Canadian Government Guilty of Violating Khadr's Rights

[bloodyminded]

I'm curious. Those of you who don't think anyone under 18 is old enough to be given an adult trial for murder because of lack of maturity, do you have the same problem with "children" under the age of 18 giving birth and raising children? Do you think that raising children involves less responsibility and a less "mature" brain than knowing murder is wrong?

I would say it's not the best idea. (I was 21 when my first was born...and I consider THAT a little too immature to be ideal.)

But it's a totally different issue. We're talking about legal punishmnet.

[Guest American Woman]

I would say it's not the best idea. (I was 21 when my first was born...and I consider THAT a little too immature to be ideal.)

But it's a totally different issue. We're talking about legal punishmnet.

It's not totally different, though. If a child isn't recognized by the law as mature enough to know murder is wrong, how can that same government recognize that the same child is mature enough to raise a child? If you think the government is wrong to try under 18's as adults, shouldn't it stand to reason that you think the government is wrong to let children the same age have the responsibility of raising a child? Which do you think requires a more mature brain: knowing that murder is wrong or being responsible for raising a child? And if a child isn't mature enough to know that murder is wrong, shouldn't the government step in and not let children the same age raise children? Wouldn't that be just as wrong on the government's part, to allow that to happen? And what about driving? Does it take less responsibility to get behind the wheel of a car than it does to know that murder is wrong? Should we have different 'punishments' (ie: not give traffic tickets) for under 18's who disobey traffic laws than over 18's because they aren't mature enough to know right from wrong?

[bloodyminded]

It's not totally different, though. If a child isn't recognized by the law as mature enough to know murder is wrong, how can that same government recognize that the same child is mature enough to raise a child? If you think the government is wrong to try under 18's as adults, shouldn't it stand to reason that you think the government is wrong to let children the same age have the responsibility of raising a child? Which do you think requires a more mature brain: knowing that murder is wrong or being responsible for raising a child? And if a child isn't mature enough to know that murder is wrong, shouldn't the government step in and not let children the same age raise children? Wouldn't that be just as wrong on the government's part, to allow that to happen? And what about driving? Does it take less responsibility to get behind the wheel of a car than it does to know that murder is wrong? Should we have different 'punishments' (ie: not give traffic tickets) for under 18's who disobey traffic laws than over 18's because they aren't mature enough to know right from wrong?

Having babies has always been a different matter from criminal law.

You are introducing issues of complexity, I grant you that, but as you surely have the imagination to realize, this can work for every issue, for every opinion, on every subject that is not 100% objectively verifiable.

Intrinsic, I think, to your objections here is that every opinion can be undermined by "yeah, but what about"...including (and I'm not singling you out) every single opinion that you hold dear.

The fact is, you are using a tu quoque form of argumentation...and with some exceptions, these are rarely valid.

At any rate, even if I agreed with every word you said.,..that goes not one inch against my argument that youths shouldn't be treated criminally as adults.

Can youths have babies? Of course. Can 16 year olds drive cars. Sure they can. Does this mean we think of them as adults when they're not committing crimes?

Nope.

Edited February 16, 2010 by bloodyminded

[eyeball]

The fact is, you are using a tu quoque form of argumentation...and with some exceptions, these are rarely valid.

I feel like a bit of an idiot for probably having tried to argue against the logical fallacies this form of argumentation creates without recognizing it - I suspect my arguing against them has probably caused me to use a few tu quoque arguments myself.

I'm treating this insight as a real learning experience and to me it underscores the value of this forum.

Thanks.

Edited February 16, 2010 by eyeball

[bloodyminded]

I feel like a bit of an idiot for probably having tried to argue against the logical fallacies this form of argumentation creates without recognizing it - I suspect my arguing against them has probably caused me to use a few tu quoque arguments myself.

I'm treating this insight as a real learning experience and to me it underscores the value of this forum.

Thanks.

Sure, we all use them. But I should stress that they are not always illegitimate.

