Bleeding heart liberals

Originally Posted by dteowner
So 100% of criminals were simply ignorant of the (il)legality of their actions? Seriously?!? You actually wrote that?!?

There are few who are aware of law and teenagers are still very much in cognitive development. They aren't adults by the sense that they have full control over their lives yet and they are still very much dependent on adults in their decisions (or lack of them).

This isn't so much a value judgement, it's pretty much what development psychology have to say on the subject. Maturing in western countries traditionally develop around 19-23.

You're actually attempting to say that a juvenile doesn't know that murder is wrong? If developmental psychology would lead you to that load of crap, I hereby declare my playful derision of your ivory tower to be 100% exonerated, and sadly so.

Originally Posted by redman5427
Some of these murders are just so horrible that I don't see another solution other than mandatory life.

Well, there is another solution available, but the criminal apologists would really get their panties in a twist over that.

Originally Posted by dteowner
You're actually attempting to say that a juvenile doesn't know that murder is wrong? If developmental psychology would lead you to that load of crap, I hereby declare my playful derision of your ivory tower to be 100% exonerated, and sadly so.

What you written above is the difference between you being cocksure about being right, and me looking at what's functional according to the empirical data. I am not interested in what people claim to know or what they say if they are asked. I am interested how people function and the way they behave.

Originally Posted by dteowner
You're actually attempting to say that a juvenile doesn't know that murder is wrong? If developmental psychology would lead you to that load of crap, I hereby declare my playful derision of your ivory tower to be 100% exonerated, and sadly so.

No he doesn't. He says that, according to the research, cognitive processes in children are different from those in juveniles which are different from those in adults.
Not only that. Research seems to indicate that some juveniles have differences in the structure of the developing brain.

Originally Posted by JemyM
What you written above is the difference between you being cocksure about being right, and me looking at what's functional according to the empirical data.

He is trying to defend the indefensible so don't expect reasonable arguments.

I don't see why 18 is some magical age that suddenly everything changes and you are no longer a child but an adult.

If I murder someone the day before I turn 18, should I be treated different than if I had done it the day after?

That's where our system actually works better than many countries. There is no statute that says a teenager HAS to be tried as an adult, but if it is determined that the person had the maturity to understand right and wrong as well as an adult, they are treated as such. If they don't, then they are not.

Now we can argue about prosecutorial misconduct and such if you want, but that doesn't make the law itself incorrect.

Originally Posted by blatantninja
That's where our system actually works better than many countries. There is no statute that says a teenager HAS to be tried as an adult, but if it is determined that the person had the maturity to understand right and wrong as well as an adult, they are treated as such. If they don't, then they are not.

Now we can argue about prosecutorial misconduct and such if you want, but that doesn't make the law itself incorrect.

That has to be translated from blatantninjanese (and dtese) into common language:
"We, and Somalis, are special and we are the only ones who know what's right and what's wrong. The rest of the world is wrong. So there!"

Very impressive vocabulary there, and yet the only way your point holds water is if you stipulate that juveniles don't know that murder is wrong. That's got nothing to do with data and functionality. That's strictly a logical requirement you've imposed with your argument and I'm very sorry that the requirement is incredibly stupid and flies in the face of all reality.

Education is a wonderful thing, but occasionally it does help to step back and realize the sort of nonsense it can lead you to if you're not paying attention. Gotta come up to reality for a gulp of air every once in a while.

Originally Posted by zahratustra
No he doesn't. He says that, according to the research, cognitive processes in children are different from those in juveniles which are different from those in adults.
Not only that. Research seems to indicate that some juveniles have differences in the structure of the developing brain.

Which still doesn't change the simple fact that the ONLY way that information has any bearing on the question at hand is if juveniles don't know that violent crime is illegal. Mountains of research is wonderful, but it has to be applicable to the question or it's just mud to cloudy the water (while looking incredibly learned, of course).

Originally Posted by dteowner
Very impressive vocabulary there, and yet the only way your point holds water is if you stipulate that juveniles don't know that murder is wrong.

NO, NO and NO! The argument put forward in this thread is not that juveniles shouldn't be punished for their transgressions but that they shouldn't be sentenced to life without a possibility of parole.

Originally Posted by dteowner
So 100% of criminals were simply ignorant of the (il)legality of their actions? Seriously?!? You actually wrote that?!?

Yeah, because everything that's illegal is wrong. Ask any homosexual from Afghanistan or Iran and they'll agree with you for sure…

And not knowing better includes not fully knowing the consequences for your actions. It also includes not knowing how to live a decent life as a law abiding citizen. It certanly includes not seeing comitting crimes (at least those that are considered crimes for good reasons) as wrong.

Originally Posted by dteowner
You do know that we have a seperate juvenile system that handles the vast majority of cases involving people under the age of 18, right? So the "sheep", as you so lovingly refer to young criminals, are kept seperate from the "wolves".

The wolf-sheep example was brought up to highlight the absurdity of treating everyone as being equally good at making moral judgements. If that was true we could expect wolves to respect property rights, which (for obvious reasons) is too much to hope/ask for.

Originally Posted by dteowner
Or we might call it winning a war, for example. There's some fancy latin for extrapolating a point to ridiculous extremes—maybe you can get JemyM to supply it for you.

Well, it's your argument. I was just pointing out that defending sentencing juveniles to life in prison with "well, when we sentenced them we called them adults" isn't a very good defence. Since they are juveniles and not adults regardless of what you refer to them as.

