3 ms·

But the same concept of “basically an adult” does not apply to other things, generally. For example, places without Romeo and Juliet laws punish couples where

But the same concept of “basically an adult” does not apply to other things, generally. For example, places without Romeo and Juliet laws punish couples where one is barely adult for sleeping with someone who is nearly an adult. Young couples are also regularly charged with manufacturing/possession/distribution of child pornography in those cases too. And people also aren’t getting to buy alcohol when they are 20-years-and-364-days-old either, etc. There is a lot where the system treats adulthood and rights as a black and white thing, yet grey when someone wants to make an example out of a child.

refurb 4y ago
Judge have leeway sometimes. Some laws are written as "no exception" (i.e. mandatory sentencing) others judging can use their own discretion on not only punishment but application of the law. Being charged as a minor is usually because one assumes minor lack the judgement of adults and it makes more sense to focus on rehabilitation for young offenders. But if a young offender clearly acted with premeditated malice then they can be treated as an adult.
- legacynl 4y ago
  > Being charged as a minor is usually because one assumes minor lack the judgement of adults how does that sentence mesh with: > But if a young offender clearly acted with premeditated malice How would you be able to determine if a certain case is a result of the incomplete development of the child's brain/mind, versus a 'clear premeditated malice' ? If a minor acted with 'clear premeditated malice', couldn't you always argue that that in itself is a result of the fact that a minor's brain/mind isn't fully developed yet? And was unable to oversee the results of their actions? I understand that sometimes teenagers can look very adult-like, but even if their brains would be fully developed they still lack experience, might still be very hormonal, and are interacting with other undeveloped teenagers on a daily basis. You probably yourself know that however adult you felt like when you were 17, you probably were not. As far as I know we've all agreed upon an age where an child turns into an adult, so I can't wrap my head around why judges would seemingly willy-nilly allow kids to be tried as adults. IDK if you're knowledgeable about this; do they perform assessments off the child's development at all? maybe by a developmental psychologist or something? Or is it really up to the judge?

refurb 4y ago

Judge have leeway sometimes. Some laws are written as "no exception" (i.e. mandatory sentencing) others judging can use their own discretion on not only punishment but application of the law. Being charged as a minor is usually because one assumes minor lack the judgement of adults and it makes more sense to focus on rehabilitation for young offenders. But if a young offender clearly acted with premeditated malice then they can be treated as an adult.

legacynl 4y ago
> Being charged as a minor is usually because one assumes minor lack the judgement of adults how does that sentence mesh with: > But if a young offender clearly acted with premeditated malice How would you be able to determine if a certain case is a result of the incomplete development of the child's brain/mind, versus a 'clear premeditated malice' ? If a minor acted with 'clear premeditated malice', couldn't you always argue that that in itself is a result of the fact that a minor's brain/mind isn't fully developed yet? And was unable to oversee the results of their actions? I understand that sometimes teenagers can look very adult-like, but even if their brains would be fully developed they still lack experience, might still be very hormonal, and are interacting with other undeveloped teenagers on a daily basis. You probably yourself know that however adult you felt like when you were 17, you probably were not. As far as I know we've all agreed upon an age where an child turns into an adult, so I can't wrap my head around why judges would seemingly willy-nilly allow kids to be tried as adults. IDK if you're knowledgeable about this; do they perform assessments off the child's development at all? maybe by a developmental psychologist or something? Or is it really up to the judge?