Hi Y'all,
Rick Adams wrote:
> Linda wrote:
>
> > Apparently, 14 year-old kids must be tried as adults in Michigan.
>
> Not must, Linda. May.
I based my statement on a discussion in the news - for example, from the Detroit
Free Press:
"There is no juvenile option for the 14-year-old defendants. In binding them over
for trial, Nicholson ruled that conspiracy to commit first-degree murder had
occurred and that there was probable cause to believe Schnepp and Zinzo committed
it." I originally read this as part of an AP article.
My guess that the difference may be the nature of the alleged crime.
> > My question particularly for those with some expertise in adolescent
> > psychology - Does this seem like an appropriate response? I find it
> > hard to believe that kids of this age are "unredeemable".
>
> It's a knee-jerk response to the rash of school shootings and an easy way
> for prosecutors to appear to be "getting tough" on juvenile crime.
In this case, it almost seems as if it is before the crime - although the crime
being argued is conspiracy. Be that as it may, it is not the politics with which I
am most concerned. I know kids are on death row and have these sorts of discussion
on other lists. What I wanted to know related more to adolescents cognitive
development - stuff such as the "personal fable", possible role of the "imaginary
audience", etc. And what relationship these would have to kids spouting off ideas
and then facing life in prison for these statements. I'm not suggesting that these
incidents be ignored but this seems more than a knee-jerk. It seems like we've
kicked the kids all the way out of the community.
Warm regards,
linda
--
linda m. woolf, ph.d.
associate professor - psychology
webster university
main webpage: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/
Holocaust and genocide studies pages:
http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/holocaust.html
womens' pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/women.html
gerontology pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/gero.html
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
