Nope I have to agree with Mr. Culver. Lowering the age will not only put some fear and respect into 14 and 15 yr olds and show them at an earlier age that there are consequences to actions. It will also nip a common practice in gangs of having younger members join because of their "immunity or better treatment" by the legal system.
Face it it's obvious that todays kids are far more mature, far faster than in any other generation before this, some know this and use that fact to great advantage. Good or bad it's just a plain fact that you cant get around.
Lowering the age will do nothing. Teens do not think like adults at all and to assume that they do is a presumptuous at best
They feel invincible
Thy feel that nothing is going to happen to them (Even if it just happened to their best friend)
Fear in the teen mind is acquired not a give me, fear is a learned behavior not inherent for the most part.
And the bottom line is that fear of prosecution is not as much a deterrent as many believe otherwise adult crime would be much lower.
Before awe get a tirade of examples of great teens and such, Remember teens mature at different rates there are many, many factors including environment.
The law is just fine right where it is. If you want to address the increase in young teen crime, intervention has come earlier in the pre-teen block, and that in any measure is a tall order not only from the matter of cost, but the parents liberties and such that possibly could be infringed on by such interventions.
There is no simple answer to teen behavior, and lowering the age risk overreaction by prosecutors for political appearance in my opinion.
Mark is correct; teens do mature mentally at different rates just as many are larger, heavier and physically stronger than fifty years ago.
Combine an immature mind with a sense of invincibility; measure in an unhealthy dose unearned entitlements; now include a large strong body; add to this dangerous catalyst a propensity for violence.....can anyone be surprised with the outcome?
The Juvenile Justice System is a huge, smelly, flowing, festering (I'm reaching for adjectives here. What I want to convey is the cesspool at Kandahar Air Field on a 120 degree July day.), nasty pile of excrement.
1) It takes too long to address a charge: By the time a kid in Family Court gets an adjudication they have forgotten what they did to be in the system in the first place.
2) It has at its' disposal remedies that are appropriate to well adjusted children who have erred in their behavior, but not the little sociopaths who actually commit the crimes that they are charged with.
The pols who wrote, and passed, the current laws saw their kids as the perps in any complaint envisioned by them. The actual sociopathic kids that exist in our communities, and commit monstrous acts of evil, are so foreign to them, and most of us, as to be unthinkable. Here I thought that "Lord of the Flies" was part of the universal curriculum in this state. I guess I was wrong.
3) A rational Juvenile Justice System would require that:
a) All criminal matters involving a child defendant be addressed and adjudicated within 60 days of the matter becoming known.
b) All determinations of sentence, sanction or correction would be predicated on the maturity and developmental status of the individual offender.
c) Shame, embarrassment and ridicule are useful, and beneficial, tools used by all societies to nurture the comity and civilization we wish to live in.
d) The Rights of the accused are important. But not as important as the Rights of the victim and the successful Rehabilitation of the Perpetrating Child. This is different than our expectations in adult cases, and that is EXACTLY my point in this little rant.
Juvenile Justice has become an obscene caricature of what adult law applied to children should look like. It is as if we decided to subject animals to our laws and brought Snoopy up on criminal charges for "Threatening Behavior" for growling at a stranger who came onto the lawn.
Drop everything to 16, adult criminality, legal age to drink, vote, and marry (actually the marriage age should be 12 since the natural species driven age is predicated by puberty and the only social requisite by recent standards is that two people simply love each other) . All this maturation of the mind is liberal hogwash that is supported by a liberal educational and social system that coddles our youth right out the opportunity to learn and mature by both their successes and their failures. When you turn 16, if you are not continuing your education, get a haircut, get a job, and get out.
No, it isn't ok, but it does help provide part of an explanation. Only part. There are many other factors that come into play. The fact that our brains are not fully developed until we are in our 20's helps to explain why we believe we are invincible when we are younger.
Please don't confuse explanations with excuses. If we know some of the cause we can address it in a more proactive manner. That, of course, presumes that all relevant parties are interested in doing so.
This poll is about dropping the age where we become more punitive. Does it make sense to be punitive if the person you are punishing isn't able to make the connections? It makes us feel better, but does it have a long term positive effect?
Jennifer I think you need to read the poll again.... It wants to RAISE the age where we become more punitive. But judging from the reactions I think people want it lowered. I am for it. All this hogwash about being more understanding and brain development is just that. That's the direction we have been going for a while and all it has produced is a very disrespectful generation that does what it pleases.
Believe me a month in bootcamp or prison will be more than enough to convince a 16 or 15 yr old that they aren't invincible, and that lesson will stick better in a developing brain.
Kyle, I think Jennifer's response to yours and David Culver's post, not the poll. Frankly, in that regard I do agree with her in that lowering the age is not the solution at all.
