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

[bloodyminded]

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

All relevant components, which I avoided in a rare attempt at brevity.

[M.Dancer]

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...

While I am inclined to grant that an adolescent is capable of making poor decisions because of an immature frontal lobe, when it comes to planning and committing cold bloooded murder I do not believe they are so impaired and should be dealt with severely.

[g_bambino]

[K]ids frontal lobe development is not equal to that of an adult...

Amazing how for millennia 14 was developed enough to start one's adult life, given that someone at that age was quickly approaching mid life. Only in the last century and a half has human biology seemingly changed to retard our maturing.

[sp]

Edited September 13, 2010 by g_bambino

[William Ashley]

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.

To answer this question we have to address the nature of the justice system in Canada.

1. The justice system is broken because it chooses an adversarial system instead of an inquisitional system that allows open input from the whole of soceity to resolve an issue. Adversarial systems aim to state someone is right or wrong. The realization is that in most instances a breach represents a failure not only by the victim but by a whole chain of supporting institutions that somehow failed to incorporate and protect the individual from the event that occured.

Whether 31, 19, 99 14 or 6 - the causes are the same, the reasons may be different.

My justice platform is outlined:

here

http://williamashley.info/SOCIAL/SP/justicesystemreform_htm.htm

and to a lesser extent here

http://williamashley.info/SOCIAL/SP/departmentoftheinterior.htm

step 1 is to allow prevention by educating the population and creating a society that is more investigative such as through support of programs such as neighbourhood watch, block parent programs, volunteer policing, and more availability for neighbourhood surveillance through technology.

We need cops and people who exercise citizens arrest powers to be more than enforcers, we need them to be mediators.

A lot of the crimes commited by youth are what would be deemed as non serious crimes, that should be of a local or provincial nature. This is in no way a federal issue, and should remain solidily within the provincial and municipal level.

Serious things do spur out of the spiral of lawlessness though and we can recognize that. teens rebel, so it is a hard sell, this is why we need positive youth programs to keep youth occupied and entertained. These programs need to be more than available, they need to be like the education system - mandatory. We also need to be more prone to supply youth employment whether through renumerated volunteerism options, or part time and seasonal employment. The more hours youth are active, the fewer hours they have to be doing damage. One can only hope that if you give youth a life they enjoy living, then they wont be as prone to damage the well being of those around them, as they have much more to loose in the process.

If the local police and "communicated diversion" cannot resolve these minor issues, and really things like theft and vandalism while hugely hurtful especially to those of lower incomes, they are not life ending and are in the grand scheme of things very minor. With restitution and requirement to work to earn restitution as a primary most of these property crimes will not really be lasting. Especially if the government puts up an upfront restitution fund, that pays the restitution to the victim immediately, while it takes back the funds with interest from the perp who would be required to work off the damages.

In serious crime I strongly support work programs in remote areas. I think serious crime such as murder and aggravated rape and assaults would be less common, those felony type charges much less common amongst youth one would hope. I'm not versed enough in the mental characteristics of those sorts of things, so I really don't know how to fully address these things on a long term basis. I know that it is possible some people just snap or it is an isolated occurence. I rarely ever hear about people who are serial killers and they seem the minority. Sex crimes like aggravated rape (I say this to differentiate from socialized rape such as date rape, and non consensual sex amongst teenagers due to age considerations of both people). I advocate ghulags. I would not be in a position to state the capacity for rehabilitation and release. In this instance multiple stages of work camps for short term (under 1 year) mid term (up to 10 years) or permanent would be more of a graduated system. If you get one strike it would be the first camp, two strikes the second and three strikes the third. But I think that the idea behind, accident with need of rehabiliation and counseling, premeditated acts, and inherent behavioural and belief systems leading to a deemed permanent public safety mindset. I think most serious crimes would fall into the first, while a minority would fall into the second, and another minority into the third.

I would also advocate tracking of anyone who was released from level 1 or level 2. With newer technologies it is even possible to have a live eye to actually have the surroundings. Implementing a type of live eye probation is one way to address monitoring and release. It is some what of a stigma though. So I really think for those who may be a safety risk that those sorts of things be looked into. Individuals who circumvent the system would just be put up to the next level.

I would hope that serious crime wouldn't be prevalent though.

For example there were only 605 murders from among over 30 million Canadians in 2006. Petty crime such as theft is more common though, and we need more surviellance and public support to address these issues, stronger communities, with more closeness with their neighbours.

A good start is programs such as welcome wagon

http://www.welcomewagon.ca/en/index.php

A lot of smaller communities may already have a sense of inclusiveness. It may be more prone to be lost in highly mobile urban centers with large numbers of people moving around.

