Do you feel minors should be accountable for adult crimes?

[bradedit]

I agree, but what if it is a 10 or 12 year old that does the same thing, should they be held to the same standards.

[Jalina2]

Yes, though at the age of 10 or 12 one should be consciously and/or conscientiously aware of what is 'wrong and right'.

Unfortunately, some children aren't.


Sorry for the constant editing, could not finish my post because of work situations.

[bdinalbq]

Hi all! It's great to see a good debate here, and I have feelings on this one, so here's my two cents. I work in this field..a lot of my "kids" have been in this situation, and I do have strong feelings...having seen the postives and negatives of both sides.

First and foremost, when you're talking about a kid who's committed a violent crime, you're not talking about a normal child. You're talking about a child who generally comes from a socioeconomically deprived upbringing where there likely has been a long history of drug dependence or previous incarcerations in the family. The child has been raised with an entirely different set of values...generally..."I need what I need and I want what I want and I will do whatever I need to get it." Further, children who commit violent crimes (like the boy who murdered the three year old mentioned previously in this thread,) most certainly have serious mental health issues which may or may not have been addressed in their short lifetimes. Although this doesn't excuse or forgive the behavior, it certainly sheds a diferent light on the type of punishment which is most appropriate.

Because of these "setting" factors, which may or may not have EVER been addressed in a criminally inclined child, I feel it is extremely UNFAIR to impose a penalty which assumes rationality, motive and an inherent understanding of the moral codes of this society on an unformed, undeveloped and often disturbed child.

What needs to happen, IMO, is the juvenile justice system needs to be completely reformed so that each and every minor that comes through the system receives a forensic evaluation to determine exactly what has motivated them to commit this crime, and then, instead of locking them up forever, treating the CAUSE of the problem with the end goal being returning a functional adult to society when treatment has concluded. We need more Residential Treatment Facilities, we need more school and home based intervention programs run by the juvenile justice program. We need MEDICAID TO COVER MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES AND HOSPITALIZATION for children so they are not drop kicked back into society when the 48 hour hold runs out. In summary, I feel a child who commits crimes, whether they are a gangbanger, burgler, or yes, even a murderer, needs assessment, intervention and HELP as opposed to strict, unflagging punishment as an adult. The only exception to this statement is that of child sexual predators. The research generally is clear that children who have been victims of violent sexual abuse generally become predators at some level and this is the single most difficult population to treat and reintegrate into society. These children, through no fault of their own, have turned into aberrations of human beings and they generally never overcome it. In that case, and that case ONLY, I advocate a lifetime of supervision and police monitoring.




__________________

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[LocaChica]

Originally posted by Jalina2


Daddy should not have the gun reachable for his bratty 3 year old to handle it in the first place!

I agree about keeping guns away from the reach of little hands, but a 3 year old grabbing is not necessarily bratty, but curious.

What needs to happen, IMO, is the juvenile justice system needs to be completely reformed

Hi bd! I agree with this statement and many others throughout your post.

[Juliannaluv]

Originally posted by Mayfly
People in the military can drink, as far as I know, they are absolved of the drinking age. Most teenagers are not mature enough to drink. The difference? Teenagers in the military have gone through a lot of discipline, and have achieved that maturity in most cases

My nephew is in the USAF and he's told me that if they are underage and caught drinking, it is cause for an article (I think it is either 5 or 15) which essentially is like being put on military probation for the rest of your life. It will remain in their military file forever. When their commitment is up they are not allowed to re-enlist, nor will they ever be allowed to. His former GF got caught drinking in BMT (basic training) and she now has this in her file. When her 4 year enlistment is up, that's the end of her military career. This is very close in rank to a dishonorable discharge

Also, a student at the high school in my home town set off a bomb inside the school. Some of you local Minnesotans may have heard about this. It was during the evening/night, but there were activities going on in the school and the neighboring ice arena. He is 18 years old and will be tried as an adult for his crime. The bomb caused around $50,000 damage. Noone but himself was injured (he cut his hand breaking the window to get into the school), but he could stand to face 50 years in prison now. There were two 16 year olds with him and they each could face 10-15 years for aiding in a terroristic crime VERY SAD but they all knew that what they were doing was wrong!!!

