Juveniles charged with violent crimes should tried as adults

No one should be force to live with abuse from anyone and that includes kids.

Passionate indeed. The difference Montana is trying to express is the fact that punishments for bad kids are laughable to bad kids. She's correct. I doubt she gives a rat's ass whether or not the bad kids go to adult prisons; she just wants them to be dealt with at least as effectively as adults. Get it?

Of course it's laughable to 'bad' kids! The adults have allowed them to get away with it. How does letting it get that bad, and them throwing them in jail or executing them solve the problem?

The message is: We don't care how/why you are acting horribly, we'll put up with it until you screw up bad enough, and then it's off with your head, we want you out of sight and mind. You aren't 'decent'.

Most violent kids and child bullies show a progression of bad behavior. Why aren't people there to stop it? Why doesn't anyone care enough to step up to the plate?

There seems to me to be a big lack of adult responsibility - from parents, to those in the schools, to those all along the line. People want the courts to deal with what they as responsible adults should be dealing with themselves.

I see it as a problem that someone 'doesn't give a rat's ass whether or not the bad kids go to adult prison'.

It is natural that once someone has been victimized, they are not going to rational, nor necessarily care what happens to the person who inflicted damage. But someone has to look at it from the bigger picture. The court should be concerned with more than just revenge.

(((((Montana))))) wrote:

No one should be force to live with abuse from anyone and that includes kids.

This should read: No one should be forced to live with abuse from anyone and this especially means kids.

Is there something more important than protecting children from violence? What?

It seems you implying that jailing and trying kids as adults is the only way to protect children from violence. That those who disagree with that approach don't want to protect kids - and that simply isn't true.
........
I could almost care less whether or not a 15 year old brutal rapist's frontal lobes are fully developed.Having demonstrated a lack of human decency; he needs to be removed from society.

I agree that a rapist does need to be removed from soceity. But to where?
........
I don't know about Australia but here in the States I'd wager Dlowan's statistic that 80% of violent child offenders don't re-offend is inverted. In Wisconsin; when kids finish there time in "Gladiator School" (their proud nick name for Juvenile jail), they wear it like a patch on their sleeve. I believe I once read that some 93% will eventually find themselves in adult court anyway. In our screwed up system when (if) they do re-offend; the prosecution is not allowed to bring up their juvenile record because they are sealed at 18. As if a juvenile record wouldn't help a jury assess the likelihood of guilt… or a judge assess the true extent of the threat of future crime. Idiocy.

I agree that the system is f-uped.
......
Tales like Montana's and her son's are horror stories that should NEVER be allowed to occur. I can't for the life of me understand how someone rationalizes taking more compassion for the bully than his victims. Crime is crime and needs to be addressed at every stage of development. Violent children grow up to be violent adults.

Again - you imply that not agreeing with trying kids as adults equals having more compassion for the bully than the victims. That simply ain't so.

You say "Crime is crime and needs to be addressed at every stage of development".
Well, in Montana's case, the bullying was NOT being addressed when it should have been by those who could stop it.

....

Just as a thought:
Have you ever spent time with someone's spoiled brat of a kid? Y'know the ones. Momma lets them get away with everything, they show no respect, and even if Momma is around and the kid pulls your hair, when you tell the child to stop, the Momma looks at you "How dare you speak to my child like that?".
Well, who in that situation has the brain power and clout to change the situation?
Do you blame the kid and expect him "to just know better?"
I don't. It's all the kid knows. Given a parent who gave a flying f*ck about their kid enough to put the child's needs above their own, that would not happen.
The parent is the f*up. The parent is the one who needs to change in order for things to get better, or another adult with equal power in the child's life.
The child simply can not make that decision for themself, because they do not have the resources to do so!
Kids need adults and are dependent on adults That's Why we Call them Kids!!

You probably aren't even reading anymore at this point, but I get soo upset hearing people 'not giving a damn about bullies' who are CHILDREN.

If you cut out the rare percentage of child bullies who are just freaks, just naturally 'bad'.....the rest are just kids who got a crap deal, who have had crap for adult attention and learning.

So I don't care what you think; because I do have compassion for child bullies. They are powerless little people reaching out to take power in the only way they can. They deserve a shot at life too. They aren't 'scrapped' in my books. They can still learn.

