In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there are important, interesting or just plain weird things happening out there and a group of people can find these better than one.
I thought I would test with a thread for linking general news articles about "other news" and discussion. Perhaps it goes into the abyss that is page 2 and beyond, but it is worth a try.
Some guidelines:
- Try to find the "clean link", so that links to the news site directly and not a social media site. Avoid "amp-links" (google).
- Write some cliff notes on what it is about, especially if it is a video.
- It's not an excuse to make outlandish claims via proxy or link extremist content.
- If it's an editorial or opinion piece, it is polite to mark it as such.
- Note the language if it is not in English.
- There is no demand that such things be posted here, if you think a piece merits its own thread, then make one.
There needs to be an in between. Should a 17 year in your example get out at 25, no but maybe limit it to 1-1.5 times age for the worst 16 and 17 year olds. We should never threatening 15 year olds to roll on others or face being tried as an adult and getting 30 years.
Honestly 18-25 year old criminals should get some consideration on sentencing since the brain isn't fully mature yet. But if you can't vote you probably shouldn't be able to get life in prison.
Again it's because of their age not because of what they've done.
As with everyhting, the no exact dividing line/etc paradoxoes are rhetorical fun but apply to pretty much everything and have no real force
There needs to be an in between. Should a 17 year in your example get out at 25, no but maybe limit it to 1-1.5 times age for the worst 16 and 17 year olds. We should never threatening 15 year olds to roll on others or face being tried as an adult and getting 30 years.
Honestly 18-25 year old criminals should get some consideration on sentencing since the brain isn't fully mature yet. But if you can't vote you probably shouldn't be able to
If there's going to be assessment of 'are they an adult' as part of their process then that might be fine for those arguably near the boundary (both sides of it). It should be by experts and consdering emotional maturity etc. Not the severity of the crime.
The notion of 'caused terrible events so must be tried as an adult' is plain disgusting
The more serious the crime the more insane it is, IF we want to keep the charade about personal responsibility going.
If instead the main reason we jail people is to remove problematic people from civil society then the age thing shouldn't matter too much.
We have no way to fix a completely broken 15y old with no moral compass who is (say) capable of raping and torturing a classmate. Which is why we should get rid of him even if minor, not because he "chose" to do evil (he might be very well incapable of choosing in the sense we mean it) but because he is a cancer for society to which we have no known cure.
Spending millions in decades to deal with him + the constant risk of him doing other disastrous things later on is just worse.
Bullet in the head and we are done even if we admit he wasn't fully capable of choosing his course of action
For all the cases where we think the person is recoverable though I agree with chezlaw and we should avoid destroying salvageable minors by putting them in jail in their most formative years. That's going to cost us more than just giving them a second chance
I would tent to agree that the worse the crime of the child the less likely they are to be adult.
but i'd rather leave it to experts than internet geniuses or worse, politcians or possible even worse, prosecuters
Tim Pool is diseased garbage
Crumbley's got 10-15 which was over guidelines. Obv don't buy your unhinged kid a gun and leave him access. I just find it weird he can both be tried as an adult while his parents are held responsible from their minor child's action. This just doesn't sit super well with me
Why? If you give guns to an adult not able to get them in a super reckless manne you can both get serious time.
One could argue the difference between an adult and a child is understanding whether an action is wrong and/or criminal.
I’d argue for particularly heinous crimes, you don’t need to be that old to be considered an adult.
What are you whining about now, my little pissant?
One could argue the difference between an adult and a child is understanding whether an action is wrong and/or criminal.
I’d argue for particularly heinous crimes, you don’t need to be that old to be considered an adult.
Indeed - understanding whether/why it's wrong is key. A very different thing to whether it's criminal. Understanding right from wrong to a level we can assign moral (and hence criminal) responsibility is seemthing quite sophisticated that children are still developing. I disagree that the heinousness helps much when it comes to understanding right/wrong. I'd agree it helps in knowing it's criminal but until you have the moral sophistication that's just facts.
There's also the process. The adult process is tough, often brutal, even for adults. Subjecting children to it is very wrong and should be criminal.
Chez, you know those times when you know literally nothing about a topic? Most times for you, I know, but humour me. Those times, have you ever considered shutting the **** up?
I'm reluctant to consider what you claim to know as a serious claim to knowledge
Feel free not to shut up though.
The conscience can become debauched!
Like Dim Pool's
dont try them as adults.
I dunno what you want. We treat children differently to adults. That's because of their age not because of what they've done. There can be a conversation about how child courts should work but as with so much we need a principled framework first or everything is pissing in the wind as we sail to hell.
I gather even in lol usa they're not going to put the 6 year old on trial.
They for damn sure had better put somebody on trial.
I don't think a 6 year old should be sent to prison, but whoever gave him access to that weapon should be. And no one should ever be left in the care of the parents.
And he should be watched very closely for the rest of his life and never be allowed to have any firearms - basically lifetime probation.
Yes of course anyone who allows children access to guns should be prosecuted.
What to do with a 6 year old? some serious experts need to be involved.
They for damn sure had better put somebody on trial.
I don't think a 6 year old should be sent to prison, but whoever gave him access to that weapon should be. And no one should ever be left in the care of the parents.
And he should be watched very closely for the rest of his life and never be allowed to have any firearms - basically lifetime probation.
Yes
Never have I heard so many simpletons claim to know so much about how others should live their lives and which rights should be proper and provided for.
'Freedoms for me, but not for thee' idiot logic.
Never have I heard so many simpletons claim to know so much about how others should live their lives and which rights should be proper and provided for.
'Freedoms for me, but not for thee' idiot logic.
Which rights are you referring to?
Are they embedded in the constitution or any other laws?
Never have I heard so many simpletons claim to know so much about how others should live their lives and which rights should be proper and provided for.
'Freedoms for me, but not for thee' idiot logic.
Clicked into the wrong thread...thought this was the trans visibility thread. This post might work for both threads.
