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)

 

 

 

You don't think mental people are ignorant?

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?

 

 

 

What are you talking about? This topic is about teenagers, not freaking four year-olds dropping their ice cream.

 

I'm sure if your eleven year-old sister got raped and killed by a seventeen year-old boy you'd want the same punishment as if she got raped by an eighteen year-old man. I know I would, maybe it's just me.

 

 

 

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)

 

 

 

You don't think mental people are ignorant?

 

 

 

There is a difference between being a complete moron, and mentally challenged.

Okay, I am 14... I have known not to kill, not to steal, not to attack/assault people since I was young. By the age of 13 you should know the consequences of your actions. If you don't, your ignorant and should still be punished accordingly. If your under 13, you have the right to a "softer" punishment. If your over 13, you should be punished just like a 45 year old. Infact, I have a lot of fights at my school... Some of these kids actually make each other bleed and what happens to them? They get suspended and then come back to school like nothing happened. At the very worst, they go to an alternative school for a while. This is stupid. The only way you should have a different punishment is if you are: A. Younger than 13. or B. Mentally challenged.

 

 

 

What are you talking about? This topic is about teenagers, not freaking four year-olds dropping their ice cream.

 

I'm sure if your eleven year-old sister got raped and killed by a seventeen year-old boy you'd want the same punishment as if she got raped by an eighteen year-old man. I know I would, maybe it's just me.

 

 

 

There is a difference between being a complete moron, and mentally challenged.

 

 

 

What exactly is the difference then? Stop with the blanket statements.

 

 

 

And did you even read what Necro replied to? "doesnt matter what your age" does involve four year-olds dropping their ice creams.

 

 

 

What are you talking about? This topic is about teenagers, not freaking four year-olds dropping their ice cream.

 

I'm sure if your eleven year-old sister got raped and killed by a seventeen year-old boy you'd want the same punishment as if she got raped by an eighteen year-old man. I know I would, maybe it's just me.

 

 

 

There is a difference between being a complete moron, and mentally challenged.

 

 

 

What exactly is the difference then? Stop with the blanket statements.

 

 

 

And did you even read what Necro replied to? "doesnt matter what your age" does involve four year-olds dropping their ice creams.

 

 

 

You wanna know the difference between a complete moron and a mentally challenged person? I can tell you. A complete moron is someone who doesn't listen to people and chooses not to learn. His brain is perfectly capable of understanding what he is doing and the consequences of what he is doing. A mentally challenged person does not have a brain that is capable of understanding what it is doing and the consequences of doing it. To put it in simpler terms: A complete moron chooses to be stupid and ignorant but a mentally challenged person does not have the luxury of that choice.

Sorry, but a [developmentally delayed] still counts as an ignorant person no matter what side you look at it.

Sorry, but a mentally challenged still counts as an ignorant person no matter what side you look at it.

 

 

 

How? An ignorant person doesn't want to learn. A mentally challenged can't learn... You know what... I think your an ignorant person...

What exactly is the difference then? Stop with the blanket statements.

 

 

 

There is a kid at my school who smokes a lot of pot. His brain is almost gone from all of it. It's hard to carry on a real conversation with him. He is a complete moron.

 

 

 

On the other hand there is a guy at my school who wears oven mitts because he bites his hands. He has to have a glass shield in front of him so he doesn't spit on his classmates. He screams loudly at random moments. And he is probably three feet tall, with a massive head. He can't move by himself and he is always going to have to be wheeled around by someone else.

 

 

 

Is that 'not-blanket' enough for you?

 

 

 

And did you even read what Necro replied to? "doesnt matter what your age" does involve four year-olds dropping their ice creams.

 

 

 

I'm sure if your eleven year-old sister got raped and killed by a seventeen year-old boy you'd want the same punishment as if she got raped by an eighteen year-old man. I know I would, maybe it's just me.

 

 

 

Just like I said earlier.

Sorry, but a mentally challenged still counts as an ignorant person no matter what side you look at it.

 

 

 

How? An ignorant person doesn't want to learn. A mentally challenged can't learn... You know what... I think your an ignorant person...

 

 

 

Let's have some English lesson, shall we?

 

 

 

Define '[developmentally delayed]'

 

 

 

&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla]idiot: a person of subnormal intelligence

 

 

 

]One common criterion for diagnosis of mental [developmentally delayed]ation is a tested intelligence quotient (IQ) below 70.

