Hey.

 

 

 

I need some homework help again :? We're doing a debate tomorrow. I can't really find articles on why they shouldn't be punished like adults.

 

 

 

My current reasons:

 

They have their whole life ahead of them.

 

They aren't fully mature enough to even realize what they're doing.

 

 

 

I also need to come up with questions to stomp the other side of the issue (Why should teen criminals be punished like adults.) I think I can do that on my own... :?

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, can I have some help with the reasons, please?

I would agree with you on that they are too immature to fully know what they are doing. They do not think things all the way through, and ALL of the consequences that go along with that action. They are the youth of the nation and need help correcting themselves because like you said they have their whole lives in front of them. I can't think of much more than you did.

To further your 'immature' argument, I remember I was watching a show once which said that teen brains are not yet properly developed as adult brains are. In fact, it isn't until the age of 18-21 that the brain becomes 'fully' developed, according to the study. I know that over 25 states have banned the death penality when a juvenile (under 18 years of age) is involved.

 

 

 

A quick search on Google lead me to that article which is actually pretty interesting.

 

 

 

Our objection to the juvenile death penalty is rooted in the fact that adolescents' brains function in fundamentally different ways than adults' brains do.

 

 

 

I suggest you read over it, it should shed some light on the issue and raise a lot of good points for your debate. Good luck.

Adults make adolescent decisions too. And life is life, there are no guarantees on how long you live. That's a pretty tough assignment you have there.

To further your 'immature' argument, I remember I was watching a show once which said that teen brains are not yet properly developed as adult brains are. In fact, it isn't until the age of 18-21 that the brain becomes 'fully' developed, according to the study. I know that over 25 states have banned the death penality when a juvenile (under 18 years of age) is involved.

 

 

 

A quick search on Google lead me to that article which is actually pretty interesting.

 

 

 

Our objection to the juvenile death penalty is rooted in the fact that adolescents' brains function in fundamentally different ways than adults' brains do.

 

 

 

I suggest you read over it, it should shed some light on the issue and raise a lot of good points for your debate. Good luck.

 

 

 

Thanks alot that's perfect.

 

 

 

Thanks to the rest of you too, opinions are still needed.

Same reason why teens can't drink or smoke (not counting European countries ) - they aren't mature enough. Besides, society would look down on the system, for example, if you give a teenager a life sentence.

Well I think you're wrong so I can't help you there.

 

Sorry homie.

To further your 'immature' argument, I remember I was watching a show once which said that teen brains are not yet properly developed as adult brains are. In fact, it isn't until the age of 18-21 that the brain becomes 'fully' developed, according to the study. I know that over 25 states have banned the death penality when a juvenile (under 18 years of age) is involved.

 

 

 

A quick search on Google lead me to that article which is actually pretty interesting.

 

 

 

Our objection to the juvenile death penalty is rooted in the fact that adolescents' brains function in fundamentally different ways than adults' brains do.

 

 

 

I suggest you read over it, it should shed some light on the issue and raise a lot of good points for your debate. Good luck.

 

 

 

Thanks alot that's perfect.

 

 

 

Thanks to the rest of you too, opinions are still needed.

 

 

 

To elaborate, your frontal lobe doesn't fully mature until around 25 years old. This is the part that can control 'rationality', in a sense. For example, an average 40 year old is less likely to be provoked to violence than a 15 year old.

Well I think you're wrong so I can't help you there.

 

Sorry homie.

 

 

 

ill have to agree, doesnt matter what your age, you have to accept the consequences of your actions.

I didn't choose the topic. I don't agree anymore then you guys do.

lol do you go on newschoolers?

Well I think you're wrong so I can't help you there.

 

Sorry homie.

ill have to agree, doesnt matter what your age, you have to accept the consequences of your actions.

That makes no sense at all. The black and white standpoint you take here completely ignores everything we know about how the human brain develops over the span of a lifetime. Why do you think we don't teach calculus to toddlers? Because they can't understand it yet. You have to begin at 1+1=2, and build on from there.