For example, they can be a legitimate response to premises, to things implied but not spoken. So if someone is raving about Chavez's friendliness with an Iranian dictatorship, it is not necessarily untoward to remind him that Canada and the United States (for example) have also been friendly to Iranian dictatorships.

The reason I believe this an acceptable tu quoque response (if it even IS one) is that, depending on the debator's intent, his remarks about Chavez might well contain a premise that either

1.) The US and Canada don't truck with dictators, which is patently false; or

2.) It is acceptable for us to do it, but not others, which is astonishingly hypocritical.

At any rate, there are premises and implications involved which sometimes demand such a response; else we're accepting the narrow parameters of a type of tribalistic indoctrination.

Edited February 16, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

Having babies has always been a different matter from criminal law.

I'm not talking about having babies; I'm talking about raising babies.

You are introducing issues of complexity, I grant you that, but as you surely have the imagination to realize, this can work for every issue, for every opinion, on every subject that is not 100% objectively verifiable.

Yes, it can, and that's my point. I don't believe every single issue is black and white, and that includes committing murder.

Intrinsic, I think, to your objections here is that every opinion can be undermined by "yeah, but what about"...including (and I'm not singling you out) every single opinion that you hold dear.

The fact is, you are using a tu quoque form of argumentation...and with some exceptions, these are rarely valid.

So with what exceptions are they valid? And what makes them valid then and not now?

At any rate, even if I agreed with every word you said.,..that goes not one inch against my argument that youths shouldn't be treated criminally as adults.

Sure it does. There are cases when we recognize children under 18 are allowed to handle adult responsibility, so by the same token, it's not out of line to recognize that there are times when children should take adult responsibility when committing murder.

Can youths have babies? Of course. Can 16 year olds drive cars. Sure they can. Does this mean we think of them as adults when they're not committing crimes?

Nope.

We think of them as being allowed to have adult responsibilities, even if we don't think of them as adults. The same line of thought can be applied to when they commit murder.

Edited February 16, 2010 by American Woman

[bloodyminded]

So with what exceptions are they valid? And what makes them valid then and not now?

They're valid if they don't open a pandora's box in which there ARE no legitimate arguments...when the very existence of hypocrisy and complexity (which can be found surrounding every social issue, without exception, including those you believe in strongly) are used as weapons to demolish every argument, no matter what it is.

For example, our discussion with Shady, in which he continually dredges up other matters, are of this type. That's why it's so frustraitng to debate him on such matters.

Because what I should have said to him, but didn't (since such fallacious argumentation is DESIGNED to draw people in unheedingly) is that it wouldn't matter IF he was right about Letterman. If he were 100% correct about Letterman, it makes not one single whiff of difference to the points you and I were making.

The same with this discussion. You say sometimes youths are given the responsibilities of adults. That's more or less true, I agree. But it doesn't apply; because those whom we sentence to life in prison are not FIRST adjudged to have been allowed adult responsibilities.

Second, it is frequently said that "each case must be judged individually." But what does this mean? Are independent psychologists rallied to study the indicted youth, after which they ascertain that "yes, he is an adult"?

That, of course, is nonsense. The "individual case-by-case basis" is always and ONLY about the severity of the crime; which is unrelated to whether or not the youth is magically, suddenly an adult.

I also have a quick answer to your remarks about OTHER apaprent hypocrisies that seem related: say, that a person is considered legally an adult before they can buy alcohol.

My answer is this: that is a hypocrisy, and is also wrong.

And since I consider it wrong, I can't imagine why anyone woudl think such an argument would sway me into accepting the child-hating barbarity of charging a youth as an adult.

Edited February 16, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

They're valid if they don't open a pandora's box in which there ARE no legitimate arguments...when the very existence of hypocrisy and complexity (which can be found surrounding every social issue, without exception, including those you believe in strongly) are used as weapons to demolish every argument, no matter what it is.