 

 

 

Sounds ignorant to me.

 

 

 

 

I'm sure if your eleven year-old sister got raped and killed by a seventeen year-old boy you'd want the same punishment as if she got raped by an eighteen year-old man. I know I would, maybe it's just me.

 

 

 

I don't know about you, but I know that people as young as 14 can be tried as adult. Try again.

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)

 

 

 

You don't think mental people are ignorant?

 

 

 

they dont mean to be ignorant. and if they would have a normal mental ability things would be different and they would not be ignorant, except they are morons and then : IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE

 

they dont mean to be ignorant.

 

Case and point - they still are ignorant. Thanks for playing.

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)

 

 

 

You don't think mental people are ignorant?

 

 

 

they dont mean to be ignorant. and if they would have a normal mental ability things would be different and they would not be ignorant, except they are morons and then : IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE

 

 

 

I'm slightly confused as to what your opinion is... Do you think the mentally challenged should be charged the same way as normal people or not?

 

 

 

 

they dont mean to be ignorant.

 

Case and point - they still are ignorant. Thanks for playing.

 

 

 

They can't be considered ignorant because they don't have that choice. Ignorance is something that is chosen. You ignore your surroundings. Mentally challenged people don't ignore their surroundings, they just can't comprehend them.

woot, shadow i read a lot of your post and till now i thought you would be someone who is tolerant and open........ honestly i couldn't believe that you wrote that.

 

 

 

do you know someone who is mentally challenged did you work with them? i had the possibility to help a friend of mine who is a special aid teacher. you really cant charge them as normal people

 

 

 

at noone: my opinion: you cant charge them as normal people, sorry if that was confusing i basicly was saying that if the mental challenged wouldnt be mentally challenged and act like it he would be ignorant

I don't know about you, but I know that people as young as 14 can be tried as adult. Try again.

 

 

 

I'd try again, but I might as well go train my dog to talk.

woot, shadow i read a lot of your post and till now i thought you would be someone who is tolerant and open........ honestly i couldn't believe that you wrote that.

 

 

 

I am tolerant and open. Not just at 12:31 in the morning. :lol:

 

 

 

edit: Just realied what I wrote, it's a bit too harsh, taking it off now :|

 

 

 

 

They can't be considered ignorant because they don't have that choice. Ignorance is something that is chosen. You ignore your surroundings. Mentally challenged people don't ignore their surroundings, they just can't comprehend them.

 

 

 

Are you seriously trying to change the definition of what 'ignorant' means?

 

 

 

do you know someone who is mentally challenged did you work with them? i had the possibility to help a friend of mine who is a special aid teacher. you really cant charge them as normal people

 

 

 

Two distant relatives of mine (though one of em were really close to me when I was younger) are now [developmentally delayed]ed thanks to their addiction to drugs.

 

 

 

My point is that they still are people. They are, but they're ignorant. Someone who lacks knowledge, unaware of his surroundings, and uneducated in general. That's what ignorant mean and even though I hate to admit it, they fall under that category with their mental problem.

 

 

 

Who are you to say they aren't normal people? :? You calling them 'not normal people' would be more of an insult than me calling them ignorant.

And for the threadstarter - depending on your country - there's probably a law that states that kids so and so of age can be legally tried as adults as long as the charges are serious enough.

i am not saying that they are not normal people i am saying that if thy commited a crime they should not be charged like someone with average mental ability

 

 

 

heres a definition on mental [developmentally delayed]ation (no idea if that is still political correct to say, but i just used it - no offense) by the AAMR:

 

 

 

Mental [developmentally delayed]ation is not something you have, like blue eyes, or a bad heart. Nor is it something you are, like short, or thin.

 

 

 

It is not a medical disorder, nor a mental disorder.

 

 

 

Mental [developmentally delayed]ation is a particular state of functioning that begins in childhood and is characterized by limitation in both intelligence and adaptive skills.

 

 

 

Mental [developmentally delayed]ation reflects the "fit" between the capabilities of individuals and the structure and expectations of their environment.

 

 

 

Mental [developmentally delayed]ation (also called mental handicap and the UK Mental Health Act (1983) defines mental impairment and severe mental impairment) is a term for a pattern of persistently slow learning of basic motor and language skills ("milestones") during childhood, and a significantly below-normal global intellectual capacity as an adult. One common criterion for diagnosis of mental [developmentally delayed]ation is a tested intelligence quotient (IQ) below 70.

