Why The Hell Hasn't Recent Science Stopped Juveniles From Being Charged As

adults?

In the majority of cases where juveniles are charged as adults I have always disagreed wholeheartedly. I just ethically deep within me felt that teenagers are far too young to always be mentally developed enough to face the same responsibilities as adults do. Now, tonight, after educating myself further on the higher functioning of the brain, I believe this even more.

There are studies that now show that there is a vast difference in the way teenagers process information and the ways that adults do. There is a part of the brain called the amygdala, which is one of the most prehistoric components of the modern brain. It is what deals with emotions and decisions but on a far more impulsive and non-intellectual level. It is more an instinctual function. Teenagers rely on this part of the brain far more than adults do when making decisions and performing actions. Adults don't rely on the amygdala nearly as much, as their frontal lobe is more developed and take on the majority of those types of brain function. The frontal lobe is far superior to the amygdala which causes adults to be able to have far better reasoning, ethics and rational decision making skills.

So my question to you all, is since this is competent science that fairly conclusively shows that teens cannot in fact think in the same rational and reasoning way as adults do, why the hell should any court in this country still be allowed to make the fight that they can, and therefore should be charged as adults? Wouldn't just calling in a professional neuroscientist into the court to testify to these facts be enough to deem treating the suspect as an adult unfair?

Sorry for the late night brainstorm, it is just simply one aspect of our society I always thought was ass backwards.

consent, can drive cars, get jobs, procreate..and unfortunately they also can commit crimes..

The days when a 16 yr old could be described as "innocent & childlike", are unfortunately LONG GONE.

The dilemma is how to punish a less than adult criminal, when their crime is identical (and sometimes MORE heinous) than that of someone a few years older than they are..

Is it "fair" to assign a 15 yr sentence to an 18 yr old, and juvenile hall and then release upon age 21, for a 17 yr old who both committed the same crime??

The military, marriage, driving, all require parental consent; the age of consent for sex is at least 16 in most states. Jobs used to require work permits as well. One can't drink or vote until 18 either. So I would say, no, teen-agers are not treated like adults in most areas, except crime.

There isn't any reason we can't have a more reasonable system for juvenile offenders. Almost no offenders should be tossed away at such a young age, especially considering most studies show that crime is something that is outgrown by age 30 anyway. It's to our benefit to implement a system that differentiates violent offenders from non-violent in order to lock the sadistically violent ones up early and permanently.

..when needed.

And that is with EXTREME crimes, like murder, and theft.

:eyes:

Even many who murder can be turned around, especially those who have been raised in environments where basic humanity is a sign of weakness and can leave you dead. Of course, a prison environment isn't the best place to turn them around either.

That robbing a corner store, is fine and dandy?

You're the one who put it in that category. You're saying any piece of property you own is more important than salvaging the life of another human being???

I'm not saying that theft and killing should hold the same punishments.

I'm saying that both minors and adults should be charged with the same punishments for it.
-as in, if an adult is charged a year for stealing, a minor should get a year.
-if an adult gets 15 for a murder, so should a minor
-etc

And really, why are you asking that question? What does salvaging another human life have to do what I said? X.x

Is that what you think? You said teens should go to prison for EXTREME crimes, like theft and murder. You put punishment for the loss of a piece of property over the possibility of an alternative sentence that might salvage a teen's life. Don't you get that?

If you want to get into the discussion of the state of our prison systems, then yes, that might have to do with losing that teen.

I'm talking on a level playing field. Not based on a corrupt and failure of a system that we have.

You can't say treat them all the same if you don't consider what "all the same" means. With the system we have, that means losing that teen. And if you're talking about a kid who stole a car, and treating that kid like a 25 year old who stole a car, and sending them both to the failed prison system; then I say the car isn't worth that kid's life and better to leave him in the juvenile system where he might get some help or just wake up as he matures. The car ain't worth that kid's life. The 25 year old, well, he should have known better at that age, that's the whole point of having a juvenile system in the first place.

This wasn't about an apples to apples comparison, as you've turned it into. It is an intellectual premise with scientific backing that teens CANNOT act with the same level of reasoning and intent as adults do based on the very fabric of their brain makeup. Since that is the case, isn't it an act of complete ignorance and unfairness to pretend that they CAN?

