Youth and the Law

[AmericanEagle]

Should youths (under 18) who commit serious offences (ie. murder) be sentenced as youths or as adults? If they are sentenced as a youth, their name and picture are blocked from publication, their youth criminal record may be expunged, and they ultimately receive a lighter sentence.

In Canada, a teenage girl was recently sentenced as an adult for her role in the murder of another teenager. Her defense lawyer had asked for a youth sentence because an adult sentence would "destroy" his client's life.

Youth criminal justice laws focus mainly on rehabilitation and reintegration rather than punishment. But are youths more receptive to rehabilitation than adults? Do youths deserve this kind of leniency?

[Mr Endon]

Should youths (under 18) who commit serious offences (ie. murder) be sentenced as youths or as adults?

(I'm dreadfully sorry to write such a non-committal reply as this, but) it depends on the nature of the crime, on the youth's background, etc, etc. Though I guess that, in extraordinary circumstances, a youth who is almost of age may be tried as an adult.


But are youths more receptive to rehabilitation than adults? Do youths deserve this kind of leniency?

Yes, and yes. Prison as punishment is dated, and should only be reserved for the worst crime perpetrators. Inprisonment should always aim at rehabilitation.

[The Atheist]

Interestingly enough, New Zealand is in the process of enacting a law change to allow younger teens to be tried as adults for murder & rape (& others, attempted murder, kidnapping, etc.) due to the horrific crimes committed by 14-15 year olds who are aware that they cannot be tried as adults.

All in favour here - if you're old enough to kill, you're certainly old enough to take responsibility for it.

[Mr Endon]

Interestingly enough, New Zealand is in the process of enacting a law change to allow younger teens to be tried as adults for murder & rape (& others, attempted murder, kidnapping, etc.) due to the horrific crimes committed by 14-15 year olds who are aware that they cannot be tried as adults.

All in favour here - if you're old enough to kill, you're certainly old enough to take responsibility for it.

Well I must take issue with the last statement. An 8-year-old kills a 7-year-old inadvertently when mimicking wrestling moves. Should he be tried for manslaughter as an adult would be if he shot someone accidentally while hunting?

That said, I agree, and I said that much in my last post, that age should be a guideline and not a rule to follow with blind zeal.

[The Atheist]

Well I must take issue with the last statement. An 8-year-old kills a 7-year-old inadvertently when mimicking wrestling moves.

I think you'd put that down under "A" for accidental rather than get involved with a trial.

[Mr Endon]

Right, I'm notorious for having 'foot-in-mouth' disease when it comes to law. So maybe that wasn't the best example.

I was going to use another example, but I got your statement all wrong. Of course a person who kills should be held accountable in some way or the other. All I was saying was that if the law didn't make distinctions between adults and youth it would be absolutely disasterous.

A seven-year-old shoots someone with intent. Of course he can't go scot-free. But surely you won't try him exactly the same as you would a 30-year-old man, who hopefully has fully developed cognitive capabilities.

[The Atheist]

A seven-year-old shoots someone with intent. Of course he can't go scot-free. But surely you won't try him exactly the same as you would a 30-year-old man, who hopefully has fully developed cognitive capabilities.

I'd be charging the adult who let a seven year old have a gun. There have been cases of very young kids killing people intentionally, but I can't find any intentional killings younger than the pair who killed James Bulger. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger)

Those kids deliberately lured a toddler to kill him and I can't see any reason why they should be treated differently to a 50-year old.

There's obviously an age where it's impossible to prove intent, but if it can be shown that a kid deliberately kills another kid by attacking with the intention of killing him/her, then a murder's a murder to me.

[AmericanEagle]

Here is a story about a teen who committed murder just 17 days shy of turning 18. He was sentenced as a youth, and is now free to attend university in the fall.

A Murderer Among Us (http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/michele_mandel/2009/08/02/10339531-sun.html)

[weltanschauung]

I'd be charging the adult who let a seven year old have a gun. There have been cases of very young kids killing people intentionally, but I can't find any intentional killings younger than the pair who killed James Bulger. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger)

Those kids deliberately lured a toddler to kill him and I can't see any reason why they should be treated differently to a 50-year old.