 

 

 

The same thing applies to concepts of right and wrong. Why did Billy hit Bobby? Because Bobby bumped into him and made Billy drop his ice cream. Billy didn't understand, couldn't understand that Bobby didn't do it on purpose, and that his mother would have given him a new one if he had just explained to her what happened in stead of lashing out. Billy gets sent to his room, he doesn't get three years in jail for assault. This example might sound a bit condescending, but it's just as easily applied to some situation involving adolescents. This is the same reason why mentally challenged persons shouldn't be punished as normal criminals. They simply aren't capable of understanding what they've done wrong.

 

 

 

Besides, the purpose of the penal system is not just to punnish, but to correct. They don't use the term correctional facility for nothing. Imagine a fight between two seventeen year old boys ending with one of the boys on permanent life support. What do you think would help society most in this case? Putting the kid in jail with adult criminals for a few years where he will be constantly exposed to violence and abuse, or putting him in a closed facility where he can get counseling to learn to deal with what he has done and an education so that he can make something of the rest of his life when he's released. Which scenario do you think will benefit not only him, but society as a whole more?

Well I think you're wrong so I can't help you there.

 

Sorry homie.

 

 

 

ill have to agree, doesnt matter what your age, you have to accept the consequences of your actions.

 

 

 

Imagine a toddler pushing another toddler into a swimming pool because he took his toy. Say the toddler drowned. Do we charge the little kid with murder?

Well I think you're wrong so I can't help you there.

 

Sorry homie.

 

 

 

ill have to agree, doesnt matter what your age, you have to accept the consequences of your actions.

 

 

 

Imagine a toddler pushing another toddler into a swimming pool because he took his toy. Say the toddler drowned. Do we charge the little kid with murder?

 

I say a teenager and up, is punished by what they do.

Well I think you're wrong so I can't help you there.

 

Sorry homie.

 

 

 

ill have to agree, doesnt matter what your age, you have to accept the consequences of your actions.

 

 

 

Imagine a toddler pushing another toddler into a swimming pool because he took his toy. Say the toddler drowned. Do we charge the little kid with murder?

I say a teenager and up, is punished by what they do.

Why? If they don't have the rational capacities of an adult, why should we expect them to live up to adult standards?

That makes no sense at all. The black and white standpoint you take here completely ignores everything we know about how the human brain develops over the span of a lifetime. Why do you think we don't teach calculus to toddlers? Because they can't understand it yet. You have to begin at 1+1=2, and build on from there.

 

 

 

The same thing applies to concepts of right and wrong. Why did Billy hit Bobby? Because Bobby bumped into him and made Billy drop his ice cream. Billy didn't understand, couldn't understand that Bobby didn't do it on purpose, and that his mother would have given him a new one if he had just explained to her what happened in stead of lashing out. Billy gets sent to his room, he doesn't get three years in jail for assault. This example might sound a bit condescending, but it's just as easily applied to some situation involving adolescents. This is the same reason why mentally challenged persons shouldn't be punished as normal criminals. They simply aren't capable of understanding what they've done wrong.

 

 

 

Besides, the purpose of the penal system is not just to punnish, but to correct. They don't use the term correctional facility for nothing. Imagine a fight between two seventeen year old boys ending with one of the boys on permanent life support. What do you think would help society most in this case? Putting the kid in jail with adult criminals for a few years where he will be constantly exposed to violence and abuse, or putting him in a closed facility where he can get counseling to learn to deal with what he has done and an education so that he can make something of the rest of his life when he's released. Which scenario do you think will benefit not only him, but society as a whole more?

 

 

 

i think you are thinking more on the correction vs. punishment debate.

 

 

 

Imagine a toddler pushing another toddler into a swimming pool because he took his toy. Say the toddler drowned. Do we charge the little kid with murder?

 

 

 

he killed another human being, so yes, we do charge him with murder.

That makes no sense at all. The black and white standpoint you take here completely ignores everything we know about how the human brain develops over the span of a lifetime. Why do you think we don't teach calculus to toddlers? Because they can't understand it yet. You have to begin at 1+1=2, and build on from there.