(I felt i should add though that i advocate a work share program, that is people who are in the work camps get an equal share of profits after operating cost of the location)

So people that are there for a year, come out with a years worth of money, however much they made, to start fresh.

Those in there for 10 years have more established communities, the ability to aquire personal property, and are part of a community, not a prison but a community.

Escape would put you up to the remote site on a permanent basis.

The remote sites would be remote locations (islands where possible) where the perimiter would be guarded by the Canadian Forces, with shoot to kill capacity for escapies, who breach the "inner permimiter" I'm talking large land areas though, in remote locations.

The permanent centers would be like the mid term ones, where people would start their life, they would also get work share, the ability to buy stuff, and lead relatively normal lives. They just couldn't leave. They also wouldn't be forced to work, but anyone not working would take away from the workshare earnings of other community members. The communities would also set their own laws to govern themselves, in as much as a community does, so long as it didn't violate federal law, or potentially provincial or territorial law if within one. People would be able to choose what camps they wanted to go to, if on a level 3. Also if an individual broke the community rules they could be kicked out of the community to another site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Uninhabited_islands_of_Canada

Take into account that things like magnetic resonance field cameras, makes it possible to pinpoint perpetrators not by sight, but by their own personal magnetic resonance.

http://www.drpawluk.com/biomagnetic_fields.htm

I have my own system for measurment via inverse fields and sensor offsets in localized areas.

https://bdigital.ufp.pt/dspace/bitstream/10284/775/3/151-172Cons-Ciencias%2002-2.pdf

http://www.item-bioenergy.com/pip/index.html

Edited September 14, 2010 by William Ashley

[wyly]

Amazing how for millennia 14 was developed enough to start one's adult life, given that someone at that age was quickly approaching mid life. Only in the last century and a half has human biology seemingly changed to retard our maturing.

[sp]

nothing has changed in human biology only our knowledge of it...your deliberate ignorance doesn't change the facts...

[g_bambino]

nothing has changed in human biology only our knowledge of it...your deliberate ignorance doesn't change the facts...

And your deliberate ignorance of my point doesn't change it. Our knowledge of biology is irrelevant to the fact that until 150 years ago, or so, 14 was the cusp of adulthood. If they were capable of beginning to be responsible for themselves then, then they're capable of it now, even if our modern society doesn't expect it of them.

[wyly]

And your deliberate ignorance of my point doesn't change it. Our knowledge of biology is irrelevant to the fact that until 150 years ago, or so, 14 was the cusp of adulthood. If they were capable of beginning to be responsible for themselves then, then they're capable of it now, even if our modern society doesn't expect it of them.

and five hundred years ago much of the western world thought the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth, deliberate ignorance isn't an excuse...you're insisting the world is still flat and the center of the universe does not make true...

[g_bambino]

and five hundred years ago much of the western world thought the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth, deliberate ignorance isn't an excuse...you're insisting the world is still flat and the center of the universe does not make true...

Are you dense? I said nothing of the sort. In centuries past, people began adulthood at 14 not by belief or choice but because, as I already explained, they were already at that age near mid-life; they simply didn't have the luxuries of either extended existence or leisure that we enjoy today. However, as you note, nothing has changed in terms of our biological development, so the 14 year old of today is just as capable of beginning responsible adulthood as the 14 year old of 1710 was.

[Bonam]

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?

You are exactly right. It doesn't make sense to arbitrarily pick some number and use it as a magical cut off point. That is why responsibility should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Many people might be mentally developed enough to be considered responsible by 12 or 13, others young, while others might be slower to develop. Just as suspects are evaluated mentally to see whether they are mentally sound and can thus be held responsible, determining whether they are old (and thus mentally developed) enough to be responsible should be part of the same evaluation, on a case by case basis. I stand by my earlier point that many/most 14 year olds that commit crimes understand perfectly well what they are doing.

[g_bambino]

It doesn't make sense to arbitrarily pick some number and use it as a magical cut off point. That is why responsibility should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Many people might be mentally developed enough to be considered responsible by 12 or 13, others young, while others might be slower to develop. Just as suspects are evaluated mentally to see whether they are mentally sound and can thus be held responsible, determining whether they are old (and thus mentally developed) enough to be responsible should be part of the same evaluation, on a case by case basis.

This has been my feeling. Though, it does bring into question our toleration of other generally applied arbitrary cut-offs: 16 for drivers' licences; 18, 19, or 21 for drinking; 18 for voting; & etc. I understand these are all the ages at which things are first permitted, and violent crime is never allowed to anyone at any age; but, the fundamental points of age and responsibility still apply.