How you can still claim this is apples to apples in spite of strong scientific evidence now to the contrary is mind boggling.

...Scientifically, you can't say that he acted like an adult when he committed that crime.

Does that mean that he still didn't have the common sense to not do it?

No it doesn't.

Does that mean that he should get off easier?

No, it shouldn't.

Obviously I don't make the call when it comes to this, I'm just stating my opinion.


Granted, I'm all for what's REALLY best for that person. But I don't believe NOT having some sort of punishment is the correct thing to do.

I appreciate you toning down your opinion a bit, but I never said they shouldn't be punished. I said they shouldn't get the same damn life sentence. You said they should, in spite of the strong scientific evidence that shows they are not yet near the same level of comprehension as adults.

Simple theft I would totally oppose charging a minor as an adult. By simple theft I mean like stealing money, an auto, shoplifting etc.

However armed robbery is a violent crime and could possibly qualify to charge a minor as an adult, however this would depend on the exact circumstances.

Another perspective on the same crime: If a teen comes into a liquor store, presents a gun and demands money, any store patron or clerk would be fully entitled to use lethal force against that teen to end the situation and in virtually all states, NOT be charged for shooting that teen. If however that teen were simply stealing liquor or demanding money (without being armed), anyone using lethal force in self defense would find themselves charged with murder.

In terms of larger question of charging teens as adults. I think we need to take a VERY hard look at when we do this, however I would object to totally eliminating this provision of law. Charging a teen as an adult should only be done in extreme and rare circumstances. (i.e. if the columbine killers had survived, they should never be free again)

people who make a habit of armed robbery, be they grandpa or be they 13, end w. killing someone, it's part of the package

i don't support kids being treated as adults for non-violent theft like shoplifting but then they wouldn't be

the kids tried as adults in louisiana for armed robbery KILLED someone just to get some bucks and some beer, they need to go away

i'm not saying death penalty, but they need to go away

I understand your point, but what I always disagreed with is the life sentences or greater than 10 years type sentences. I've always wholeheartedly believed that at that young an age some form of incarceration but with a focus on rehabilitation could turn the worst teens around. After learning what I learned this evening, I believe that even more strongly. If within a few years their frontal lobe will take over and offer them the potential for better reasoning, ethical values and rational thinking, then if they were just incarcerated for say 3-5 years while undergoing extensive behavioral and pyschological rehabilitation and being influenced to carry responsibility couldn't they come out as adults that are now able to perform in society adequately? I don't know. I just think any teen with the proper guidance and controlled environment can completly turn themselves around inside of 5 years time.

18 year-olds because they still have the I can't die idea of themselves and don't think ahead that much. My Father and some others because they were in their early 20's and possibly had math smarts weren't allowed to be the fighter pilots they wanted to be. The Army Air Corps preferred younger ones because they 'didn't think' (can we say testosterone motivated?).

n/t

and when kids are involved, you'd be surprised how gentle the system can be with them. That's why juvenile proceedings are closed and sealed. The kids are protected, and I've served as guardian ad litem for hundreds of children who'd done some pretty terrible things.

That said, there are some kids who really are bad seeds. It took me a long time, and a doctorate in clinical psychology, to be able, finally, to accept that there are some kids who really do need to be locked away before they can do any more harm. It's not a matter of the maturation of their brains, but, rather, their pathologies, many of which are irreversible, incurable, untreatable - in short, permanent.

This was the hardest concept I had to confront in my lives as a lawyer and a clinician because it was the end of hope.

is the degree that teenager's lives are controlled by others. While some have a wonderful time learning in compulsory school, others find it much more like prison.

This doesn't address your point about there being some bad seeds that are never going to be rehabilitated to living cooperatively in a civil society, but looks at the issue as an insider rather than an outsider looking in, from some "bad" kids' POV instead of the adults.

From what I can tell, in jail there is no pretense that one is free. Not so as a "free" child in our society, there are all these liars living in denial controlling kids in various, sometimes tyrannical ways, and rationalizers helping the deniars deny that any tyranny is occurring.