 

mental [developmentally delayed]ation, below average level of intellectual functioning, usually defined by an IQ of below 70 to 75, combined with limitations in the skills necessary for daily living. Daily living skills include such things as communication, the ability to care for oneself, and the ability to work. The definition of mental [developmentally delayed]ation has evolved over the years. Prior categorizations of mental [developmentally delayed]ation, defined solely by IQ, have largely been abandoned in favor of an approach that looks at how much support the [developmentally delayed]ed person needs in various areas of his or her life at any given time. Such support can range from intermittent help in such things as finding housing or a job, to pervasive, daily, lifelong help in all areas.

 

 

 

 

that sould be enough, i dont feel sorry for your relatives, it's their own fault.

 

if you want to call them ignorant, go ahead. i think it's not right but anyway

 

and if youre tolerant and open, not just at 12:31 in the morning then go to bed instead of shocking everyone..

 

 

 

alright back to: why should teens not be punished lik adults

that sould be enough

 

 

 

Here's my question. Are they ignorant or no? The answer is yes.

 

 

 

I don't feel sorry that much for them either, they had it coming :| But just imagining them in chains and everything... jeez.

 

 

 

And I didn't shock anyone. My message was clear - don't call someone ignorant just because s/he doesn't agree with you.

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?

 

 

 

So your saying all the kids i know that break into houses, steal stuff from the mall, and smoke up illeagal drugs shouldnt be put in jail just because they "Cant think the same as adults".

 

 

 

I think adults are underestamating the brain. Sure most teenagers run on emotions, and very little on rational thought, but still, they do illeagal and still they get off next to free.

 

 

 

 

 

If you want us to grow up as adults, treat us as such.

 

 

 

Edit: WTH? sorry i read the thread and thought there was only one page.

 

 

 

Edit2: Ok after reading the whole thread, let me share a story.

 

 

 

In canada we have whats known as the young offenders act. If under 18, person is still able to go to jail, but its more of a group place for young offenders. This only is done for a max of i think 5-7 years.

 

 

 

Now, a friend of mine at work lost his fater two years ago. You wanna know by who? Two young teenagers at the age 17 (and only a few months off from 18). These two brutaly murderd him in a bar. They were fully aware of their actions.

 

 

 

You think they shouldnt of gone to jail? Well, they did, and they got life. It didnt matter in this situation, they took a human life, willingly, and knew what they were doing.

 

 

 

Now many of you still consider 18-19 year olds children basicly, so how do you think this was handled? shoudl they of gotten off because they were only children, and were ignorant? (Mind you, i put in that they fully knew what they were doing).

that sould be enough

 

 

 

Here's my question. Are they ignorant or no? The answer is yes.

 

 

 

I don't feel sorry that much for them either, they had it coming :| But just imagining them in chains and everything... jeez.

 

 

 

And I didn't shock anyone. My message was clear - don't call someone ignorant just because s/he doesn't agree with you.

 

 

 

Ignorant is not the right word to use. Yes, it does denote the meaning you want it to, but because of the connotations of the word, it doesn't fit. It seems similar to calling a cripple lazy, just because they can't/won't get out of their wheelchair and walk.

 

 

 

Calling a mentally handicapped person ignorant is unfair.

Okay, I am 14... I have known not to kill, not to steal, not to attack/assault people since I was young. By the age of 13 you should know the consequences of your actions. If you don't, your ignorant and should still be punished accordingly. If your under 13, you have the right to a "softer" punishment. If your over 13, you should be punished just like a 45 year old. Infact, I have a lot of fights at my school... Some of these kids actually make each other bleed and what happens to them? They get suspended and then come back to school like nothing happened. At the very worst, they go to an alternative school for a while. This is stupid. The only way you should have a different punishment is if you are: A. Younger than 13. or B. Mentally challenged.

 

See, the point is there has to be a set age. And my question for you is why 13? If we have a set age for adult punishments, which is normally 18, it's an easy way to draw the line between child and adult. Otherwise the line is blurred and case by case it gets confusing. Obviously there has to be a line, because you can't try a two year old for murder if a gun is lying around, he picks it up, drops it, and somehow the gun goes off, shooting and killing someone. Not even that. Even if a two year old flat out shot a guy you still obviously can't put the 2 year old in jail, and I'm really surprised you can think that way indy - I'd love to hear you elaborate on the idea of it being right to charge a baby with murder and punish him/her accordingly. How do you expect a baby to exist in jail with no parents?