You can't cure societies ills simply by proclaiming a youth an adult and locking them up, likewise, raising the age would be doing exactly what those who have similar opinions would suggest.
Again, leave the age where is I say. I see no benefit either raising and/or lowering it.
And to Jeff, so often it is that I agree with you, but lower the drinking age to 16? That is sheer lunacy, 18 I can agree with, if you are old enough to go to war, then you should be old enough to drink if you want.
Marriage age at 12? Surely you were being sarcastic. Do you have children? And if you do have you ever carried a conversation with a 12 year old about simple things like parental responsibility and such?
12 year olds marrying would bring us a tenfold increase in the problems we have with teen crime just recognizing that a child trying to teach a child responsibility would be like attempting to disarm a nuclear device with another one.
What really is wrong with society today is we are no longer allowing children to be children rather we are trying to force them to be adults before their time.
How are we forcing them to be adults by making a 15 or 16 yr old responsible for their actions. If they want to act like a criminal then they should be forced to face the consequences like a criminal.
Mark and Jennifer... your very arguments against lowering the age are actually good reasons for toughening up and lowering the age. lets take apart Mark's comments
They feel invincible
Thy feel that nothing is going to happen to them (Even if it just happened to their best friend)
Fear in the teen mind is acquired not a give me, fear is a learned behavior not inherent for the most part.
(So making them responsible for their actions, a shock boot camp rather than regular prison, would TEACH them the behavior that such things are unacceptable. Make something happen to them. And remember this isn't gonna be every kid just those who think thuggery and victimization are the way to get what they want)
And the bottom line is that fear of prosecution is not as much a deterrent as many believe otherwise adult crime would be much lower.
(Again, adults brains have stopped developing and the reason adults don't find it much of a deterrent is that prison has stopped being much of a punishment. The justice system is broken, look at Jaquetta Simmons. She was convicted yet she still games the system and ends up still being a free woman because she convinced people that not having been caught ever doing anything before that her punishment is too harsh. Somewhere you have to put your foot down and say enough is enough)
Jennifer and Mark's arguments just don't sit well with me. In a world where kids are shooting up schools, walking up to babies in strollers and shooting them and drinking, smoking and even harassing other children to the point of suicide. Its obvious that the way things work now isn't working, it is in fact complicating the situation and creating more of the problem. We really aren't fighting to correct the lost causes, or punish the basically good that make mistakes. We are fighting for all those between these two points that sit on the fence between the two that follow one or the other into what behaviors they convey. The time to do this is while they are a clean slate, before their developing brains and their notions of nothing will happen to them become learned the learned behaviors.
Mark, the marriage one is a little out there, but remember our country just established the parameters of marriage based on the argument that if two people love each other, then government and churches have no business telling them they cannot marry. That very argument was used in the national media as well as here on TheBatavian.
No one ever said to NOT make youths responsible for their actions Kyle,
When 13 year old Eric Smith murdered that four year old boy in the southern tier, he was tried as an adult.
The current law does and has for many years provided for trying violent youths and habitual offenders as adults when called for. That isn't my argument and I am pretty certain it isn't Jennifer's argument at all.
Remember, I said we should leave the law as is, the article that prompted the poll was implying that we should be more lenient with youth.
I am in no way want or did imply absolution from responsibility, In fact I know a lot of kids that need a good swift kick in the ass, and yes some that should be in jail.
My point is simply at that stage of a youth's life blanket solutions are not acceptable, at that age 90% of offenders are still savable yet I do realize that the 10% is not. I no of many who are now adults where shall we say delinquent as youths are not only good citizens but upstanding citizens.
Well I have to agree with MR Brudz. Leave the age where it is at. Promoting fear is not a solution and often has reverse effects. Personal accountability should be the main focus. Outside influences should be the secondary focus. Jeff I do not agree with lowering the drinking age. This country does not display the respect, responsibility or tradition for that. I do agree that if, a 18 years old man or woman who serves their country in the U.S. Armed Forces, should have the ability to purchase and drink alcohol at the clubs on military installations. The reason I do not believe it should be everywhere is the concerns of purchasing for under age friends outside not to mention poor judgement is a factor at that early age. If, they are contained on base, then the military has more control of the individual. Meaning if, the individual starts to get intoxicated, the bartender has the ability to stop serving and base policy could enforce the turn in of vehicle keys. The individual can be easily transported back to his/her barracks or home. If you are old enough to die for this country, you should be old enough to drink responsibly.
The age should be lowered,
The age should be lowered, more crimes are being committed by younger youths.
Nope I have to agree with Mr.
Nope I have to agree with Mr. Culver. Lowering the age will not only put some fear and respect into 14 and 15 yr olds and show them at an earlier age that there are consequences to actions. It will also nip a common practice in gangs of having younger members join because of their "immunity or better treatment" by the legal system.
