In your opinion, what is the youngest age people should be tried as an adult in the US?

[ZombieHorde]

Poll question: In your opinion, what is the youngest age people should be tried as an adult in the US?

For example: If a sixteen year old rapes and kills an eight year old, should the sixteen year old be tried as an adult?

In my opinion, only people who are 18+ should be tried as an adult or we should lower the age for other activities, such as voting, smoking, sexual consent, etc.

What are your feelings?

[Forkboy]

1. 18

[BlooInBloo]

2. Cases need to be individually assessed. As you slide further down the age scale...

it should get commensurately more difficult to demonstrate an acceptable level of cognitive ability and mens rea to justify charging as an adult.

[meegbear]

9. +1

[WildEyedLiberal]

18. Agreed

I keep thinking of that case from England 15 or so years ago, when two 10 year old boys kidnapped, tortured, blinded, and left a 2 year old child to die on railroad tracks. The "boys" were freed less than 10 years after their atrocious crime and the UK government provided them with new names and identities. I'm sorry, those monsters should be rotting in prison for the rest of their lives. What they did required a level of sociopathic viciousness that should never be released into society ever again. That is probably the only case in which I'd suggest treating criminals so young as adults, but as you said - it should be a case by case evaluation.

[mitchum]

23. And the "rehabilitation" of those little monsters did not work out so well...

one of them was recently arrested for possessing violent child pornography

[depakid]

45. Many others have- just depends on where you want to place the emphasis

Would you have thousands who could have been helped to turn around driving policy- or a few who rather publically reoffend determining the outcome for all the rest?

In the US, the decisions have been made with the latter outcome in mind- hence, the world's largest and most expensive prison system, both per capita AND in raw numbers.

More citizens incarcerated than China, India or Russia.

[middle distance]

49. totally disagree

At 10 years old a person should not be held to an adult standard, no matter what the act. That said, they should be punished and rehabilitated, and not released until they have undergone extensive psychiatric evaluation. I remember my younger sister and my niece, who were both around 8-10 years old toyed with the idea of poisoning the neighbor's daughter w/ cleaning products...they didn't do it (I think my mom caught them talking about it or something), and I don't know if they were serious or not, but clearly they didn't understand at that age the nature of the crime they were talking about, or even the meaning of death probably.

[WildEyedLiberal]

62. Some atrocities are beyond pithy blandishments like "rehabilitation"

I don't think you can "rehabilitate" humans who - already at the age of 10 - are capable of inventing such elaborate and hideous tortures to inflict on a complete innocent. Mitchum's post just confirmed my suspicions that those hideous little beasts were never, ever going to be anything other than sick monsters. Sociopathy is almost always - if not absolutely always - evident from early childhood. Granted, most of them wait until they're at least teenagers before they start torturing and killing, but the moral vacancy within was always there.

NOW, let me just say that I believe such cases maybe constitute .00001% of child offenders - and this is why I agreed with BlooinBloo above. It should be a case by case determination, so that the very, very rare cases of truly dangerous "child" sociopathy aren't treated with a slap on the wrist and a get out of jail free card at age 21. It's not about punishment in these cases so much as it's about protecting the public from psychopaths who have no conscience and no qualms about inflicting truly horrible crimes on others.

[MattBaggins]

83. Case by case is the best

Since justice should be metered out by how much a particular act pulls on our heart strings.

[Johonny]

I agree

[depakid]

36. That would be the optimal way- but would also require good faith efforts

and much more objective and ethical juvenile justice system- neither of which America has, or will ever have.

Given that set of facts, my preference is a bright line approach at 18, with very limited exceptions- specified at the federal level.

[proteus_lives]

39. "or will ever have"

I love how consistent you are with the whole knee-jerk anti-Americanism thing.

:eyes:

[depakid]

42. It's an honest assessment of the culture (and the media) -as well as the justice system that results

In part it's a fear based outrage deal- in part a harsh, retributive Old Testament type streak and in part just plain, old fashioned dumb and mean.

There are a host of factors driving things like zero tolerance laws, capital punishment, life in prison without parole for juveniles and such- none of which will go away in the coming decades.

[proteus_lives]

52. Honest?

You're way too biased for such a thing.

I've never seen you say a positive thing about the U.S. and that leads me to the fact you're too biased for a real opinion.

[depakid]

53. Think about it...

Your own posts on criminal justice issues have been quite illustrative of what's been written above.

Lock 'em up and throw away the key or hang 'em high- as the case may be.