I am not exactly sure where I stand on this particular one, but I base my opinion on a case by case assessment. To me it depends on the age of the child and the seriousness of the crime.


__________________

Check out these [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now], or go directly to [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]
[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] EXP: 04.08.2003
Save 15% off of your purchase at Art.com with coupon code C277133908004.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[Shainie]

Originally posted by bdinalbq
What needs to happen, IMO, is the juvenile justice system needs to be completely reformed so that each and every minor that comes through the system receives a forensic evaluation to determine exactly what has motivated them to commit this crime, and then, instead of locking them up forever, treating the CAUSE of the problem with the end goal being returning a functional adult to society when treatment has concluded. We need more Residential Treatment Facilities, we need more school and home based intervention programs run by the juvenile justice program. We need MEDICAID TO COVER MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES AND HOSPITALIZATION for children so they are not drop kicked back into society when the 48 hour hold runs out. In summary, I feel a child who commits crimes, whether they are a gangbanger, burgler, or yes, even a murderer, needs assessment, intervention and HELP as opposed to strict, unflagging punishment as an adult. The only exception to this statement is that of child sexual predators. The research generally is clear that children who have been victims of violent sexual abuse generally become predators at some level and this is the single most difficult population to treat and reintegrate into society. These children, through no fault of their own, have turned into aberrations of human beings and they generally never overcome it. In that case, and that case ONLY, I advocate a lifetime of supervision and police monitoring.
[/size]

But how long can we keep a kid in treatment? IMO If a child commits a horrible crime at age 14, we'd have to keep them in some kind of program until they were over 18, and able to make it on their own. If we try rehabilitation for a year, then send them back to a bad environment, they'd just regress back to how they were before they entered the program.

Unless someone is going to adopt one of these troubled kids into their loving home for 24/7 care, the change will not be permanent - do you see what I'm saying?

They might do wonderful in an in-house program, because there are always people there to help and to care. But that's not how the world works. You put them back in the drugs, gangs, unloving families and they're going to have to do what they can to survive.

I wish this wasn't the case, but too often it is.


__________________

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[mayfly]

Yes, I agree, they do need to be taken case by case. Unfortunetly most teenagers who have been in serious trouble grow up to be adults in serious trouble, so obviously our way does not work here.

In the cases you brought up here, there was no real intent to kill. In the case of the child kidnapping who was beaten to death, I think its pretty clear he was doing it with intent to kill. As to the consequences of those actions, its tough. Very very tough, and I am glad I am not the one to decide what to do.

Originally posted by bradedit
I just don't know where you could draw a line, I mean if a bratty 3 year old pulls out daddys gun and shoots my kid, should they be tried as an adult or a 5 year old pushes a 1 year old in a tub of water and holds them down, how about them? When does a kid really understand what is right and wrong, lately my daughter is a little confused by the war. Great questions like when is it OK to kill somebody?

[rualakin]

Boy, talk about being on the fence with this one!
This post might get long, so avoid it if you like

I live in Eugene, Oregon, across the river from Springfield, Oregon where there was a shooting at Thurstin High School. Twenty odd children were shot and two were killed. Kip Kinkle, the then fifteen year old shooter, also had killed his parents the night before.

Kip is in prison for the rest of his life. Shortly before going to trial, he plead guilty and is now doing his time. He did not come from an underprivliaged background, but from a family of highly intellegent people... his parents were spanish teachers here at the high schools and local community college. They were well off, well traveled, well educated...
From all accounts, his sister was the "golden girl" and Kip was... well he had learning disabilities, was not athletic, was a wiz at math, but could barely read... things of this nature.
When preparing for trial, many tests were done both physical and mental on this young man... they showed mild brain damage (probably what caused the learning disabilities) and also that this child had been hearing voices since he was somewhere around the age of ten.... he told no one.... he got no treatment.

To make a very long story shorter, this child is now in treatment (in prison) and doing rather well from what the media reports.
Is this a child who needs to be in prison forever? There is no place for the "criminally insane" so to speak?
I find it difficult as the parent of a child who at one time has some serious behavioral issues (food related go figure) to say one way or the other. Mental health in this country stinks.... and for children it is even worse.
Kip apparently had been in "therapy" of sorts and on various medications over the years, but some members of his family thought that was "weakness" and his issues were to "get attention" or "laziness" among other reasons. He did not get the correct or intensive therapy he should have. He did not have really anyone to turn to when he needed help. He was very much alone in his own family... some reports say his father didn't care for him much, and refused to accept his son had learning or mental health issues... I can't say for certain, this is only what has been reported in the media.

