Should violent young offenders 14+ be named in the interest of the gre

[MysTerri]

By law a 14 year can legally decide to have sex. A 14 year old who becomes a parent, we consider an adult. Anyone old enough to make decisions that lead to becoming a parent is an adult. On the other hand, there are varying degrees of crime. Stealing a loaf of bread is not something that should stigmatize someone forever.

Armed robbery and violent crimes make the young adult a danger to society. At that point stigma or not, the 14+ young adult should face adult time in the name of protecting the greater majority and due to the violent nature of their crime, society should know their identity, just like with child molesters.

Society's protection is FAR more important than the 14+ young adult who chose that path.

Edited September 9, 2010 by MysTerri

[charter.rights]

By law a 14 year can legally decide to have sex. A 14 year old who becomes a parent, we consider an adult. Anyone old enough to make decisions that lead to becoming a parent is an adult. On the other hand, there are varying degrees of crime. Stealing a loaf of bread is not something that should stigmatize someone forever.

Armed robbery and violent crimes make the young adult a danger to society. At that point stigma or not, the 14+ young adult should face adult time in the name of protecting the greater majority and due to the violent nature of their crime, society should know their identity, just like with child molesters.

Society's protection is FAR more important than the 14+ young adult who chose that path.

Nah. You're wrong.

[DogOnPorch]

Stealing a loaf of bread is not something that should stigmatize someone forever.

See: Les Misérables for your answer.

[Shwa]

By law a 14 year can legally decide to have sex.

Not quite: "...a close-in-age exception which permits 14- and 15-year old youths to engage in consensual, non-exploitative sexual activity with a partner who is less than five years older." Otherwise the age of consent is 16.

A 14 year old who becomes a parent, we consider an adult.

No we don't. It might be true that some services treat a 14 year old parent as an adult for the purpose of accessing those services, but 14 year olds can't legally drink, smoke cigarettes, etc. Being a 14 year old parent doesn't change your age.

Anyone old enough to make decisions that lead to becoming a parent is an adult.

I hardly think so. Are you advocating that an immature decision immediately leads to maturity?

On the other hand, there are varying degrees of crime. Stealing a loaf of bread is not something that should stigmatize someone forever.

What does stealing a loaf of bread have to do with the age of consent or kids having kids?

Armed robbery and violent crimes make the young adult a danger to society. At that point stigma or not, the 14+ young adult should face adult time in the name of protecting the greater majority and due to the violent nature of their crime, society should know their identity, just like with child molesters.

Oh, I get it now. Just because a 14 year could become a parent makes them and adult and thus should be exposed to the provisions of law that all adults are. This is utterly ridiculous, absurd and, if you dont mind me saying so, a little twisted.

Society's protection is FAR more important than the 14+ young adult who chose that path.

There are limited and specific provisions already:

Youth Criminal Justice Act - Protection of Privacy of Young Persons

Notwithstanding your brutal attempt to appeal to emotion through the use of the phrase "child molesters" you haven't shown how "society" will be protected by exposing the identies of all 14+ violent young offenders. And why 14? Why not 12 year olds?

[DrGreenthumb]

If they violently attack somebody, F$ck their privacy. I don't give a shit if they are stigmatized. Ya think maybe the victim might be stigmatized by slash -scar across their face, or because they walk with a limp the rest of their life? I have NO sympathy for violent offenders at all, no matter what their age. So if a 12 year old stabs an innocent pedestrian, or takes out their knee cap with a bat, then yeah, post their picture and name in the paper, and their parents names and pictures as well.

[Shwa]

If they violently attack somebody, F$ck their privacy. I don't give a shit if they are stigmatized. Ya think maybe the victim might be stigmatized by slash -scar across their face, or because they walk with a limp the rest of their life? I have NO sympathy for violent offenders at all, no matter what their age. So if a 12 year old stabs an innocent pedestrian, or takes out their knee cap with a bat, then yeah, post their picture and name in the paper, and their parents names and pictures as well.

When they are convicted you mean, not when charged. And, once their name and picture - as well as their parents names and pictures - are posted, how does that protect society? As some sort of deterrant or just to appease your sense of righteousness?

[GostHacked]

When they are convicted you mean, not when charged. And, once their name and picture - as well as their parents names and pictures - are posted, how does that protect society? As some sort of deterrant or just to appease your sense of righteousness?

How do you expect to convict anyone who is protected from the law simply because of their age? Violent offenders need to be dealt with. Armed robbery at 14 is a violent crime. That person did not chose wisely. At 18 we get to convict people for their actions, and fully consider them as adults. And at 14 we treat them as a child, 'now jonny you know that's not right', a slap on the wrist a bit of therapy and back out on the streets to commit more violent crimes. Not all recommit though.

[M.Dancer]

I agree..before they are convicted they should have some protection. Afterwards if convicted they should receive an adult penalty...but not in an adult facility until they are 18.