There's obviously an age where it's impossible to prove intent, but if it can be shown that a kid deliberately kills another kid by attacking with the intention of killing him/her, then a murder's a murder to me.

jeez, the atheist, i was 13 when this happened and i had no memories of that whatsoever.. i dont even know what to say.. but i think something like that only had this surprising (deserved) condemnation because it was in a first world country.
something like that in a third world country wouldnt even go to trial.. it would be dismissed.
a case like this is not that common, however, is it?
it does make you think about the parents of these two (then) kids.

this was quite astounding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzane_von_Richthofen

[The Atheist]

jeez, the atheist, i was 13 when this happened and i had no memories of that whatsoever.. i dont even know what to say.. but i think something like that only had this surprising (deserved) condemnation because it was in a first world country.
something like that in a third world country wouldnt even go to trial.. it would be dismissed.

Darfur, sure, but even in most developing countries the police will get involved in murder.


a case like this is not that common, however, is it?
it does make you think about the parents of these two (then) kids.

I just shudder.

My own boy was a bare six months younger than James when it happened, so it got me vividly.


this was quite astounding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzane_von_Richthofen

There are no depths to human depravity, are there?

[weltanschauung]

Darfur, sure, but even in most developing countries the police will get involved in murder.

yeah, as the active parties http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/78.gif

[AmericanEagle]

Inprisonment should always aim at rehabilitation.

But can criminals really be rehabilitated? Wouldn't this be a waste of taxpayer money?

[AmericanEagle]

Interestingly enough, New Zealand is in the process of enacting a law change to allow younger teens to be tried as adults for murder & rape (& others, attempted murder, kidnapping, etc.) due to the horrific crimes committed by 14-15 year olds who are aware that they cannot be tried as adults.

The most frustrating part is that 17 year olds can still be protected by youth laws. Do cognitive capabilities really change that much between the ages of 17 and 18?

[Mr Endon]

But can criminals really be rehabilitated? Wouldn't this be a waste of taxpayer money?

Most of them - indeed, almost all of them - can be, yessir, certainly.

Waste of taxpayer money? Let me tell you what a waste of taxpayer money is. That would be incarcerating 1% of your own population. That would be executing criminals. That 'last breakfast' idiocy and that even greater idiocy of killing a human being in an 'eye-for-an-eye' fashion costs you much much more than any rehabilitation programme would.


The most frustrating part is that 17 year olds can still be protected by youth laws. Do cognitive capabilities really change that much between the ages of 17 and 18?

I agree. Yet there must be a guideline, or else it's free for all. I think it's fair like this: you're tried as youth until you're 18 in principle; if your crime is particularly gruesome and premeditated etc etc then you're tried as an adult.

[blazeofglory]

Should youths (under 18) who commit serious offences (ie. murder) be sentenced as youths or as adults? If they are sentenced as a youth, their name and picture are blocked from publication, their youth criminal record may be expunged, and they ultimately receive a lighter sentence.

In Canada, a teenage girl was recently sentenced as an adult for her role in the murder of another teenager. Her defense lawyer had asked for a youth sentence because an adult sentence would "destroy" his client's life.

Youth criminal justice laws focus mainly on rehabilitation and reintegration rather than punishment. But are youths more receptive to rehabilitation than adults? Do youths deserve this kind of leniency?

This is a very interesting idea, and of course the younger the people the more receptive.

In fact people across all age groups are receptive and we can change them if we take measures

[AmericanEagle]

Waste of taxpayer money? Let me tell you what a waste of taxpayer money is. That would be incarcerating 1% of your own population. That would be executing criminals. That 'last breakfast' idiocy and that even greater idiocy of killing a human being in an 'eye-for-an-eye' fashion costs you much much more than any rehabilitation programme would.

I've read that youth centres (in Ontario, at least) have lounges, televisions, and PSP game systems. Sounds more like a vacation than rehabilitation.

[Mr Endon]

I've read that youth centres (in Ontario, at least) have lounges, televisions, and PSP game systems. Sounds more like a vacation than rehabilitation.

I agree that some such institutions are way too lenient. However, the principle behind them is much more defensible than the one behind executions.

[Zee.]

I've read that youth centres (in Ontario, at least) have lounges, televisions, and PSP game systems. Sounds more like a vacation than rehabilitation.


K i study law so i'm going to throw my opinion in the mix.

it should be noted that MOST of the youths in youth centres have committed pretty petty crimes. Statistics from around the world prove this. Burglary, assault, etc - not murder. Lounges, televisions, etc, I don't see what the problem with them is. They're not animals, most of the time they are children who come from a pretty terrible background who do need rehabilitation. The problem isn't the "lounges" and the "television" the problem is the inadequate systems put in place to REHABILITATE them. When someone is sentenced, there is generally a motive and term behind the sentence fitted for the crime. Punishment for sexual assault and murder, rehabilitation is a word generally applied to those who can learn and repair, to prevent committing crimes in the future. Deterrence is another. It's common knowledge that some criminals, serial killers etc, are not put in prison for rehabilitation. They are put there for the safety of the community and for punishment. But for other criminals, who have committed lesser crimes - rehabilitation is a must, without it, what would the point of imprisonment be?