For example, our discussion with Shady, in which he continually dredges up other matters, are of this type. That's why it's so frustraitng to debate him on such matters.

Because what I should have said to him, but didn't (since such fallacious argumentation is DESIGNED to draw people in unheedingly) is that it wouldn't matter IF he was right about Letterman. If he were 100% correct about Letterman, it makes not one single whiff of difference to the points you and I were making.

The same with this discussion. You say sometimes youths are given the responsibilities of adults. That's more or less true, I agree. But it doesn't apply; because those whom we sentence to life in prison are not FIRST adjudged to have been allowed adult responsibilities.

It's nothing like our discussion with Shady and my responses have been nothing like Shady's, thank you very much. Fact is, I'm not dredging up other matters. The issue here is whether or not children should ever be treated as adults in crimes such as murder, and your argument is no, because they aren't adults and they aren't given other adult privileges. I'm pointing out that there are instances where they are.

Second, it is frequently said that "each case must be judged individually." But what does this mean? Are independent psychologists rallied to study the indicted youth, after which they ascertain that "yes, he is an adult"?

That, of course, is nonsense. The "individual case-by-case basis" is always and ONLY about the severity of the crime; which is unrelated to whether or not the youth is magically, suddenly an adult.

Why can't each case be judged individually? We have cases where adults are psychoanalyzed to see if they are deemed sane. Why can't children be similarly psychoanalyzed?

I also have a quick answer to your remarks about OTHER apaprent hypocrisies that seem related: say, that a person is considered legally an adult before they can buy alcohol.

My answer is this: that is a hypocrisy, and is also wrong.

And since I consider it wrong, I can't imagine why anyone woudl think such an argument would sway me into accepting the child-hating barbarity of charging a youth as an adult.

You don't have an answer to the issues I actually raised, though. I brought up 16 year olds being able to drive and being expected to obey the laws same as any other driver on the road. I brought up 16 year olds being able to raise children. Do you consider both of those wrong?

Paul Erhahon was stabbed to death on good Friday by a gang of teenage thugs

Convince me that kids under 18 in gangs aren't going to be influenced by the fact that they know they can't be tried as an adult. And then convince me why we should let kids like this back on the street to kill again.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It's nothing like our discussion with Shady and my responses have been nothing like Shady's, thank you very much. Fact is, I'm not dredging up other matters. The issue here is whether or not children should ever be treated as adults in crimes such as murder, and your argument is no, because they aren't adults and they aren't given other adult privileges. I'm pointing out that there are instances where they are.

Why can't each case be judged individually? We have cases where adults are psychoanalyzed to see if they are deemed sane. Why can't children be similarly psychoanalyzed?

You don't have an answer to the issues I actually raised, though. I brought up 16 year olds being able to drive and being expected to obey the laws same as any other driver on the road. I brought up 16 year olds being able to raise children. Do you consider both of those wrong?

Paul Erhahon was stabbed to death on good Friday by a gang of teenage thugs

Convince me that kids under 18 in gangs aren't going to be influenced by the fact that they know they can't be tried as an adult. And then convince me why we should let kids like this back on the street to kill again.

No. I won't try. I will try to convince people that violent offenders should never be let out......ever.

[Army Guy]

And yes, mine is a blanket statement that a youth should never be tried as an adult.

They are not tried as an adult but rather under the youth justice system. Maple leaf forums actually did an article on the youth justice system it's a good read. For some reason today it won't allow me access, but below is the link.

My linkwww.mapleleafweb.com

[Keepitsimple]

The Supreme Court ruling found that the rights violation incurred by Khadr continue because information obtained during illegal interrogations in 2003 and 2004 is still liable to be used against Mr. Khadr in U.S proceedings.

The Canadian Government has now requested that the US exclude any evidence gathered through the illegal interrogations in any proceedings against Mr. Khadr. This would seem to address the specific concern of the Supreme Court - especially if the US agrees to abide by the request.

