Why does the US gov. have the option to prosecute a 14yo as an adult?
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/us...th&oref=slogin

October 12, 2007
Boy, 14, Seized in Plot to Open Fire at School
By JON HURDLE and IAN URBINA

PLYMOUTH MEETING, Pa., Oct. 11 — A 14-year-old boy was arrested Wednesday night after the police received a tip that he was plotting a shooting spree at a high school in this northern suburb of Philadelphia, the authorities said.

The police said that the boy had been planning a “Columbine style” attack on students at Plymouth Whitemarsh High School and that in searching his home, they had found a 9-millimeter assault rifle, dozens of authentic-looking BB and air guns, and seven hand grenades he was making, four of which were operational.

At a news conference Thursday, the Montgomery County district attorney, Bruce L. Castor Jr., stood before a table that held the seized weaponry, which looked daunting even though most of it was air-powered imitations.

The genuine assault rifle, for which no ammunition was found in the home, was bought legally at a gun show by the boy’s mother, the police said. But she bought it for her son, Mr. Castor said, adding that as a result his office was still deciding what charges to file against her, if any.

The boy, whose name was withheld because he is a minor, attended the middle school associated with Plymouth Whitemarsh until 18 months ago, when his parents began schooling him at home because he was being bullied by other students, the police said. He tried to recruit another onetime student at the school to join him in the attack, they said, and that former student alerted the police.

Officers searched the family’s house with the consent of the boy’s parents and, the authorities said, found notebooks detailing violent acts, an Army handbook on counterinsurgency operations and a DVD entitled “Game Over in Littleton,” a documentary on the 1999 rampage in which two students at Columbine High School in Colorado shot to death 12 schoolmates and a teacher before committing suicide.

Mr. Castor said he did not believe an attack had been imminent.

“It could have simply been big talking,” he said, “by a kid who thought that he was bullied previously, and he was going to exact his revenge.”

Mr. Castor said he was considering whether to charge the boy as an adult. For now, he has been charged as a juvenile with various offenses including criminal attempt and possession of a criminal instrument, said Joseph Lawrence, deputy chief of the Plymouth Township Police Department. Mr. Lawrence declined to elaborate on the charges.

Jon Hurdle reported from Plymouth Meeting, and Ian Urbina from Washington.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why does the US gov. have the option to prosecute a 14yo as an adult?

Killing people is a serious crime...or planning to.
But the purp is a 14 year old.

Is this good law practice or politically motivated? or what?

The kid needs a repair job on his head.
Putting this kid in an environment such as prison will only increase his deviant skills.

Not to threadjack, but I'm convinced the media is creating monsters.

for every bad "new" type of crime that they report, copycats spring up, it's viral. No, it doesn't turn everyone into raving lunatics, but do you honestly think this kid would have been the 1st of his kind had there been no columbine and copycats after that so heavily shown in the media?

Kids shouldn't be watching the news, it's not fair and balanced at all when they don't impart any other kind of message other than "the world sucks, and this is how" "oh by the way, these kids were bullied, this is how they chose to get back"

14 year old thinks "hrmmmmmmmmmm!"


end threadjack

and no, I don't think the government should be trying to prosecute him as an adult, I think they need to have the kids who picked on him brought up on psychological abuse.

this shit it getting out of hand. "kids will be kids" means nothing anymore.

Schools are a joke. what happened to learning the basics. making friends, and moving on?

I remember getting kicked in the stomach by some kid like 4 grades higher than me because I was new at one school, no other reason. I kicked his ass, I didn't shoot him. what the hell ><

stupid people.

US government? Huh?

Did you read your own article? This has nothing to do with the Federal government. It's a local government.

If you're trying to expand the argument into why LOCAL and STATE governments will sometimes try minors as adults it is because there are certain crimes that serious enough to make an exception for, especially if the kid is a habitual violent offender.

You'll also notice that adult charges have not been filed at this point, so this case isn't the best example to use, at least at this point.

I'm really confused as to exactly what point you're trying to make since, at the very least, you've done a poor job of picking an example to illustrate whatever point it is.

My choice of words were imprecise. I knew that when I wrote the post.
I don't know law or the best way to phrase my concern. I also know the DA is only considering weather to try the kid as an adult.

My question still stands. Why under the law is it possible for a DA to try a 14 year old as an adult? It just seems wrong to me. Where do you draw the line?

In my mind...this is why.
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pag...u_sid=10152553

14 year old gang banger blows away a 6 year old little girl. Why shouldn't he be tried as an adult? It just seems right to me.

The title is a complete misnomer. The US has not tried any child as an adult that I can find. Only local and state courts apply the standard.
As I understand it, at 18 you get to clear off your record and start new. Prior to 18 you have a juvenile record. At 18 you are an adult and now starts your adult record, your juvenile record is sealed and not allowed to be opened except for federal investigation but not admissable as any evidence of prior crime. Being tried as adult removes the ability for the person to hide their crime in juvenile records that get sealed when one turns 18.

