Age limitations have always kind of puzzled me. According to the law, you are a minor until you turn 18. Before this age, any crimes you commit are supposed to be handled by a juvenile court, where the penalties are tempered by the supposition that the defendant's relative young age shields them from the level of culpability found in adult cases.
Juvenile court punishments are generally seen as attempted learning tools, trying to shape the person positively for their adult life, which begins at 18 and carries significantly higher punishments for similar crimes. Doesn't all this go out the window when minor after minor is being charged as an adult, regardless of their age? If somehow the brutality of the crime supercedes age, then why is age included at all?!?? Perhaps the law should/could be re-written so that crimes committed before the age of 18, are eligible to be tried in the juvenile system. Whereas all crimes committed after that age, are not. Each case could then be judged on an individual basis, taking into consideration whether the age of the defendant may or may not be a crucial consideration. >> Adam wrote: >> I don't advocate the death penalty really but if we are going to have >> it how can be be so dead set on the age 18? > > I guess I agree with Justice O'Connor that each case should be taken > on its own merits, but overall if you're going to sanction killing > people what's the difference if they're young or slow? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:148872 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