[charter.rights]

I agree..before they are convicted they should have some protection. Afterwards if convicted they should receive an adult penalty...but not in an adult facility until they are 18.

It doesn't (and can't) work that way.

Being tried under the Young Offenders Act is different than under the Criminal Code. There are different considerations and different processes required. So the Court does not have the option of just switching to an adult for sentencing.

[M.Dancer]

It doesn't (and can't) work that way.

Being tried under the Young Offenders Act is different than under the Criminal Code. There are different considerations and different processes required. So the Court does not have the option of just switching to an adult for sentencing.

But the court does have the option and does use it.

Serious Violent Offences

The Youth Criminal Justice Act defines a serious violent offence as an offence in the commission of which a young person causes or attempts to cause serious bodily harm.[184] A serious violent offence can become a presumptive offence if the young person has previously committed two violent offences. Presumptive offence means that the young person, over the age of 14, can receive an adult sentence if they are found guilty.[185]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_Criminal_Justice_Act#Adult_Sentence

[wyly]

By law a 14 year can legally decide to have sex. A 14 year old who becomes a parent, we consider an adult. Anyone old enough to make decisions that lead to becoming a parent is an adult. On the other hand, there are varying degrees of crime. Stealing a loaf of bread is not something that should stigmatize someone forever.

Armed robbery and violent crimes make the young adult a danger to society. At that point stigma or not, the 14+ young adult should face adult time in the name of protecting the greater majority and due to the violent nature of their crime, society should know their identity, just like with child molesters.

Society's protection is FAR more important than the 14+ young adult who chose that path.

completely wrong...go talk with a neurologist and ask him/her the difference between an adult brain and a child's brain, two very different animals...

[Bonam]

completely wrong...go talk with a neurologist and ask him/her the difference between an adult brain and a child's brain, two very different animals...

There's also big differences between a 20 year old brain and a 50 year old brain. There are differences between the brain of one adult and another adult. There are differences between the brains of men and women. Should they all get treated differently when it comes to crime? This argument is fallacious. If someone does the crime, they should do the time, regardless of the exact configuration of their neurons.

[Smallc]

There's also big differences between a 20 year old brain and a 50 year old brain. There are differences between the brain of one adult and another adult. There are differences between the brains of men and women. Should they all get treated differently when it comes to crime?

Every case is considered on its individual circumstances.

[Bonam]

Every case is considered on its individual circumstances.

And the point of this exceptionally obvious statement?

[Smallc]

And the point of this exceptionally obvious statement?

It can't be that obvious, since you're asking. The point is that differences in people's brains do play into things. Wyly is right though, there is a big difference between a developing and developed brain.

Edited September 10, 2010 by Smallc

[Shwa]

How do you expect to convict anyone who is protected from the law simply because of their age? Violent offenders need to be dealt with. Armed robbery at 14 is a violent crime. That person did not chose wisely. At 18 we get to convict people for their actions, and fully consider them as adults. And at 14 we treat them as a child, 'now jonny you know that's not right', a slap on the wrist a bit of therapy and back out on the streets to commit more violent crimes. Not all recommit though.

Well in the link I supplied earlier, it says that a young person can receive an adult sentence where publication ban can be waived, along with a couple of other exemptions. So what is your point again?

Oh yeah, 14 year olds committing violent crimes some of which are liable for adult sentencing. So are you advocating that all armed robbery be considered a "violent crime" and then all sentencing for youth under this conviction be the same as adults?

[Bonam]

The point is that differences in people's brans do play into things.

Brans? Is that like the breakfast cereal they prefer? Anyway, of course differences in brains "play into things". Your brain is your control center. You brain decides what you are going to do. A murderer's brain is different from a non-murderer's brain... most people's brains will not allow them to kill someone without solid justification (such as self defense or being in a war). Heck, the differences in brains between murderers and the average population are probably bigger than the differences between 14 and 18 year olds. Everything you experience, everything you learn, everything you remember, causes the formation of new neural pathways in your brain, new connections grow between neurons in your brain constantly, and depend greatly on what you are doing, thinking, and feeling.

Wyly is right though, there is a big difference between a developing and developed brain.

Again, there are big differences between all kinds of brains. One person to another, young adult and seasoned adult, male and female, the same person from year to year. The fact that there are "differences" doesn't automatically mean that you can't apply the same general set of standards to different people.

I would argue that a 14 year old that commits murder, serious violence, or armed robbery, knows EXACTLY what they are doing and EXACTLY what the consequences are, no less so than an 18 year old. As I have mentioned in other threads, I think many people here haven't been 14 in way too long. As one of the younger members of this forum, I remember very well what it was like to be 14, and trust me, I understood exactly what I was doing, and what not to do, and why.