 

 

 

The same thing applies to concepts of right and wrong. Why did Billy hit Bobby? Because Bobby bumped into him and made Billy drop his ice cream. Billy didn't understand, couldn't understand that Bobby didn't do it on purpose, and that his mother would have given him a new one if he had just explained to her what happened in stead of lashing out. Billy gets sent to his room, he doesn't get three years in jail for assault. This example might sound a bit condescending, but it's just as easily applied to some situation involving adolescents. This is the same reason why mentally challenged persons shouldn't be punished as normal criminals. They simply aren't capable of understanding what they've done wrong.

 

 

 

Besides, the purpose of the penal system is not just to punnish, but to correct. They don't use the term correctional facility for nothing. Imagine a fight between two seventeen year old boys ending with one of the boys on permanent life support. What do you think would help society most in this case? Putting the kid in jail with adult criminals for a few years where he will be constantly exposed to violence and abuse, or putting him in a closed facility where he can get counseling to learn to deal with what he has done and an education so that he can make something of the rest of his life when he's released. Which scenario do you think will benefit not only him, but society as a whole more?

 

 

 

i think you are thinking more on the correction vs. punishment debate.

Correction vs. punishment was only the last paragraph, and even then it's directly linked to the matter at hand. Maybe you can tell me why we should apply adult standards to people who don't have an adult's rational capacities?

Correction vs. punishment was only the last paragraph, and even then it's directly linked to the matter at hand. Maybe you can tell me why we should apply adult standards to people who don't have an adult's rational capacities?

 

 

 

well, i dont ask you to agree with me, keep that in mind. i realize my opinion may not be all considered normal. but basically it can be summed up: all humans deserve equal rights. being younger than a certain age shouldnt give you special rights.

Correction vs. punishment was only the last paragraph, and even then it's directly linked to the matter at hand. Maybe you can tell me why we should apply adult standards to people who don't have an adult's rational capacities?

well, i dont ask you to agree with me, keep that in mind. i realize my opinion may not be all considered normal. but basically it can be summed up: all humans deserve equal rights. being younger than a certain age shouldnt give you special rights.

There's a reason we don't let children drink alcohol or 19 year olds rent cars. Their brains simply aren't built to handle the responsibility and the consequences. Your argument for punishing adolescents as adults can also be used to allow them to drink alcohol, vote and operate heavy machinery.

There's a reason we don't let children drink alcohol or 19 year olds rent cars. Their brains simply aren't built to handle the responsibility and the consequences. Your argument for punishing adolescents as adults can also be used to allow them to drink alcohol, vote and operate heavy machinery.

 

 

 

yes, it does. and they have to accept the consequences of their actions of drinking, or doing drugs, or whatever (i cant decid what i think about the voting part, havent worked it through yet). if they start operating heavy machinery, and run into a building, they will be punished the same as an adult.

What you could say on the other side of the arguement (the side saying that children should be punished as adults) is a crime is still a crime. You're still breaking the law, no matter how old you are.

if they are punished like adults they should have all the rights adults have.

 

i think it depends on what they have done. normally they should be intelligent enough to see what will happen and live with the consequences.

 

but are the parents responible for teaching their child how to behave and what not to do? i think they are but several are not able to or just to lazy, give their kids moeny so it will be quiet. should the parents be punished too(till a certain age of the kid)? and who is it that punishes and who knows if it's right to do it and will it chane anything.

 

 

 

all i can say: igonrance is no excuse

igonrance is no excuse

 

 

 

Actually, it is. People with mental problems will receive way lighter criminal charges than a person without.

i did not mean those people...... i mean it in general, no special cases: ignorance is no excuse ( and this time i wrote it right)

igonrance is no excuse

 

 

 

Actually, it is. People with mental problems will receive way lighter criminal charges than a person without.

 

 

 

now it is, but it shouldnt be. they dont deserve any different rights than every other human being.