Perhaps the bird brain (didn't look up OPs noun to correlate) sees through some of this denial in unexpected ways.

It supersedes the Young Offenders Act. Basically anyone 12-17 cannot be charged with an adult crime.


http://www.solgen.gov.ab.ca/corrections/offenders_youth.aspx?id=2736

Can you imagine?

A 16 year old murderer?

In the same Juvenile detention area, as a 14 year old, who stole a a couple hundred dollars?

I can't.

stole a couple hundred dollars. What the fuck is the difference?

Physically, there isn't that much different between a 18 year old, and a 20 year old.


Is there between a 17 and 14? Yeah, it's an extreme difference.

I mean, if you can see the differences there, then what is the problem you have again. Hell, I remember in the move "Bowling for Columbine" Michael Moore was talking about a school shooting in his hometown of Flint, Michigan. The thing is that the kids involved, the perp and the victim, were both around 6 years old, given your reasoning, that kid should have been sent to an adult prison.

In Kansas our prisons are so full of drug users that a "mere" theft, unless it involves a gun or knife, is going to get you probation - not hard time. The Republican AG and legislature is trying to change that though, and also to build more prisons.

We have 18 yr olds who were pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt and then the cop found a fucking pot seed in their ashtray sometimes in the same cells as murderers, for gods sake.

..bottom line, they broke the law.

murderers though. Any my god do you have a cold, harsh and narrow-minded approach to criminal justice. I mean seriously, holy cow. I've never met a liberal who was so gung ho about locking people up and throwing away the key.

Furthermore, that analogy to begin with was only to show you the lack of logic you used when you said a 16 yr old murderer shouldn't share the same space as a 14 yr old thief, so spare me your criticism of an analogy you created since doing so is merely arguing with yourself and your flip-flopping.

So you're saying that it's okay that an 18 y.o. is thrown in prison with murderers and rapists, and faces the likelihood of being raped in prison because THEY HAD A FUCKING POT SEED? Because it's against the law?

Law is supposed to serve justice and society. That sort of thing does NOTHING to further justice, and creates unnecessary harm just for the sake of law.

When law becomes an instrument of injustice rather than justice, it ceases to serve its purpose and becomes just as bad as that which it was created to oppose.

According to the state AG spokesperson who was promoting Phill Kline's "tough on crime" proposals. I forget how he explained it exactly, but it was something like - the legislature had decrimalized possession of small amounts of pot, but cops and DAs can't stand to see drug users get a mere small fine so they were finding bogus ways to charge them as dealers.

I wish I could remember exactly what he said, but the gist I got was that the DAs and folice were violating the law that the legislature passed because of their own personal or political vendettas against drug users. And this is from the state AG's office which should be making sure that DAs and police are following the law. But his "answer" was to make the laws tougher so those poor DAs would not "have" to circumvent them. Nucking futs.

God forbid they should be prevented from harming people who don't deserve it. Their morals and ethics are so out of wack it's frightening.

deserving of any harshness, abuse and vindictiveness that they give them. It doesn't matter how small the crime, they are so addicted to upholding law (while ignoring their own breaking of it) that they see anyone committing a crime as beneath them, in many cases. It is sad, and our prison systems are chock full of decent no harm to society individuals because of their mindset.

(and not only me) that they're fostering an "us against them" mentality that makes ALL Americans suspects and, to a great extent, enemies. I know that not all cops feel this way, but it's still a mindset that's dangerous for all of us. What's amusing is that some openly wonder what happened to the people's attitude toward the police...it went south about the same time as the police attitude toward the people.

It is intended to strike a balance between the rights and responsibility of the young person and the rights of the community to be protected. The Act applies to youth aged 12 to 17 inclusive.

