Child Criminals

[Perfxion 0]

We see a few theads in here of crimes committed by people under the age of 16. We heard of many crimes done by youth. Three major crimes is the DC sniping, School schootings, and Lionel Tate. Should these be treated as adults? Should these people be treated as minors?

 

Few things to think about:

 

1- Upkeeping. Their parents raised them to do these acts. Or, you can say didn't raise them.

 

2- Pop Culture. If you see your TV heros like 50 Cent and Stone Cold being against the law and acting bad ass. Do you see it as just TV or as people leading people down the wrong lines?

 

3- Legal system. Each state is different, what age does adult crimes begin and child crimes end.

 

4- What is an adult in this country?

 

My opinion: If you need to be 18 to smoke, go to the arm forces, and vote; you need to be 21 to drink; most states it is 16 to have sex; You can legally stop going to school at 16 in most states; when are you a true adult? If you aren't old enough to do adult things, why are you old enough to be tried as an adult?

 

Pop Culture and Parents play a big part. If a person is brought up that drugs and guns are bad. They will more than likely not be into drugs and not shoot people. IE: At a young age your parents teach you to use guns. Then not tell you that it is wrong to use them on people. Then when a soilder gets near you, you need up a story like this. Or you watch TV and see clips of every rapper talking about how cool a cokehead is and that he is their idol. People are going to come up thinking crimes are not a bad thing. Parents were blamed for the Colobime shootings. They didn't watch their kids enoguh. It is true but it the full answer?

[Ravenbomb 0]

[BorneAgain 0]

I think it should depend on how competent the minor is. If the intelligent ones truly knew what they were doing, then I think they should be tried (for the most part anyway) as adults.

[Youth N Asia 0]

Agreed.

 

Lionel Tate is an honest to God piece of shit who should rot in jail for the rest of his life. He was a mean and dumb kid. Anyone this stupid is just going to get into more trouble later on in life...I just hoipe someone else doesn't have to die for a point to be made. His mom should have a cell too.

 

I think once you're a teen you basicaly know what's right and what's wrong, pop culture or not you should be smart enough by then to know not to beat someone to death or to rob a store.

 

But then you have a case here in Michigan where the kid (kindergarden or 1st grade I think) took a gun into school and shot a little girl...now that kid I feel a little bad for, I think he knew it would hurt the girl but I don't know if he understood that she wouldn't live after that. I don't care how many jobs the mother had to work...she should be the one to pay for that, her and the uncle he was living with.

 

Although to see Bowling For Columbine that fat pig of a man Michael Moore puts the blame on Dick Clark cause the mother had to travel 30 miles on a bus to work in a resturant that carries his name...bah, enough of that though.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Out of curiosity, what would you guys say is a fair and just punishment for underage drinking and smoking marijuana on school grounds? I felt expulsion. The school board felt three-week suspension reduced to one.

[Ravenbomb 0]

Out of curiosity, what would you guys say is a fair and just punishment for underage drinking and smoking marijuana on school grounds?

Forced overdose

[snuffbox 0]

Out of curiosity, what would you guys say is a fair and just punishment for underage drinking and smoking marijuana on school grounds?

Forced overdose

thatd have to be a shitload of marijuana...what with zero cases of reported overdoses in history and all

[Vyce 0]

Out of curiosity, what would you guys say is a fair and just punishment for underage drinking and smoking marijuana on school grounds? I felt expulsion. The school board felt three-week suspension reduced to one.

Expulsion is fair. You can't really do anything to stop them from doing things like that at home, but on school grounds? Schools should set up a zero tolerance policy. If you get caught doing it on school grounds, you're GONE.

[Ravenbomb 0]

Out of curiosity, what would you guys say is a fair and just punishment for underage drinking and smoking marijuana on school grounds?

Forced overdose

thatd have to be a shitload of marijuana...what with zero cases of reported overdoses in history and all

I dunno, make 'em eat it or something. Or borrow some from Canada

[The Metal Maniac 0]

I don't think it is possible to OD from pot...you'd burn out and be asleep long before you could smoke enough to kill yourself.