Costs a lot of money to do that though, and it's a tremendous waste to boot.

[proteus_lives]

58. I go case by case.

"Lock 'em up and throw away the key or hang 'em high"

Many deserve that and many don't.

"Costs a lot of money to do that though, and it's a tremendous waste to boot."

It doesn't have to be. Like many other things, it needs to be rid of corporate and bureaucratic boon-doggle.

[depakid]

72. "Many deserve that and many don't."

On that point, we can agree.

[BlooInBloo]

41. Lots and lots of stuff in the legal system requires judgment. Your quixotic quest...

for a judgment-free-totally-rules-driven legal system is the most pie-in-the-sky thing under discussion here.

[depakid]

44. A bright line approach is the only effective way to keep states like Texas, Florida and Pennsylvania

from pushing these matters down the slippery slope toward more draconian punishment.

As I said, we're not dealing with people behaving reasonably or in good faith. An excellent example comes from Texas' "Dr. Death" James Grigson, who used to offer "expert" testimony predicting future dangerousness without ever even having interviewed the alleged offender.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Grigson

And a good example of a bright line approach can be seen in Justice Kennedy's recent decision Roper v. Simmons, banning executions of anyone under 18 at the time of the crime:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roper_v._Simmons

It's also important for people to consider the traditional functions and procedures of juvenile courts vis a vis adult courts. Juvenile courts have traditionally NOT been subject to the panoply of due process rights afforded adult offenders for a number of reasons- but mainly because they operated via the legal doctrines of parens patriae and/or in loco parentis where more of the focus was on reformation as opposed to retribution.

That has changed irrevocably in the United States- though it's still the dominant juvenile justice theory in other Western nations.

[Ozymanithrax]

3. Several studies have shown that the human brain matures around...

20 or 21. Until that time, they do not work completely like an adult brain.

I would say that all prisoners go through a cognitive exam, and anyone with a brain that has not matured should not be tried as an adult. But that is probably too scientific. As a rule of thumb, 21.

[elocs]

20. It's not a coincidence that the age of majority used to be 21.

By then the choices/consequences connection in the brain begins to click.

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. Can't have that, though.

It throws into question the capability of our younger citizens to be fully cognizant of such choices as marriage and joining the military and getting drivers licenses.

[Ozymanithrax]

22. Yes, but who cares about reality...

I'm only saying that we should take into consideration the reality of the mind when trying people, not trying to re-engineer society.

[Igel]

29. Or, conversely,

engaging in premarital sex, choosing to have an abortion, or making decisions about careers.

Remove responsibility for one kind of thing because the kids obviously can't be trusted to make valid decisions (let's not say "rational") and you've removed responsibility for a lot of other things.

There are few people on either side of the social divide that actually want consistency. (And, no, I rather suspect I'm not one of the few.)

[G_j]

89. agreed, 20 or 21

[mikelgb]

4. whatever age they are considered an adult by any other law

[sui generis]

5. Actually 21, unless they want to lower the drinking age.

It's two sides of the same coin. Your judgement can't be trusted until you're 21 with alcohol, why should it be judged as adult for any other reason?

Lower the drinking age. Raise the voting age. Either way I don't care, but get rid of our puritan inconsistencies.

[SPedigrees]

11. I'm 60. Looking back I'd say 21 was when I started making

sensible and responsible decisions.

[ieoeja]

28. Clearly then, drinking made you more sensible and responsible!

:toast:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Same age as the voting age.

If people are going to be held responsible enough to be punished under the full weight of the law, they should have an equal say in government on the decisions of those laws.

[Kceres]

16. +1

[jobycom]

7. Tie it to the drinking age.

If a person isn't responsible enough to buy alcohol, they are not responsible enough to be tried as an adult. Lower one or raise the other.

Personally I think there should be no drinking age, a person should be able to drink in a restaurant with their parents at 12, and should be allowed to buy alcohol on their own at 17, latest. Then the age they can be tried as an adult should be 17. But only then.

[eShirl]

8. legal adults only

one would think this would be a no-brainer

[SPedigrees]

10. Definitely a no-brainer. 21 nt

[brendan120678]

12. In Connecticut.....

The age of consent is 16.
And you can vote in the primaries here when you are 17, as long as you will be 18 by the general election.

Anyways, I think if the criminal act is heinous enough, 16 and 17 year olds can and should be tried as adults.

[stray cat]

13. 17 year olds murdering someone in cold blood - do you really want to let them out at 18?

