Should teens who commit heinous crimes be charged as adults?

No.

Yes - but don't make a record of it.

 

 

 

People are always blaming parents for their childs bad behaviour. While in a large amount of cases this is true, sometimes it cannot be helped. If the teenager is jailed themselves, they will realise it's something they they won't wanna do again (hopefully) and could cut down on things like crime. I suggested no record because people are still maturing in the teen age and people make mistakes - the teenager may not represent the fully-grown adult.

Depriving a teenager of those years by chucking him in jail is pretty inhumane if you ask me.

No. The mentality of a teen is far from the same than of an adult's. Teenagers are reckless, indecesive, are still developing and can be easily overcome with emotion.

Depriving a teenager of those years by chucking him in jail is pretty inhumane if you ask me.

 

What if such a teenager murdered someone? Are you still that full of empathy? I know I won't be.

Yes, take responsibility for your actions.

Depriving a teenager of those years by chucking him in jail is pretty inhumane if you ask me.

 

What if such a teenager murdered someone? Are you still that full of empathy? I know I won't be.

 

 

 

For all we know, that teenager could be at a critical point in his life that drove him to such a drastic act, and locking him away or giving him the shot isn't going to help him through it. He could turn out to be a wonderful person with some help, because the fact is that a teenager has not fully matured, and won't until around age 20.

 

 

 

That is not to say the act should not have repercussions, but treating a developing teenager the same way as an adult who can, in fact, take full responsibilty for his actions shouldn't be the standard. The kid has his whole life ahead of him.

Rehabilitating a developing teen would be far better for them than life in prison. Crazy world where sitting in a small jail cell is what we call "taking responsibility" for your actions.

I think they should, and I'm all for naming them publicly, too.

 

 

 

If some yobbish, delinquent lout is terrorising his/her neighbourhood, then I see no reason why they shouldn't be punished and named to warn future areas of that person's behaviour.

 

 

 

As for serious crimes, I think the same rule should apply. They need to be punished.

 

Everyone, by their teenage years, can understand that killing or maiming etc is morally and socially wrong, and they need to suffer the consequence of their actions.

 

If they had a depraved upbringing and don't know the difference, then they need to find out what society's reaction to their actions is.

 

 

 

Of course the current view of imprisonment is to rehabilitate, which is a much better course of action.

Rehabilitating a developing teen would be far better for them than life in prison. Crazy world where sitting in a small jail cell is what we call "taking responsibility" for your actions.

 

Yes, at that point in a persons life rehabilitation seems very practical. Now, when they're 30... eh, not so much.

 

 

 

So no.

One argument that could be made is that they have to take responsible for thier actions, would you throw a 5 year old in jail for stealing candy? He/she doesn't fully comprehend the law... the same could be said for a teenager. Ok most teenagers could tell you that drinking and driving, murdering someone, and stealing is wrong, but what about the intricate laws burried deep in the system? Most likely not....

 

 

 

I'd say for minor crimes no, but major crimes where the teen purposefully commited the crime yes.

For serious crimes, I would say yes.

As Intriguing said, it should depend on the crime.

Depriving a teenager of those years by chucking him in jail is pretty inhumane if you ask me.

 

What if such a teenager murdered someone? Are you still that full of empathy? I know I won't be.

 

 

 

For all we know, that teenager could be at a critical point in his life that drove him to such a drastic act, and locking him away or giving him the shot isn't going to help him through it. He could turn out to be a wonderful person with some help, because the fact is that a teenager has not fully matured, and won't until around age 20.

 

 

 

That is not to say the act should not have repercussions, but treating a developing teenager the same way as an adult who can, in fact, take full responsibilty for his actions shouldn't be the standard. The kid has his whole life ahead of him.

 

Would you feel the same way if a 30-year-old raped someone?

 

 

 

We should bring black flogging, but, whatever. Depends on the crime, but heinous felonies like murder and rape and the like, certainly.

Would you feel the same way if a 30-year-old raped someone?

 

 

 

Um . . . No? Is this even a serious question?

Would you feel the same way if a 30-year-old raped someone?

 

 

 

Um . . . No? Is this even a serious question?

 

A 15-year-old rapes a woman.

 

 

 

A 30-year-old rapes a woman.

 

 

 

They both are most likely the same amount of maturity, although they're probably seriously [bleep]ed up in the head. Shouldn't they be tried the same way?

Well, the criminal liability age in the UK is 14, and in fact anyone over 10 can be charged and found guilty of a criminal act if the judge decides the child knew what they were doing at the time. The number of cases that have kids as defendants is actually quite large (if you look through criminal case law any case with a party named only by initial is usually a child, the exception being R.)

 

 

 

The punishments are different of course, but no one in their right mind would suggest putting a ten year old in a prison with fully grown men.

Would you feel the same way if a 30-year-old raped someone?

 

 

 

Um . . . No? Is this even a serious question?

 

A 15-year-old rapes a woman.

 

 

 

A 30-year-old rapes a woman.

 

 

 

They both are most likely the same amount of maturity, although they're probably seriously [bleep] up in the head. Shouldn't they be tried the same way?

 

 

 

No. The mind of a fifteen-year-old =/= that of a thirty-year-old. I never said that there should be no punishment, but the punishment should not be the same for a teenager as an adult, because teenagers aren't adults. Rehabilitation will most likely work on a teenager, and it's definitely worth the try. I think he would thank society a few years down the road for showing him some mercy and not taking the rest of his life away from him.

As Intriguing said, it should depend on the crime.

 

I'd also say it should depend on the person (...So the situation in general).

It depends of a crime and background. Age means nothing if committer of crime is human waste.

 

Since early days of mankind theres been scum that would rather stay in dark than in light, ones that should stay away from civilized societys by any means possible.

It depends of a crime and background. Age means nothing if committer of crime is human waste.

 

Since early days of mankind theres been scum that would rather stay in dark than in light, ones that should stay away from civilized societys by any means possible.

 

 

 

Outcasts aren't always criminals. Look around, you're surrounded by the on the internet :P .

It depends of a crime and background. Age means nothing if committer of crime is human waste.

 

Since early days of mankind theres been scum that would rather stay in dark than in light, ones that should stay away from civilized societys by any means possible.

 

 

 

Outcasts aren't always criminals. Look around, you're surrounded by the on the internet :P .

 

Hehe, sure :P

 

 

 

I ment what you see on news everyday, cruel crimes committed by teenagers, they are far away from salvation in some of cases. Therapy can help but when it doesnt there is no other solution than lockup - permanently.

As Intriguing said, it should depend on the crime.

 

I'd also say it should depend on the person (...So the situation in general).

 

I'm going to have to stop there. We shouldn't punish criminals differently because of their past. The reasons for punishment is not to punish the criminal, but to avoid them to do more harm into others...according to most people. No matter how we look at it, the criminal killed another human being and regardless if he/she's 15 or 45, he/she' should go to jail.

 

 

 

Having to many exceptions allows criminals to have less jail time because "They have some mental disorder" or whatnot. We must remember more of the victim rather the criminal, always.

Until the constitution states they're adults it's contradicting itself by charging minors as adults. If a person isn't allowed vote or use other rights granted on adulthood then it is unfair to charge them as adults, something they're not.

 

 

 

If a 16 year old can't have a beer then he / she shouldn't be allowed the adult sentence for whatever his / her crime is.