As for the " should youths be tried as adults " comment..

No. Why should they be?
You have to understand that there can't be laws put in place for EVERY, specific circumstance and situation. Instead there are laws that benefit the majority. If you're going to try a CHILD as an adult for a serious crime, such as the one mentioned in the OP, then you're going to have to try all children, no matter their age, as adults, regardless of the crime, and that is neither logical nor fair. They're put on trial as children because a 14 year old isn't mentally equipped to deal with or fully understand the extent of their actions - some yes, but is the word "some" enough to remove a law which aims to protect those who are children and who are unable to understand the severity and implications of their actions? no.

[AmericanEagle]

If you're going to try a CHILD as an adult for a serious crime, such as the one mentioned in the OP, then you're going to have to try all children, no matter their age, as adults, regardless of the crime, and that is neither logical nor fair. They're put on trial as children because a 14 year old isn't mentally equipped to deal with or fully understand the extent of their actions - some yes, but is the word "some" enough to remove a law which aims to protect those who are children and who are unable to understand the severity and implications of their actions? no.

I think Mr Endon said it best:


I think it's fair like this: you're tried as youth until you're 18 in principle; if your crime is particularly gruesome and premeditated etc etc then you're tried as an adult.

The crime mentioned in the OP was that of a 15 year old girl who used sexual blackmail to force her 17 year old boyfriend to kill his 14 year old ex-girlfriend. The 15 year old incorrectly thought that the 14 year old was trying to steal her boyfriend. She waged a relentless campaign (spanning several months) to get the girl killed. While she didn't wield the weapon, she was the driving force behind the murder.

In this case, the judge got it right by sentencing her as an adult because she clearly committed the crime with calculation and manipulation.

[blazeofglory]

It is really a hard thing to decide. If I am judgmental of the issue I am not expert at I may be prejudge or adjudicate something over which I have no authority at all. But the fact of the matter is we can make use of commonsense or rational choice.

While I denounce current ways of handling criminal cases, I would like to give my views to the issue raised here from a different perspective. Today Children are more knowledgeable and are not as innocent as children used to be a couple of hundreds years ago and using the same codes of laws to judge today’s criminal cases is a premature method. I think the youth under 18 may be from but always over 14 must be punishable.

[The Atheist]

Ten-year old murderer.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10594270

Clearly, the parents must shoulder blame at giving a kid access to his own gun, but I await more details with interest.

[The Atheist]

And another one - or two, as the case may be:

10 and 12 year olds commit double murder.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10595154&ref=weg

[JBI]

Meh, it's all a bit cloudy - look at the comparative homicide rates by age bracket - I guarantee you that ages 1-18 aren't even a scratch on 18-30, or higher. We just emphasize child crime more because, quite simply, nobody wants their child hurt, so we get upset when someone else's kids get out of control.

It's been shown that the media portrays children as a) innocent, and b) little deviant devils lacking "morals" and proper family upbringing, but when it comes down to it, we should describe most parents as lacking, and most educational systems as underfunded, but there really aren't any topics on here discussing that as the source, now are there?


As for changes in the law - first change, remove all handguns - the only reason someone should have a handgun is to fight off handguns, and if it wasn't for Americans dropping their guns in Canada, Toronto probably wouldn't have a problem with them, but alas, as Americans are want to do that (and then accuse us of not policing our borders, and allowing terrorists into THEIR country) social programs designed to break violence would ultimately be a better means of cutting crime than simply jailing all offenders.

Keep this in mind - if someone gets killed, they aren't coming back - keeping people in prisons costs a shload of money (as any American can tell you), and, seeing as how labor camps for criminals are frowned upon, essentially no good comes of people being jailed, except for the simple pleasure of never having to see them again (or for 20 years, or whatever).

In truth, the amount of money, if spent to reduce violence properly, would probably cut down occurrences of serious crimes if spent on social programming rather than incarceration.

That being said, if it was my child who got killed, I'd be the first in line to kill the son of a *****, but lets be honest, there are far better ways to prevent serious crime than by trying people as adults - I'm all for it, assuming that isn't the "solution to the problem", and merely a form of justice. Now, if we could get these people in prison doing constructive things, like physical labour, then we may get somewhere.

