• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Florida teen convicted of <ATTEMPTED> murder, <FACES UP TO> (g/e/t/s/) 50 years.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,750
20,152
136
Which benefits? smoking? Drinking? A Mortgage?
There are lots of them. Teenagers generally have majorly restricted freedom as compared to adults under the law. Driving, drinking, smoking, the ability to enter into contracts, the right to vote, etc, etc. Usually the justification for this is that teenagers are still children being raised by their parents and aren't prepared to take on all of life's responsibilities. (and I agree!)

That being said it's a bit strange to punish someone like a fully responsible individual when you don't treat them like one otherwise.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,267
3
76
There are lots of them. Teenagers generally have majorly restricted freedom as compared to adults under the law. Driving, drinking, smoking, the ability to enter into contracts, the right to vote, etc, etc. Usually the justification for this is that teenagers are still children being raised by their parents and aren't prepared to take on all of life's responsibilities. (and I agree!)

That being said it's a bit strange to punish someone like a fully responsible individual when you don't treat them like one otherwise.
You can drive at 16, 14 in some cases. Smoking and drinking, lol great "benefits".
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,750
20,152
136
You can drive at 16, 14 in some cases. Smoking and drinking, lol great "benefits".
Did you miss entering into a contract, one of the most important benefits anyone can have as well as the removal of someone else's ability to restrict your movement, actions, etc in the form of parents?

Great benefits indeed. Enormous, life changing benefits.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,776
0
76
That being said it's a bit strange to punish someone like a fully responsible individual when you don't treat them like one otherwise.
It happens everyday when the punished commits a heinous and vicious crime. And rightly so.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,750
20,152
136
It happens everyday when the punished commits a heinous and vicious crime. And rightly so.
So we agree that this person is not of sound and mature enough mind to enter into a contract where they must take responsibility for the exchange of money, but we consider them of sound and mature enough mind to take responsibility for matters of life/death/serious injury.

That seems awfully silly to me.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,033
64
91
So we agree that this person is not of sound and mature enough mind to enter into a contract where they must take responsibility for the exchange of money, but we consider them of sound and mature enough mind to take responsibility for matters of life/death/serious injury.

That seems awfully silly to me.
I think "silly" is a flip and nonsensical word to use to describe this comparison.

When a teenager commits an awful crime, the system has to deal with the consequences in a way that respects the kid's rights, but which also protects society. I am reminded of David Brom, a Rochester, MN kid who killed his parents, brother and sister with an axe at age 16 when I was in high school. Had he been tried as a juvenile, he would have to have been released less than two years later, which would have served neither him nor the people of his community. The Columbine shooters, had they survived, would have been in the same boat, and their community would have been burdened with the danger of living near proven, likely unapologetic spree killers.

I personally think there is a minimum age threshold below which people shouldn't be tried as adults, but it's not 18 IMO - more like 13 or 14.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,776
0
76
So we agree that this person is not of sound and mature enough mind to enter into a contract where they must take responsibility for the exchange of money, but we consider them of sound and mature enough mind to take responsibility for matters of life/death/serious injury.

That seems awfully silly to me.
What should seem silly to you is that you compare a money transaction with a life and death scenario.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,750
20,152
136
I think "silly" is a flip and nonsensical word to use to describe this comparison.

When a teenager commits an awful crime, the system has to deal with the consequences in a way that respects the kid's rights, but which also protects society. I am reminded of David Brom, a Rochester, MN kid who killed his parents, brother and sister with an axe at age 16 when I was in high school. Had he been tried as a juvenile, he would have to have been released less than two years later, which would have served neither him nor the people of his community. The Columbine shooters, had they survived, would have been in the same boat, and their community would have been burdened with the danger of living near proven, likely unapologetic spree killers.

I personally think there is a minimum age threshold below which people shouldn't be tried as adults, but it's not 18 IMO - more like 13 or 14.
To me that is simply evidence of policy failure, not an argument for making 14 year olds equally responsible as full grown adults when there is significant scientific evidence that shows this simply isn't the case.

'We have shitty juvenile crime laws' is an argument for improving our juvenile crime laws. It is not an argument for ignoring science.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,033
64
91
To me that is simply evidence of policy failure, not an argument for making 14 year olds equally responsible as full grown adults when there is significant scientific evidence that shows this simply isn't the case.

'We have shitty juvenile crime laws' is an argument for improving our juvenile crime laws. It is not an argument for ignoring science.
Then what would you propose for a policy change?

In terms of the science aspect of this, there is no question a 15 year old is not thinking the same way as an adult, but it's not as though turning 18 magically transforms a child into an adult. In reality even a 20-year-old, say, doesn't have the same perspective and sense of consequence that at 30-year-old has. In practice the overwhelming majority of teenagers know right from wrong and refrain from committing crimes - it's not like they are a different species than adults in that respect.

In general I view the age of teenage offenders as a mitigating factor, but where (like David Brom) they have transgressed in such a way that justice mandates a very harsh sentence, those are the breaks. Realistically I don't think anyone who kills multiple people should ever be free, whether the killer is 50 or 15.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,267
3
76
Did you miss entering into a contract, one of the most important benefits anyone can have as well as the removal of someone else's ability to restrict your movement, actions, etc in the form of parents?

Great benefits indeed. Enormous, life changing benefits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_of_minors

Too bad that in some circumstances we do allow minors to act as adults on their own behalf. Minor proves they have cause, and ability to act as an adult, we let them, minor commits a crime as vicious as an adult, we charge them as one.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,750
20,152
136
Then what would you propose for a policy change?
I'm not entirely sure as I've spent almost no time thinking about it, but clearly there is a middle ground between letting everyone go free in 2 years regardless of their crime and imprisoning children for the rest of their life.

