Why don't we let teenagers drive? Why don't we let teenagers vote? Why shouldn't we let teenagers undergo radical hormonal therapies and surgeries in order to try and change their genders?
Either they're mature enough to be treated as adults with all of an adult's agency and the responsibility that goes along with it, or they're not.
This kid is clearly broken, possibly beyond fixing, but it seems clear that he is not entirely responsible for his own actions.
This is nonsense. We don't let teenagers drive because they haven't yet demonstrated to the government's satisfaction that they have the skillset to safely operate a motor vehicle and obey all the relevant traffic laws. It is not because we assume a 15 year old is a sociopath who will start racking up kills like they're playing Carmageddon if we give them the chance. Teenagers shouldn't be held to adult standards of negligence or of understanding nuanced moral questions, but "Should he rape and murder his cousin?" is not a nuanced moral question.
You've missed the point entirely. Legal precedents are based on the principle of consistency. If you want to punish a 14-year-old as you would an adult for committing a crime, then you need to establish that a 14-year-old has the cognitive capacity, the maturity and the experience to premeditate and carry out an action with the same degree of agency that an adult would. If you succeed in making that case, then you will have set a precedent that will be used to justify letting 14-year-olds make all sorts of decisions that they shouldn't be allowed to make without a responsible adult.
A 14-year-old is not an adult. No matter how horrific his crime, you can't simply decide to treat him like an adult only when he commits a crime and not when he wants to live on his own, manage his own finances or cut his dick off. If he's not mature enough to do those things with an adult's degree of responsibility, then you can't argue that he's capable of an adult's degree of responsibility when he murders someone.
There is no such precedent, because not all decisions are equal. Just because society allows a child to exchange their pocket money for candy doesn't mean we allow them to take out a loan; and just because we allow an adult to take out a loan doesn't mean we allow them to take out a loan at usurious interest rates. Expecting a teenager to be morally competent to make the simplest of decisions does not demand we throw them into the deep end and expect them to navigate less intuitive, more complex decisions.
Tell me why we don't execute teenage killers again? Not even possible to sentence them to death when they reach 18.
Why don't we let teenagers drive? Why don't we let teenagers vote? Why shouldn't we let teenagers undergo radical hormonal therapies and surgeries in order to try and change their genders?
Either they're mature enough to be treated as adults with all of an adult's agency and the responsibility that goes along with it, or they're not.
This kid is clearly broken, possibly beyond fixing, but it seems clear that he is not entirely responsible for his own actions.
This is nonsense. We don't let teenagers drive because they haven't yet demonstrated to the government's satisfaction that they have the skillset to safely operate a motor vehicle and obey all the relevant traffic laws. It is not because we assume a 15 year old is a sociopath who will start racking up kills like they're playing Carmageddon if we give them the chance. Teenagers shouldn't be held to adult standards of negligence or of understanding nuanced moral questions, but "Should he rape and murder his cousin?" is not a nuanced moral question.
You've missed the point entirely. Legal precedents are based on the principle of consistency. If you want to punish a 14-year-old as you would an adult for committing a crime, then you need to establish that a 14-year-old has the cognitive capacity, the maturity and the experience to premeditate and carry out an action with the same degree of agency that an adult would. If you succeed in making that case, then you will have set a precedent that will be used to justify letting 14-year-olds make all sorts of decisions that they shouldn't be allowed to make without a responsible adult.
A 14-year-old is not an adult. No matter how horrific his crime, you can't simply decide to treat him like an adult only when he commits a crime and not when he wants to live on his own, manage his own finances or cut his dick off. If he's not mature enough to do those things with an adult's degree of responsibility, then you can't argue that he's capable of an adult's degree of responsibility when he murders someone.
There is no such precedent, because not all decisions are equal. Just because society allows a child to exchange their pocket money for candy doesn't mean we allow them to take out a loan; and just because we allow an adult to take out a loan doesn't mean we allow them to take out a loan at usurious interest rates. Expecting a teenager to be morally competent to make the simplest of decisions does not demand we throw them into the deep end and expect them to navigate less intuitive, more complex decisions.
Comment Reported for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Comment Removed: Rule 2 - Violent Speech