4 ms·

>In my point of view, a person capable of such actions (despite their age) is worth the maximum sentence. So what is your age limit? If 16, why not 15? And if

>In my point of view, a person capable of such actions (despite their age) is worth the maximum sentence. So what is your age limit? If 16, why not 15? And if 15, why not 12, or 10, or 7, or 5? The only thing we can say with any certainty is that the Victorians tried and tested the hang-em-high method of crime reduction, with less than stellar results to show for it.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago
>So what is your age limit? If 16, why not 15? And if 15, why not 12, or 10, or 7, or 5? This seems necessarily goading. Why does 18 magically make someone an adult? If anything, we've swung way too far to the left on this issue. A 14 or 15 old person is mature enough to understand complex moral issues. At 15 I drove a 6,000lbs death machine car and had a part time job on top of school. The idea that I didn't understand rape or murder was wrong at that age is asinine. I'd say high school age is fair game for serious prison time for serious offenses. Here in Chicago a lot of our shooters are 15-17. These aren't innocent children, but fairly serious criminals with nothing but a life of crime ahead of them. Catching them early has potential for betterment compared to leaving them in the loving arms of the gang system and more or less guaranteeing the further victimization of others.
- mootothemax 11y ago
  >A 14 or 15 old person is mature enough to understand complex moral issues. You're proposing hanging 14 and 15-year-olds? Purely and genuinely because I'm curious: at what age would you say "stop, they're too young to hang"? >Catching them early has potential for betterment... But once they've crossed a line, despite having another 40-50 years of life in front of them, that's it? Not any chance of trying to turn them into contributing, worthwhile members of society?
  - drzaiusapelord 11y ago
    >You're proposing hanging 14 and 15-year-olds? I'm proposing trying them like adults with adult sentences, instead of the juvie system. Here in the states we already do this for many crimes. India is just catching up to what most countries do. >But once they've crossed a line, despite having another 40-50 years of life in front of them, that's it? Average murder sentence in the USA is around 20 years, that's 10 years with good behavior. Yes, I think they're better locked up than in the streets hurting innocents. If you're murdering people as a teen, you aren't fit for society. Period. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/Fssc00.txt http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/Fssc00.txt You'd change your tune if it was your kid they shot, but you have the white suburban privilege of not living in the Chicago ghettos. That doesn't mean your pet liberal politics is correct. It just means you bought yourself out of the high crime areas (yay! money!) so you have this overly generous attitude because you're so incredibly disconnected from the reality on the streets.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
100timesthis 11y ago
>So what is your age limit? If 16, why not 15? And if 15, why not 12, or 10, or 7, or 5? so why 18 then. The age limit is just a line in the sand that is different in differents states and for different things (driving, drinking, having sexual relationships)
- mootothemax 11y ago
  >so why 18 then. For what it's worth, I completely agree!
kbart 11y ago
"So what is your age limit?" Why should there be an age limit? If a person is capable of consciously plan a crime and execute it, he/she should be able to take a responsibility and punishment for it. What I mean, is that such incidents should be decided case by case basis, not setting some hard limit just because a perpetrator is below a certain age. A person doesn't become somehow magically different at midnight he turns 18. Aand it's not like we have a problem of minors of 5 years old running around and killing people, so the bar sets itself naturally (I'd guess proposed 16yo is pretty accurate for the serious crimes).
- mootothemax 11y ago
  >What I mean, is that such incidents should be decided case by case basis OK, so it's bad bad phrasing on my part. How would you personally decide "if a person is capable of consciously plan a crime and execut[ing] it?" > Aand it's not like we have a problem of minors of 5 years old running around and killing people Yeah, that was hypoerbole on my part. It's not unknown for 10-year-olds to commit hideous crimes, though.
  - kbart 11y ago
    I don't decide personally, it's not in my authority. Even if it would, again, it depends on a certain case. There are specialists in court -- medics, psychologist etc. that decide if a tried person is sane, understands his actions, committed a crime consciously and is capable of prison sentence or other means better be taken.
chdir 11y ago
> So what is your age limit? If 16, why not 15? And if 15, why not 12, or 10, or 7, or 5? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
- mootothemax 11y ago
  >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope I'll take that as you're agreeing with me!
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