Secondly, the juvenile courts don't generally have the same type of punishments as adult courts. Juveniles found to be delniquent, usually has some sort of punishment and rehabilitation, example probation and community service/action. Generally there is no incarceration. Adults trials have more opportunity to have incarceration as an option.

As I understand it also, being tried as an adult doesn't imply that you go to adult prison. The correlation of the two is absurd since what good would it do to have a 14 yr old in a PMITA prison? How well can an adult prison take care of the needs of a 14 yr old? From a logic standpoint wouldn't any lawyer be able to consider a 14 yr old in an adult prison cruel and unusual punishment?

I'm in the process of reading and understanding this paper, Should Juvenile Offenders Be Tried As Adults? A Developmental Perspective on Changing Legal Policies by Laurence Steinberg

Right now it appears that the line is drawn at the TYPE of crime, so drug offenses and crimes relating in death of a citizen attract the "tried as an adult" consequence.

OK, let's assume that you're now leaving the US government out of this completely since they have absolutely nothing to do with this case (I make this caveat because that's the very first question in the OP).

Local governments get to set their own laws. It is the nature of the American system of government. That means that there is no one answer, although Cynthetiq pointed out the one that covers the vast majority of the answers.

There is a case in Loudon County, TN where a 15-year old brought a gun to a school and shot 3 people, killing an assistant prinicpal. He was tried as an adult because of the seriousness of the crime, but there was never doubt of guilt or innocence. If he were tried in juvenille court, he could only be kept incarcerated until he turned 21, and he would never have to report that he has a felony conviction. He was tried as an adult because it allowed him to be locked up longer.

Sometimes the crime is serious enough that the youthful criminal needs a longer sentence than is available in the juvenille court system. Lee Boyd Malvo, one of the Washington snipers, immediately springs to mind. He was 17 when he either shot or helped to shoot random people. He needs to spend more than 4 years in prison.

So because juvenile law can not be changed try a kid under adult law. and if you don't like the way he looks charge him with something more serious.

I feel sick...

The protections the juvenile courts have for the juvenile are fundamental in keeping the majority of the juveniles well and good until their adult lives and can be functioning and contributing adults in society.

Changing juvenile law to encompass them into adult law seems to be the worse thing to do as such then what is to keep the child from being tried as an adult for grant theft auto or grand larceny? The standards for adults would have to be the same for juveniles in what you are suggesting.

It seems to be appropriate to me that for selected crimes which have slowly become defined and added. It isn't like the DA just wakes up and says "I'd like to try this juvenile as an adult." No there is a process for transferring from the juvenile court system to the adult court system since the adult system has no jurisdiction over juveniles. This means that the transferrence isn't as you say, "you don't like the way he looks" implies that there could be simple abuse by one individual. No there is still the proper judicial system that is followed for due process. This also means that the defendant's lawyer can object and try to keep the case within the juvenile system.

You feel sick because someone is attempting to kill someone that they shouldn't be tried as an adult? Do you really want to give that individual the benefit of the doubt as a juvenile and have no recourse of punishment after you remove that reasonable doubt?

Again, trying someone in a court doesn't immediately apply consequence and penalty. A judge gets to decide that and can apply compassion and humanity as needed.

If they can prosecute kids as adults, they should let them vote. Obviously these kids warrant adult justice, therefore they're adults. Frankly, children should be able to vote anyway as they have to pay sales taxes and income taxes (if they're over 15). This country was started for, among other things, taxation without representation.

The government needs to make up it's mind. Are kids people or not?

..

Well I knew this was comming.

Its rather obvious why the left wants children to vote.

Because a few heinous crimes are so horrific that they get tried as an adult does not mean we need more people living off their parents with no clue about the economy voting. We have college kids for that.

You're taking a fork in the road, that leads to a dead end. Are kids people? Of course they are. That's just silly. Now...are kids "adults", or not?
Well...when a 14 year old "kid", that probably should be playing Little League Baseball, picks up a 9mm and blows away a 1st grader, while in the process of attempting to kill 2 teenage girls? That 14 year old has, in my opinion, forfeited his right to the rest of his childhood.

are you serious in that taxation without representation assertion? if so then you figure that we must have representation for tourists too since they too pay these taxes with no chance of refund like the Global Tax Refund ... I'm sorry that's an absurd assertion since the parents are the guardians and responsible representative for the children. This is why they are trying to change laws to make the parents responsible for the child's behavoir and their contribution to their behavior. The OP situation the mother was charged with unlawful transfer of a fiream, possession of a firearm by a minor, corruption of a minor, endangering the welfare of a child and two counts of reckless endangerment.

So you'd also like for children to be able to enter into binding contracts before 18...the idea and assertion are you making is absurd at best.

They also factor in emotional factors and in a sense maturity. Thats why a six year old would never be tried as an adult, the child has no concept of the actions that were committed.

A 15 year old who killed somebody, unless suffering from severe mental trauma (which might be a given noting a 15 year does something heinous) or mental retardation, would full well know that murdering someone is wrong and has consequences.

