating up people in the street (happy slapping, perhaps?) - is this because they have no understanding of the consequences?
And how do we teach them what the consequences are, if we're not going to punish them?
Hardly necessary.
Ah, the old rehabilitation vs punishment debate.
They will understand that it's bad to go to prison. Thus it's bad to do crime.
Everyone has emotional problems. Big whoop. But we don't all go round beating people to death. The emotional problems should be addressed before the crime is committed. One the crime has been executed, that person must be punished.
Well of course there is no clear dividing line. However some compromise has to be reached, which is why we have 10 as the age of criminal responsibilty and 14 as the age where you are considered to be as fully aware of your actions as an adult, and 17 or 18 (I forget which) when youthful misdemeanours get wiped from your record.
Agreed, its not easy.
Partly, yes. Although there are other factors involved such as how people behave in groups (personal responsibilty gets transferred to the group so its easier to do things you wouldn't on your own) and the fact that everyone has agressive impulses, but adults can usually understand and control them better. Some kids can too, others not so well - probably partly temperament but also partly upbringing, whether they feel emotionally contained by their carers etc.
The billion dollar question. Some form of punishment might work, but I don't believe that only punishment works. Human beings are not Skinner's rats, we are more complex than that. Showing people the hurt they cause might help and listening to, understanding and helping them come to terms with any agressive feelings or traumas would also help.
I was agreeing with you!
People are a tad more complex than that - as I said earlier, simple negative reinforcements don't work that well with humans.
Yes. However, how many of us have witnessed our mum being gang raped, or have been consistently beaten and abused as children? Read the biographies of most mass murderers and there is some awful neglect/abuse in their childhoods.
Yes, I agree. However the provision of mental health, counselling and therapy services to children is shockingly bad.
I can tell you for nowt, punishment on its own doesn't work.
Nice.
I agree somewhat, but I believe the counselling BS is, well, BS. If they're getting counselling sessions whilst actually in the prison and showing good performance based on these sessions, fair enough. But I do believe people should be punished accordingly.
My problem is if kids don't have the emotional capacity to understand their crimes, surely offering a counsellor is useless in trying to give them emotional capacity to understand their crimes. Plus most of these trouble makers have an attitude or authority problem; would they really accept the counselling?
Fair enough, but "no shit" has a hint of sarcasm about it imo.
Quite, but we're not just talking about mass murderers. Most lawless children today were brought up in broken homes, in poverty, potentially with bullying and abuse from classmates and parents. I'm pretty confident this is almost the norm for the majority of people, myself included.
As you say, it depends on the emotional complexities of the person.
Counselling is BS? On what do you base that?
Advocating punishment without any attempt to address underlying issues is stupidly shortsighted as you just end up with the same problems when they come out of prison.
The whole purpose of counselling or therapy is to develop a capacity to understand your unconscious motivations and patterns of behaviour. Children cannot understand in the same way as adults can, but they can be given help to understand as best they can...as you point out, not all children commit crimes.
Depends on how its done. If done properly, then most would I reckon. My missus worked in a south London EBD school (school for kids with emotional and behavourial difficulties) last year. She was working with some very disturbed kids and had some degree of success in getting through to kids that teachers had not had any success with...all by taking time to listen to the kids, build up a relationship with them, think about what was going on for them and having some psychodynamic training. Not an easy task admittedly, and time consuming, but it can be done. Except it costs, so mostly isn't done...
Well, yes, as it was stating the bleedin' obvious!
You see any connection between that and the current problems of violence? I do.
Yes, but my experience of working with people in the criminal justice system tells me that punishment on its own doesn't work.
Are you telling me that an 11 year old has the same understanding of death as an 18 year old?
Which makes it a judges discretion doesn't it? If a judge deems based on advice that a child has the full understanding of what they've done, shouldn't they feel the full weight of the punishment?
Really? You must be a very unusual person.
Well the law states that an 11 year old is too young to be tried as an adult, so no.
My neice is 7, and understands that death means they don't come back, and all she's had is her cat run over.
Understanding that they don't come back is one thing - understanding the full impact of that is quite another.
An 18yr old murderer who's had no experience of death does not necessarily have any understanding of the full impact either. Full impact is a demanding requirement. Understanding the consequences is all you need.
Is a 13 year old emotionally equipped to go through the process of pregnancy then raise a child? if a child and a grown man are living on the streets and there is only one house available, does that mean that because we cannot define a child, or because they have a good understanding of their situation they are not prioritised to have shelter?
An 11 year old does not have the same understanding as an 18 year old. Heck, as an 18 year old, I didn't have the understanding that I have now! I bet by the time I'm 60, I'll look back at me now and realise how little I understood! However, there has to be a cut off point and the law has set that at 14.
An 11 yo doesn't nearly have the capacities to understand the full consequences of their actions, not emotionally and not even mentally as an adult does. As described by developmental psychologists, the child goes through various phases of cognitive development, at 11 being still in the phase of concrete operations. Between 11 and 15 they reach the phase of formal operations, meaning they can begin to understand basic abstract terms and thinking. But it is not until they hit full adolescence (around 15) when they acquire the so-called hypothetical-deductive reasoning, which is the mental ability to fully understand and practice abstract thinking. In cognitive terms, a person isn't considered fully developed until they reach this stage.
So no, a child is far from understanding things as an adult does, so trying him as one is a form of maltreatment, as you are asking from him/her abilities they can't possibly have yet, with possible consequences being that of an adult punishment.
Trying an 11 yo old child is simply preposterous.
My thoughts exactly.
That said, of course they don't understand it in the way an older person would, and to try them as adults is ridiculous. Although I think the same sentences should be open to judges for them as for adults, including indefinite detention for dangerous defendants, obviously as a general rule children shouldn't be getting the same sentences as they don't have the same mental capacity.
If anything, children who do the violent crimes at a young age are more dangerous, for the reasonsd Blagsta highlighted, and probably should be in secure accomodation in order to give them the mental health care they need without putting the public in danger. A rapist at any age shouldn't be walking the streets.
To take the first example from that site.
Napoleon Beazley was 17. He murdered a 63 year old. He committed the crime just a few months before turning 18. I probably don't agree with his execution but I don't find it that disturbing tbh. The thing that I find disturbing is the sick murder that Napoleon Beazley carried out.
So killing is OK if sanctioned by the state?