[c/e]

Edited September 14, 2010 by g_bambino

[Bonam]

This has been my feeling. Though, it does bring into question our toleration of other generally applied arbitrary cut-offs: 16 for drivers' licences; 18, 19, or 21 for drinking; 18 for voting; & etc. I understand these are all the ages at which things are first permitted, and violent crime is never allowed to anyone at any age; but, the fundamental points of age and responsibility still apply.

[c/e]

I tend to agree that these are all arbitrary and ideally should not work this way. Voting should be allowed to everyone at a certain age (18) but earlier (at any age) if they take and pass a simple civics test to demonstrate that they have the basic knowledge needed to vote. Drinking restrictions should be drastically reviewed, our current system does far more harm than good by creating a culture of binge drinking as people turn 18/19/21. We need to look to European countries for ideas on this. Driver's licenses: people should be allowed to take the written test at any age, if they pass, they should be allowed to take driving lessons and then take a road test. The point of the test is to determine whether someone is an adequate driver, what is important is whether they can pass the test not what year they were born. Anyone who can do this should be able to get a driver's license regardless of age. The test can be made a bit harder if necessary.

My main contention on issues such as this is that different people develop at different speeds and applying arbitrary age cutoffs, especially for things that can be feasibly measured and determined on an individual basis, is irrational. I'd have nothing against a 7 year old voting if they could pass a test (they'd probably know more at that point than most voters anyway), nor against a 12 year old driver that passed a road test.

[Shwa]

Are you dense? I said nothing of the sort. In centuries past, people began adulthood at 14 not by belief or choice but because, as I already explained, they were already at that age near mid-life; they simply didn't have the luxuries of either extended existence or leisure that we enjoy today. However, as you note, nothing has changed in terms of our biological development, so the 14 year old of today is just as capable of beginning responsible adulthood as the 14 year old of 1710 was.

Which is an interesting point of nature versus nurture. Is a modern 14 year old as well informed about the complexities of modern living as a 14 year old in 1710 was about their own time? For instance, what effect did television, violent video-gaming and intense pressure advertising have on the 14 year old from 1710? It would be an interesting study.

[M.Dancer]

Which is an interesting point of nature versus nurture. Is a modern 14 year old as well informed about the complexities of modern living as a 14 year old in 1710 was about their own time? For instance, what effect did television, violent video-gaming and intense pressure advertising have on the 14 year old from 1710? It would be an interesting study.

Equally inane would be a study on the effects of public executions, judical mutilations, plagues, religious wars etc etc on a 14 year on in 2010 (Muslims excepted).

[wyly]

Are you dense? I said nothing of the sort. In centuries past, people began adulthood at 14 not by belief or choice but because, as I already explained, they were already at that age near mid-life; they simply didn't have the luxuries of either extended existence or leisure that we enjoy today. However, as you note, nothing has changed in terms of our biological development, so the 14 year old of today is just as capable of beginning responsible adulthood as the 14 year old of 1710 was.

1st-your knowledge history sucks 14 yr olds in Europe were not considered adults in 1710, average age of marriage was in the mid twenties when they were considered adults, leaving school and working full time did not make one an adult..and you're confusing criminal law/responsibility at that time in regards to age/physical maturity, that's an entirely different issue...at that time theft in some countries was punishable with death should we return to that too since by your logic was okay then it must be okay now...

2nd-medical knowledge of the brain has come a long way since 1710 which you surprisingly aren't aware of...the function and the rate of development of the brain was completely unknown in 1710...

interesting how your view of criminal responsibility resembles that of Muslim extremists, should we permit the marriage of 13 year old girls as well since by your logic they're adults...

[Oleg Bach]

The liberal idea is if a 16 year old shoots another useless ghetto gang banger that HE should not be idenified..Because it might damage HIS future prospects in life - That is simply stupid - Once a person has killed or committed anyother serious offence HIS future is already carved in stone..so why protect a young deviate? A deviate is a deviate is a deviate - and time does not change that.

[wyly]

Which is an interesting point of nature versus nurture. Is a modern 14 year old as well informed about the complexities of modern living as a 14 year old in 1710 was about their own time? For instance, what effect did television, violent video-gaming and intense pressure advertising have on the 14 year old from 1710? It would be an interesting study.

the harsh real violence witnessed by 14yrs old of 1710 would make the cartoon Xbox violence quite mundane...public executions were still quite common, domestic abuse routine as was corporal punishment at home, work, school, public criminal punishment, prison...

and we don't need to go back as far as the 17th century my 3 oldest siblings began full time work at age 12, and they were still kids despite doing adult occupations...in some countries child labour is still going on 5,6,7 year olds doing adult jobs even prostitution supporting themselves and older family members, should we consider them adults?

