14 year old child held over murder of 80-year-old in park

[HTG]

They killed a man here, why shouldn't they be harshly punished?

I never said they shouldn’t be punished. I said it’s crazy to want them treated like adults.

 

[BootsyCollins]

Horrible news.

They are children and should be treated as children, even if they do something as hideous as this. A 12 year olds consequence thinking is not even half way of being fully developed, and it would be a huge mistake to treat them as adults. Where do we draw the line for where we treat children as adults and not as what they are, not fully developed humans?

 

[BootsyCollins]

it’s not linear. Rate of development slows down constantly as we age, so a 12 year old’s development in understanding consequences is far above 50% on any arbitrary scale.

Thats true, point was they are far from developed and should be treated as such.

 

[JPRouve]

At 12 years old you know the difference between right and wrong and you know the consequences of physical harm. So in this case in my opinion it makes little sense to bring up development or even age. Now there are some contexts where that conversation makes sense, such as the long term consequences of substance abuse, gambling or a more specific that made the news earlier this year, playing with railway switches, things that have an effect or consequences that aren't immediate or don't seem immediate.

But whenever we are talking about teenagers committing sexual abuses, assaults or theft people need to keep in mind that they know exactly what they are doing. They know the consequences and they know that it's wrong.

 

[Daydreamer]

Yes. Because while we know for a fact, that children’s brains aren’t yet fully developed and they are therefore incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions in the same way adults are, we all know that the brain makes an exception for murder. The part responsible for understanding murder is obviously fully developed at the moment of birth.

I know you're being sarcastic here, but isn't the murder of an elderly man precisely one of these exceptions. As in, don't most 12 year old appreciate that if they beat an elderly man to death those actions are illegal and permanent? I'm not being facetious here, I completely agree that a 12 year old is less capable of understanding the consequences of most of their actions. But violent murder is such an extreme crime with such obvious and immediate consequences that it seems odd to complete dismiss the idea that a 12 year old is capable of understanding just how wrong it is.

BTW, I'm a former secondary school teacher (and former 12 year old).

 

[DOTA]

Not entirely sure the extent to which people are just having a hypothetical conversation about 12 year olds at this point but I do feel a thread title change would be appropriate when only one 14 year old is being held.

 

[Semper Fudge]

Not entirely sure the extent to which people are just having a hypothetical conversation about 12 year olds at this point but I do feel a thread title change would be appropriate when only one 14 year old is being held.

@SilentWitness

 

[BootsyCollins]

At 12 years old you know the difference between right and wrong and you know the consequences of physical harm. So in this case in my opinion it makes little sense to bring up development or even age. Now there are some contexts where that conversation makes sense, such as the long term consequences of substance abuse, gambling or a more specific that made the news earlier this year, playing with railway switches, things that have an effect or consequences that aren't immediate or don't seem immediate.

But whenever we are talking about teenagers committing sexual abuses, assaults or theft people need to keep in mind that they know exactly what they are doing. They know the consequences and they know that it's wrong.

Yes they know its wrong, hopefully, but i would not go as far as they know exactly what they are doing.
Also a teenager can be a 13 year old and a 19 year old, and it is a huge difference.

I am not saying they should just be let free btw, i am saying that there should be a difference in how you we approach and sentence a child doing something, even murder, compared to an adult.

 

[Alvaro Maestre]

I don't think Prison is the right approach, but rather a proper psych ward that can identify if there is a chance to rehabilitate them.

 

[golden_blunder]

Read that there was a racial aspect to what occurred. When you have kids wound up by what was happening just a few weeks prior it’s no wonder

 

[HTG]

I know you're being sarcastic here, but isn't the murder of an elderly man precisely one of these exceptions. As in, don't most 12 year old appreciate that if they beat an elderly man to death those actions are illegal and permanent? I'm not being facetious here, I completely agree that a 12 year old is less capable of understanding the consequences of most of their actions. But violent murder is such an extreme crime with such obvious and immediate consequences that it seems odd to complete dismiss the idea that a 12 year old is capable of understanding just how wrong it is.

BTW, I'm a former secondary school teacher (and former 12 year old).

The simple answer is no. 12 year olds do not grasp the severity and the weight of the consequences of their actions. Knowing that doing something is bad and knowing what something being bad means, aren’t the same thing. There are other things at play like impulse control, for example.

 

[HTG]

Whoever wants kids to receive the same punishments adults do, should also demand that they are allowed to vote, drive or conduct business.

 

[JPRouve]

Yes they know its wrong, hopefully, but i would not go as far as they know exactly what they are doing.
Also a teenager can be a 13 year old and a 19 year old, and it is a huge difference.

I am not saying they should just be let free btw, i am saying that there should be a difference in how you we approach and sentence a child doing something, even murder, compared to an adult.

They know exactly what they are doing, they use violence on purpose and they know that it is harmful and potentially lethal.

The only questions to ask is whether the death was caused by recklessness or was the intended goal which is a question that you would also ask if it was a 40 years old. Then when it comes to the sanction, depending on context, younger criminals probably should be given sentences that lean more toward rehabilitation.

