High court strikes down death penalty for juveniles

[Odin]

It is a fact that teens don't have the self-control of adults the prefrontal lobe does not become fully mature untill a person is in his/her 20's (or if you have adult ADHD, like me, it never does. )

[GePap]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Do you truly believe 16 year olds like the one from this case are incapable of doing a cost-benefit analysis regarding the commission of their crime?

I Believe a 16 year old is much more likely to be an individual incapable of making these decisions than a 30 year old would, certainly. I also think that the law, having made 18 the age of adulthood, should respect it in all cases, and not just when it feels it doesn't need to.

No, teenagers are NOT as able as adults to make intelligently informed choices.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What about a 9 year old? They know it is wrong to kill.
Put them in the chair? How low do you go and why?

I'm not sure that a 9 year old knwos that killing is wron in the same way that a 16 year old does. I don't know exactly what age the psychological development occurs, but young children are unable to fully comprehend the finality of death. I think that they probably have developed that sense by 9, but maybe they haven't; that's a question for psychologists. If a child of average psychological development cannot fairly be expected to comprehend the crime, then its obvious that that child should not be held responsible for that crime. That's why there are tender age doctrines.

Here is my idea of where the lines should be drawn for Juvenile DP...

Tender Age doctrines prevent children under certain ages (7 or 8, usually) from being culpable for any civil or criminal offense. That speaks for itself. No DP for children who would be protected by a tender age doctrine.

When a juvenile between the ages of 7/8 -13/14 is brought to trial on a civil matter, there is a rebuttable assumption that that child cannot be held negligent or contributorily negligent. That assumption can be rebutted if the other side produces evidence concerning that child's intelligence, experience, and other such factors are such that that child should be held liable for negligence. If the jury (or judge) is convinced that those fators should make the child liable, then that child can be held liable. Minors over 14/15 can be held negligent.

This indicates that, at least in the Civil Realm, Children of a certain age range are given the benefit of the doubt that their young age should relieve them of responsibilty, unless the other side can make a convincing case that there are other factors that should make that child responsible. I would translate that benefit of the doubt to the criminal side, but would not allow the transfer of the balancing test. Though a balancing test can be used to make a child civilly liable in the same way as an adult, using such a balancing test to determine whether a child should be punished as an adult for a crime would be innapropriate. It would allow too much discretion, and would almost certainly violate equal protection. Though I would hold children of this age group criminally liable, I would not try them as adults. Therefore, no DP for the 8-14 crowd.

Giving the DP to a 15 year old would be problematic in a jurisdiction that gives the rebuttable assumption to 15 year olds. I think that, if the child is eligible for that rebuttable assumption, then they should not be eligible for the DP, nor should they be tried as an adult. This is a gray area, and one that I'll address later.

This leaves the 16-17 age range. This range can be held civilly liable in the same way as adults. This reflects a understanding that they are mature enough to act in a reasonable, socially acceptable manner. This should translate to the criminal side as well, and 16-17 year olds should be punished as adults, and that includes DP.

If you want to tie this to the rights aspect, consider this:
most states allow 16 year olds the right to drive a car. Since they are entrusting a dangerous instrumentality into their hands, then you must assume that the state is trusting those minors to exercise that right in a safe manner. Since the state is assuming that a 16 year old has enough judgement to prudently use an instrumentality s dangerous as a car, it stands to reason that they expect the minor to appreciate things like safe behavior and the possibilty of the consequences of reckless behavior. Since these 16 year old drivers are given the right to use the road, they are putting the saftey of others in the hands of these 16 year olds. That indicates to me that the state believes people of this age have enough of a grasp of life and death to be held accountable for their criminal actions. Therefore, I'd allow the DP to be applied to 16 and 17 year olds. If the state allows 15 year olds to drive, I'd extend the DP to 15 year olds.

We are left in the precarious situation where we impose adult responsibility on those who cannot exercise the rights which those responsibilities are tied to.

The above is my answer to these concerns.

[GePap]

Well, 5 out of 4 SC justices felt that the line was better drawn at 18, not 16.

[GePap]

Wycoff, would you then change statutory rape laws to decriminalize having sex with 16 year olds if you are an adult?

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Unless you meant something entirely different, I have to go by the words you put on the screen.

The statement should be read thusly:

You're assuming that a jury would be unable to determinethat any juvenile could have a mental state that would make him culpable for a capital crime. I think that that's ridiculous.

I should have written it more clearly...

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by GePap
Wycoff, would you then change statutory rape laws to decriminalize having sex with 16 year olds if you are an adult?

That's a tough one. Probably not, as I think consent to sexual relations with an adult is more analgous to a 16 year old contracting with an adult than it is to a 16 year old being entrusted by the state to safely operate a dangerous instrumentality.

Giving a 16 year old a driver's liscense doesn't indicate that the state trusts thtat a 16 year old knows or should know what's best for itself, it just indicates that the state assumes that a 16 year old should be able to fully understand that you need to act in a manner that is safe and does not harm others. It implies that a 16 year old understands that he could kill someone through his actions, that killing someone is wrong, and trusts that the 16 year old will act in a manner so as to not kill someone.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Do you truly believe 16 year olds like the one from this case are incapable of doing a cost-benefit analysis regarding the commission of their crime?

Wholly incapable? No.

Less likely to do so as capably as a mature adult? You bet your arse.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

In English criminal law, we have a raft of measures to protect juvenile defendants. Restrictions on how and when they can be incarcerated. Specialist courts designed to be less intimidating to the young. Restrictions on sentencing- such as the replacement of the "Life" sentence with the "at Her Majesty's pleasure", usually in secure local authority homes rather than prisons.

It's been a feature of English law since the 10th century, in fact.

If you're right, Ozzy, how many of those protections should go? Have the devious little ****s just ben pulling the wool over our eyes for centuries?

[Moral Hazard]

Allthough, I don't think minors should be tried as adults. I do believe the court overstepped their boundaries. If the legislatures have defined common consensus than the supreme court shouldn't redefine it. They really stretched cruel and unusual punishment, if it's not cruel or unusual for one class; I'm having a hard time seeing how it's cruel or unusual for another class. BTW I disagreed with the retarted decision as well on the same grounds.

[Shi Huangdi]

If some is generally so dangerous that there would be a significant escape danger or that they would be dangerous to the lives of others in prison, society should not refrain from protecting itself.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Allthough, I don't think minors should be tried as adults. I do believe the court overstepped their boundaries. If the legislatures have defined common consensus than the supreme court shouldn't redefine it.

Then you may as well toss the protection against cruel and unsual punishments from the Constitution. The whole poit of the Rill of Rights it to protect us from a legislature which oversteps its bounds, and that is what the Court has done.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


If some is generally so dangerous that there would be a significant escape danger or that they would be dangerous to the lives of others in prison, society should not refrain from protecting itself.

This is a faulty argument. You won't know until after sentencing what risks a person poses for escape or to others in prison.

[Dr Strangelove]

Well, one thing is for sure, if they're not old enough to kill then they're not old enough to vote. I hope this puts a permanent freeze on the idea of lowering the voting age.

[Ramo]

It's wrong when the state kills people out of revenge. It's particularly wrong when the state kills children out of revenge.