OTTAWA -- The Harper government said on Tuesday it has asked the United States to refrain from using information against Omar Khadr that was obtained through Canadian interviews with the young man that the Supreme Court of Canada has declared were a violation of his constitutional rights.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said he has elected to respond to the Supreme Court by sending a "diplomatic note" to the U.S. seeking assurances that the fruit of the Canadian interviews will not be used in his upcoming trial before a military commission or anywhere else.

Link: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=2573192

[Topaz]

There must be an election coming this spring for the Tories to do this.

[eyeball]

They are not tried as an adult but rather under the youth justice system. Maple leaf forums actually did an article on the youth justice system it's a good read. For some reason today it won't allow me access, but below is the link.

I've scanned through it and I see plenty to keep the argument raging forever. As far as I'm concerned public sentiments for harsh punishment should always be trumped by expert sentiment for lenient treatment that is determined on a case by case basis.

One thing that gets up my nose is the way people who call for letting public sentiment guide our justice policies howl like banshees at the prospect of using public sentiments for guiding say, our military, environmental or economic policies.

The people calling the loudest for public sentiments when it comes to dealing with kids gone bad are just as quickly all over the idea of using public sentiment for virtually anything else like it was communism or something.

How do you explain that?

[eyeball]

There must be an election coming this spring for the Tories to do this.

Bring it on. An acrimonious election is exactly what this country needs.

[M.Dancer]

The people calling the loudest for public sentiments when it comes to dealing with kids gone bad are just as quickly all over the idea of using public sentiment for virtually anything else like it was communism or something.

How do you explain that?

One thing that gets up my nose

[eyeball]

You got something up your nose there Mo?

[bloodyminded]

It's nothing like our discussion with Shady and my responses have been nothing like Shady's, thank you very much. Fact is, I'm not dredging up other matters. The issue here is whether or not children should ever be treated as adults in crimes such as murder, and your argument is no, because they aren't adults and they aren't given other adult privileges. I'm pointing out that there are instances where they are.

There is not a single instance where they are CONSIDERED adults, despite drving privileges and whatnot. No one--NO ONE--calls them "adults" until people get horny for prosecution.

Why can't each case be judged individually? We have cases where adults are psychoanalyzed to see if they are deemed sane. Why can't children be similarly psychoanalyzed?

Where are the cases where this is done? How come neither Khadr's lawyers nor the prosecutors mentioned this salient fact? Is it a secret protectedd by the PATRIOT Act?

It is a political decision, not a psychological one.

Unless you provide evidence, I will take this as a concession. Your point is desperate...that's why you refuse to try to prove it.

You don't have an answer to the issues I actually raised, though. I brought up 16 year olds being able to drive and being expected to obey the laws same as any other driver on the road. I brought up 16 year olds being able to raise children. Do you consider both of those wrong?

Yes, I did answer it. You are pretending I didn't, for...some reason.

Again (not for nearly the first time): the examples you use does not magically mean we can try youths as adults.

Raising children, while difficult, is not a punishment by the State or the Crown. Neither is driving a car.

You seem to believe, oddly, that government NON-interference is identical to government interference.

Paul Erhahon was stabbed to death on good Friday by a gang of teenage thugs

Convince me that kids under 18 in gangs aren't going to be influenced by the fact that they know they can't be tried as an adult.

Um, you ARE aware, no doubt, that the overwhelming majority of murderers are adults? How come THEY'RE not influenced by the fact that they know they CAN be tried as adults?

That rather shatters your thought-experiment here...and it's so obvious an answer I'm surprised it didn't occur to you.

Edited February 17, 2010 by bloodyminded

[M.Dancer]

You got something up your nose there Mo?

No and no thanks for the offer...

[Guest American Woman]

There is not a single instance where they are CONSIDERED adults, despite drving privileges and whatnot. No one--NO ONE--calls them "adults" until people get horny for prosecution.

"Horny" for prosecution?