Sentencing options under the YCJA include:

Reprimand; *
Absolute Discharge;
Conditional Discharge;
A fine of not more than $1000;
Compensation for loss or damage to property, loss of income or support, or for special damages for personal injury where the value is known;
Restitution, which is the return to the owner of the property obtained in the offence;
Compensation to any innocent purchaser of property obtained through the commission of an offence;
Compensation to the victim by way of personal service;
Community service to a maximum of 240 hours to be completed within 12 months;
Probation for a period of up to two years;
Intensive Support and Supervision Order; *
Non-Residential Order not to exceed 240 hours over a six month period; *
Custody (open and/or secure) and Community Supervision Order for a period of two years with the following exception: in cases where a youth is found guilty of an offence for which an adult could be subject to life imprisonment, the youth may be held in custody for up to three years; *
Custody (open and/or secure) and Conditional Supervision Order for up to three years for attempted murder, manslaughter and aggravated sexual assault; seven years for second degree murder; and, ten years for first degree murder; *
Deferred Custody and Supervision Order for a maximum of six months; and, *
Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision Order - the maximum length of the order depends on the offence. *

..slitting someone's throat, no matter whether you're 16, or 35, is still murder, and you need to be tried the same.

Cause your reply doesn't address or refute one damn point raised in it.

Thanks anyway though.

It pointed out that I believe no matter what age you are, you should be punished the same, if you do harsh enough crimes.


Which is what you were talking about, only you were against it.



The only thing this would do, is make murders who are older than 30, wish they would've done it when they were 17, 'cause they wouldn't have been punished, and gotten off easier.

Being punished as an adult, is also supposed to be a deterrent. To try and get teens to realize, that just because they're underage, doesn't mean they can get away with crap.

By the way, I'm 17. And if I go out and kill someone, I would expect to get the same sentence as a 32 year old.

If you had, there would at least be some iota of a hint that you had something to say about the scientific evidence presented, which is the whole basis for this argument. You are acting as if I just posed the question "hey, shouldn't teens get less sentences?", but I didn't. I gave far more rationality than that.

And you are only 17? Now that lines up with the scientific points in my OP about people that young not yet having the ability to reason on the same levels as adults.

...where we confuse experience, or lack thereof, with intelligence?

I'm out of the topic then.

without backing by reason.

Why do they "need" to be tried the same? What "need" exists?

Enumerate this 'need', and we'll duscuss your proof.

They killed someone.

Just as the adult did.

That's all the need that there is for the Adult, it should be all that's needed for the minor.

premeditation, mental capacity, and the situation surrounding their crime. But one should turn a blind eye to the fact that the juvenile brain isn't fully formed?

Why have the distinction of child vs. adult at all then?

95% of the brain's structure is laid down early in childhood (5-6 years of age) but there are significant changes in brain structure that occur quite late in childhood. Particularly the prefrontal cortext starts growing again as a child reaches puberty. That's the part that sits right behind your forehead and acts as sort of the command and control center of the brain.

I think that most of what we know about childhoold development is relatively new. After all, Piaget did his major work starting in (if I recall correctly) the early 1950s. What we know about childhood brain development only came about after the invention of functional MRI. So, I think what we're seeing is that our societal attitudes haven't caught up with the scientific knowledge.

that they seemingly lack everything that makes us human: empathy, ocmpassion, common sense, the capacity for remorse. They scare the hell out of juvenile detention officers and have been resistant to any attempts at rehabilitation.

The only thing that seems to get through to some of these kids (but not all) are programs focused on animal care. Animals can get through to them where no human will ever be trusted enough to get through to them.

Most people would rather just lock these damaged kids up so they can't hurt the rest of us, and that means charging them as adults. Although there is some merit to this from a public safety standpoint, it doesn't address the root cause of the behavior, the lack of hope, the lack of caring, and the lack of pretty much everything beyond the bare physical necessities that these kids were brought up with.

I hate the thought of kids being charged as adults and being locked up with adult prison populations. I also hate the thought of turning them loose from a juvenile detention system that is ill equipped to treat them when they turn 21.

I don't know what the solution is.

I hear ya, but I'm not even saying that they should only serve in a juvy center and can only be held until 21. I'm saying that their brains are still too underdeveloped to carry the same weight of rational thought and decision making as an adult brain does. Scientifically, when an adult commits murder, theoretically his brain was far more capable of understanding his acts and their consequences, whereas a teen committing the same murder should still be punished, but not nearly as severely in my opinion. I would say 5 years of extreme rehabiliation in a controlled environment would yield a positive result over 95% of the time.

I really do think the parents have to be made to take some responsibility for the kids that they raise.