[gvstn]

15. I don't think there is an automatic

get out of jail at 18 if you are charged as a juvenile in most states. I don't support that law.

I'm a firm believer that persons under 18 should be sentenced much lighter than adults. A chronic thief should be out by 21.

Only brutal crimes should be punished with very long sentences. A 15 year old who breaks into a home and beats the resident to death with a baseball bat should still get 15 years. At 30 he should be more in control of his emotions and can try to start over on the outside. An 11 year old that shoots his father to death for some reason should probably be out by 21.

[Oregone]

14. Babies

I mean really, what do they contribute to our society? The whine all day, are completely unproductive, and leech off their parents. This is the future?

If a baby commits a homicide, we oughta lock it up where it belongs for good

[mitchum]

26. + 6,697,254,041

[Shell Beau]

85. Let's say the Columbine kids lived, what would be the appropriate

punishment?

[TheKentuckian]

17. Age is a number but at least the age when one would be an adult.

Do you get to move out and take on contracts at 15 because you have straight A's and have been very responsible?

If you can't be "good" enough to be treated as an adult then I'd think you can't act "bad" enough to be one either.

[d_r]

19. I never understood

How 18-20 year olds can be arrested for having alcohol because they aren't 21 yet. That really puzzles me.

We have the juvenile justice system because we recognize that children and teenagers don't fully think like adults and that they can make some stupid decisions and do stupid things.

[mitchum]

24. mitchum AKA Draco says, "A sociopath by any other name is still a sociopath"

[mrmpa]

25. we've got an 11 year old up here in PA

He deliberately when up to his sleeping soon to be step-mother and blew her brains out. He then calmly got on the bus and went to school. According to psychiatrists he shows no remorese for what he did. DA will be trying him as an adult. Should he be out at the age of 18, which is what would happen if he were tried as a juvenile?

[ZombieHorde]

27. I don't know. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

30. Draw and quarter him.

Seriously? You want to try an 11 year old as an adult? How about a four year old?

[depakid]

40. You also have judges taking payments for sending juveniles to prison facilities

over minor offenses.

Leading (and appalling) news all the way down under:

Judge to admit $3m 'kids for cash' kickbacks

One of two former Pennsylvania judges accused of taking millions of dollars in kickbacks to send youth offenders to private profit-making detention facilities has agreed to plead guilty to a federal racketeering charge.

Former Luzerne County judge Michael Conahan will plead guilty to his role in the $US2.8 million ($A3m) "kids for cash" scandal, according to a plea agreement filed in Scranton on Thursday.

Prosecutors said Conahan and another former judge, Mark Ciavarella Jr, took kickbacks from the owner and builder of two private juvenile detention facilities.

Last year, the state Supreme Court vacated the convictions of thousands of juveniles who appeared before Ciavarella between 2003 and 2008.

The charge to which Conahan will plead guilty carries a maximum sentence of 20 years and a $US250,000 fine. He must also surrender his law licence. Prosecutors agreed to recommend a sentence reduction if the former judge accepts responsibility for his conduct.

Federal prosecutors first announced charges against Ciavarella and Conahan in January 2009, describing a scheme in which Conahan forced the county-owned juvenile detention centre to close and reached an agreement with a for-profit company co-owned by his friend, a prominent local lawyer, to send youth offenders to its new facility outside Wilkes-Barre.

More: http://www.smh.com.au/world/judge-to-admit-3m-kids-for-cash-kickbacks-20100430-twtn.html

[20score]

31. People that voted for the under 10 - twisted individuals that should be watched.

[ZombieHorde]

34. Or smart asses who enjoy shock value.

[Incitatus]

55. Yes, I don't expect any of them to respond and argue their position here.

[Xithras]

32. 16, but it should be limited to charges that carry life sentences.

I'm not saying that they should be given life sentences, but we're seeing adult charges being levied against teenagers for increasingly minor offenses.

I heard someone make a good point recently, stating that the minimum age for adult prosecution should be the same as the age of consent. The reasoning behind the idea stated that a person who is legally old enough to have sex, become a parent, or get married, is old enough to face prosecution as an adult for crimes they commit. In most states, that would put the age at 16-18.

[MrSlayer]

33. If a 16 year-old rapes and kills an 8 year-old he should be death penalty eligible.

Different crimes deserve different treatment.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. But a 9 year old is ok?

I don't get the math. How about a four year old and a two year old? 12 and 6? 10 and 5?