It always gets me how those who advocate more lenient sentences always make it all about prosecution for those who advocate tougher sentences, as if there weren't innocent lives lost, and preventing more loss of innocent lives couldn't possibly be what we are actually "horny" for.

And who cares what they are called; who cares if they are "called" adults or not? They are still given adult privileges. By the same token, sometimes they have to suffer adult consequences. I see no reason why youth should just sometimes benefit by the "privileges" afforded adults.

Where are the cases where this is done? How come neither Khadr's lawyers nor the prosecutors mentioned this salient fact? Is it a secret protectedd by the PATRIOT Act?

It is a political decision, not a psychological one.

Unless you provide evidence, I will take this as a concession. Your point is desperate...that's why you refuse to try to prove it.

What exactly am I refusing to try to prove?? I have no idea where that is coming from or what you're getting at.

Yes, I did answer it. You are pretending I didn't, for...some reason.

No, you didn't answer it. You danced around it, and you still are.

Again (not for nearly the first time): the examples you use does not magically mean we can try youths as adults.

Never said it did. I simply provided examples of where youths are given adult privileges since the statement was made that kids should never be given adult sentences since they aren't privy to adult privileges.

Raising children, while difficult, is not a punishment by the State or the Crown. Neither is driving a car.

Being raised by parents who aren't capable of raising children certainly could be detrimental to the children in question, and since the state concerns itself with child welfare in other areas, seems to me this would be a biggie. Furthermore, laws we abide by while driving a car, and the repercussions for breaking those laws, are the same for everyone. We don't say 'he isn't old enough to know right from wrong,' and then treat under-18 drivers differently. They suffer the same consequences for breaking the law as adults do.

You seem to believe, oddly, that government NON-interference is identical to government interference.

Who said it was "identical" and why would it have to be? Things rarely are "identical."

Um, you ARE aware, no doubt, that the overwhelming majority of murderers are adults? How come THEY'RE not influenced by the fact that they know they CAN be tried as adults?

Um, you ARE aware, no doubt, that the overwhelming majority of the population is between the ages of 18 and death as opposed to between the ages of 13 and 18? And how do you know would-be murderers haven't been influenced by the fact that they know they CAN be tried as adults? How do you know the statistics for murder wouldn't be higher if the punishment were less severe?

That rather shatters your thought-experiment here...and it's so obvious an answer I'm surprised it didn't occur to you.

Uh, no, it doesn't shatter anything. And I noticed you didn't touch the question I asked regarding the teen gang members who viciously murdered another innocent teen. Perhaps you're not as "horny" to think about the victims as you are the murderers.

The ambulance arrived at 7.55pm and took Paul to Whipps Cross Hospital. At 8.25pm, he was pronounced dead, the ninth of 27 teenagers to be murdered in London last year (18 of whom were stabbed), a threefold rise on the previous year. The Metropolitan Police called it "an unprecedented year of violence involving teenagers in London - the worst in memory". This year is set to be even worse: in five months, 15 teenagers have been murdered, 10 by stabbing.

[Army Guy]

I've scanned through it and I see plenty to keep the argument raging forever. As far as I'm concerned public sentiments for harsh punishment should always be trumped by expert sentiment for lenient treatment that is determined on a case by case basis.

Which is exactly what happened in those 73 other cases...Our justice system heard from all the experts, and made thier judgements accordly....and now we have 73 youths serving a max of 10 years for thier crimes, crimes i might add that are deemed very serious....such as Omars....

One thing that gets up my nose is the way people who call for letting public sentiment guide our justice policies howl like banshees at the prospect of using public sentiments for guiding say, our military, environmental or economic policies

I do not avocate public setiment guide anything....shit we would never get anything done, much like our governmental sys we have now, if the polls say the people are for it then it gets done.. ....what i do advocate is that justice be served regardless of age within reason of course....