[Hurricane]

As for changes in the law - first change, remove all handguns - the only reason someone should have a handgun is to fight off handguns, and if it wasn't for Americans dropping their guns in Canada, Toronto probably wouldn't have a problem with them, but alas, as Americans are want to do that (and then accuse us of not policing our borders, and allowing terrorists into THEIR country) social programs designed to break violence would ultimately be a better means of cutting crime than simply jailing all offenders.

Um, no. Don't treat my family or thousands of others as criminals. Just like crime in general, problems with gun violence don't go away from a quick fix.

[JBI]

Um, no. Don't treat my family or thousands of others as criminals. Just like crime in general, problems with gun violence don't go away from a quick fix.

I don't care if violent kids kill each other, but when people are caught in the crossfire, then it concerns me, and, quite simply, when there are guns, there is a higher risk of something going terribly wrong (people being shot, innocent people getting caught in the middle of a fire fight, etc). The truth of the matter is, maybe you and your friends who have guns aren't criminals, but the bulk of guns coming in here are American. Whether one likes it or not, there is no justifiable reason for handguns to be owned in general, and by extension, to be sitting around in the hands of citizens - the only possible outcome is that they will be shot - at who, is another question.


So yes, of course if Toronto banned handguns, the amount of guns on the street wouldn't change much - but keep in mind the reason for this - the gun registry failed, quite simply, because the bulk of these unregistered weapons are being dumped here by criminals working across borders. So, in essence, if Toronto, or Ontario were to ban weapons, nothing would happen as the neighbour states aren't likely ever to, given the American gun-nut culture.

In that case, I just need to point out the irony that Americans love to accuse Canadians of harboring terrorists, when, quite simply, every year, thousands of handguns cross the borders from the US into Canada with the intent of killing people on the street - tell me, who is it that is harboring terrorists, and yet we need to show our passports at your borders.

[Hurricane]

Whether one likes it or not, there is no justifiable reason for handguns to be owned in general, and by extension, to be sitting around in the hands of citizens - the only possible outcome is that they will be shot - at who, is another question.

I like shooting guns because it's fun, and beyond that I need no justification. It's a right I choose to exercise. I don't ever intend to shoot another person. More guns does not equal more crime, and I don't see how preventing responsible citizens from owning a gun helps anything.

Yes, it's frustrating that handguns can end up in the hands of criminals and innocent people die. But that's the thing, at least where I'm from (maybe the US-Canada gun trafficking scene is different, but I doubt it) gun trafficking is almost always linked to some other illegal activity, usually drugs and gangs. Getting rid of criminals gets rid of violence, not guns. Washington DC in particular has very strict gun laws, and they're still plagued by crime.

I'm also curious where people from other countries get the whole "American gun-nut culture" thing from. Many states including both that I've lived in long term have quite restrictive gun laws and I don't think guns are as popular here as people seem to think.

Apologies for the thread jack. More on topic: kids should not be tried as adults unless they fully understood the consequences of the actions and were obviously manipulative and scheming. If the crime is serious enough, there should be wiggle room for trying ~17 year olds as adults, but generally no, children should not be tried as adults.

[Themis]

I'm also curious where people from other countries get the whole "American gun-nut culture" thing from. Many states including both that I've lived in long term have quite restrictive gun laws and I don't think guns are as popular here as people seem to think.


I think to people from other countries it seems that in America there is an easy access to weapons. Whenever there's a case in the news where a child shot somebody, nine out of ten times it happened in America and sometimes the child even had its own weapon.
Films and news and enlightening documentaries (like "Bowling for Columbine") conjure up the impression that there isn't much being done. A child being able to have access to, let alone handle a gun, seems ludricous in my home country.

[Hurricane]

I wouldn't necessarily call "Bowling for Columbine" an "enlightening documentary", but to each their own. The media likes to overplay a lot of gun violence and gun issues, and a lot of that stems from basic misconceptions of guns. For example, a lot of times you'll see news that says "bla blah blah owned a sniper rifle"....well, hey, any perfectly innocent hunting rifle could be called a "sniper rifle" if you stick a scope on it.
I've been using firearms since I was eight. When my Dad was growing up (farm kid), his Mom would give him a couple sandwiches and he and his cousin would go run around in the woods with .22 rifles for hours.
The key is responsible training and ownership. I wish that more states had even just a quick, in store written or practical test on responsible treatment of guns and gun storage, because with even just a base level of common sense and safety understanding, a lot of accidental deaths could be prevented. My home state, Massachusetts, requires a safety course, but the courses are commercially run and often expensive. In addition, there's an expensive filing fee, a background check, and an interview with local police. And that's just to own a "long gun" (not a handgun). However, if I were a Vermont resident living an hour and a half north, at age 18 I could walk into a gun store and buy a long gun without anything more than a Vermont driver's license and a quick, in store background check. What I'm getting at is that there needs to be some level of consistency: I think Mass. is wrong in requiring so much, and Vermont could probably do a little more.
Within the last few years, there's been a much bigger movement to both gun owners and children of gun owners with safe storage of guns (i.e., no more keeping the loaded .45 in the kitchen drawers, increased and in some cases mandatory use of trigger locks, etc.), and to my knowledge the accidental deaths of children have been going down.
Occasionally, robbers will break into houses specifically targeting gun owners, and by storing guns into a properly maintained and secure location like a safe, gun owners protect not only themselves but the public by making sure their guns don't get into the wrong hands.

