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.
Do you believe that a teenager who is clearly a victim of emotional abuse and psychological grooming should be allowed to cut his dick off and attempt to transition to a girl? I'm hoping you answer is no.
In which case, it makes no sense to argue that a teenager, who is likely also the victim of abuse and psychological grooming by an adult who definitely should have his dick cut off, preferably while awake, is capable of being held to the same degree of responsibility as an adult when he commits a crime.
I am not arguing that this kid shouldn't be held responsible and punished. I'm arguing that holding him to the same degree of responsibility that we would hold a grown man to is not appropriate.
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.
Do you believe that a teenager who is clearly a victim of emotional abuse and psychological grooming should be allowed to cut his dick off and attempt to transition to a girl? I'm hoping you answer is no.
In which case, it makes no sense to argue that a teenager, who is likely also the victim of abuse and psychological grooming by an adult who definitely should have his dick cut off, preferably while awake, is capable of being held to the same degree of responsibility as an adult when he commits a crime.
I am not arguing that this kid shouldn't be held responsible and punished. I'm arguing that holding him to the same degree of responsibility that we would hold a grown man to is not appropriate.