Juvenile Death Penalty

wolf · 02-24-2004, 12:14 AM

Whether or not a child (someone under the age of 18) should be tried as an adult depends on the crime, and also upon the child.

There are multiple layers in a determination of criminal competency ... that the individual knows the difference between right and wrong is just one aspect, being able to understand that nature of the criminal proceedings and participants and assist in one's own defenense is another.

The greater determination, though, is whether the individual was suffering a defect of reason, such that at the time of the offense s/he didn't know that the action was a crime. The actual text of what's known as the M'Naughten Rule is: "...at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it that he did not know he was doing what was wrong."

This, at least, is the basis of psychiatric competency for trial. A similar assessment occurs when a child is the perptrator of the crime.

If the child in question is examined and found to be competent, then yes, I believe that the child can and should be tried as an adult, possibly facing the death penalty.

Not all crimes are of such grievous nature to require this level of potential punishment.

I do not think, though, that most children who are sentenced as adults should necessarily do time in adult prisons. There are high security juvenile facilities, and when the kid ages out of those, if there is time remaining on the sentence, they can go to the Big House. Sending kids to adult jails would not be economically feasible ... unless there are now enough of these cases to build a KiddieSuperMax facility. A child, even a major bad ass 16 year old, would likely have to be in protective custody, which ain't cheap.

Part of what clouds the waters in dicussions like these, also, is that people think of examples like the kids described at the start of the thread ... rather than the more likely hardcore teenage gang member who engages in mayhem related either to that, or other "career" crime, like the half-dozen liquor and convenience store robberies that we see reported on the news every day.

(please note: every state's statutes regarding competency to stand trial are different. My information relates primarily to Pennsylvania law)

View Poll Results: Juvenile Death Penalty
Yes. Juveniles who commit capital crimes should be tried as adults, and their records should not be sealed	10	43.48%
Yes, juveniles should be tried as adults, but only after a certain age.	2	8.70%
No. Juveniles should not be tried as adults. They can still be rehabilitated due to their age.	5	21.74%
I don't agree with any of these. I have my own opinion of how it should be done. (DO tell...)	6	26.09%
Voters: 23. You may not vote on this poll

02-24-2004, 12:14 AM	#15
wolf lobber of scimitars Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phila Burbs Posts: 20,774	Whether or not a child (someone under the age of 18) should be tried as an adult depends on the crime, and also upon the child. There are multiple layers in a determination of criminal competency ... that the individual knows the difference between right and wrong is just one aspect, being able to understand that nature of the criminal proceedings and participants and assist in one's own defenense is another. The greater determination, though, is whether the individual was suffering a defect of reason, such that at the time of the offense s/he didn't know that the action was a crime. The actual text of what's known as the M'Naughten Rule is: "...at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it that he did not know he was doing what was wrong." This, at least, is the basis of psychiatric competency for trial. A similar assessment occurs when a child is the perptrator of the crime. If the child in question is examined and found to be competent, then yes, I believe that the child can and should be tried as an adult, possibly facing the death penalty. Not all crimes are of such grievous nature to require this level of potential punishment. I do not think, though, that most children who are sentenced as adults should necessarily do time in adult prisons. There are high security juvenile facilities, and when the kid ages out of those, if there is time remaining on the sentence, they can go to the Big House. Sending kids to adult jails would not be economically feasible ... unless there are now enough of these cases to build a KiddieSuperMax facility. A child, even a major bad ass 16 year old, would likely have to be in protective custody, which ain't cheap. Part of what clouds the waters in dicussions like these, also, is that people think of examples like the kids described at the start of the thread ... rather than the more likely hardcore teenage gang member who engages in mayhem related either to that, or other "career" crime, like the half-dozen liquor and convenience store robberies that we see reported on the news every day. (please note: every state's statutes regarding competency to stand trial are different. My information relates primarily to Pennsylvania law) __________________ wolf eht htiw og "Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception." --G. Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island High Priestess of the Church of the Whale Penis

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)