[JBI]

I think to people from other countries it seems that in America there is an easy access to weapons. Whenever there's a case in the news where a child shot somebody, nine out of ten times it happened in America and sometimes the child even had its own weapon.
Films and news and enlightening documentaries (like "Bowling for Columbine") conjure up the impression that there isn't much being done. A child being able to have access to, let alone handle a gun, seems ludricous in my home country.

It makes no difference - the fact that guns are being smuggled over the Canadian-US border into Canada clearly illustrates that guns are more accessible illegally in the United States than in Canada - plain and simple - if Canadian guns were as accessible, than clearly people wouldn't bother running them for profit over the border, now would they.

If people like playing with guns in a shooting range, fine by me, but lets be honest - what are the reasons for the guns being allowed off of shooting ranges? Why people would go to a shooting range in the first place though, is beyond me. Guns aren't toys - they are designs with the soul purpose of killing things.


On one hand you try to play down the American gun culture, but on the other hand, you say, "It's a right". Quite simply, if you are allowed to call it your right to own a gun, I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to expose that as a perpetuation of a "gun culture", one which views owning weapons whose only function is to kill people as a "right".

[AmericanEagle]

I don't care if violent kids kill each other, but when people are caught in the crossfire, then it concerns me, and, quite simply, when there are guns, there is a higher risk of something going terribly wrong (people being shot, innocent people getting caught in the middle of a fire fight, etc). The truth of the matter is, maybe you and your friends who have guns aren't criminals, but the bulk of guns coming in here are American.

It is Canadians who are using American guns to kill people in Canada. When you mention "innocent people" and "fire fight", I assume you are referring to the 2005 Boxing Day shooting. Whether the guns used in that shooting were American or Canadian, it doesn't negate the fact that the perpetrators are Canadian.

[JBI]

It is Canadians who are using American guns to kill people in Canada. When you mention "innocent people" and "fire fight", I assume you are referring to the 2005 Boxing Day shooting. Whether the guns used in that shooting were American or Canadian, it doesn't negate the fact that the perpetrators are Canadian.

Honestly, when it comes to youths involved in killing each other, as long as people who aren't involved are not included in the violence, I don't really care - some 17 year old thug killing some other 17 year old thug doesn't really concern me - but if there are guns, there is a possibility of someone else being killed in the process, and that does concern me.

In point of fact, if they were killing each other with knives, I wouldn't mind as much, as long as people who weren't involved didn't get stabbed in the process.

[Hurricane]

+1 to American Eagle


On one hand you try to play down the American gun culture, but on the other hand, you say, "It's a right". Quite simply, if you are allowed to call it your right to own a gun, I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to expose that as a perpetuation of a "gun culture", one which views owning weapons whose only function is to kill people as a "right".

The right to bear arms is part of the Bill of Rights and the second amendment of the Constitution. Calling gun ownership a right isn't "perpetuation of gun culture", it's a fact, and has been since 1791. Did some quick fact checking online: different polls put American gun ownership at 21.6%-30% (homes reporting 1 or more firearms). This is more than a lot of countries, but considering the relatively easy access to firearms here vs. Europe, I think it's rather low.


In point of fact, if they were killing each other with knives, I wouldn't mind as much, as long as people who weren't involved didn't get stabbed in the process.

Innocent people feel the aftershocks of crime all the time. Thugs killing each other sounds great, but they represent a deeper problem and danger. Gangs and drugs are a sickness that trap people from a young age and pollute cities in both America and Canada. What I'm trying to say is maybe the easy thing (no guns) isn't the solution, but the harder thing (more efforts to stop crime) is. It's Canadians killing Canadians: maybe (gasp!) Canadians should try solving the problem (and for that matter, maybe start working more closely with US ATF/FBI to combat the issue you're concerned about, illegal gun trafficking).