[MrSlayer]

43. I was just going off the example used in the OP.

If the person in question raped and murdered any one of any age they should be executed.

Clear now?

:hi:

[Warren Stupidity]

76. So you would be ok with executing a six year old child.

How pre-enlightenment of you.

[MattBaggins]

90. We need to develope psych evals that can be given in kidergarten

and if the kids fail; take em out back and shoot em

[MrSlayer]

99. Christ, I walked right into that.

Goddamn it. You take everything so literally. I do not believe a six year-old child is capable of murdering anyone, let alone raping them, despite my blanket statement. C'mon now. I suppose what you're asking is where the line is drawn as far as age. And I say it depends on what was done and how it was carried out. You have to take it on a case by case basis. You'd have to be one seriously hard-core motherfucker to merit the death penalty at age six.

[proteus_lives]

37. Depends on the crime and situation.

Your example? Yes, tried as as adult and sent away for the rest of their lives.

You're a parent right? If a 16 year old raped and murdered one of your young children, would you want them tried as a child and let out in 2-5 years?

[ZombieHorde]

47. I wouldn't want the murderer to be released in 2-5 years, but...

I don't think people who are insane with grief should be guiding policy.

[proteus_lives]

51. Ok, someone else's child.

You're not insane with grief, if a 16 year-old raped and murdered an eight year-old with a smile; would you want him released in 2-5 years?

[ZombieHorde]

54. In my unprofessional opinion, those who rape and murder eight year old kids are disturbed

and probably need professional psychiatric care. The 16 year old's release date should be determined by a team of psychiatric professionals who have personally evaluated the minor.

In my head (opinion)...
The 16 year old may be held for many years, but not in a prison. The 16 year old would be held as a dangerous mentally ill patient.


On a side note:
I have worked with a minor who a dangerous mentally ill patient; he was kind of creepy and kind of charismatic. He seemed harmless, but his file said he hurt children.

(Hope this made sense, I just got done with a long study session so my brain is fried. Big math exam and big government essay exam tomorrow. Wish me luck.)

[proteus_lives]

56. Here's my problem.

Psychos learn to trick doctors and get released. Like your example, if he got out what are the chances they find bodies in his basement someday?

I say psych treatment till they're sane, prison term and then half-way house.

Good luck on your exams.

[WildEyedLiberal]

63. It always bothers me that people confuse psychosis with psychopathology

People who, for example, rape and kill 8 year olds are very likely not "mentally ill" - and this is part of the stigma that mentally ill people face, this perception that they're all ticking time bombs who might explode and rape and murder 8 year olds. People who rape and murder 8 year olds - or anyone, for that matter - are probably psychopaths.

You can't "treat" psychopaths. You can't "cure" them. There is no psychiatric drug that can give them the empathy they lack. They don't CARE about their victims. They don't care about hurting or even killing people. It doesn't bother them. I think it's naive to believe you can "cure" someone like that, and I think it's dangerous to ever release them back into society.

Our prison system badly needs reformed, but having warm fuzzies abour rapists and murderers is NOT the way to do it. We can start by legalizing pot and decriminalizing simple personal possession of any drug (I'd still make dealing the hard shit like heroin and meth illegal, but hey, if you just have enough to fuck yourself up, it's your life, buddy), and I'd do away with stupid punitive crap like the three strikes laws. If you want to reform prison, start having common sense about nonviolent offenders, but for God's sake - rapists and murderers are what prisons were MADE for.

[proteus_lives]

79. I agree.

Psychopaths can't be cured. You can't force someone to grow a conscience or empathy.

I also agree on the reform.

[RedCappedBandit]

68. Pleading 'insanity' results in lengthier sentences. They don't get released quicker. nt

[MrScorpio]

38. Dividing cells in the womb

It's the American way to get them as early as possible

[EFerrari]

64. Gleams, then. The gleam in your father's eye.

Maybe Freud was right about Oedipus.

[Beringia]

46. 18 n/t

[Iggo]

48. 18. (The word "adult" was my first clue.) nt.

B-)

[proud2BlibKansan]

50. 25

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

57. I agree.

[proteus_lives]

60. Really?

That's way too high.

So you think 21 year-olds who rape and murder should be treated like children?

[proud2BlibKansan]

70. A human brain is not fully developed until age 25

[proteus_lives]

78. So if a 21 year-old rapes and kills a child...

He should only be given 4 years?

Really?

[proud2BlibKansan]

82. Show me where I said that

[proteus_lives]

92. You think people shouldn't be tried as adults until 25.

So by your reasoning a 21 year-old who commits a felony will only receive a juvenile sentence.