Originally Posted by dteowner
You're actually attempting to say that a juvenile doesn't know that murder is wrong?

If someone murders someone, then probably not. Or the person in question at least didn't find it to be wrong in the circumstance in which s/he found him/herself.

Because if they knew they shouldn't do it, and they could avoid it, why wouldn't they?

Übereil

Originally Posted by zahratustra
NO, NO and NO! The argument put forward in this thread is not that juveniles shouldn't be punished for their transgressions but that they shouldn't be sentenced to life without a possibility of parole.

And once again, I'll correct you. Juveniles ARE NOT sentenced in that fashion. Only adults are sentenced in that fashion. If, by their actions, a person under 18 years of age gets tried as an adult, then they are in the eyes of the law an adult. Such "bump ups" are not made on a whim, but rather on the merits of the specific case. There's no way around that simple fact, no matter how much you squeal.

Originally Posted by zahratustra
That has to be translated from blatantninjanese (and dtese) into common language:
"We, and Somalis, are special and we are the only ones who know what's right and what's wrong. The rest of the world is wrong. So there!"

Comparing us to Somalia just because of one data point, is like bringing Hitler into an argument. You automatically lose.

Why don't you try answer the question. Why should a 17 yo 1 day short of his/her 18th birthday be treated different that an 18 yo 1 day after?

There is parole granted for manslaughter and lesser degree offenses. When inmates make statements like "When I shot him I wasn't sure it would kill him" or "I just wondered what it would feel like to put a bullet in their heads" I get a creepy feeling in the pit of my stomach. Man or child, there is something missing inside their thinking processes that tells me that releasing them puts people at risk.

Originally Posted by blatantninja
Why don't you try answer the question. Why should a 17 yo 1 day short of his/her 18th birthday be treated different that an 18 yo 1 day after?

Or, to tie it more firmly into their flim-flam argument, what is the cognitive difference between an 18 -1 day year old and an 18 year old? How is that difference, assuming one can be documented, significantly larger on a consistent basis than the difference between 2 subjects of identical age?

I wonder why it is that the US produces more murderers per capita than Europe. Folks should think about that.

Intentional homicide rates per 100,000 population by region 2004[5] 2010[6]
Southern Africa 37.3 32
Central America 29.3 25
South America 25.9 21
West and Central Africa 21.6 19
East Africa 20.8 23
Africa 20 17.4
Caribbean 18.1 21
Americas 16.2 15.5
East Europe 15.7 7
North Africa 7.6 6
World 7.6 6.9
North America 6.5 4.7
Central Asia and Transcaucasian countries 6.6 6
Europe 5.4 3.5
Near and Middle East/Southwest Asia 4.4 3
Oceania 4 3.5
South Asia 3.4 4
Asia 3.2 3.1
Southeast Europe 3.2 1.5
East and Southeast Asia 2.8 3
West and Central Europe 1.5 1.2

really it looks like it has declined. Figure in Eastern Europe and Americans don't look bad at all

Originally Posted by dteowner
Very impressive vocabulary there, and yet the only way your point holds water is if you stipulate that juveniles don't know that murder is wrong. That's got nothing to do with data and functionality. That's strictly a logical requirement you've imposed with your argument and I'm very sorry that the requirement is incredibly stupid and flies in the face of all reality.

Education is a wonderful thing, but occasionally it does help to step back and realize the sort of nonsense it can lead you to if you're not paying attention. Gotta come up to reality for a gulp of air every once in a while.

You play logic in the wrong ballpark.

You build on the assumption that the difference between being able to follow a law or not is whether you can quote the law or not. Human beings doesn't work that way. What matters is how an individual subjectively perceive the world and how the mind that perceive the world has developed.

Three forces here are autonomy, relatedness and personal constructs. We all have personal constructs in how we grasp the world and our relationship with our world is pretty much based on these constructs. The older you are, the more constructs you have and the wider is your perception. Abstract thought begin to form in the early teens and continue to form after that. What a teenager do not have is autonomy, their framework of subjective consciousness is very narrow, it's their school, their family, classmates etc. At this age they are pretty much shoved around by adults. That's where relatedness comes in. Teenagers are pretty much living within the adults of their lives and their classmates. They usually have no choice in going anywhere else. They have very little control over their lives. Whoever is in their surroundings are people they relate to in some way or another.

Due to the way our society works, 18 is usually an age where society decides an individual is autonomous. That means that their world suddenly becomes much larger. They have to form their own relationships, they engage in new places, they pick courses at the university or jobs, they get their own place to live, they have to take care of themselves.

The difference between how these two tick in their consciousness are pretty huge. The teenager is very much a flipper ball where as the young adult floats on the ocean and have to paddle somewhere to get somewhere.

This is why teenagers aren't in their capacity to control their actions, their frame of reference is very limited, ultimately in the hands of their environment. Therefore it's also a very high chance something will go wrong. It's also why the environment is more responsible at that age than when they get older.

Originally Posted by Thrasher
I wonder why it is that the US produces more murderers per capita than Europe. Folks should think about that.

We've had that discussion before (ignoring, for now, Redman's evidence that puts the statement in question). Wider availability of weapons combined with a culture that removes all consequences for bad decisions and discards the concept of personal accountability.

Correction: West Europe was my intent. Also those numbers lump Mexico, US and Canada together. So not very useful or relevant.

DTE, do you think that capital punishment while more necessary than European style measures is no consequence? WOW! Not making much sense, there DTE.