[eyeball]

Which is exactly what happened in those 73 other cases...Our justice system heard from all the experts, and made thier judgements accordly....and now we have 73 youths serving a max of 10 years for thier crimes, crimes i might add that are deemed very serious....such as Omars....

Ok so Omar has been in prison for almost 10 years now without trial never mind parole and our country wants to leave him in the US where...

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have discovered that there are

currently at least 2,225 people incarcerated in the United States who have been

sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prison for crimes they committed as

children.

http://www.amnesty.ca/amnestynews/upload/amr511602005.pdf

Page 11

Public sentiment on leaving Khadr in the US appears to be divided fairly evenly in Canada but not expert sentiment.

I do not avocate public setiment guide anything....shit we would never get anything done, much like our governmental sys we have now, if the polls say the people are for it then it gets done.. ....what i do advocate is that justice be served regardless of age within reason of course....

Edited February 17, 2010 by eyeball

[msdogfood]

is the PMO trying to get the scc mad or something!!!

do they want to get killed by the Court???.

Edited March 3, 2010 by msdogfood

[Oleg Bach]

IF it is acceptable to violate the rights of what is now a high profile figure in Khadr..it will not be a stretch to violate your human and civil rights. Khadr was the canary in the coal mine..If we tolerated his violation it sent a signal to the violators that we are compliant. Everyone was so governed by the instillation of human hate that our judgment became clouded. Now we will see the phenomena unfold that eventually scare your pants off- that you have no real rights. Emotionalism in the form of hate is a great tool and very effective in order to take control away- the Germans did it 60 years ago and now we have a repeat-instead of the Jews as a hate object we have the Muslims..worst part is that liberals who are always for the protection of woman and children failed to strike hard at the abusers and now it is over.

[Guest American Woman]

What does that mean exactly....he gets to spend his time in a hospital...and those other 73 get to spend thier time behind bars....not because thier crimes where more deserving but rather Omar is a child soldier, and gets a free ride ?

The 73 I made reference to are serving life without parole in the U.S., which is not something I agree with given their age. But my point has been that it doesn't have to be one extreme or the other; not every minor tried as an adult gets life without parole by any means, it's not "routine" in the U.S., as eyeball is indicating.

I can't understand completely dismissing holding a juvenile 'responsible,' 'accountable,' whatever word anyone wants to use, because of their age. As stated previously, I do think rehabilitation should be part of the prison system, but I don't think rehabilitation should be in lieu of doing time.

I have to say, too, that I've seen no statistics of success regarding juveniles, such as gang members, who have been been rehabilitated. I'd like to know what the odds are of them actually being rehabilitated and becoming productive members of society. I've seen case after case where juveniles have had multiple encounters with the law when all they receive is a 'slap on the wrist,' so perhaps a dose of reality is what it takes to get through to some of these kids.

I think some people forget that there is a very real victim, a victim whose life has been taken, even when the death was caused by a juvenile. There are also other potential victims out there, so sometimes getting tough/tougher is the only course to take, since it's not all about the juvenile offender.

Regarding Omar, some seem to think a trial in the U.S. is not only an automatic guilty verdict, but an automatic 'life without parole' sentence. I find it truly ironic when such people are quick to justify laying guilt on our government/westerners without benefit of any evidence what-so-ever because of guilt of others in the past. Seems as if some people's sense of 'justice' is very select.

A man was killed in Afghanistan. Someone is responsible. Is it Omar? I believe that's what a trial is for; to determine whether or not he is guilty. If he is found guilty, I believe he should be sentenced along with rehabilitation, and I don't believe his age should be an object when determining if he should be released into society.

[bloodyminded]

What exactly am I refusing to try to prove?? I have no idea where that is coming from or what you're getting at.

To clarify: you opined that "adulthood" should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

I replied that, whatever you think should happen, there IS no independent psychological assesment. When youths are prosecuted as adults, it is because of the severity of the crime...not because they have been somehow professionally adjudged as adults, psychologically, by a disinterested, non-prosecutorial agent.