Now, that being said, I do take issue with the caning nonsense. Somebody takes a crack at my kid, they'd better have a bodyguard. A child out of control is a child that needs to be brought under control, not beaten. This type of idiocy only reinforces the idea that violence is a good way to get people to do what you want.

Most violent kids and child bullies show a progression of bad behavior. Why aren't people there to stop it? Why doesn't anyone care enough to step up to the plate?

Aargh!

I agree with you about bullies taking responsibility.

Nobody is debating that.


What I am trying to get at is why you see the adult system being able to achieve that, while a juvenile system cannot.

You are fighting a shadow when you make assumptions about what I believe and advocate.

My point is that such responsibility can be taken in an appropriately geared juvenile system, without exposing juveniles to the adult system.

You appear to equate a juvenile system with nothing being done to address violent behaviour.

If this is so in the systems you have experience of, then I think that is a fault with the juvenile system which needs correction, not an argument to deal with kids as though they are adults. They are not. This does not mean that they cannot have consequences for their actions, nor that they should not be asked to take responsibility for them, as appropriate for their developmental level.

But it seems this is not a topic that is worth continuing to try to discuss with you, because of your reactions, and the assumptions you are making, quite wrongly, about what I am discussing, and it seems to be causing nothing but distress and anger for you, so I am giving up.

And of course I have been attacked, Montana.


For example, I have been lucky enough to fight off rapists, once a gang of them, on several occasions.

Passionate indeed. The difference Montana is trying to express is the fact that punishments for bad kids are laughable to bad kids. She's correct. I doubt she gives a rat's ass whether or not the bad kids go to adult prisons; she just wants them to be dealt with at least as effectively as adults. Get it?

(((((Montana))))) wrote:

No one should be force to live with abuse from anyone and that includes kids.

This should read: No one should be forced to live with abuse from anyone and this especially means kids.

Is there something more important than protecting children from violence? What?

I could almost care less whether or not a 15 year old brutal rapist's frontal lobes are fully developed. Having demonstrated a lack of human decency; he needs to be removed from society. I don't know about Australia but here in the States I'd wager Dlowan's statistic that 80% of violent child offenders don't re-offend is inverted. In Wisconsin; when kids finish there time in "Gladiator School" (their proud nick name for Juvenile jail), they wear it like a patch on their sleeve. I believe I once read that some 93% will eventually find themselves in adult court anyway. In our screwed up system when (if) they do re-offend; the prosecution is not allowed to bring up their juvenile record because they are sealed at 18. As if a juvenile record wouldn't help a jury assess the likelihood of guilt… or a judge assess the true extent of the threat of future crime. Idiocy.

If Occom Bill were King; the entire school system would be changed drastically. Kids would learn at their own pace from books, and teachers would be available to answer questions. Kids would be separated, not by aptitude, but rather by attitude. Let the kids that want to learn share space and the disruptive kids be separated completely. It is obscene that kids should have to worry more about how they may fair on the bus than on their next test. The final separation should be for the violent kids. Straight to a military school if it were up to me; where they'll do exercise at 0-500 and have their days dictated to them, practically from start to finish, until they can prove they can follow orders. Only then is it worth the risk of exposing decent children to them.

Tales like Montana's and her son's are horror stories that should NEVER be allowed to occur. I can't for the life of me understand how someone rationalizes taking more compassion for the bully than his victims. Crime is crime and needs to be addressed at every stage of development. Violent children grow up to be violent adults.

Now, that being said, I do take issue with the caning nonsense. Somebody takes a crack at my kid, they'd better have a bodyguard. A child out of control is a child that needs to be brought under control, not beaten. This type of idiocy only reinforces the idea that violence is a good way to get people to do what you want. The only exception I make in that thinking is in confronting a bully in action. I'll get my knuckles bloody any day of the week in protection of the weak. The boys in blue aren't always readily available.

Lastly; I'll bite on Dlowan's capital punishment of minors question: You bet. Example: a 13 year old boy kidnaps, rapes and kills a 13 year old girl. This bastard has demonstrated an inhuman (IMO) capacity for violence that should never be allowed to happen again. I don't much care whether his violent nature is genetic or learned. I believe people either have the capacity to commit such atrocity or they do not. Those who do should be humanely exterminated expediently. I further don't care if he's mentally impaired. He has already proven to be a clear and present danger to society and I see no justification to risk recidivism. It has nothing to do with revenge, Dlowan. It has everything to do with ridding the world of violent A-holes who lack respect for humanity, for the betterment of us all.