Is that fair?

[proud2BlibKansan]

94. By my reasoning a 21 year old who commits a felony will be handled differently

than an adult.

That doesn't mean a 4 year sentence. It means a lesser sentence than an adult. It could be 10 years instead of 20.

[proteus_lives]

95. So a human life is only worth 10 years?

Rape should only cost 10 years?

Is that what you're saying?

[proud2BlibKansan]

96. I'm saying a human brain is not fully developed until age 25

and we should not punish those under 25 as severely as adults.

That is all. If you want to bring silly right wing talking points into the conversation, I am done.

[proteus_lives]

98. You're done.

Fine.

I just wish you could explain why you take rape and murder so lightly.

[EFerrari]

65. That's what I was thinking.

You've been a terrible influence on me.

lol

[proud2BlibKansan]

71. GMTA!!

:toast:

[Shell Beau]

87. You aren't giving enough credit to people younger than that.

Maybe that is when the brain develops fully, but come on. That is not when you magically see right from wrong and can distinguish the difference, and know what the consequences are. It happens much sooner than that.

Should a person who is 23 not get charged with a DUI? I don't get your age there at all.

[cherokeeprogressive]

59. The age of consent is 16 in 30 states plus the District of Columbia.

Seems strange to me that young'ns could be considered old enough at 16 to make decisions about fucking, but not old enough to know right from wrong.

Does that seem strange to you?

[EFerrari]

66. Not really. You don't need a mature brain to couple.

[Shell Beau]

88. People younger than 25 know the difference between right and wrong

and can understand the consequences of doing wrong.

[NYC Liberal]

61. Funny that, in some places, an 18 year old could be charged for having sex with his

16 year old girlfriend because that's "too young to consent to sex," but if she turned around and killed him they'd probably try to get her tried as an adult. :crazy:

Make it consistent.

[CTLawGuy]

73. America

the only country with 13 year old adults and 20 year old children.

[Douglas Carpenter]

67. the same as the age of consent

The entire principle of a juvenile justice system is the same as the principle of age of consent laws; the belief that children or adolescents below a certain age lack the fully developed mental and emotional facilities to make adult level decisions and choices and are simply too young to adequately and fully understand what they are doing or consenting to - and are thus granted special legal protections - specifically because they are not deemed capable of fully understanding what they are doing and what are the entire consequences and meanings of their actions.

The entire rational basis of legally protecting someone that age from corruption and exploitation by adults, presumes that someone so young does not have all the faculties to handle adult decisions. It is just so obvious that if almost everyone agrees that a 12-year-old or 13-year-old is too young to make rational decisions about drinking, driving, going to school, having sex or even just living on their own - how on earth can someone turn around and declare that a 12-year-old or 13-year-old has all the faculties to be tried and punished as an adult? - as if the most desperate and out of control action they ever took in their entire life - was the one and only area in which they were fully capable of understanding what they were doing.

If I may repost something once posted by PA Democrat who I thank for their contribution:

http://teenagebrain.blogspot.com /


<snip>

We once thought that the brain was fully formed by the end of childhood, but research has shown that adolescence is a time of profound brain growth and change. We now know:

Between childhood and adulthood the brain’s “wiring diagram ” becomes more complex and more efficient, especially in the brain’s prefrontal cortex.

The greatest changes to the parts of the brain that are responsible for impulse-control, judgement, decision-making, planning, organization and involved in other functions like emotion, occur in adolescence. This area of the brain (prefrontal cortex) does not reach full maturity until around age 25!

snip:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=adolescents_maturity_and_the_law

The recent push to lower the age threshold for treating juvenile offenders as adults assumes that adolescents are no different from adults in the capacities that comprise maturity and hence culpability, and that they have adult-like competencies to understand and meaningfully participate in criminal proceedings.

But the new science reliably shows that adolescents think and behave differently from adults, and that the deficits of teenagers in judgment and reasoning are the result of biological immaturity in brain development. The adolescent brain is immature in precisely the areas that regulate the behaviors that typify adolescents who break the law. Studies of brain development show that the fluidity of development is probably greatest for teenagers at 16 and 17 years old, the age group most often targeted by laws promoting adult treatment.

Teens at these ages tend to be poor decision-makers when it comes to crime. They often lack the several elements of psychosocial development that characterize adults as mature, including the capacity for autonomous choice, self-management, risk perception, and the calculation of future consequences.