But we really need to stop with the idea that teenagers are somehow brainless beings, they are not and they are also not necessarily victims of circumstances.

 

[HTG]

They know exactly what they are doing, they use violence on purpose and they know that it is harmful and potentially lethal.

The only questions to ask is whether the death was caused by recklessness or was the intended goal which is a question that you would also ask if it was a 40 years old. Then when it comes to the sanction, depending on context, younger criminals probably should be given sentences that lean more toward rehabilitation.

But we really need to stop with the idea that teenagers are somehow brainless beings, they are not and they are also not necessarily victims of circumstances.

would you allow a 12 year old to get a license to carry a firearm? Or drive a car? Would you let them vote? Or run for office? Be in charge of a billion dollar business?
If not, why?

 

[Jotun]

Yes. Because while we know for a fact, that children’s brains aren’t yet fully developed and they are therefore incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions in the same way adults are, we all know that the brain makes an exception for murder. The part responsible for understanding murder is obviously fully developed at the moment of birth.

Do you have any data that shows 12 or 14 year olds don't understand the consequences of violent murder.

 

[JPRouve]

would you allow a 12 year old to get a license to carry a firearm? Or drive a car? Would you let them vote? Or run for office? Be in charge of a billion dollar business?
If not, why?

I know what you are trying to do and I want you to answer this question first. Did I suggest that they should have the same sanction than adults or did I literally suggest something else?

 

[Jotun]

would you allow a 12 year old to get a license to carry a firearm? Or drive a car? Would you let them vote? Or run for office? Be in charge of a billion dollar business?
If not, why?

1) Unless required by job, no one should carry firearm
2) No, because young people tend to drive too fast, because they like the feeling of adrenaline. However, it's also true for many adults. Also, considering how many dangerous adult drivers are there, I can't wait for the day when autonomous vehicles completely replace the need for human drivers.
3) Yes, why not let them vote. They may be influenced by their parents, but considering just how much media manipulation there is and it's influencing adults too. Why not, if they can read and write and have identification, sure let them vote.
4) No, because they have no knowledge or experience of running one. However the same applies for most adults too. Just look up how most big lottery winners end up.

 

[HTG]

I know what you are trying to do and I want you to answer this question first. Did I suggest that they should have the same sanction than adults or did I literally suggest something else?

I will, even though I think it’s somewhat rude to refuse to answer the questions I have asked before you asked yours.
My issue was never with the sanctions you demand. It was your factually wrong claim, that they know exactly what they do. That’s not true. They do not have the same impulse control as adults. They are literally less able to understand how their actions impact the future. So no, they do not fully or exactly understand what they are doing. And I’m quite baffled that someone would claim this, against every bit of science there is on the topic. Their brain, or better said different areas of their brains, aren’t as connected as is the case with adults. Their actions are therefore more influenced by the Amygdala. Whereas adults decisions are much more influenced by the prefrontal cortex. That makes a tremendous difference in decision making, patience, impulse control and the ability to understand the consequences of actions, especially in an emotionalised or stressed situation.

 

[Daydreamer]

The simple answer is no. 12 year olds do not grasp the severity and the weight of the consequences of their actions. Knowing that doing something is bad and knowing what something being bad means, aren’t the same thing. There are other things at play like impulse control, for example.

I'm fully aware that 12 year olds (or 14 year olds, as is more relevant) generally have inferior impulse control to adults. As I said, I used to teach in secondary school. I've also been 14 years old. However both the students I taught and I myself understood the severity and weight of violently murdering an 80 year man by the age of 14.

 

[JPRouve]

I will, even though I think it’s somewhat rude to refuse to answer the questions I have asked before you asked yours.
My issue was never with the sanctions you demand. It was your factually wrong claim, that they know exactly what they do. That’s not true. They do not have the same impulse control as adults. They are literally less able to understand how their actions impact the future. So no, they do not fully or exactly understand what they are doing. And I’m quite baffled that someone would claim this, against every bit of science there is on the topic. Their brain, or better said different areas of their brains, aren’t as connected as is the case with adults. Their actions are therefore more influenced by the Amygdala. Whereas adults decisions are much more influenced by the prefrontal cortex. That makes a tremendous difference in decision making, patience, impulse control and the ability to understand the consequences of actions, especially in an emotionalised or stressed situation.

Well it's rude to ask me to answer to a straw man argument. I didn't suggest that they should be judged like adults.

 

[Daydreamer]

I will, even though I think it’s somewhat rude to refuse to answer the questions I have asked before you asked yours.
My issue was never with the sanctions you demand. It was your factually wrong claim, that they know exactly what they do. That’s not true. They do not have the same impulse control as adults. They are literally less able to understand how their actions impact the future. So no, they do not fully or exactly understand what they are doing. And I’m quite baffled that someone would claim this, against every bit of science there is on the topic. Their brain, or better said different areas of their brains, aren’t as connected as is the case with adults. Their actions are therefore more influenced by the Amygdala. Whereas adults decisions are much more influenced by the prefrontal cortex. That makes a tremendous difference in decision making, patience, impulse control and the ability to understand the consequences of actions, especially in an emotionalised or stressed situation.

