On Jan 9, 2008 3:37 PM, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > To put is very simply, yes, in this case. It is shown that 'adults' aged > 18 - 21 are much more likely to go off on a bender and potentially mow > down > someone with their vehicle in their drunken state than someone over 21. I > don't know many smokers who overindulge on a pack of cigs and drive in a > rather impaired state. As for fighting, well, killing is the whole idea > isn't it? Besides, 'they' are being killed, not 'us'. > > Also, at age 18-20 your brain is still busy rewiring itself to some > degree. > Many 18-20 years olds STILL do not fully understand the consequences of > their actions. Threatening to hold them accountable doesn't do a bit of > good in preventing many of said stupid actions. >
I don't think its a simple yes. Bear with me, I am trying to understand your point. With your logic... then anyone under 20 who murders someone shouldn't be tried as an adult? Why. Because their brain "rewiring" itself to a degree. Kids a lot younger are getting tried as adults. I don't think I agree. IMHO its an excuse, a crutch or an out clause. That 19 year old know exactly what he is doing, and understands the consequences. At 19 he's just willing to take more risk. I wouldn't equate willingness to take risk as being equal to not fully understanding consequences. Jeff ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:250319 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