drzaiusapelord 11y ago

>So what is your age limit? If 16, why not 15? And if 15, why not 12, or 10, or 7, or 5? This seems necessarily goading. Why does 18 magically make someone an adult? If anything, we've swung way too far to the left on this issue. A 14 or 15 old person is mature enough to understand complex moral issues. At 15 I drove a 6,000lbs death machine car and had a part time job on top of school. The idea that I didn't understand rape or murder was wrong at that age is asinine. I'd say high school age is fair game for serious prison time for serious offenses. Here in Chicago a lot of our shooters are 15-17. These aren't innocent children, but fairly serious criminals with nothing but a life of crime ahead of them. Catching them early has potential for betterment compared to leaving them in the loving arms of the gang system and more or less guaranteeing the further victimization of others.

mootothemax 11y ago
>A 14 or 15 old person is mature enough to understand complex moral issues. You're proposing hanging 14 and 15-year-olds? Purely and genuinely because I'm curious: at what age would you say "stop, they're too young to hang"? >Catching them early has potential for betterment... But once they've crossed a line, despite having another 40-50 years of life in front of them, that's it? Not any chance of trying to turn them into contributing, worthwhile members of society?
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  >You're proposing hanging 14 and 15-year-olds? I'm proposing trying them like adults with adult sentences, instead of the juvie system. Here in the states we already do this for many crimes. India is just catching up to what most countries do. >But once they've crossed a line, despite having another 40-50 years of life in front of them, that's it? Average murder sentence in the USA is around 20 years, that's 10 years with good behavior. Yes, I think they're better locked up than in the streets hurting innocents. If you're murdering people as a teen, you aren't fit for society. Period. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/Fssc00.txt http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/Fssc00.txt You'd change your tune if it was your kid they shot, but you have the white suburban privilege of not living in the Chicago ghettos. That doesn't mean your pet liberal politics is correct. It just means you bought yourself out of the high crime areas (yay! money!) so you have this overly generous attitude because you're so incredibly disconnected from the reality on the streets.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

100timesthis 11y ago

>So what is your age limit? If 16, why not 15? And if 15, why not 12, or 10, or 7, or 5? so why 18 then. The age limit is just a line in the sand that is different in differents states and for different things (driving, drinking, having sexual relationships)

mootothemax 11y ago
>so why 18 then. For what it's worth, I completely agree!

kbart 11y ago

"So what is your age limit?" Why should there be an age limit? If a person is capable of consciously plan a crime and execute it, he/she should be able to take a responsibility and punishment for it. What I mean, is that such incidents should be decided case by case basis, not setting some hard limit just because a perpetrator is below a certain age. A person doesn't become somehow magically different at midnight he turns 18. Aand it's not like we have a problem of minors of 5 years old running around and killing people, so the bar sets itself naturally (I'd guess proposed 16yo is pretty accurate for the serious crimes).

mootothemax 11y ago
>What I mean, is that such incidents should be decided case by case basis OK, so it's bad bad phrasing on my part. How would you personally decide "if a person is capable of consciously plan a crime and execut[ing] it?" > Aand it's not like we have a problem of minors of 5 years old running around and killing people Yeah, that was hypoerbole on my part. It's not unknown for 10-year-olds to commit hideous crimes, though.
- kbart 11y ago
  I don't decide personally, it's not in my authority. Even if it would, again, it depends on a certain case. There are specialists in court -- medics, psychologist etc. that decide if a tried person is sane, understands his actions, committed a crime consciously and is capable of prison sentence or other means better be taken.

chdir 11y ago

> So what is your age limit? If 16, why not 15? And if 15, why not 12, or 10, or 7, or 5? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

mootothemax 11y ago
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope I'll take that as you're agreeing with me!
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]