Most people who vote have no clue about the economy.
He should be imprisoned, sure, but tried as an adult? The reason we have separations for adults and children is simple: children are still developing. The 14 year old boy is not the same person as the 30 year old man. He has not yet developed his full understandings of right and wrong to be a part of his perception of the world.
Parents aren't given two votes, so when it comes to the right to vote, they are not a representative for the children. Would I like children to be able to enter into a contract? They are at birth. As citizens, they have as a sort, entered into a contract with the US government that they'll pay taxes and not break the law, go to school and obey curfew. Yet we have a shitty school system and we have kids that are arbitrarily charged as adults. That would be less likely to happen if people under the age of 18 could vote.

BTW, calling something absurd without representing why it's absurd is wasting everyone's time.

will do you have any knowledge of the difference between the juvenile courts and the adult courts?

Yes. Still doesn't stop the US government from confusing the two.

Juveniles can be charged as adults in Oregon, because the voters approved Measure 11. Measure 11 "established mandatory minimum sentences for certain violent felonies, requiring adult trials and sentencing for those felonies for defendants over age 15" (Wikipedia).

So even in Oregon, you couldn't charge this 14-year-old as an adult.

A few years after Measure 11 passed, Kip Kinkel killed his parents, and then went on a shooting spree at Thurston High School in Springfield, OR, killing two of his schoolmates and wounding 20 more. Kinkel plead guilty to murder and attempted murder. Kinkel received a total of 111 years in prison during his sentencing, without the possibility of parole.

Kinkel, as a minor, was sent to MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility to serve the first part of his sentence. There, he was allowed to complete his high school diploma. He stayed at MacLaren until June 2007. Just short of his 25th birthday, Kinkel was transferred to the Oregon State Correctional Institution in Salem, where he will serve out the remainder of his sentence.

In Oregon, the system works (at least in this regard). Even if juveniles between 15-18 commit serious felonies and are convicted as adults, they serve the first part of their sentence in a juvenile facility for serious offenders.

Kinkel is currently trying to get a new trial on the grounds that he has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and his lawyers failed to plead insanity, though he was exhibiting signs of paranoid schizophrenia at the time of the crime. We'll see how this all plays out.

The U.S. is made up of 50 different states, all with different laws regarding the sentencing of juveniles, so it's hard for me to comment on the case in the OP. Given that the accused is 14, I would hope that he would receive a sentence similar to Kinkel's--an adult sentence with ages 14-25 served in a juvenile facility.

Can you please point out where the US FEDERAL government is confusing the two?

So, in your mind, when someone says "US government", they always mean "federal government". Interesting. Did you know that states, counties, and even cities have government? So when I say "US government", I could mean federal, state, county, or city.

I call bullshit on this assertion. if, as a 14 year old, a child doesn't know right from wrong...then he/she either has a severe mental/emotional deficiency or his/her parents have done a fantastically bad job.

I have a 13 year old daughter. she KNOWS right from wrong.


my thought on the matter is this: let the punishement fit the crime. commit an adult crime...get punished as an adult. simple.

Most people who vote have no clue about alot of things.

This is exactly what's wrong with the leftist socialist viewpoint. The constant 'we get our rights and priviledges from the government' crap and 'only government can tell us what's right and what's wrong'....at least when a socialist democrat is in power. 180 degrees from what America was supposed to be about.

Is the city of san jose government, the US government?

Yes, there is a distinction of them for me. You don't want my community board dictating how life should be in the rest of New York State. So you don't care about a difference between powers of States versus Federal? City versus State? As far as you are concerned they are all the same.

Your interchangeable use of them blurs the differences, a quite ignorant opinion for someone that I had thought was quite well versed. If you were to suggest "Government" as being that assertion, I'd agree with you, but since you are willing to put US in front of it but still allow it to encompass City, I'm not on the same page with you.

Then they should be allowed to vote.
It's a good thing we don't have an IQ test before people vote. This supports the idea that kids should be able to vote.
What is it with you and socialism? I'm telling people that the government is wrong and that children should have the right to vote and somehow it's me allowing the government to dictate rights to me. Think about that 180 degree interpretation.
It is a part of the US government, for all intents and purposes. It's not independent from the US government and it's not a member of any other government.

US government is a general classification. If you want to get more specific, using descriptive terms like federal or state, or even country or city can be used. My dog and I are both mammals. He's a canine and I'm homo sapiens, but we're still both mammals.

i find it difficult not to see in the state and local level--o how to put this---poking holes in the separation of juvenile from adult an index of much wider anxieties about control mostly. so they're symptoms of wider ideological incoherences. they make most sense to me if you move away from the situation itself and fit it into a bigger context.

let's play this game for a second then, shall we?

this nonsense from plymouth meeting groups a kid mouthing off about creating mayhem with weapons under the Big Hysteria-Management Category of the moment: "terrorism"...which is about anxiety concerning the instrusion of arbitrary violence into a "reality" understood as otherwise predictable, controllable.

school shootings more generally--instances of arbitrary violence.

sentencing guideline shifts--simple-minded responses to a percieved surging up of the arbitrary.