[wyly]

The liberal idea is if a 16 year old shoots another useless ghetto gang banger that HE should not be idenified..Because it might damage HIS future prospects in life - That is simply stupid - Once a person has killed or committed anyother serious offence HIS future is already carved in stone..so why protect a young deviate? A deviate is a deviate is a deviate - and time does not change that.

there is a balance that needs to be found,one side of the equation is protecting the child and other is protection of society from that child...

most kids can be helped so you are incorrect a deviate is not always a deviate...

[Shwa]

the harsh real violence witnessed by 14yrs old of 1710 would make the cartoon Xbox violence quite mundane...public executions were still quite common, domestic abuse routine as was corporal punishment at home, work, school, public criminal punishment, prison...

and we don't need to go back as far as the 17th century my 3 oldest siblings began full time work at age 12, and they were still kids despite doing adult occupations...in some countries child labour is still going on 5,6,7 year olds doing adult jobs even prostitution supporting themselves and older family members, should we consider them adults?

Damn the torpedoes man! Let's say babies are adults and we will have successfully deconstructed any notion of difference!

[g_bambino]

1st-your knowledge history sucks 14 yr olds in Europe were not considered adults in 1710, average age of marriage was in the mid twenties when they were considered adults, leaving school and working full time did not make one an adult..and you're confusing criminal law/responsibility at that time in regards to age/physical maturity, that's an entirely different issue...at that time theft in some countries was punishable with death should we return to that too since by your logic was okay then it must be okay now...

2nd-medical knowledge of the brain has come a long way since 1710 which you surprisingly aren't aware of...the function and the rate of development of the brain was completely unknown in 1710...

interesting how your view of criminal responsibility resembles that of Muslim extremists, should we permit the marriage of 13 year old girls as well since by your logic they're adults...

You're addressing me but having a conversation all on your own. Get back to me when you've paid some proper attention to what I wrote.

[M.Dancer]

1st-your knowledge history sucks 14 yr olds in Europe were not considered adults in 1710, average age of marriage was in the mid twenties when they were considered adults, leaving school and working full time did not make one an adult..

During the renaissance...

At fourteen a child formally entered the adult world and could contract matrimonial obligations. Criminal culpability began somewhere in the middle of this period of pueritia, or childhood, which was marked by the increasing ability to distinguish right from wrong. Although the exact age at which this was considered to occur juridically varied from one set of town statutes to another, in general the law prescribed half the adult penalty for crimes committed by children between the ages of ten and fourteen, with the full adult penalties applying once the child reached fourteen years of age.

http://www.faqs.org/childhood/Ke-Me/Medieval-and-Renaissance-Europe.html

[wyly]

You're addressing me but having a conversation all on your own. Get back to me when you've paid some proper attention to what I wrote.

get back to me when you put more than a nano-second of fore thought into your weird ideas of youth justice...

[g_bambino]

get back to me when you put more than a nano-second of fore thought into your weird ideas of youth justice...

I never said anything to you about youth justice. Most 14 year olds would be able to keep up with what's been said (and employ proper grammar, too); it's a wonder why you can't.

[g_bambino]

I tend to agree that these are all arbitrary and ideally should not work this way. Voting should be allowed to everyone at a certain age (18) but earlier (at any age) if they take and pass a simple civics test to demonstrate that they have the basic knowledge needed to vote. Drinking restrictions should be drastically reviewed, our current system does far more harm than good by creating a culture of binge drinking as people turn 18/19/21. We need to look to European countries for ideas on this. Driver's licenses: people should be allowed to take the written test at any age, if they pass, they should be allowed to take driving lessons and then take a road test. The point of the test is to determine whether someone is an adequate driver, what is important is whether they can pass the test not what year they were born. Anyone who can do this should be able to get a driver's license regardless of age.

You raise interesting points; I'd forgotten about Europe's drinking laws until you mentioned them. But, surely there would have to be an absolute cut-off somewhere; administering a driving or civics test to a six year old would be a pretty much guaranteed waste of time and resources.

[Bonam]

You raise interesting points; I'd forgotten about Europe's drinking laws until you mentioned them. But, surely there would have to be an absolute cut-off somewhere; administering a driving or civics test to a six year old would be a pretty much guaranteed waste of time and resources.

Whose time and resources? It costs money to take a driver's test, and the civics test could be the same way. If a kid's parents want to pay for him/her to take some test, they can go for it.

Edited September 15, 2010 by Bonam

[wyly]

I never said anything to you about youth justice. Most 14 year olds would be able to keep up with what's been said (and employ proper grammar, too); it's a wonder why you can't.

you're desperatly deflecting now...the entire thread is dedicated to youth justice with you declaring 14 yr olds were responsible as adults in 1710 and should be now as well...

your quote-

g-bimbino-"14 year old of today is just as capable of beginning responsible adulthood as the 14 year old of 1710 was." :lol:

Edited September 15, 2010 by wyly