[Fast Dude]

69. If you don't know right from wrong by the age of 12

A. Your parents did a piss poor job.

B. You are an evil little idiot.

C. Both of the above.

[gleaner]

74. I took age 16 ...

with the proviso that the individual has to have committed previous similar violent crimes and shows no potential for rehabilitation based on past experience with the justice system.

I don't like the thought of sticking kids into the adult penal system, but the juvenile system seems broken and unable to perform the functions for which it was designed. Maybe we need a middle ground. Repeat juvenile offenders with a tighter degree of security and containment.

Smoking, voting and sexual consent do not in my opinion come close to comparing crimes committed by gang kids who use violent crimes as a way of life, or to assaults or murders. You should think carefully about the voting age. The number of conservative voters skewed up sharply in the states where 18 year olds were allowed to vote. Sometimes kids that young do not have the experience to think political decisions through clearly and sometimes they do, but how do you know where or when? I think the comparison is flawed.

[Fumesucker]

75. There are people of every age who don't have the wherewithal to think through political choices..

We have people who are retired screaming about keeping government out of their medicare.

[gleaner]

91. I understand that ...

You can't predict or categorize what people are going to do based only on age. That is why I included the caveat that some kids could handle it, but most couldn't. I was a 15 year old political activist at the start of Viet Nam and I did think it all through carefully, but there were others who simply followed in lockstep with the government. The catch phrase of the day being, "Don't you think the president knows more than you do?" regarding Viet Nam. Actually I didn't. I knew that people were fighting and dying for no good reason and he did not seem to realize that.

I am now a retired person with Medicare who would like government to do more to administer it and make it available to everyone, not just retired people. So everything cuts both ways. Single payer is always better. My personal thinking on kids voting is that since most of our politicians act like two year olds we might be safer if 16 year olds waited a couple of more years to vote and did some volunteering or writing in a forum like this to explore issues and get a feel for what they think is necessary and what is just plain stupid about politics before they vote. It is really, really hard to undo an election once it is counted.

To leave with with a really horrible thought. Arnold of California wants to be president. Having failed utterly as governor the Terminator now wants to fail as president. The constitution thankfully prevents this. I know a lot of adults fell under the seductive sway of the grabernator which I think answers my point as well. All ages have people without judgment, but you have to try and draw a reasonable cut off line for larger and more important decisions which affect others. A good education would help, but many kids today aren't getting that either.

[meow2u3]

77. Adult privileges come with adult responsibilites

This includes criminal responsibility, especially for violent crimes. Since 16 is the minimum age to work and drive in most states, 16 should also be the age a kid can be tried as an adult for violent crimes.

[Warren Stupidity]

80. Your own rule defeats your conclusion.

16 year olds are not treated as adults, not for driving, not for work, not for purchase of cigarettes or tobacco, not for military service. Just about the only thing they are treated as adults for is within the criminal justice system.

[Spike89]

81. Courts vs. sentencing

There is a clear difference. How juvenile offenders are sentenced and treated differently from adult offenders is mostly state law. There is no hard and fast federal rule that all juvenile sentences end once a convicted child hits 18, nor that a juvenile conviction will automatically be expunged from the records when a kid hits 18. Those things are generally true for minor crimes, especially when committed by younger children.

The example of a 16 year old rapist/murderer is a good example. In many states, the only real difference between trying the kid as an adult is that he/she would potentially face the death penalty if tried as an adult. It simply isn't true that juveniles must be released upon hitting the age of 18 or 21. They can be sentenced to life and transferred into the adult prison population once they come of age.

There are good reasons for having a system of judges and advocates that are experts at dealing with and understanding youthful offenders. I see very little advantage to pushing a 16-year-old into an adult court.

[Shell Beau]

84. I don't know.

Some crimes are so heinous that it seems appropriate to charge under 18 year olds as adults. I really don't know the answer to this.

[rox63]

86. Definitely no younger than 16

But it really should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

[ismnotwasm]

93. When they are legally adults

Which is 18. Trying them younger is evil bullshit for a number of reasons. The prison system is corrupt. For just one instance, you got offenders waiting for fresh meat coming out of juvie. Sounds like a bad movie plot doesn't it? My daughter is currently working in corrections and I now know way more than I ever wanted to about how fucked up it is from the 'legal' side. The inmate side I'd heard from a friend or two or three.

[bemildred]

97. I really think it's around 25.

Not suggesting we should just ignore things, but the rational mind kicks in late when it kicks in at all.