EPTOn December 04 2007 00:13 Hawk wrote:
But a dog can't think like a human can, so that's not so great of an analogy.
But a dog can't think like a human can, so that's not so great of an analogy.
The reason we don't apply the same laws to adults as we do to children is precisely because we don't give them the credit for thinking "fully", so it is a perfect analogy. When someone else is not expected or believed able to "think like an adult" we lessen the responsibility on them. Again, think of a 2 year old. If my 2 year old burns down your house, isn't it because _I_ fucked up? And surely you can't argue that a 2 year old should be tried as an adult because he "thinks like a human." Maybe teens should be treated more like adults, sure. But they aren't.
Personally, I do think a lot of things should require minors to be charged as adults. Murder, rape, etc. These are all major things that you learn at a very young age—regardless of race, creed, social status, etc—that are major fuck ups thata you don't do. Still, I don't think the parent of a 16 year old should be held accountable if he shoots up the school.
Maybe that's because you think 16 should be considered adult. Obviously you wouldn't say the same things about a 2 year old, or an 8 year old, etc. The "nature" of the crime doesn't change who is doing it. Obviously some people, by age or mental defect, are not capable of the kind of guilt you are imagining. If someone is legally assigned to be responsible for that those people do, to watch over them etc., then that should mean something. The dog analogy works. If I am responsible for a dog, then it's my fault if it bites someone. If legal guardians are truly responsible for their 16 year olds, they are responsible for what their 16 year old does. Now you might say that they can't possibly know. If that's the case then they can't possibly really be a true legal guardian. The child is already independent if what you're saying is true. I don't think that's usually the case.
I mean, like if they were found to be negligent in that he told them the day before as he's goin to school, 'bye mom, going to shoot up my classmates!' 'hahaha, funny, have a good one hun!' then yeah, they should get punished. But I really don't think a lot of situations are like this.
No again, as you can see by my responses above, accepting responsibility for someone else (be it a child, teen, otherwise mentally incompetent entity, pet, etc.) should mean something. It should mean accepting responsibility, not just "well i'll make sure to feed it, not abuse it, but if it does anything really bad it ain't my fault." That's bullshit. Now maybe by the time someone is 16 it is time to give them full legal independence and full rights, but in any case that has not happened so IMO all this "tried as adult" shit is really wishful thinking for parents (and others who have some responsibility for those we deem as and treat as children) who have had bad results.