Face it it's obvious that todays kids are far more mature, far faster than in any other generation before this, some know this and use that fact to great advantage. Good or bad it's just a plain fact that you cant get around.
Lowering the age will do
Lowering the age will do nothing. Teens do not think like adults at all and to assume that they do is a presumptuous at best
They feel invincible
Thy feel that nothing is going to happen to them (Even if it just happened to their best friend)
Fear in the teen mind is acquired not a give me, fear is a learned behavior not inherent for the most part.
And the bottom line is that fear of prosecution is not as much a deterrent as many believe otherwise adult crime would be much lower.
Before awe get a tirade of examples of great teens and such, Remember teens mature at different rates there are many, many factors including environment.
The law is just fine right where it is. If you want to address the increase in young teen crime, intervention has come earlier in the pre-teen block, and that in any measure is a tall order not only from the matter of cost, but the parents liberties and such that possibly could be infringed on by such interventions.
There is no simple answer to teen behavior, and lowering the age risk overreaction by prosecutors for political appearance in my opinion.
Mark is correct; teens do
Mark is correct; teens do mature mentally at different rates just as many are larger, heavier and physically stronger than fifty years ago.
Combine an immature mind with a sense of invincibility; measure in an unhealthy dose unearned entitlements; now include a large strong body; add to this dangerous catalyst a propensity for violence.....can anyone be surprised with the outcome?
The human brain is not fully
The human brain is not fully developed until around age 25.
The Juvenile Justice System
The Juvenile Justice System is a huge, smelly, flowing, festering (I'm reaching for adjectives here. What I want to convey is the cesspool at Kandahar Air Field on a 120 degree July day.), nasty pile of excrement.
1) It takes too long to address a charge: By the time a kid in Family Court gets an adjudication they have forgotten what they did to be in the system in the first place.
2) It has at its' disposal remedies that are appropriate to well adjusted children who have erred in their behavior, but not the little sociopaths who actually commit the crimes that they are charged with.
The pols who wrote, and passed, the current laws saw their kids as the perps in any complaint envisioned by them. The actual sociopathic kids that exist in our communities, and commit monstrous acts of evil, are so foreign to them, and most of us, as to be unthinkable. Here I thought that "Lord of the Flies" was part of the universal curriculum in this state. I guess I was wrong.
3) A rational Juvenile Justice System would require that:
a) All criminal matters involving a child defendant be addressed and adjudicated within 60 days of the matter becoming known.
b) All determinations of sentence, sanction or correction would be predicated on the maturity and developmental status of the individual offender.
c) Shame, embarrassment and ridicule are useful, and beneficial, tools used by all societies to nurture the comity and civilization we wish to live in.
d) The Rights of the accused are important. But not as important as the Rights of the victim and the successful Rehabilitation of the Perpetrating Child. This is different than our expectations in adult cases, and that is EXACTLY my point in this little rant.
Juvenile Justice has become an obscene caricature of what adult law applied to children should look like. It is as if we decided to subject animals to our laws and brought Snoopy up on criminal charges for "Threatening Behavior" for growling at a stranger who came onto the lawn.
Drop everything to 16, adult
Drop everything to 16, adult criminality, legal age to drink, vote, and marry (actually the marriage age should be 12 since the natural species driven age is predicated by puberty and the only social requisite by recent standards is that two people simply love each other) . All this maturation of the mind is liberal hogwash that is supported by a liberal educational and social system that coddles our youth right out the opportunity to learn and mature by both their successes and their failures. When you turn 16, if you are not continuing your education, get a haircut, get a job, and get out.
Jennnifer, so it's OK that 15
Jennnifer, so it's OK that 15 year old thugs beat up on old people because their "brain" is not developed?
Bob's poll:
Has personal responsibility become a thing of the past?
No, it isn't ok, but it does
No, it isn't ok, but it does help provide part of an explanation. Only part. There are many other factors that come into play. The fact that our brains are not fully developed until we are in our 20's helps to explain why we believe we are invincible when we are younger.
Please don't confuse explanations with excuses. If we know some of the cause we can address it in a more proactive manner. That, of course, presumes that all relevant parties are interested in doing so.
This poll is about dropping the age where we become more punitive. Does it make sense to be punitive if the person you are punishing isn't able to make the connections? It makes us feel better, but does it have a long term positive effect?
Jennifer I think you need to
Jennifer I think you need to read the poll again.... It wants to RAISE the age where we become more punitive. But judging from the reactions I think people want it lowered. I am for it. All this hogwash about being more understanding and brain development is just that. That's the direction we have been going for a while and all it has produced is a very disrespectful generation that does what it pleases.
Believe me a month in bootcamp or prison will be more than enough to convince a 16 or 15 yr old that they aren't invincible, and that lesson will stick better in a developing brain.