it's as if reality was as you see it on television--a collection of objects---as if objects were knowable because they were endowed with essences---so things are always what they are, and we operate in a relation to the world that is basically the same as sitting on a lazee-boy watching tv "news"---
so politics is the simple arrangement of objects--multiplicity of viewpoints simply a function of a voice-over, never affecting the reality of the world, which is things and their arrangement.

so *anything* that fucks with the arrangement in an unexpected manner is arbitrary in the same way all the time no matter the situation.

the funny thing is that these sentence guidline shifts are conservative-driven measures for the most part, and so operate within the logic of the conservative view of the state---support for those dimensions of state function which are about repression, opposition to state functions that involve the redistribution of wealth and everything that follows from it.

from this you can see the one-dimensionality of conservative discourse about the state--they are dependent on its repressive functions to control for arbitrariness (which is itself circular, a function of the preference for a simple world that underpins conservatism--a preference for a pretty arrangement of surfaces to thinking in any depth about much of anything...too complicated, makes you worry--conservative politics are therapeutic, but it's a petit bourgeois therapy---on the order of prayer: "O Mister State...Mister State....Please Come Kill What Freaks Us Out and Protect Us from Complexity Now and at the Hour of Our Death. Amen.")

and in order to not have to face even the complexity of their own motives, you get this bizarre-o tendency to projection--so "dependency" gets talked about in the context of transfers of wealth to the poor. THEY are dependent, while WE are these free-floating atoms...heroic individuals until a Threat comes, at which point we rally round the Flag and hope for a Pretty Spectacle of the Assertion of Control. shock and awe on the big scale, sending a 14 year old to prison for life on a smaller scale.

and since the 14 year old is always Other, always not-you, it is obvious that these sentencing guidelines are theatrical, that the trial theater, and that the effect is the reassurance of television viewers that threats to the order of Things are disappeared.

this is more about what i see this kind of phenomenon as doing than a position concerning whether i support or oppose sentence guidline shifts in themselves, btw.
i tend to see these as a bad idea, but the arguments for this run in a different direction than the above. just saying.

so, you'd like to see Hannah Montana as President then?

and of course, if they should be allowed to vote, then they should also be allowed to drive, smoke, drink and have sex too, right?

You can't crash a voting booth, become intoxicated for voting libertarian, or get pregnant voting along with your favorite pundit.

No, but I would posit that the consequences could be equaly, if not more, disasterous.

Does anyone wonder why the more left someone is the more they want children and convicts to vote?

If anything the voting age is too young. You need to experience life before you can make any judgments on how to proceed. Todays 18 year old often hasn't even had a job these days, and wont' until after he graduates college at 22 on the 5 year plan.

In the past that was going to work and marriage age, now its just part of the wests extended childhood.

More disastrous than voting in Bush? I can't really imagine that.

And thank you, Ustwo, for demonstrating that you only want a few people to vote. Perhaps only people over the age of 55? Or maybe only people who have 4 years of college or more? Maybe just the rich?

Post #10 if you were really asking a question :thumbsup:

Because there are some crimes which demonstrate a level of intricate, careful, or heavily time-consuming planning or use of adult-level intellect or resolve which make no difference as to whether a person is 14 or 40.

The reason minors aren't tried as adults is not simply a matter of the number of years they've been around. Minors are not considered adults because they're not considered to be capable of adult-level reasoning, intellect, mental acuity, and full knowledge of the impact of their decisions.

When, however, a minor exhibits such adult-level abilities and full knowledge of the impact of their decisions- like planning on getting a gun and killing people and blowing things up, and taking the time to carefully plan an attack to kill people and manufacture incendiary devices to that end- then they are not acting as a child, they are acting as an adult.

Minors are also able to emancipate themselves of their parents if they can demonstrate to a judge that they are capable of mature, adult-level thought and motivations.

Minors are more than capable of having adult-level intellect and reasoning. This doesn't mean it'll always be applied for good purposes, just the same as in actual adults.

If he's seriously plotting to kill people, go ahead and get him out of society.

-Will

I think analog has summed it up best in this situation.

This 14 yr old was not behaving as a 14 year old he had a weapon and

So now we have a 14 yr old who has cold bloodedly (I don't think that's a word is it?) planned out the death of numerous people his own age. At 14 he understands death, he understands what he's taking from those people and their families, and he has decided to kill these other children anyway.

To me that act of planning it out makes this such a horrific idea. He has most definitely used adult reasoning and intellect when it comes to planning out these murders and / or attacks.

For the case stated in the OP do I support trying the kid in adult court? No, I don't, for the simple reason that he was caught before it happened and the system has a chance of working for him as well as against him at this point in his life. If he had actually had the opportunity to follow his plans through then my answer would be notably different.

As for the ridiculous idea of a 6 yr old being tried under adult conditions this would never happen. A 6 yr old does not have the emotional maturity to understand their actions and the consequences attached even if they do have the intellectual capability.

A better question is why in the hell is a MOTHER buying her 14 year old an assault weapon?

Assault weapon is a media label.

A deer rifle is more dangerous.

Of course he was acting like a 14 year old. He was being selfish and self pitying and a baby. I remember being 14. I wasn't a man yet. No one is an adult at 14, not even Doogie Howser.

The entire Jewish culture disagrees with you, 13 is the bar mitzvah when the Jewish community sees them be a man.

Well it's an interesting coincidence that this happened in Israel, then. :crazy:

Church vs. State

READY - FIGHT!

Instead of trying him as an adult, they should heal him as a child. The kid's brain isn't even fully developed yet.

very, VERY, VERY well put.

To answer the main question this thread brings up is this; to keep a dangerous person behind bars for as long as possible.

To me punishing a 14 year old as if he were an adult has everything to do with vengeance, and nothing to do with solving the situation.

Horse SHIT!
Everybody with a "normal" brain knows right from wrong at 14, especially when it comes to "Is it wrong to plot to shoot a bunch of people in my school?" situations.

Horse shit!
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/scien...ain_10-13.html

The brain isn't fully developed until the late teens in most people. Abstract thought really isn't in place until around 18 on average.

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.

I still see the double standard as an effect of an emotional response, or a response rooted in an emotional reaction, more than a reasonable response, or a response based on dispassionate reasoning. One of the drawbacks to having a jury of one's peers, or even to having a court system inhabited and run by people, is that we're not always rational beings. It's a shame people can't just be conscious of their decisions and allow their emotional reactions to be filtered by their reason.

As an aside, it's good to know that my psych classes finally paid off.

Lets get some outside opinions.

I've always thought it comes down to this question its rehab vrs danger to society. Some children are not worth 'saving' when in so doing you expose innocents to their violent behaviors.

Mean and heartless I know, but life sucks that way. Life is not about the lowest common denominator.

Prosecutors aren't psychologists. They're not qualified to say who is or isn't capable of rehabilitation.

I'd be happy with a larger psychologist presence in the criminal justice system if for no other reason but to piss off Tom Cruise.

It seems that the mission of adult corrections has changed from punishment to rehab while the mission of juvenile corrections has changed from rehab to punishment.

At least the juvenile offender knows where he's going after detention: the big house.

While I fully enjoy pissing off Tom Cruise as much as anyone would, from what I gather reading that, they do a psychological profile of some kind of the little murdering bastards.

A psych profile is a snapshot. What they need is a movie. I'm not a psychologist by trade, but by my understanding the more time a licensed psychologist spends with a patient, the more complete a picture that psychologist has. One or two 1 hour sessions (which is at most what they do for a profile, if they even meet in person at all) is really like only looking at one tooth before recommending braces (to use a dentist metaphor).

Not worth my tax money to do the job the parents should have done before unleashing their hellspawn upon us. Normally the only thing that makes a true violent offender non violent is time and age. You can't talk a narcissist out of being one.

I don't have a problem with charging a teen as an adult for the right crime. This however, isn't the right case. The cops were able to catch him before he committed any crimes. Right now, they can give him one hell of a slap on the wrist and get him some serious psychological help.

As I read the article below the words, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." and "Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse." rang in my head. Why? Because they are the reasons for more petty things why don't or can't they apply to more serious crimes?

..

I have no problem with locking anyone up for life. There are how many billions of people in this world? And how many billions of them manage to NOT be violent criminals? Its the easiest thing in the world. Lock em up, they shall not be missed.

Unless it's someone in your family.

You'll need to explain yourself further. You haven't distinguished varying levels of violent crimes. Does this include all of them? If so, this is too extreme and smacks of a police state. Would you be so extreme with everything else?

Billions of people + crimes being punished by imprisonment = hundreds of millions of prisoners. Do you know how much it costs to imprison hundreds of millions of people? More importantly, do you know that prison isn't designed to reform but to simply house?

Think about it.

Edit: OH GOD, I almost dropped my butter knife.

Yes, keep those criminal bastards away from me.

If that's how you want them to have access to free healthcare and free housing, sure. I'm all for it. Though, I'm also for the death penalty in some crimes so, take your chances in getting that 3 hots and a cot with free healthcare.

And yes, if it was my family? Damn skippy! You do the crime you pay the time.

I've already had family members wrongfully imprisoned by corrupt state government. I'm happy for people to be incarcerated for justice, since most of you won't let me me cut off their hands or feet, or other coporal punishment.

And to think that the U.S. is one of the worst prison states in the world. The prison population per 100,000 is rivaled only by Russia and Belarus. Sure, little is known about what is going on in places like North Korea, but still....

Of course, if you were looking any further, you'd note that an enormous number of those people are in there for drug-related offenses and that we RELEASE violent criminals on parole to make more room for drug offenders in our ultra-successful, ultra-efficient war on drugs.

Not that that makes it any better...

I couldn't agree more. The problem is that prevention isn't profitable, and people in power are by their nature selfish.

I have to agree that there are those not fit to live in society...who, for all practical purposes are irreparably damaged. In my opinion, they should be discarded, but there are those who would like to let them live out their natural lives...though for what purpose, I know not.

as for the prison-state comments...I'm all for the US government legalizing controlled substances.

There are so few people that are irreversibly damaged that you'd probably have trouble filling one medium sized prison with all of them. Killing people is wrong, and is an act of vengeance just like pretending a 14 year old is an adult so we can punish him or her more.

We might incarcerate(sp) at a higher rate, but no other industrialized nation has a population that rivals ours sans what China and India? People break the law,they should be punished; they are done so in a fair and legal process. Maybe if our drug laws were more laxed our rates would be lower, but that doesn't absolve people from the fact that they broke the law.

They can all live in your backyard. I have enough crazies in my part of the US.

From the numbers pulled out of my ass society?

you may be right will, but how much time will it take to fix that bulk of people with the criminal mindset? you're talking about trying to undo years of failed parenting, etc. I dont think its logistically practical.

and if a criminal does show normalcy when he is "rehabilitated", how many more times does he have to get out of the system and hurt someone before we give him the axe?

I dont really see the excecution of those who harm others as "killing". some cars arent worth fixing, and they go to the scrap yard...some pets are too violent to have around kids, or become physically ill enough to warrant being euthanized...its just good business.

hell, turn them into organ donors for all I care....thats one way to make them give back to society what they can never hope to repay.

How terribly original, but no. Mental illness that has virtually no hope of any kind of healing is very rare, and most of the people in our prisons have no mental illness to even speak of the begin with. As has been stated, things like drug related offenses are quite common, and theft which can directly be linked back to poverty is also quite common. Each of those two things has a very simple solution.

Of course, if you like paying for the government to take care of everything, that's fine with me and not in the least inconsistent with things you've said in the past.

I'd expect to see a drastic drop off in a little more than a generation based on the successes of preventative social programs. I can't remember if I've mentioned it on TFP, but my mother used to work for a county program that involved teaching empathy, emotion management, and problem solving to children. Since then without exception all of the children are thriving. None is involved in illegal activity, and they are all getting excellent grades. Similar programs have been fighting for funding for years, but unfortunately we're too busy paying into the prison industrial complex to actually try to prevent crime. Heaven forbid.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...risongraph.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...isongrapha.gif
I'm going to again say you have no idea what you are talking about and pulling that medium sized stuff out of your ass. What does MEDIUM sized mean?

here read this, I've only just started...
Public Safety, Public Spending: Forecasting America’s Prison Population 2007-2011

Poverty is not a cause of crime, the great depression showed that. A for drug related crimes, I assume you think that making drugs legal would make drug related criminals into upstanding citizens? Perhaps for the users, but the dealers and gang bangers would have to find another source of easy money. Finally some individuals are simply violent. The prison system is full of them. They tend to stay violent until they get not older and wiser, but just old. When the hormones turn off and the slowness of age catches up.

Added I have no problem with a vengeful punitive system, though I'd be all for a little public corporal punishment and humiliation compared to jail time for the non-violent, non-habitual offenders.

what one has to see is the recidivism rate to see if they get released after many years, and they still do the same behaviors. It's higher in males than in females, but it is not 0% as willravel tries to put it out as.

Oh but that was a generation ago, people didn't have ipods, bling, Hummers and 21" spinners. There's more to tempt them now :orly:

And I agree, that the lesser offenses I'd be happy to have, that kid in Singapore getting caned for graffitti on a car, GREAT! CSPAN it! Better yet, get sponsors, this caning brought to you by Mountain Dew, Do the Dew!

Are we living in the great depression? No? Are we living in a time where there are definite upper classes that are represented in major metropolitan areas? Yes?
You assume wrong. Legalize cannabis, sure, but end the failed "war on drugs". The system is all wrong.
Translation: I have no problem with having a criminal vengeance system.

Cynth, the point which you seemingly missed is that a vast majority of people in prison would not be considered a "lost cause" by psychologists because they don't suffer from mental illnesses that are less likely to be totally treatable, like certain cases of schizophrenia for example. These mental illnesses are exceedingly rare, even in prisons. The idea that people like this child are beyond hope of treatment is ignorant.

Right, and you are welcome to recieve them into your neighborhood. I'm not interested in welcoming them into my community.

Not a lost cause? Maybe not, but again, if you did the crime you should pay the time.

Do you understand the recidivism rate? While these are for adults, the idea that you state that everyone is treatable and can be rehabilited is just folly.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...etiq/recid.gif

LINK

After they've seen psychologists for multiple sessions over years or however long the psychologist sees fit? Sure. Instead of being left to their own devices in a giant building with other criminals, them actually being treated would greatly reduce convicts from committing crimes again.
Recidivism is simply the result of a system not designed to rehabilitate. I'd think that even a layman could see that.

And you have some sort of "anything" to back that up? Or is it just another thing you've pulled out of the sky?

I'm just curious, will. Assuming that it's an effect method of preventing future crime, how do you propose to set up an efficient and economical system for treating all of the violent criminals? I mean, it's certainly a laudable effort to want to rehabilitate violent criminals, but we're talking about a lot of money and a lot of time to do years of psychological rehab on the millions of violent offenders in this country. Where is that all going to come from?

I went to college. This is all common knowledge. Things like how common untreatable people are and how prevention works are readily available in textbooks. As for recidivism, it's as plain as the nose on your face, I mean jesus why do you think offenders offend again after being in prison? Prison doesn't rehabilitate. Duh.
I recognize that any real change in the criminal justice system will take time. Things like this simply can't change over night. The thing, though, is that as long as we have the current system, we'll not really see any drop off in recidivism, or cons committing crimes. The financing is there for real rehabilitation (or it will be when Hillary comes into office and taxes go up and the troops slowly start coming home). Dems love social programs, and social programs are the only way to get this done. Privatization has massively failed at the job of rehabilitation.

The first step absolutely has to be programs for children to make sure they learn empathy, emotion management, and problem solving. These methods which have been proven to greatly reduce criminality in children would be the key to ensuring that the rates of criminals start to drop off quickly as years pass. I don't have access to the projections, so I can't say how quickly things would change, but I would expect that things would start improving in a few years.

If one were to combine that even with rather weak systems in prisons that aren't that expensive, say an additional 1 shrink per every 100 cons, I would still expect to see at least some improvement. I'm not a doctor of psychology, but I suspect that there are little tweaks that can be done in the incarceration method to improve rehabilitation.

Fair question. So let me say that I am talking about the hospitalisation of a person, using a deadly weapon, rape, child molestation.

And I have lobbied to keep a brother in law in jail as he was a violent criminal. Thats as close to family as I can get.

hey, I went to college too, but somehow I missed learning all the "common knowledge" that you seem to think is so prevalent. I guess I should have taken "Wildly Useless Generalizations 101" as one of my electives.

and yet you feel qualified to spout off about the potential efficacity of a psychologically based rehabilitation system.


ok, enough sarcasm. the point you seem to be missing here will, is that, much like an alcoholic or drug addict, a convict must WANT to change for any system of rehabilitation to have any real and lasting effect. I don't think you are going to find too many that truly want to change their behavior.

now, I totally agree with your premise that our penal system is in dire need of overhaul. and a focus on rehabilitation should be an integral part of that overhaul. however, I think you're painting too rosy a picture of how well rehabilitation would work. my personal opinion is that I'd consider it an incredible feat if you were able to successfully rehabilitate 30% of all violent inmates. and in the case of sexually violent offenders, anything over 10% would be amazing.


oh, and on a side note, if you honestly think Hillary and the Democrats are going to save the day on this (or any other) issue, then you are as naive as a newborn babe. the Democrats are as corrupt and self-serving as the Republicans. they're politicians, after all. there isn't even one of them on the national level that I'd trust as far as I can throw him or her.

I wouldn't be too sure about this. Many violent offenders are also abuse victims who act irrationally as a result of trauma. Others are the result of mental disorders. If you "truly" found out what they wanted, you might find many of them would like to change.

Did your school offer criminal psychology? Abnormal psychology? That's really all I was drawing from.
Sometimes it's a burden being really smart and educated. But you've got to keep pushing on, overcoming those who use sarcasm instead of reason against you, something you immediately recognize as a fallacious.

We done with the sarcasm game now?
I'm glad to read that. I feel like a complete asshat being sarcastic, and it really does nothing for the discussion and thus the thread.
Many of them don't know they want to change, and some actually do want to change. If you don't believe me, go down to your local prison and speak to some of them. It's a lot better than some citation off the internet, really. A friend of mine from college used to volunteer at a prison (trying to get licensed), and he had more than a few stories.
According to wiki (not sure how reliable), as of 2006 a record 7 million people were behind bars, on probation or on parole. Let's say you can only rehabilitate 25%. That's 1,750,000 people, or the entire population of Philadelphia and the surrounding areas. It's also about 1 out of every 171 people in the US.

The main focus should absolutely be on prevention, though. The stuff about prisons now is just a matter of breaking the stranglehold of the prison industry, which is corrupt and broken. It's about a last ditch effort to help the people already trapped in the system. I repeat, the focus should be on prevention of crime and criminality.
A snowball's chance in hell (which I'm well aware of) is better than a government under Bush. Bill Clinton actually managed to start several successful social programs.

I've only two things more to add.

one is that sarcasm DOES have it's uses. there really is no more effective way to communicate "you're talking out of your ass" than with some biting sarcasm. what Cynthetiq and I were trying to do with our sarcasm is get you to cite something other than "common knowledge" or "I went to college" to back up these things you claim as facts.

second, I took a look at your profile and see that you are 24. you still have the idealism of youth in you. and that's great...I hope you can sustain it for a long time. I, on the other hand, have developed the skepticism and cynicism that comes with middle age. I've seen too many "great ideas" come and go in my 41 years to get too excited about the next "great idea". And the reason that most of these ideas end up in the crapper, imho, is that most people are too stupid and/or selfish and/or impatient to let them work. If it doesn't provide them with an immediate gratification that meets or exceeds their expectations, they refuse to put forth the energy required to get the job done. that's just human nature and it's not about to change. sorry to burst your bubble.

