Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Why does the US gov. have the option to prosecute a 14yo as an adult?

roachboy · 10-14-2007, 10:43 AM

from a piaget perspective--developmental psychology--will is right.
the types of abstract through required to think in ethical terms are the last to develop.
if the notion of developmental stages that piaget outlined is correct at all--and there is not much disagreement that it is---the ability to imagine an action in the abstract and comprehend it as entailing consequences in potentia develops between 16-18. through that period. piaget considered this to be the last of the partially hardwired phases of cognitive development.

so it follows that there is something fundamentally fucked up about trying a 14 year old as an adult.

except from a viewpoint conditioned by the assumptions i outlined earlier somewhere in this thread. its an ideological effect--panic-driven--having nothing at all to do with any conception of "justice"--if the notion of justice hinges on a notion of intent, and if you assume that intent requires a concrete understanding of the relation of actions to consequences in anything like an abstract fashion--which is the basis for ANY ethical decision-making, and is thereby the basis for ANY notion of criminal intent.
(think about it---what is the basis for "not guilty by reason of insanity" type pleas for adults? the idea that the perpetrator of an act did not understand its potential consequence....)

you could say that a 14 year old might understand something about the potential outcomes of shooting up a school, but it is most unlikely that the kid understands them in ways that are anything like how an adult would understand them.

if that's true, then bourgeois panic is willing to redefine the notion of criminal intent in a fundamental way, without even considering what that means, because---well---it is more important that guns be easily available than it is that a notion of intent inscribed in law remain coherent, in this kind of case. because the complication is not really about the ethical development of a 14 year old--its driven by the fact that 14 year olds who DO NOT understand ethical questions in an adult manner can get guns and can carry out actions using them.

this logic obtains only for situations like this one, btw--shifts in sentencing guidlines that enable kids charged with violent, gun-related actions to be tried and convicted as adults.
that these changes are implemented in an ad hoc manner changes nothing about the problems they raise regarding the definition of criminal intent.

10-14-2007, 10:43 AM	#49 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	from a piaget perspective--developmental psychology--will is right. the types of abstract through required to think in ethical terms are the last to develop. if the notion of developmental stages that piaget outlined is correct at all--and there is not much disagreement that it is---the ability to imagine an action in the abstract and comprehend it as entailing consequences in potentia develops between 16-18. through that period. piaget considered this to be the last of the partially hardwired phases of cognitive development. so it follows that there is something fundamentally fucked up about trying a 14 year old as an adult. except from a viewpoint conditioned by the assumptions i outlined earlier somewhere in this thread. its an ideological effect--panic-driven--having nothing at all to do with any conception of "justice"--if the notion of justice hinges on a notion of intent, and if you assume that intent requires a concrete understanding of the relation of actions to consequences in anything like an abstract fashion--which is the basis for ANY ethical decision-making, and is thereby the basis for ANY notion of criminal intent. (think about it---what is the basis for "not guilty by reason of insanity" type pleas for adults? the idea that the perpetrator of an act did not understand its potential consequence....) you could say that a 14 year old might understand something about the potential outcomes of shooting up a school, but it is most unlikely that the kid understands them in ways that are anything like how an adult would understand them. if that's true, then bourgeois panic is willing to redefine the notion of criminal intent in a fundamental way, without even considering what that means, because---well---it is more important that guns be easily available than it is that a notion of intent inscribed in law remain coherent, in this kind of case. because the complication is not really about the ethical development of a 14 year old--its driven by the fact that 14 year olds who DO NOT understand ethical questions in an adult manner can get guns and can carry out actions using them. this logic obtains only for situations like this one, btw--shifts in sentencing guidlines that enable kids charged with violent, gun-related actions to be tried and convicted as adults. that these changes are implemented in an ad hoc manner changes nothing about the problems they raise regarding the definition of criminal intent. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 10-14-2007 at 10:48 AM..