 

Also, I don't think that expulsion should be a punishment for being caught drinking/smoking on school property. I mean, if they're already starting to drink/smoke, how is telling them that they never have to go to school again supposed to help?

[NoCalMike 0]

Explusion is BULLSHIT for smoking pot and/or drinking. How does that show that the school "cares" about the student? Zero Tolerance is for people that don't want to think.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Out of curiosity, what would you guys say is a fair and just punishment for underage drinking and smoking marijuana on school grounds? I felt expulsion. The school board felt three-week suspension reduced to one.

Expulsion is fair. You can't really do anything to stop them from doing things like that at home, but on school grounds? Schools should set up a zero tolerance policy. If you get caught doing it on school grounds, you're GONE.

Zero-tolerance is a bad idea in the case of drugs. Expel a kid from school and you run the chance of seriously limiting his options for the rest of his life. Most public schools in an area won't take a kid who gets expelled, so there's private school. A lot of families can't afford that, or end up having to shift most of their resources onto one child while any others in the family suffer. Or the parents have to send their kid across the state or country so they can go to public school in a different county. You're stupid as fuck if you bring drugs to school, but you shouldn't be doomed to earning 7.50 at Burger King for the rest of your life on the grounds of one instance. A big time suspension with the caveat of "do it again, you're toast" is a much better idea.

 

Be reasonable. There's a big difference between the kid who deals cocaine out of the parking lot and the kid who gets caught smoking up in the bathroom. Zero-tolerance is the same reason we have overcrowded jails filled with minor drug offenders who - along with society - would be better served by treatment/fines.

[Guest Deebo]

If every school in the U.S. instituted expulsion for being caught with or doing drugs or alchohol, and actually put a big effort into catching students, most of them would have to expell about half the students in the entire school.

[Perfxion 0]

The problem with Zero Tolerence is like that one epp of Boston Public where the kid gets the full monty on pills to prevent his studdering problem. The second problem is that you put a bunch of kids on the street doing nothing better for themselves. Now, they hang out with those not in school. Soon you got these groups of kids doing not a god damn thing and only bad will lead from it. Whether is is crime, or just be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

Drugs are bad, helping these kids break these habbits is more important than just kicking them out of the system. Not every town is like here where you have 1 private school, atleast two public schools, a magnet school, and a school for troubled youth at ALL levels. Other places have it that you are ending up fucking the lives of these kids. Suspend them for four weeks and send them into drug rehab, co-payed by their parents/gaurdians.

[Lord of The Curry 0]

You'd send a kid to rehab because he got caught smoking a joint?

[Vyce 0]

You're stupid as fuck if you bring drugs to school, but you shouldn't be doomed to earning 7.50 at Burger King for the rest of your life on the grounds of one instance.

 

Yes, you should.

 

If you're that much of a fucking retard, yes - menial jobs are all that you're good for.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

You're stupid as fuck if you bring drugs to school, but you shouldn't be doomed to earning 7.50 at Burger King for the rest of your life on the grounds of one instance.

 

Yes, you should.

 

If you're that much of a fucking retard, yes - menial jobs are all that you're good for.

Do you agree that someone with a weed stem in the backseat of his car or someone who gives a friend a few aspirin should be expelled as well?

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

You'd send a kid to rehab because he got caught smoking a joint?

I would.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

You're insane.

 

Nothing personal, I just think that sending a kid to rehab for smoking A joint is a bit much, especially whereas it may be the first joint he's ever smoked. Or maybe it's not, and he only smokes once in a blue moon.

 

I suppose if one dug into it and found out that this kid who was caught with a joint was also a hardcore cokehead, then that'd be acceptable, but one joint, straight to rehab doesn't sit well with me.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Wow. Discussion. Well since I was sort of involved in this incident, (PM me if you want details) I should chime in. I think what would've been fair would have been the three weeks out, used to give the students some counseling and some help cleaning up. After the help and three weeks, they could return, but not be allowed into the jazz ensemble, because their actions were at a jazz ensemble-sanctioned event and these actions damage the integrity of the music program.

