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

[g_bambino]

you're desperatly deflecting now...

Nope. Just waiting until you can stop the juvenile behaviour long enough to get yourself back on track.

[g_bambino]

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.

Well, we're really descending into the theoretical here, but people are employed by the Crown to administer driving tests and perform the associated bureaucratic tasks. Do the fees of test-takers cover the entire cost of the testing? If not, is it worth making their services available to someone who brings their six year old forward to take the driving test? Will everyone, regardless of age, be required to take a civics test and be charged a fee to vote? Or, will it only be those under a certain cut-off age who'll be subject to these additional requirements?

[Bonam]

Well, we're really descending into the theoretical here, but people are employed by the Crown to administer driving tests and perform the associated bureaucratic tasks. Do the fees of test-takers cover the entire cost of the testing? If not, is it worth making their services available to someone who brings their six year old forward to take the driving test?

I think for driving, the cost to take the test probably does cover the whole cost to provide it. In any case, the details of pricing structure can be modified. That is hardly the biggest issue from my point of view.

Will everyone, regardless of age, be required to take a civics test and be charged a fee to vote? Or, will it only be those under a certain cut-off age who'll be subject to these additional requirements?

Well, such a blanket requirement would probably be unconstitutional... everyone is supposed to be allowed to vote. For civics tests, I'd probably say that structuring it to be integrated within the school system would work well. Just make it an extra test offered a few times per school year that students can take if they desire. Make it all scantron (computer graded multiple choice) so the cost of grading it is negligible and administer it to all students who want to take it at a school at the same time to reduce the cost of administration to basically nothing as well. Anyone who is of an age to have finished high school can be assumed to have passed such a test even if they never actually did, and thus would be allowed to vote anyway at that age. I think that would be a decent system that would allow motivated/interested people to vote at a younger age. Given general voter apathy which is particularly strong among the young I don't think this would be a big issue.

[bloodyminded]

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.

But what are the sound, medical criteria used to determine responsiblity?

Rather, responsibility is chosen on grounds of severity of crime, and potential threat. And while clealry these are crucially relevant, they have nohting--nothing at all--to do with evaluation on a case-by-case basis.

If theya re, then what are the criteria sued? Who are the experts who determine it? What of experts who might disagree?

Are you reallys aying that we prosecute young offenders as adults when they have been legitimately determinhed to be more..adult?? more intellectually mature? Higher-than-average frontal lobe development?

And if we do have such criteria (which we do not, or at least do not use in crimninal cases), why cannot we apply it to youths across the board, to do with away arbitrary lawes about drinking ages, voting ages, and even statutory rape?