My ex was a police officer and was trained to be more wary of a kid with a gun than an adult. Kids don't have the experience yet to have built in boundaries. They still think it won't happen to them and can't emotionally go from act to consequences as quickly as adults.

and go after the highest sentences possible, especially in the glare of the media. Then, after they ignore science and rational thought, they run for some political office on an anti-crime platform.

and have a consequent complete lack of forethought. Maybe if those adults got their act together and started thinking more than 20 seconds ahead the distinction could be made.

mature later than they used to think. In the early 20s, for many males. Earlier, for some males. Overall earlier for females than for males.

Of course, this means that the drinking age for men is arguably still too low. They shouldn't be allowed to have sex and procreate (since they can't reason through the implications), or allowed to carry even heavy blunt objects because they might get into fights. They shouldn't be allowed to drive (a car is a heavy blunt object), or hold jobs, since their inhibition against theft may not be fully developed. They certainly can't figure out their own career choices. Military? Forget it. And allowed to make important decisions at the ballot box--what are we thinking?

Moreover, all that differential impact of school policy crap that makes boys hyperactive and more prone to acting out is just discrimination against a biological fact. Of course boys act out: they can't help it. Rather like punishing girls because they have periods or breasts.

On the other hand, the vast majority of males manage to get through their teen years without killing people, with a minimum of fights, and with a minimum of criminal behavior. Sometimes, it's because their parents provide inhibition (you know, that great bugbear from the '60s?), either by repressing them or causing them to internalize the repression by means of an imposed morality; parents have traditionally held that boys need more supervision than girls. Of course, this is changing. Sometimes boys can actually think ahead.

One problem is that different males will mature at different rates, and girls tend to mature (in that particular way) ealier. This means that the laws must be written to "discriminate": whether it's discrimination against boys, because they're denied "rights", or against girls, because they're held to a stricter standard, I'll leave to the observers, who are apparently the only folks authorized to judge such things. However, before imposing a harsh penalty, presumably we'd need to have the appropriate fmri scans done. Then a lawyer would have to make a hard choice: have the miscreant's brain scanned asap, in hopes that it hasn't matured, or wait as long as possible and argue that it matured during the legal process.

Adolescents don't have to think like responsible adults. They just have to have their behavior conform to that of responsible adults.

I'm not even sure what to make of all that babbling above, nor do I see how the extreme exaggerations tie into the simple argument that teenagers brains have not yet fully developed to that of adults, therefore their actions, though they should be punishable and dealt with, should not be graded on the same scale as adults would since their brains can still mature and there is far more hope for rehabilitating them.

don't have the wherewithal to be responsible. Therefore they don't have the rights that require responsibility.

However, since girls mature sooner than boys, and some boys mature sooner than others, there's a question of how to write the laws. It's not like you can say that all boys mature at age 20;3. Therefore the laws have to take into account their physiology: How, exactly, would you write such a law?

If at age 19 a given male *is* mature, treating him as immature would be a miscarriage of justice. If at age 22 a given male is *not* mature, treating him as mature would be (it would appear) a miscarriage of justice. The laws have to be written appropriately. Enjoy.

Moreover, since girls mature (on average) sooner, the laws have to take this into account. To avoid miscarriages of justice. Which means the laws have to discriminate in the level of rights and punishments given to two people, differing most visibly by sex, though of the same age. Again, enjoy.

My response when someone suggests a 14-yr-old should be punished as an adult is to ask whether they think that teenager should also be given the right to vote.

Until you can legally vote, I don't think you should be held responsible in the same way an adult is. But teens are not toddlers, either, so we have to take their quasi-adult status into account.

An intelligent response must recognize that full adulthood happens gradually and over time.

I'll tell you a story.
I have a friend who became addicted to drugs, and left her black daughter with her white, fundelmentalist parents for 7 years. Now her parents did the very best they could with her, their spiritual beliefs are not what is in question. But they lived in a rural area. The kindest thing this child got called was "Porch Monkey" by the other kids.