[2GOLD 0]

The situation will never be solved until the drug issue turns from the black and white agenda that has been set up. It's that ALL DRUGS ARE EQUAL that I mean by black and white btw, not the actual race situation.

 

Until they actually put drugs on certain levels, such as headache pills to crack in terms of high school policy, then it will never be solved.

 

Personally, I think if the kid is on a major drug then according to age the punishment should be figured out.

 

16 and below, caught with a serious drug then it should be one week suspension for the first offense WITH mandatory drug testing on that student for the rest of the year.

Second offense, rehab of some sort.

 

17 and over, report them to the police and treat them like an adult. They know better and if they are stupid enough to bring it on school grounds then they should deal with the consequences of their actions.

 

But all of this is moot until they quit treating the drug issue as black/white situation.

[lomasmoney 0]

Well , come on we are talking about weed. It really isn't that bad of a drug, and no one should be expelled from anything for having a foriegn substance in their body unless they are operating heavy machinery, carrying a child, or it renders them totally incapable of doing their job, the goverment shouldn't be able to regulate a person's body since well the government doesn't control the people the people are supposed to control the government.

[The Czech Republic 0]

The point is, it looks bad for an esteemed program of the school, which represents the school in the community and on the road in competition, to have students getting drunk on vodka they snuck in through their Nalgene bottles, and smoking pot in the new band room being built, which we were just lucky enough to get passed. Their own reputations are hurt by that, as are those of their peers who didn't try to stop them, that of the director, the ensemble, and the school. You can talk libertarianism all you want, and what should be in place. But it's a matter of what is in place. Smoking weed is against the law. Bringing alcohol on school grounds is illegal. Drinking it anywhere under 21 is illegal. That's a triple-whammy and you can't let that go with a good conscience.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

That's not fair though, because you can be drunk and still capable of doing your job; you just might do it poorly, or do it while cursing at your co-workers.

 

I think that being intoxicated on the job should be more of a matter for your boss, not the government though.

[The Czech Republic 0]

That's not fair though, because you can be drunk and still capable of doing your job

If they had been capable they wouldn't have been caught.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

I'm quite sure not everyone who goes to work drunk is caught.

 

Maybe they're not sloppy, falling-down drunk, but I know for a fact some of my co-workers come in after getting a buzz on.

[Dr. Tom 0]

If you're old enough to do the crime, you're old enough to do the time. That's fair for everyone, and any other system would be a double standard, and those are unconstitutional.

 

As for the kids in school situation, expulsion basically forces them into a worthless life of crime. Expelling a kid should be a last resort, not a rote response. A student caught lighting one up should be made to attend drug education classes after school, with further incidents requiring rehab.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

What about cases where a child may be young enough to honestly not understand the consequences of their actions?

 

I'm not trying to defend kids who do dumb things, but there's got to be some kids who literally don't realize the consequences of certain behaviours, due to their age. I don't think it'd be fair to hold them to the same standard as everyone else.

 

Of course, that was probably the original intent of child crime laws, but I think they set the age too high.

[Dr. Tom 0]

I can see making an exception for really young children, but even they should be put in some kind of juvenile home until they're 18. It's hard to decide on a cutoff age, but somewhere between 10-12 sounds right. At that point, you bloody well know the difference between right and wrong, and there are kids who fully understand it before 10. Juvenile detention centers, then a move to full prison later in life is what they should get.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I'm sorry, but I sitll can't find a reason to cut the kids some slack. They were all 17. They're functioning at a level where they know right from wrong. Yet they still managed to break two or three important laws anyway.

 

They got off with a one-week vacation (that's all it was; the guy who brought the weed didn't even get grounded, his mom let him go party even harder because she was so shocked she couldn't comprehend the situation) because this was their first offense and they're supposedly "good kids." In reality, they just hadn't been caught before. If circumstantial evidence mattered more, or if I walked the halls with a tape recorder and heard some of the things they said, I think they'd get hit a LOT harder.

 

What they'd probably benefit most from is some help in straightening out. I know that they drink quite heavily, and this is no good start for the rest of their lives. A punishment so weak that they actually continue their activities is no help at all.