From age 10 to 17 I lived in an institution where corporal punishment was the order of the day - and it was not so much the caning itself but the threat of the caning which had a most wondrous effect on we boys.

Hooliganism, bullying, unkempt dress, abusive and smart-arse attitudes and posture, anti-social delinquency, disrespectful behaviour -- all of these were simply not an option, and as we advanced in age the canings grew less and less frequent until finally they were no longer needed.

And guess what - we didn't end up resentful of authority - or in need of psychiatric treatment for 'childhood trauma' - or before the bench for cruelty to animals or wife-beating.

Montana - you have my deepest sympathies for what you went through at school, and it's my belief that the culture of do-nothing tolerance and indulgence towards your persecutors by the authorities who had presided over your situation were all from the same school of thought in which it is taught that forebearance and indulgence of ones persecutors is the best way to placate their need to be cruel to you.

O vain delusion.

You were not so much the victim of aberrant youthful sadistic mentalities as you were the victim of social policies formulated and made sacrosanct by legions of trendy beard-stroking academics and politicians who advocate the naive philosophy that all you need do to rid society of its delinquent malcontents is to sit in majestic pose like a Mahatma Gandhi and present as big and passive a target as possible.

There was no bullying amongst the boys where I lived from age 10 to 17. None whatsoever. The canings hurt like hell and it kept even the most obstreperous amongst us at least half-way civilised and on our best behaviour.

Incidentally, Montana, with some of your attitudes of compassion and forgiveness towards your former persecutors I seem to detect a few fleeting shadows here and there of 'Stockholm syndrome'. Don't be alarmed - it's nothing to worry about - and there's nothing you need do about it.

... the threat of caning which had a most wondrous effect upon we boys.

This sounds exactly what I had in mind

Now, that being said, I do take issue with the caning nonsense.

I thank you with all my heart for your complete understanding, Bill

flushd wrote:

Most violent kids and child bullies show a progression of bad behavior. Why aren't people there to stop it? Why doesn't anyone care enough to step up to the plate?

Good question for a philosophical debate... but of what use are they in reality? You can't regulate away bad parenting so there's little you or I can do about that. You need a license to fish, but any damn fool can have a child.

As I've already said, were I King; violent kids would be moved to a Military type school where they'd learn discipline before being allowed back in with the disruptive kids where they'd again have to prove themselves to be allowed back in with the kids who want to learn. This rewards the kids who want to learn and do behave while keeping them safe from the bad ones. Where's your beef with that? This puts the priorities of Protect the innocent and correct the guilty in the appropriate order, no?

As to where do you put the rapist? Again, were I King, "the chair" seems like an appropriate solution to me. At that point, IMO, it's already too late for correction. I believe there are those who are capable or such atrocity and those who are not. Every time they capture a girl's killer anymore, it seems it's always some monster that's already been labeled a sexual predator. I'd rather see the herd thinned by removing the predator than his prey.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that it's a shame bad parents tend to result in bad kids (sometimes through no fault of their own)... though that's not always the case. Sometimes the kids are just fine and sometimes the "bad kid's" parents are just fine. I appreciate your concern for bullies as victims themselves, but I cannot reconcile further victimization for their sake. Military school's brand of discipline couldn't hurt them, could it? In the more serious cases: I believe a person who can commit a crime like rape, child molestation or unjustifiable murder has demonstrated a lack of humanity that neither you nor I could ever reach. I think its best to remove them completely to eradicate the cancer they represent and send a very clear message to any and all that may be "on the fence." One might think this type of harsh reality might just light a fire under some "bad parents" as well.

Yeah, he's a real peach ain't he Bear?

Herbert-without-an-'s'....

Quote:

... the threat of caning which had a most wondrous effect upon we boys.

Montana...

Quote:

This sounds exactly what I had in mind

Occom Bill...

Quote:

Now, that being said, I do take issue with the caning nonsense.

Montana...

Quote:

I thank you with all my heart for your complete understanding, Bill