So Mom comes back, rehabed, ready to be a mom. The girl is about 13 at this time. ANGRY. The did some talking, some counseling, and this girl told her mother that she forgave her. In two years, this girl was up for Felony aggravated assult, Felony robbery and Felony kidnapping. She listened to jail house lawyers and used the Alfred plea. She was with 2 other older males during the crime- (All were involved with gangs) who got lawyers. At age 16 she was tried as an adult and she got 20 years. She is now in the state penitantory for women. She's going to do most of the 20. She'll be close to 36 when she gets out.

There is more to this story of course, but basic facts are this, she was an extremely emotionally damaged child, she was 16 at the time of the crimes, had already had a baby at 13(about the first thing she did when mom came back was get pregnant)Repeatedly showed very poor decision making and immaturity. The two older males-- getting lawyers-- both served their time and and are now out of prison. You can't make this shit up. I'm sure being black, being gang related-- all that other stuff played into the conviction.

Am I excusing her crimes? Hell no. She needed to be tried, convicted and pay the price. But trying her as an adult was a gross miscarriage of justice, as they say.

Interestingly, while the daughter is in prison (Mom always has been supportive of her) has found the religion of her own mother so she, too is now a fundlementalist.

this is crap, just crap

does no one actually remember being a teen? my brain was not inferior, it was better and faster

sheesh, i'm tired of trash science being used to prove that some animals have better brains than other animals

your teen's brain is just as good as yours, and she learns faster, and has a faster reaction time too

sorry this dog don't hunt

you knew the difference between right and wrong a long time before you got to be a teen

No one said they don't learn faster or that they'd have slower reaction times. Take a chill.

:eyes:

that is calling their brain inferior in anyone's book

you knew when you were 7, much less 17, that taking a gun, shoving it in someone's face to get them to hand over the contents of the cash register was wrong, but you think others are not so intelligent?

c'mon i don't know whether it's open age-ism or hidden racism (perhaps even hidden from the people who make these excuses for bad behavior themselves) but it sure as hell does not give the teen credit for having a functioning brain or soul

oh, and as was pointed out upstream, since the teen girl is said to "mature" faster than the boy, it's really only the boy who would enjoy these excuses for his bad behavior, the girl will still be expected to abide by the law

sorry, in my book, you pick up a gun and hurt somebody, you need to go away, i'm not real interested in the excuses this time of century

don't want to do the time, DON'T pick up the gun

And I never said if they pick up a gun and hurt somebody they shouldn't go away. They just shouldn't go away for life.

But if you want to ignore solid science, you're entitled. Kinda like the intelligent design group that ignores evolutionary science. They're entitled too, but damned if I'd agree with them.

The common public attitude towards criminal justice is proof that adults can be just as immature as teens, and is empirical evidence that invalidates this scientific analysis.

Our government officials and police are very much like Beavis, who wants to burn something, and doesn't care what - or who - he burns. That need can even trump the "guilty or innocent" business we play at.

because even though they believed that if they did not kill the person the Devil would take over their soul forever they called the police afterwords and that means they knew the difference between right and wrong.

Therefor they should be executed.

Face it, America is one of the most barbaric countries on the earth now.

out reason.... They are minors.

stay with me here....

Much gang violence, drug distribution, auto theft, and yes even murder is committed by minors because of lenient punishments toward them due to age. This is wrong. Gangs recruit these youngsters for this exact reason.

Now as someone who has STRONG feelings toward the utter and complete failure of the ENTIRE justice system I say in some cases charging a 15 year old as an adult may be appropriate.

As a toddler you learn not to put your hand on a hot stove because it's gonna hurt like hell afterward. As a pre-teen you LEARN that shooting someone in the face is morally wrong. If you can claim (at even 14 or 15) not to understand that basic fact then the parents or guardians should be immediately removed from the gene pool, but the kid shouldn't get a free ride "because their brain didn't understand what was happening" BS...

I think society wants to "disown" these problem kids, and we can only do that be dehumanizing them. We see George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ashley and Mary-Kate Olson, and even Kobe Bryant as kids (to varying degrees), but if we see a poor black kid rob a convenience store, we want nothing to do with that kid.

So what do we do? We throw him in the clink for life so he's off in jail and we don't have to deal with him.

I think this mentality exists both with Republicans and Democrats, though more so with Republicans.