What should the minimum age to be tried as an adult be? I think it should be 18 unless the crime is violent

What should the minimum age to be tried as an adult be? I think it should be 18 unless the crime is violent.

Meh, 13 should be the age. Nogs need to learn early not to fuck around.

It should be 18 period. Since we can't just decide that it's okay to have sex a child we shouldn't be able to just decide that a child is an adult. In both cases, child molestation and prosecuting as an adult, a child's life is being destroyed.

Youre an idiot. I'm glad you don't make the laws. A criminal is a criminal.

This isn't about sex. It's about being charged as an adult.

Agreed. Tried as an adult should have with it the necessity of being a fucking adult.

Bump.

Yep, and if you read my post you'd know that the point about sex was an analogy. If we can just decide in one case that a child is an adult, why not in the other?

New York confuses me. Why is it 16 there? Aren't you guys a liberal shithole?

A child not knowing any better is not the same as an adult knowingly committing a crime.
I've seen little kids take stuff off of shelves and stuff them in their pockets just because they don't now what the hell money is.

18 for whites and Asians. 12 for blacks and spics.

16 is definitely old enough to be tried as an adult. You know what you are doing by that age.

>Tfw live in based Missouri

A 16 year old knows what theft is though.

So if a 17 year old High School senior murders his family, he shouldn't be tried as an adult?

In America, murder is almost always charged as an adult regardless of age.

Where would you draw the hard line where it is utterly impossible that they DON'T know any better, Mr. Infallible god?
Putting that line at the late teens is just erring on the side of caution so you don't send some kid to prison for a crime they didn't even know about.

Id say 14 should be the absolute lowest. However I also feel that setting an arbitrary number on it is foolish. It is something that needs to be assessed on a case by case basis. There are 12 year old college graduates and 30 year olds with the mental capacity of 10 year olds in this world.

No, at 15-16 you know what the fuck you are doing. End of discussion.

I kinda agree with you. Also what violent crime needs to result in adult punishment should be clearly defined. If you are 11 and beat and sexually assault a girl you should be tried as an adult. If you get in a fight on the playground and draw blood you should be punished by the school.

Also for non violent crimes there should be harsher punishments for repeat offenders. They shouldn't be sent to prison with gang bangers and ass raped. But they should be confined in a jail not a juvenile home.

Not everyone was a sperg that studied case law in high school.
There may still be kids that don't understand things like property law or copyright infringement.

Ignorance is not a defense.

I see it though.

So you're all for prosecuting toddlers to the fullest extent of the law?
>cue back pedaling

Yeah it was like stuck or something, when I replied it magically appeared. That seems to happen sometimes.

~12yo if it's a violent crime, unless there is clear proof it was ordered by an adult.

Its not about ignorance. Its about being mature enough to understand when you are doing something wrong.

A child does not understand that you cannot take a pack of gum from the shelf without paying for it. A teenager absolutely without question.

>Its about being mature enough to understand when you are doing something wrong.
So I'll ask again.
Where will you draw a bold line where you can be absolutely 100% sure that they knew what they were doing?
Where can you be sure that you're spending taxpayer money on jailing a criminal and not just some kid who didn't know any better?

I understood this at a very young age. One time I wanted something and I asked my parents for it and they said no. I didn't put it back on the shelf though I just kept carrying it until we left the store. I ended up shoplifting the item without ever intending to and I got away with it. Still I was aware of the concept of stealing and didn't try to do it again just because I got away with it once.

so a 17yo who raped and killed a 16yo should be tried as a kid.... all in the name of avoiding a "child's life" to "be destroyed".

If they can get a drivers license or learners permit that is the line. If you are old enough to operate vehicles on the road you are old enough to be tried as an adult.

13-16 max weed out the bad apples early. Save the bunch.

Except he would be charged as an adult in every state. Deadily violence doesn't get very much sympathy here.

Sounds like British or Australian justice

So you'd keep it exactly where it is?.............

it's Brazilian "justice"

At 15-16 yes

But even that varies. It can be 14.5 years old in some states and as high as 17 in others.

Im in the same boat. I think 18 is a good age of consent, but if you rape and torture someone to death at 16 you should just be put down. Empathy should be an inherent trait of the human psyche, and if you don't have it past early childhood, you never will.

Yup. When I was in school I encountered two kids who were legit sociopaths. One did end up raping two girls, the other was just a piece of shit through and through, wouldn't surprise me if he did something like that. The world would be better off without people like that growing up to be able to do their evil on a bigger scale.

Yeah good thinking but American society won't do something this drastic.

bump

Crime infested shit hole in the 80s and 90s thanks to spics and niggers