The legal system protects our children again! (NOT)

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Hence why in Saudi their maturity is judged (not just their physical maturity), notice all those mentioned are over 13? Notice also that the article doesn't mention that 125 committed murder at 17, one did it at 13?
It also doesn't mention the cases where as you say, the courts deemed that the action by the accused was justified, or recieved a custodial rather than capital sentance.

And who is judging the maturity level?

Personally I agree that the death penatly shouldn't be used for the reasons I've already stated.
So how about life inprisonment instead?
Why should a 15 year old who beats another teenager to death because he didn't like the look of them (a case I know about) not get the same sentance as someone aged 30 doing the same thing, if both are deemed mature enough to know what they did was wrong and the consiquences?

They may well for all I know. My objection was with the death penalty for children not punishment per se.

Yes, and while in Saudi they draw the line at the accused's actual level of maturity, we use an arbitary age where many criminals under that age are as aware of their wrong doings, as someone over that age, but get lighter sentances because of it.

Again you make no mention of how this 'actual level of maturity' is measured, which could possibly be even more arbitrary than a standard age. The standard age as we have in this country is, I would have thought, guided by cultural norms and standards. This does not mean to say it is an infallible system however.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

And who is judging the maturity level?



They may well for all I know. My objection was with the death penalty for children not punishment per se.



Again you make no mention of how this 'actual level of maturity' is measured, which could possibly be even more arbitrary than a standard age. The standard age as we have in this country is, I would have thought, guided by cultural norms and standards. This does not mean to say it is an infallible system however.

It's very interesting on this forum how a few seem to think people under the age of xyz should be treated with kid gloves when they commit a serious crime.

It makes me think back to a local case, where a 15yr old (I think) girl went out one night to a funfair with the intention of killing someone. The girl picked an innocent victim, another teenage girl. (one I seem to recall she didn't know) She then repeatedly stabbed the girl with a knife until a guy stepped in and physically immobilised her.

The court case made it clear, that there were many onloookers who did nothing. The one guy who stepped in and saved the victims life and danger to his own was himself threatened because he stepped in and assaulted a teenager who was in the act of commiting a multiple stabbing. the onlookers set about the good samaritan because he dared to harm a girl who was in the process of committing cold blooded murder.

I remember one memeber of this site saying words to the effect of "I would of dealt with him if that was my daughter he touched"

People need to get real, teenagers who commit violent acts should not be deal with any differently. A person stopping a child commotting a violent act should not be in danger of prosecution or physical abuse. The guy in question had a good pat on the back in court for his swift actions that saved a childs life, but I wonder if because of his experience, he would just stand back like the rest of the onlookers and watch a murder take place in future.

I know I couldn't stand back and watch, I know I would risk my own life in that situation. I have stepped in to a situation where two large guys were kicking a weedy kid in the head whilst on the floor, I am that sort of person.
Although deep down I know that if I was on the floor in that situation being kicked, I would most likely die if I had to rely on the majority of society who look the other way.

Edit: Put right some of the spelling mistakes and typos.

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by Escapee

It's very interesting on this forum how a few seem to think people under the age of xyz should be treated with kid gloves when they commit a serious crime.

Where have you got that impression from. I don't think that arguing that a crime committed when somebody is a child shouldn't carry a death sentence is hardly treating offenders with kid gloves.

I find it all rather ironic considering the thread title, or are we singling out specific children for attention and protection rather than ALL children.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Where have you got that impression from. I don't think that arguing that a crime committed when somebody is a child shouldn't carry a death sentence is hardly treating offenders with kid gloves.

I find it all rather ironic considering the thread title, or are we singling out specific children for attention and protection rather than ALL children.

The thread title was about the legals system protecting children who are victims, the thread has been twisted in an attempt to combine those children who have committed serious crime.

The legal system should not protect children who commit serious crime, any more than it prevents adults who commit serious crime.

I do howeve feel that the government and parents are fully responsible for the majority of crime carried out by children. I dont consider myslef to be old, but in my childhood days I would be asked if I had done something wrong and punished if I did. These days the parents automatically say "My kids didn't do that" the effect is kids who think they can get away with just about anything.

Good old fashioned punishment, meant I didn't go stealing, vandalising or giving anyone who wlaked down the street a load of verbal abuse. On one occassion when I was accused of something I remember my parents questioning me and being happy that I had in fact not done what was claimed. Its about time naughty kids got their ar*ses smacked a bit more often instead of their parents providing them with an alibi.