Should he pay for killing two students, his parents, and shooting so many? Yes. But for how long? Is it cruel to want to have some place for the mentally ill to live productive lives strictly supervised? I just dont know. We are closing so many institutions in favor of group homes (much better lives for those who have grown up in institutions) but what to do with perfectly healthy children/adults AFTER treatment?

Ok so I'm rambling here... I can't help it. While I favor the rights of those in need of services, I, as a mom, know how vengeful I would feel if my child were injured or killed. It is a dilemma for sure.

I think the only solution would be a revamping of mental health services as well as the juvenille justice system... how that should be done, I simply can't say.

There will never be any easy answers on this issue.

rual


__________________

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[bwsmom]

(Note: what's going on in this thread is the way ALL online debates should be handled.....with respect for another's input, regardless of which side of the fence you're on! MHO....)

There are so many incredibly valid points made in this thread!!! Many of the scenarios mentioned previously have actually taken place here in Oregon & Washington. I offer the following:

In Salem, an in-home daycare owner was put on trial for permanently debilitating injuries sustained by an infant in her care. When all was said and done, it was learned that it was actually her young daughter (5 years old I believe) who had picked the baby up and thrown him against a wall several times before putting him back in his crib. Everyone who testified on behalf of this daycare owner indicated that this was a VERY loving woman with a wonderful family, so.......what to do with the 5-year-old??? Where did this act of violence come from??? (I believe they've put her into some sort of treatment program, but I will do more research on that and post the results later).

In a small town not too far from Vancouver, WA, a sherrif deputy's 13-year-old son was home alone with his 10-year-old sister. The deputy, being off duty, had left his service revolver in his bedroom while he and his wife were out running errands or some such thing. The 13-year-old, who has a long history of troubling activities both at home and school, including inappropriate handling of weapons, picked up the gun and shot his sister in the head, killing her instantly. He did have the "good sense" to call 911 and try to resuscitate her. This kid was not tried as an adult, but did plead guilty to first degree manslaughter and is now looking at roughly five years in juvenile detention. (Though MANY people in this area thought the father should share in the responsibility, considering he knew the kid had a problem with weapons.)

Then there are the cases of "good kids gone bad". We've all seen/heard it. Nice (often Christian) parents who are dumbfounded when their kid goes and pumps a bunch of bullets into his school, or some such thing. There are kids who show a very early propensity to violence (abusing animals, destroying property, etc) and there just doesn't seem to be any sense behind it (no abuse history, no fetal alcohol syndrome, etc). I'm a firm believer that there are kids out there who simply have a mean streak in them and find the most unpleasant ways to show it.

This is why, as many of you have said, things need to be case by case. But I will not back down from my stance that ALL crimes need to be appropriately punished. Exactly what message are we sending to kids if we don't show them the consequences to their actions? I hate to say it, but in one sense, the statement "it takes a village to raise a child" is very very true!!! From the parents, to the neighbors, to the teachers, to the lawmakers and law enforcers, to doctors and counselors....we all need to be mindful of what our youth are doing, and to deal with them appropriately when what they are doing goes against both written law and moral law. Now HOW to deal with them is a different story, which is why we're all in this thread, eh?


__________________

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[bwsmom]

Then, of course, there's this, which has just hit the news today...

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]


__________________

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[bdinalbq]

Originally posted by Shainie



If we try rehabilitation for a year, then send them back to a bad environment, they'd just regress back to how they were before they entered the program.

Unless someone is going to adopt one of these troubled kids into their loving home for 24/7 care, the change will not be permanent - do you see what I'm saying?

They might do wonderful in an in-house program, because there are always people there to help and to care. But that's not how the world works. You put them back in the drugs, gangs, unloving families and they're going to have to do what they can to survive.

I wish this wasn't the case, but too often it is.