Kyle, I think Jennifer's
Kyle, I think Jennifer's response to yours and David Culver's post, not the poll. Frankly, in that regard I do agree with her in that lowering the age is not the solution at all.
You can't cure societies ills simply by proclaiming a youth an adult and locking them up, likewise, raising the age would be doing exactly what those who have similar opinions would suggest.
Again, leave the age where is I say. I see no benefit either raising and/or lowering it.
And to Jeff, so often it is that I agree with you, but lower the drinking age to 16? That is sheer lunacy, 18 I can agree with, if you are old enough to go to war, then you should be old enough to drink if you want.
Marriage age at 12? Surely you were being sarcastic. Do you have children? And if you do have you ever carried a conversation with a 12 year old about simple things like parental responsibility and such?
12 year olds marrying would bring us a tenfold increase in the problems we have with teen crime just recognizing that a child trying to teach a child responsibility would be like attempting to disarm a nuclear device with another one.
What really is wrong with society today is we are no longer allowing children to be children rather we are trying to force them to be adults before their time.
How are we forcing them to be
How are we forcing them to be adults by making a 15 or 16 yr old responsible for their actions. If they want to act like a criminal then they should be forced to face the consequences like a criminal.
Mark and Jennifer... your very arguments against lowering the age are actually good reasons for toughening up and lowering the age. lets take apart Mark's comments
They feel invincible
Thy feel that nothing is going to happen to them (Even if it just happened to their best friend)
Fear in the teen mind is acquired not a give me, fear is a learned behavior not inherent for the most part.
(So making them responsible for their actions, a shock boot camp rather than regular prison, would TEACH them the behavior that such things are unacceptable. Make something happen to them. And remember this isn't gonna be every kid just those who think thuggery and victimization are the way to get what they want)
And the bottom line is that fear of prosecution is not as much a deterrent as many believe otherwise adult crime would be much lower.
(Again, adults brains have stopped developing and the reason adults don't find it much of a deterrent is that prison has stopped being much of a punishment. The justice system is broken, look at Jaquetta Simmons. She was convicted yet she still games the system and ends up still being a free woman because she convinced people that not having been caught ever doing anything before that her punishment is too harsh. Somewhere you have to put your foot down and say enough is enough)
Jennifer and Mark's arguments just don't sit well with me. In a world where kids are shooting up schools, walking up to babies in strollers and shooting them and drinking, smoking and even harassing other children to the point of suicide. Its obvious that the way things work now isn't working, it is in fact complicating the situation and creating more of the problem. We really aren't fighting to correct the lost causes, or punish the basically good that make mistakes. We are fighting for all those between these two points that sit on the fence between the two that follow one or the other into what behaviors they convey. The time to do this is while they are a clean slate, before their developing brains and their notions of nothing will happen to them become learned the learned behaviors.
Mark, the marriage one is a
Mark, the marriage one is a little out there, but remember our country just established the parameters of marriage based on the argument that if two people love each other, then government and churches have no business telling them they cannot marry. That very argument was used in the national media as well as here on TheBatavian.
We do need to teach kids to
We do need to teach kids to take responsibility for their actions. How we do it is what seems to be in question.
No one ever said to NOT make
No one ever said to NOT make youths responsible for their actions Kyle,
When 13 year old Eric Smith murdered that four year old boy in the southern tier, he was tried as an adult.
The current law does and has for many years provided for trying violent youths and habitual offenders as adults when called for. That isn't my argument and I am pretty certain it isn't Jennifer's argument at all.
Remember, I said we should leave the law as is, the article that prompted the poll was implying that we should be more lenient with youth.
I am in no way want or did imply absolution from responsibility, In fact I know a lot of kids that need a good swift kick in the ass, and yes some that should be in jail.
My point is simply at that stage of a youth's life blanket solutions are not acceptable, at that age 90% of offenders are still savable yet I do realize that the 10% is not. I no of many who are now adults where shall we say delinquent as youths are not only good citizens but upstanding citizens.
Well I have to agree with MR
Well I have to agree with MR Brudz. Leave the age where it is at. Promoting fear is not a solution and often has reverse effects. Personal accountability should be the main focus. Outside influences should be the secondary focus. Jeff I do not agree with lowering the drinking age. This country does not display the respect, responsibility or tradition for that. I do agree that if, a 18 years old man or woman who serves their country in the U.S. Armed Forces, should have the ability to purchase and drink alcohol at the clubs on military installations. The reason I do not believe it should be everywhere is the concerns of purchasing for under age friends outside not to mention poor judgement is a factor at that early age. If, they are contained on base, then the military has more control of the individual. Meaning if, the individual starts to get intoxicated, the bartender has the ability to stop serving and base policy could enforce the turn in of vehicle keys. The individual can be easily transported back to his/her barracks or home. If you are old enough to die for this country, you should be old enough to drink responsibly.