In terms of the science aspect of this, there is no question a 15 year old is not thinking the same way as an adult, but it's not as though turning 18 magically transforms a child into an adult. In reality even a 20-year-old, say, doesn't have the same perspective and sense of consequence that at 30-year-old has. In practice the overwhelming majority of teenagers know right from wrong and refrain from committing crimes - it's not like they are a different species than adults in that respect.
Scientific evidence shows that the prefrontal cortex, which is basically the primary vehicle in the brain for decision making (as we understand it) is not fully developed until somewhere in your 20's. Now I understand there has to be some rational limit on how many people we are not treating as adults, but to me it seems very likely that such a thing means a pretty serious underdevelopment of decision making skills for 13-14 year olds. Since so much of our criminal law is dependent upon intent, it seems foolish to treat the intent of a person with poorly developed decision making hardware as someone with fully developed hardware.

In general I view the age of teenage offenders as a mitigating factor, but where (like David Brom) they have transgressed in such a way that justice mandates a very harsh sentence, those are the breaks. Realistically I don't think anyone who kills multiple people should ever be free, whether the killer is 50 or 15.
While I understand your point, if these people truly are so dangerous that they must be locked away forever that should be due to a real assessment of their crimes and their person, not the arbitrary decision that because a kid committed a bad crime that he's suddenly the same as an adult.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,750
20,152
136
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_of_minors

Too bad that in some circumstances we do allow minors to act as adults on their own behalf. Minor proves they have cause, and ability to act as an adult, we let them, minor commits a crime as vicious as an adult, we charge them as one.
/facepalm

The idea that children in specific and rare circumstances might be able to petition a court for accelerated rights in no way changes the structure of our system for the other 99.9% of society.

You know you can just admit that there are lots of rights that adults have that kids don't. It's okay.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,267
3
76
/facepalm

The idea that children in specific and rare circumstances might be able to petition a court for accelerated rights in no way changes the structure of our system for the other 99.9% of society.

You know you can just admit that there are lots of rights that adults have that kids don't. It's okay.
/facepalm

The idea the "children" should always be treated like children in no way changes the fact that sometimes they need to be treated like adults.

You know you can just admit that there are lots of times when children can, and should be treated like the adults they act like.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,750
20,152
136
/facepalm

The idea the "children" should always be treated like children in no way changes the fact that sometimes they need to be treated like adults.

You know you can just admit that there are lots of times when children can, and should be treated like the adults they act like.
Nice job on trying to change the argument. You asked what rights adults had that children didn't. I told you. I'm sorry you didn't like the answer.

As for the rest of your post, I disagree.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,999
1
81
After reading the article (I'm sure nobody else did) I have come to the conclusion that the victim is completely 100% at fault.

Authorities say Ratley (victim) had sent Treacy (perp) text messages about the suicide of his brother.
The defense told jurors Treacy was treated for five months after seeing his brother's body hanging from a tree, and that the messages sent him into a state where he couldn't control his actions, the Sun-Sentinel reported.
-see a bear
-throw a rock at the bear
-OMG WHY DID THE BEAR ATTACK ME

The guy deserves a pretty harsh sentence since it's clearly pre-meditated, but at the same time that victim deserves everything she got.
 

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
6
81
If you do a man's crime you should expect to be punished accordingly.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,267
3
76
Nice job on trying to change the argument. You asked what rights adults had that children didn't. I told you. I'm sorry you didn't like the answer.

As for the rest of your post, I disagree.
Sorry, no, I didn't change anything. I simply pointed out that there are times when children do get the rights that adults have, and there are times when children get charged as adults for crimes. I'm sorry you don't like reality.

Not possible for me to care less.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,999
1
81
If you do a man's crime you should expect to be punished accordingly.
Actually, telling people you are going to break the law then doing exactly what you said you were going to do is something a kid would do.

A full grown man would do the following:
-tell nobody about their murder plan
-stalk the victim to get a feel for their movement patterns
-kill them with as few witnesses as possible
-destroy all physical evidence linking oneself to the crime (ie boots)
-tell nobody about what happened
-keep a personal journal that mentions the person's death, shows concern about personal safety in relation to being randomly attacked, and the description of what happened to the victim makes several incorrect assumptions

/watches too much CSI
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,481
4
76
Sorry, no, I didn't change anything. I simply pointed out that there are times when children do get the rights that adults have, and there are times when children get charged as adults for crimes. I'm sorry you don't like reality.

Not possible for me to care less.
It boils simply down to things that protect the "child" from harming themselves are in place.

When they break the rights of others is when they can get treated like an adult for adult actions and associated consequences.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,776
0
76
but at the same time that victim deserves everything she got.
Really? Do you think the kids at Columbine got what they deserved as well? Just because someone picked on him does not give him the right to beat a little girl's head in. I don't expect you to recognize the obviousness of that fact, but I will say you must be a colossal douchebag to say what I quoted.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,999
1
81
Just because someone picked on him does not give him the right to beat a little girl's head in.
You're absolutely right. Guys like Osama Bin Laden do not deserve the kind of shabby treatment they get. Life should have no consequences. Jesus said you should turn the other cheek when someone is a complete asshole and disrespects your dead brother.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
104,356
18,973
136
well, SCOTUS overwhelmingly struck down life sentences to minors as unconstitutional (not "life without parole," but "life.") a few weeks ago.

How is 50 years that much different from a life sentence? This one probably won't stand
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
104,356
18,973
136
When they break the rights of others is when they can get treated like an adult for adult actions and associated consequences.
This makes no sense. How can they possibly be assumed to be making "adult actions" when they are compeltely incabale of making "adult actions?"

(lack of being able to process "adult decisions," and all that.)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY