NationStates Jolt Archive

I've wondered for long time now about a fact that strikes me as rather strange in the US law and judical system:

Are children judged by the same laws as adults?

The article that just brought this question back to my mind can be found here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4689459.stm)

An 11-year-old girl who threw a stone at a group of boys pelting her with water balloons is being prosecuted on serious assault charges in California.

Now, most European countries won't apply the same laws and procedures to underage offenders, they are judged according to a different system taking into account their age and situation. Is that different in the states? If so, why?

Usually depends on the crime if they're charged as an adult.

Usually depends on the crime if they're charged as an adult.

Meaning what, exactly?

How would they be judged for shoplifting, assault, arson? Just to get some examples?

Not unless there are extreme circumstances (such as first degree murder), or they are extremely close to being 18. They also cannot be given capital punishment (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149080,00.html).

Not unless there are extreme circumstances (such as first degree murder), or they are extremely close to being 18. They also [b]cannot[/b be given capital punishment (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149080,00.html).

Let's take Germany as an example (I know more about the system there than about the Irish one, that's why):

Minors cannot ever be judged to the same standards as adult. Not even if they are close to 18. Once they are 18 the judge can decide, based on a psychological profile of the offender, if he/she is to be judged as a minor or as an adult. Only when they turn 21 they will be judged as adults in any case.
And there's no capital punishment anyway over here...

Meaning what, exactly?

How would they be judged for shoplifting, assault, arson? Just to get some examples?

I'm not an expert on this, but in general, a minor is only likely to be tried as an adult if (a) the crime they committed is extremely serious (e.g. murder, rape) and (b) they're reasonably close to adulthood anyway. So, an eight-year-old who killed someone would almost certainly not be tried as an adult, but a sixteen-year-old who did so might. However, I don't think there's any hard and fast rule governing this, but that it's left up to the individual courts to decide.

Someone with more knowledge of the law please correct me if I'm wrong! :)

I'm not an expert on this, but in general, a minor is only likely to be tried as an adult if (a) the crime they committed is extremely serious (e.g. murder, rape) and (b) they're reasonably close to adulthood anyway. So, an eight-year-old who killed someone would almost certainly not be tried as an adult, but a sixteen-year-old who did so might. However, I don't think there's any hard and fast rule governing this, but that it's left up to the individual courts to decide.

Someone with more knowledge of the law please correct me if I'm wrong! :)

Not wanting to criticise anybody here, but doesn't that make the whole system rather unjust?
If I understand that correctly, it's completely up to one single person, the judge, to decide on what basis to trial an underage offender? Doesn't that result in both extremely hrash and extremely lenient verdicts?

In Brazil anyone under 18 at the time of the offence is chargesd as a minor, and their slate is wiped clean when they turn 18. While theis satisfies the civil rights activists etc. it also satisfies the drug gangs as they use 17 year olds to commit murder, to assault police stations, to rape and pillage the families of rival gangs etc. What happens is that when the police catch these kids, it takes a few months for the trial to come round so by that time they are no longer liable to be tried for what they did as minors as they are now adults.

The UK system is much wiser. There it has to be decided on each case if the minor knew that what they were doing was illegal and knew that they should not have been doing it. In this way serious crimes such as murder can be prosecuted against 13 or 14 year olds for example, as they clearly know that murder is wrong (unless they are mentally subnormal in which case their age is irrelevant anyway.) For more complex crimes, such as being involved in some insider trading fraud plot involving their parents and the parents of a friend, are not likely to end up in prosecution of the teenager.

In short, automaticaly defining someone aged 17 years and 360 days as a minor is a license to commit crime. (The actual age is irrelevant, the principle of less than x is not as guilty as an adult would be guilty is wrong)

Doesn't that result in both extremely hrash and extremely lenient verdicts?

Yes. We believe that each case should be judged on its individual merits. We have for over two hundred years. There are federal and state sentencing guidelines, but those are usually rather loose. Recent laws being passed in most states, however, require a first offender child molester serve at least twenty five years. They are called “Jessica’s Laws” after a girl who was killed by a convicted child molester who served a very light sentence.

Yes. We believe that each case should be judged on its individual merits. We have for over two hundred years. There are federal and state sentencing guidelines, but those are usually rather loose. Recent laws being passed in most states, however, require a first offender child molester serve at least twenty five years. They are called “Jessica’s Laws” after a girl who was killed by a convicted child molester who served a very light sentence.
Not anymore. Federal sentencing guidelines have been declared unconstitutional.


That said, generally children are not tried as an adult, on the theory that they aren't able to have the same mental capacities to distinguish right from wrong and the consequences of their actions, unless the crime is particularly heinous/shows a clear indication that the person knew what she was doing.

Not anymore. Federal sentencing guidelines have been declared unconstitutional.

Really? Hadn’t heard that. Good, I agree with it.
Anyway, Jessica’s Laws are being adopted individually by each state, so they are constitutional.

Serious Assault charges for throwing a small rock. Wrong. Just Wrong. I mean, i would probably do the same thing! No wonder i don't live in California. I'd have a life sentence because i got in a rock fight when i was 4. That's so wrong.

Serious Assault charges for throwing a small rock. Wrong. Just Wrong. I mean, i would probably do the same thing! No wonder i don't live in California. I'd have a life sentence because i got in a rock fight when i was 4. That's so wrong.

That's California for ya. It does make a sick sort of sense though. Most California prosecuters can whip a 4 year old so they are not too afraid when the kids tell them , "I'll get you for this when I get out"

It varies from state to state and on the crime and it's idividual instances.

Generaly if it can be proven that a minor committed a capital crime (Rape, Murder, etc) and had full undertanding of its implications they will be put on trail as adults. Which I happen to agree with.

Lets face realities here, most 16 year olds know right from wrong and understand what it means to kill or rape someone. This information is passed onto them from school, the media, and hopefully their parents.

I a 16 year old plans and plots to bring a gun to school and shoot the local bully for example, chances are he will be put on trial as an adult. He understood what he was doing, he understood the capabilities of the gun, he planned his actions, and he followed through. To commit a crime like an adult he should be tried like one.

Obviously this is just an example and there are many many other facts for the judge to consider before decideing to put a minor on trial as an adult.

Not wanting to criticise anybody here, but doesn't that make the whole system rather unjust?
If I understand that correctly, it's completely up to one single person, the judge, to decide on what basis to trial an underage offender? Doesn't that result in both extremely hrash and extremely lenient verdicts?


This is one problem with the current state of the United States judicial system, and why I personally prefer "originalists" such as Justice Scalia. Originalists follow the letter of the law to a tee, at its original intent, while others (expecially in the past decade or so) have been more interpreting Federal, State, and local laws to suit their own needs. Thus, a judge that got caught in traffic on the way to trial could give someone 5 life sentences, where the same judge could give a much lesser sentence if they were having "a good day". While I do like the US judicial system as a whole, there are many practices by judges that are horrible, and by no means the intentions of the founding fathers.

Let's take Germany as an example (I know more about the system there than about the Irish one, that's why):

Minors cannot ever be judged to the same standards as adult. Not even if they are close to 18. Once they are 18 the judge can decide, based on a psychological profile of the offender, if he/she is to be judged as a minor or as an adult. Only when they turn 21 they will be judged as adults in any case.
And there's no capital punishment anyway over here...
In America, a minor can only be tried as an adult if they display adult behavior in their crime; ie pre-meditated murder.

The theory behind the juvenile justice system was founded on the idea that children are incapable of criminal malice because the law doesnt recognize them as capable of making adult decisions yet.. Therefore, children cannot commit crimes. When a child breaks the law, it is not considered a crime, it is considered a juvenile delinquency. A delinquent minor should, in theory, recieve help from the government in the form of therapy, education, and the care of a social worker. Originally, minors could not be held beyond their 18th birthday.

Obviously the US has drifted far beyond its original theory of crime and punishment. Nowadays it is standard practice to charge children as adults and hold them fully accountable, despite the same system's views that children are not old enough to make decisions about their own bodies, about money, about career, about the government, or even about their family. The new system has proven to be vastly ineffective. Minors sentenced as adults are coming out of prison far worse people than they went in. But the public hasnt lost its taste for vengance.

I've wondered for long time now about a fact that strikes me as rather strange in the US law and judical system:

Are children judged by the same laws as adults?

The article that just brought this question back to my mind can be found here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4689459.stm)


Now, most European countries won't apply the same laws and procedures to underage offenders, they are judged according to a different system taking into account their age and situation. Is that different in the states? If so, why?
Short answer: no. The case you cite was in California, which is beyond weird, both judicially and otherwise.

Almost every State in the Union has Jevenile offender laws, and some States even have special courts for such cases.

Not wanting to criticise anybody here, but doesn't that make the whole system rather unjust?
If I understand that correctly, it's completely up to one single person, the judge, to decide on what basis to trial an underage offender? Doesn't that result in both extremely hrash and extremely lenient verdicts?


Isn't that what judges are for? To make decisions?

Isn't that what judges are for? To make decisions?

Yes, but decisions according to the law applicable in each case.
Giving the judge no restrictions as to how to apply the law means giving too much power into the hands of a single person. Personally, I don't like the idea too much.

In the German system, for example, you have a clear definition of every offense and fellony, and you have minimum and maximum sentences for each. That way, it's still up to the judge to decide what kind of crime you actually comitted and how severe the offense was, but the judge himself cannot exceed or go below a certain punishment.
It has to be said that German law has no capital punishment and that jail sentences are considerably lower than in the states.

It's simple, really. And by simple, I mean it's really complex.

Some of this may be wrong, I'm doing it from memory. Also, this is New York State. All states have different criminal codes, but here goes anyway;

There are family courts, which are much more family oriented than criminal court. Family court is based on the assumtion that the child can be rehabilitated, and is more interested in 'fixing' the child than punishing him. Here are the rules for who may be tried in family court;

A child of three years or under cannot be considered criminally responsable for his actions and cannot stand trial.

Until the age of seven, a child must be sent to family court.

After seven, there is a certain breakdown. Children accused of murder may be sent to criminal court earlier than those accused of status offenses and such.

Once you hit 16 (Up until recently, 18 for some crimes in certain states), you MUST be tried in criminal court. There's no going back after that.

No one under the age of sixteen may be executed either.

Also, no one under 16 may be brought into, through or held in a police station. Usually, a 'youth officer' is used in an office just outside the police station.

Also, no child may be tried without permission of the parents, unless it is mandated by a judge.