 

 

 

People are different, brains, are different, so obviously a line has to be drawn, because it's impossible in younger cases to assume they had the right judgment or even knew what they were doing. Knowing that a line has to be drawn, the line was placed at 18 years old, which is give or take a good enough age. Yes, there will be some cases with 17 year olds who probably should have gotten adult punishment, and 19 year olds who might have deserved a child punishment, based on individual people. No system is perfect, but the system we have does as good a job as any.

Okay, I am 14... I have known not to kill, not to steal, not to attack/assault people since I was young. By the age of 13 you should know the consequences of your actions. If you don't, your ignorant and should still be punished accordingly. If your under 13, you have the right to a "softer" punishment. If your over 13, you should be punished just like a 45 year old. Infact, I have a lot of fights at my school... Some of these kids actually make each other bleed and what happens to them? They get suspended and then come back to school like nothing happened. At the very worst, they go to an alternative school for a while. This is stupid. The only way you should have a different punishment is if you are: A. Younger than 13. or B. Mentally challenged.

 

See, the point is there has to be a set age. And my question for you is why 13? If we have a set age for adult punishments, which is normally 18, it's an easy way to draw the line between child and adult. Otherwise the line is blurred and case by case it gets confusing. Obviously there has to be a line, because you can't try a two year old for murder if a gun is lying around, he picks it up, drops it, and somehow the gun goes off, shooting and killing someone. Not even that. Even if a two year old flat out shot a guy you still obviously can't put the 2 year old in jail, and I'm really surprised you can think that way indy - I'd love to hear you elaborate on the idea of it being right to charge a baby with murder and punish him/her accordingly. How do you expect a baby to exist in jail with no parents?

 

 

 

People are different, brains, are different, so obviously a line has to be drawn, because it's impossible in younger cases to assume they had the right judgment or even knew what they were doing. Knowing that a line has to be drawn, the line was placed at 18 years old, which is give or take a good enough age. Yes, there will be some cases with 17 year olds who probably should have gotten adult punishment, and 19 year olds who might have deserved a child punishment, based on individual people. No system is perfect, but the system we have does as good a job as any.

 

 

 

I'm not saying the line has to be at 13. I'm just saying that the line has to be somewhere and the age 18 seems too high.

There's reason you can't vote until you're 18, can't drink until you're 16, 18 or 21 and can't drive a car until you're 16 or 18. The law accepts that minors will think and behave differently from adults. They can't handle as much responsibility or make rational decisions like adults. If they could, we wouldn't need these restrictions. This is the same reason why the law should be applied differently to minors when it comes to criminal punishment.

There's reason you can't vote until you're 18, can't drink until you're 16, 18 or 21 and can't drive a car until you're 16 or 18. The law accepts that minors will think and behave differently from adults. They can't handle as much responsibility or make rational decisions like adults. If they could, we wouldn't need these restrictions. This is the same reason why the law should be applied differently to minors when it comes to criminal punishment.

 

 

 

Teenagers can accept the same responsiblity, and some act like adults. I my best friend is basicly the man of the household at 16, he can take care of his sick family (3 siblings and his mother) and also tries to keep everything around the house neat and fixed, while still going to school and maintaining an 80% avarage. You think people like this arent capabable of being responsable?

 

 

 

On the other hand, yes many teens can act like idiots and cannot handdle resonsiblities (but thats mostly due to how they act). A teenagers brain is run mainly on emotion, and very little rational thinking.

There's reason you can't vote until you're 18, can't drink until you're 16, 18 or 21 and can't drive a car until you're 16 or 18. The law accepts that minors will think and behave differently from adults. They can't handle as much responsibility or make rational decisions like adults. If they could, we wouldn't need these restrictions. This is the same reason why the law should be applied differently to minors when it comes to criminal punishment.

 

 

 

I still think they should lower the age to at least 16. I mean, if they think at 16 we can handle the responsiblity of a car which, can take lives just as quick as a gun, why shouldn't we have to handle the responsibilty of being charged as an adult... If your 16 and you kill a man, it is no different than being 18 and killing a man...