You then remarked that psychologists are used to ascertain sanity/insanity in adults.

I am saying this is not relevant, for more than one reason: first, that very process is not objectively accepted; it's highly controversial. Second (more importantly to our discussion), that is about legal definitions of sanity, not legal definitions of psychological adulthood.

Third--and crucially--it IS not done. Your asking why it is not done is a question best directed elsewhere. How should I know why it's not done? I only know it IS not done.

No, you didn't answer it. You danced around it, and you still are.

So when you disagree with my response, that amounts to my not answering it. In other words, any time someone disagrees with American Woman, they have in effect "danced around it."

Never said it did. I simply provided examples of where youths are given adult privileges since the statement was made that kids should never be given adult sentences since they aren't privy to adult privileges.

But they aren't. You're expanding the paramaters of the discussion at whim, so that any analogies you make will auotmatically fit. I'll explain:

If we were talking about 17-year-olds, your argument here would carry more weight. (I'd still disagree, but less potently, and I'd have to concede some intertesitng dilemmas even as I disagreed.)

But we are now in the realm of 13-15 year olds, with a specific 15-year-old being the centre and genesis of this debate.

Now, there are NO adult priveleges that are afforded youths of this age. None.

So you are mistaken.

The examples of having babies is a poor analogy...because having babies as a youth is not and has never been illegal. It's perfectly, 100% legal. Not a legal issue; not an issue for the courts.

The driver's licence analogy still doesn't apply to 13-year-olds, and only goes so far as learner's permits (in some regions, not even in all of them) for 15-year-olds......

.....is still a poor analogy; totally, 100% irrelevant, in fact...because driving priveleges are not adult priveleges. They really, really aren't. They are, by definition, youth priveleges. You can have a driver's license at 16.

Thnat is not a case of "adult priveleges sometimes being allowed for youths." It is a case of youth priveleges always being allowed for youths, so long as they pass the test. No psychological/emotional "adulthood" required.

Being raised by parents who aren't capable of raising children certainly could be detrimental to the children in question, and since the state concerns itself with child welfare in other areas, seems to me this would be a biggie.

And if sufficient evidence is presneted of negelct or abuse, the state can intervene.

But it's moot, becuse it's unrelated. Youths having childrten is NOT a legal issue, and never has been.

Never has been.

Deciding whether a future incarceree should be treated as an adult or not is in every measure a legal issue.

Furthermore, laws we abide by while driving a car, and the repercussions for breaking those laws, are the same for everyone. We don't say 'he isn't old enough to know right from wrong,' and then treat under-18 drivers differently. They suffer the same consequences for breaking the law as adults do.

No they don't. Not if the crime is a felony; then the Youth Offenders act applies.

Um, you ARE aware, no doubt, that the overwhelming majority of the population is between the ages of 18 and death as opposed to between the ages of 13 and 18? And how do you know would-be murderers haven't been influenced by the fact that they know they CAN be tried as adults? How do you know the statistics for murder wouldn't be higher if the punishment were less severe?

All we can do is look at the evidence available, and speculate based on that. And I DO have some evidence, whereas you have none. That is, while my evidence is arguable (I fully concede) it's still superior to the zero evidence that you can provide. To be exact:

The United States has harsher incarceration rules for murderers than does Canada; and yet Canada has roughly ten percent of the murders that the United States does. (Adjusted for population, I mean, not in real numbers.)

And yes, I can anticipate the response, that there can be other factors than prosecutorial harshness to take into account. I agree. But since you introduced the idea that harsh sentences might decrease crime, I'd tell you that we have yet to see any evidence for this...whewreas there IS some evidence pointing in the other direciton.

Uh, no, it doesn't shatter anything. And I noticed you didn't touch the question I asked regarding the teen gang members who viciously murdered another innocent teen. Perhaps you're not as "horny" to think about the victims as you are the murderers.

Of course there specific cases of terrible brutality. That doesn't magically transform all violent perpetrators into adults.