I have to disagree with the comment "that's not how the world works." I've seen incredible changes occur in kids once they've been placed in Treatment Foster Care (which is the 24/7 you're talking about,) and taken out of the environment. Often, for the first time, kids are exposed to "normal" families. Don't get me wrong..they go terribly wrong as often as they go right, and there are no guarentees. I don't have enough fingers to count how many of my students over the past 15 years have been killed or are serving time in prison as adults right now. But...I also don't have enough fingers and toes to count how many COULD have wound up that way, but due to appropriate and firm intervention, didn't. I think if the odds are even, I prefer to give a kid the benefit of the doubt.


__________________

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]
[/quote]

[sweetiris]

Originally posted by bdinalbq
Because of these "setting" factors, which may or may not have EVER been addressed in a criminally inclined child, I feel it is extremely UNFAIR to impose a penalty which assumes rationality, motive and an inherent understanding of the moral codes of this society on an unformed, undeveloped and often disturbed child.

Well, I was going to say something, but I think bdinalbq said just about everything I would say.

I do want to say that I am so glad that this discussion is go so well with nobody jumping all over each other!

[sweetiris]

Originally posted by bwsmom
Then there are the cases of "good kids gone bad". We've all seen/heard it. Nice (often Christian) parents who are dumbfounded when their kid goes and pumps a bunch of bullets into his school, or some such thing. There are kids who show a very early propensity to violence (abusing animals, destroying property, etc) and there just doesn't seem to be any sense behind it (no abuse history, no fetal alcohol syndrome, etc). I'm a firm believer that there are kids out there who simply have a mean streak in them and find the most unpleasant ways to show it.

Okay, I take what I said earlier back, I do have something to say.

I think in most of the "good kids gone bad" cases it's usually a mental illness issue. Same things for the kids who show a very early propensity to violence. I just can't stand when a parent catches their child "accidently" hurting an animal or doing some minor property damage and they just claim, "oh, he's just being a boy, he'll grow out of it". Parents often overlook little warning signs that happen repeatedly. I can understand that, parents don't want to believe there is anything wrong with their child. However, just because I understand how parents can overlook these things doesn't mean I think that those parents shouldn't be held accountable for what their children did.

I don't believe that children are born with a mean streak (unless there's some kind of mental illness involved). I think it's a combination of things in their environment that can cause them to be that way. Some chlidren can seem to come from the best of homes and still be mean. People say that parents did everything right and probably the parents did. Children perceive things very differently from adults. Small things that seem innocent enough may not be interpreted that way to the child. These small things could build up to create a mean personality in a child.

Am I making sense? I'm not very good at trying to type out what I'm trying to say. I could say it soooo much better in person. My brain is always five steps ahead of my fingers when typing and that just always messes up what I'm trying to say.


__________________

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[Jalina2]

Originally posted by bradedit
I just don't know where you could draw a line, I mean if a bratty 3 year old pulls out daddys gun and shoots my kid, should they be tried as an adult or a 5 year old pushes a 1 year old in a tub of water and holds them down, how about them? When does a kid really understand what is right and wrong, lately my daughter is a little confused by the war. Great questions like when is it OK to kill somebody?

To LocaChica: Poster 'bradedit' wrote 'a bratty 3 year old', not a curious 3 year old. I only quoted what she posted.

Bratty or curious, it's still a parents' responsibility to teach their children to have a moral conscience, or at least a concious mind of what's right and wrong.

If not, (in my opinion) their children will behave in a barbarism manner - "I want what I want , when I want it and will do what ever I have to do to get it." Even if it's to kill someone.

[bdinalbq]

Originally posted by Jalina2

Bratty or curious, it's still a parents' responsibility to teach their children to have a moral conscience, or at least a concious mind of what's right and wrong.

You and I agree on that, and probably most of the people who've posted in this thread. Unfortunately, we do not represent everyone, and you would might be shocked to discover just how many people, if they don't directly disagree with you, either choose to ignore you or are simply incapable of following through. This doesn't mean their children are incapable of morality, it simply means they haven't been exposed to it. I've read some really pessimistic research over the years that suggests that after about the age of 15, if a child hasn't learned values/morals or developed what is termed an "internal conscience," it ain't gonna happen. That's disturbing, but I don't know if I agree with it.