You seem to baffled by something that no one is claiming.

No one is suggesting that a 14 year has the same impulse control, decision making and ability to understand the consequences of their actions as adults do. Just that by the age of 14 you have a sufficient understanding of the world to not violently murder an 80 year man and are aware that if you do so the ramifications will be severe for yourself and permanent for your victim.

 

[HTG]

Well it's rude to ask me to answer to a straw man argument. I didn't suggest that they should be judged like adults.

It is rude. But I have not done it and don’t really understand why you are saying I did. I asked you some questions, you still haven’t answered, to point out that we don’t allow kids these things, because we understand that they are not yet capable to fully grasp the consequences of their actions, lack impulse control, have a lesser understanding of good and bad and so on. At no point have I claimed you demand the same punishments as for adults.

 

[JPRouve]

It is rude. But I have not done it and don’t really understand why you are saying I did. I asked you some questions, you still haven’t answered, to point out that we don’t allow kids these things, because we understand that they are not yet capable to fully grasp the consequences of their actions, lack impulse control, have a lesser understanding of good and bad and so on. At no point have I claimed you demand the same punishments as for adults.

would you allow a 12 year old to get a license to carry a firearm? Or drive a car? Would you let them vote? Or run for office? Be in charge of a billion dollar business?
If not, why?

You did. That question to me comes from this:

Whoever wants kids to receive the same punishments adults do, should also demand that they are allowed to vote, drive or conduct business.

Unless I'm one of the "whoever", your question has nothing to do with me or the post you quoted.

 

[HTG]

You did. That question to me comes from this:


Unless I'm one of the "whoever", your question has nothing to do with me or the post you quoted.

I just explained to you why I asked you that question. Literally in the post you quoted. I genuinely and with good faith do not understand your issue. I really don’t see or understand why you would think that one post, that didn’t quote you, was in reference to you, as I even made clear that it was aimed at those who do want the same punishments.
So if you want a further explanation, feel free to write me a personal message. But this is getting repetitive and must be annoying to others.

 

[JPRouve]

I just explained to you why I asked you that question. Literally in the post you quoted. I genuinely and with good faith do not understand your issue. I really don’t see or understand why you would think that one post, that didn’t quote you, was in reference to you, as I even made clear that it was aimed at those who do want the same punishments.
So if you want a further explanation, feel free to write me a personal message. But this is getting repetitive and must be annoying to others.

I don't think that the initial post was in reference to me but I know that the question that you asked me is in reference to this post. Now you are free to think that I'm an idiot, though it would be better if you were honest about it.

I don't have an opinion on the question you asked, I don't have any objective reason to defend the current voting age, in some countries there is no actual minimum age to run a company though there is a minimum age to create one and I don't have an opinion on what it should be. Now when it comes to driving I think that it should be based on skills more than an arbitrary age.

 

[Heardy]

Did they have a child.

Did that child murder someone.

Job done.

So any parent is criminally responsible if their teenager commits a crime?? That’s a stretch.

The kids in the news story have done a terrible thing but not every criminal has criminally negligent parents.

 

[Moston Red]

What the hell is happening to this country.

RIP Bhim Kohli.

 

[matherto]

So any parent is criminally responsible if their teenager commits a crime?? That’s a stretch.

The kids in the news story have done a terrible thing but not every criminal has criminally negligent parents.

It's extreme but it might make people think twice about having kids.

And it might make some parents actually give a shit when they do have them.

I stress the word might because some people are beyond help and still breed.

And I'm a firm believe in nurture over nature so on some level they are always negligent if their kids turn out to be wronguns. Whether that should then become criminal is another matter. If your child is a murderer then clearly you did something wrong.

 

[Penna]

A child of 14 surely knows that if you kick an old man in the neck, you're likely to cause him very serious harm. Did they think he was going to walk away with a few bruises?

 

[langster]

It's extreme but it might make people think twice about having kids.

And it might make some parents actually give a shit when they do have them.

I stress the word might because some people are beyond help and still breed.

And I'm a firm believe in nurture over nature so on some level they are always negligent if their kids turn out to be wronguns. Whether that should then become criminal is another matter. If your child is a murderer then clearly you did something wrong.

Not sure where to start with this because it's an incredibly naive view of parenting, social influence and of indiviual responsibility. It's not as black and white as you make it and as much as I agree the importance of parents involvement in children's upbringings, I don't think it is entirely down to that how all kids turn out. Many from the best upbringings turn out badly and vice versa, some come from the worst or poorest yet turn out fine.

Schools have a huge impact as do friends and relationships, and in this day and age, social pressures and expectations, the media, internet, advertising, and social media do too, as does the mental health of the kids.

It's far more complex an issue than just mum and dad.