What facts, specifically, would you like cited? I'll do my best.
My bubble is strong, so strong in fact that ageism doesn't phase me at all anymore. Why doesn't ageism phase me, you may wonder. I've always had older friends? Maybe. All of my coworkers are older than me? Sure. The fact is that age is not the same as wisdom, despite what people over 35 may say. It also has a lot to do with the fact that I've found that idealism spreads like wildfire, regardless of age. How old do you suppose members like Pan and Host are? How about roachboy or DC_Dux? I ask this because I've found them to all be very open to idealism. They don't blindly walk into it, of course, but the spark is there and it's there in spades (I name TFP members because naming people I know probably wouldn't mean anything to you). I don't think any of them is 24.

Isn't it just a sloppy form of irony?

Only if you're Alanis Morissette.

Ah wait till you turn the corner my boy. You have six more years to enjoy having a heart, but we know what happens after that.

Not everyone finds wisdom with age of course, but I think you have a chance, you are smarter then average but way to quick to embrace that which supports your current beliefs.

Soon with the tempering of time, we shall rule TFP like father and son.

I found the song to be ironic because nothing she named was actually ironic. To quote Bender: "That's not ironic, it's just mean!"
... or just before you die you become an optimist, a la Darth.
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/dvd/ep6/ldvader4t.jpg
But I digest, what is the point of having a juvenile court if we're willing to punish children like adults?

Thank you, Peter Griffin...

I associate Star Wars with Family Guy Star Wars now as a reflex. I can't help it!

this is true. and I didnt claim any wisdom, just a lot hard-earned experience. and from that experience, I've learned to doubt and mistrust most people. and especially to mistrust large institutional groups of people (government, religion, political parties, etc.)

I think you'll find as you grow older, will, that most people only have their own interests at heart, usually not their best interests, but rather their wants and desires, however sordid they may be. and because of this, they often hurt others, as well as themselves, not only biting the hand that feeds them, but even that which is trying to help them. and it's because of this that I think penal rehabilitation is doomed to, at best, a very low rate of success.

HEAR! HEAR!!!

I've got plenty of cynicism, but I don't let it defeat me. That's hardly the issue, though.
So because you were born 17 years before me you know how I'll become when I'm older? That's pretty weak. I've heard the same thing about my optimism since I was a boy. Not only do I show no signs of changing, but my optimism has improved as I've been able to develop more solutions to problems. As someone who works for a non-profit that aids the homeless and less fortunate, working with people who's age dwarfs your own, I can tell you that just because some people become bitter and give up hardly means I will. Not to compare myself to great people, but what would you have said to the Rev. Dr. King? He was about 25 when he helped to organize the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Too bad he was wasting his time.

Time to get back on to the subject at hand.

On a lighter note. Imagine if they'd prosecuted him as a dog.

That'd lead to a fast efficient judgment.

Firstly, I never said I know how you'll be, but rather "I think you'll find". Please don't put words in my mouth, it's a rather weak debate tactic, regardless of the topic; which leads me to my next point. I also never said I was bitter. I am not. I'm a realist. And while I support your optimism and idealism, I was attempting to inject a bit of reality into the discussion. That doesn't make mean I'm bitter.

Optimism and idealsim are generally fine traits to have. Many great achievers throughout history became such by having these traits in abundance (the aforementioned Dr. King is one such example).But, optimism and idealism must be tempered with realism for true greatness to be achieved. There have been many spectacular failures throughout history (Preston Tucker comes to mind) because of a lack of realistic expectations.

You claim to be a problem solver. That's also a good trait to have. And if success is to be achieved in an endeavor of such magnitude as total reformation of the American penal system, there are many problems which will need to be solved. Not the least of which is how to overcome people's innate selfishness and greed, not only on the idividual level, but also on the institutional level. Let's face facts here, you're talking about the changing of millions of mindsets. Literally, millions upon millions. Not only that of many (most?) of the prisoners themselves, but also that of many (most?) of the people who work within the penal system, as well as that of the judges and lawmakers who control the system, and finally that of the voters who put those people in office.

That's a monumental undertaking. Again, it is this nearly vertical uphill battle that is why I predict such a low probability of success.


Finally, in reference to Dr. King, what did he get for all his efforts? He got murdered, which goes to show just how far some people will go to protect their ways of thinking. And while much success was achieved and many laws changed, the fact of the matter is that there is STILL, 40 years later, plenty of racism in this country. So, while racism is slowly receeding in this country, and I reckon that Dr. King would consider his martyrdom to the cause worthwhile, this again goes to show what an difficult road lies in front of those who would change the system.

So, I'll leave you with this thought. If you are working in some way towards these laudable goals, I wish you much luck and success. Just don't expect to live long enough to see even half of these goals attained.

Dr. King changed millions of mindsets, and I suspect that while he wouldn't like the fact he was assassinated, he wouldn't have changed any of his revolutionary actions to avoid it. Also, when you consider who in our history has been assassinated, he's among the ranks of some of the most important people in history.

I only hope that I can do something a fraction as revolutionary.