Younger people perhaps very well should be considered for lighter sentences because it is perhaps more realistic to "reform" them than older people who are more set in their ways. But differences in brain chemistry shouldn't even be a consideration. The paramount consideration should be the safety of the public. Someone who has committed violence once is more likely to do so again, whether they are 14 or 18.

Edited September 10, 2010 by Bonam

[Smallc]

Brans? Is that like the breakfast cereal they prefer?

It's actually an unfamiliar keyboard.

I would argue that a 14 year old that commits murder, serious violence, or armed robbery, knows EXACTLY what they are doing and EXACTLY what the consequences are, no less so than an 18 year old.

Well, I doubt that scientific evidence would back you up on this. I could be wrong, as I haven't looked into it that much.

[Bonam]

Well, I doubt that scientific evidence would back you up on this. I could be wrong, as I haven't looked into it that much.

Nor have I. I'm sure some study somewhere exists that backs up the opinion that 14 year olds are somehow less capable of understanding such utterly simple black and white concepts like "armed robbery is bad, murder is bad, you will get punished severely if you do this". That doesn't necessarily make those studies correct. I have previously expressed my general skepticism when it comes to studies in the social sciences, and this is exactly what it is, no matter how much someone might want to cloak it under the guise of neurobiology or something along those lines. Studies in the social sciences, in my opinion, are rarely even close to being exhaustive enough in their sampling and methodology to give results that are at all meaningful. By the way, I've participated in several such studies (the ones you can sign up for at universities to earn a quick buck) and seen first hand how unwarranted the conclusions can be given the extremely tenuous evidence they have to work with.

[msdogfood]

By law a 14 year can legally decide to have sex. A 14 year old who becomes a parent, we consider an adult. Anyone old enough to make decisions that lead to becoming a parent is an adult. On the other hand, there are varying degrees of crime. Stealing a loaf of bread is not something that should stigmatize someone forever.

Armed robbery and violent crimes make the young adult a danger to society. At that point stigma or not, the 14+ young adult should face adult time in the name of protecting the greater majority and due to the violent nature of their crime, society should know their identity, just like with child molesters.

Society's protection is FAR more important than the 14+ young adult who chose that path.

NO!

[wyly]

It's actually an unfamiliar keyboard.

Well, I doubt that scientific evidence would back you up on this. I could be wrong, as I haven't looked into it that much.

I have, kids frontal lobe development is not equal to that of an adult...

Frontal Lobes-The frontal lobes are involved in motor function, problem solving, spontaneity, memory, language, initiation, judgement, impulse control, and social and sexual behavior.

ask any parent of teenager what life can be like with one or more in the home, these aren't rational adults...

Edited September 10, 2010 by wyly

[Shwa]

...and seen first hand how unwarranted the conclusions can be given the extremely tenuous evidence they have to work with.

You mean unwarranted conclusions like this:

But differences in brain chemistry shouldn't even be a consideration.

So please, do argue that a schizophrenic who commits a murder during a schizophrenic episode should be sentenced the same as a 14 year old who violently murders a neighbour to stop the years of sexual molestation to an 18 year old bank robber who shoots the security guard on the way out to the 50 year old who beat their spouse to death during a drunken blackout. You know, with the same "brain chemistry" and all.

Oh wait, that is different. Now I getchya.

[bloodyminded]

Much of the argument for changing existing laws--in favour of harsher sentencing and the assumption of adulthood for youths--is based on the (frankly spurious) argument that "18 is not a magical cut-off point for responsibility." This argumetn might even have some real weight to it...if everybody didn't also believe in some relatively arbitrary, magical cut-off p[oint. But everybody does, whether he admits it to himself or not.

By their argument--precisely their argument--why 14+ year olds? Why not 13? Surely there is not some profound distinction between the two.

And if 13, why not...? well, it's a clear enough picture, I hope. Does the word "teen" in the nominal make the distinction? Does this apply to "pre-teen" as well?

And why?

I daresay everyone, virtually without exception, would insist upon some cut-off point in terms of adult responsibility.

So, let's lay our cards on the table. It's an important, and compeltely valid question: what should be the age of adult responsibility?

I'm reasonably comfortable sticking with 18.

Others, perhaps, think that 3 might be the tipping point.

But I'm not sure, because they absolutely refuse to say, preferring to give prosecution dictatorial power over even our assessment of reality itself.

Edited September 11, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Shwa]

So, let's lay our cards on the table. It's an important, and compeltely valid question: what should be the age of adult responsibility?

But the "responsibility" for what exactly? To babysit alone? Drink or smoke? Vote?

[Oleg Bach]

CRIMMAL OFFENDERS of all ages have figured out that the system of law and punishment is corrupt - and they feel that they are part of this unsavory enterprise...so forget the youth factor...all offenders should be named or don't bother charging them at all...why do we protect young offenders in such a manner - if extreme old age is in the same catagory of vulnerablity as young age - then 80 year old men and woman that kill their spouse should be able to keep the evil act secret...and that is the point - why do we shelter evil?