You don't drop a theory from science if a few religions disagree with it.

Religion is the only reason evolution is considered controversial.

They seem to have enough ability to wait until there's no one around to catch them, though, don't they?


Sidhe

That's the first thing a kid learns - it's better not to be caught. Just ask Ralphie in A Christmas Story.

Lady Sidhe, the point is that they both understand *and* dont understand their actions. They understand that something is right or wrong, they understand to a degree the consequences of their actions, but their relationship with that information is fundamentally different to an adults. They cannot have the same degree of understanding their brains simply arent ready for it.

I knew at a very young age, if I got caught, I got my ass kicked. :p

I understand what you're saying, but in the long run, it doesn't really make a difference whether or not they understand the long-term ramifications of their acts. It's enough that they know it's wrong, forbidden, or illegal, and that they choose to do it anyway.

I seriously doubt that adult criminals who commit violent acts give a thought to how it will affect the families of their victims, and if they do, I doubt they CARE. Therefore, understanding that the families will suffer or not is not a mitigating factor, IMO.

Juvenile life is bullshit. If you're 17, four years for murder just teaches you that you can get away with it, especially when your juvenile record is sealed and can't be used against you if you murder again--so juries can't know that you're a recidivist and sentence you accordingly. Besides, most juvenile delinquents know they're going to get a slap on the wrist BECAUSE they're juveniles, so there's no deterrent.

A teenager is not stupid. They know the difference between right and wrong, and they know that murder is illegal. Yet more and more often, we're confronted with violent and/or murderous teenagers who "wanted to know what it felt like to kill," and we treat them with kid gloves because they're "children." A 15-, 16-, 17-, or 18-year-old is not a child. If you're old enough to drive, to vote, or to join the military, you're old enough to be expected to obey the rules just like everyone else, and to pay the consequences like everyone else.

You know how parents tell little kids, "because I said so," to explain some rules? Well, the same should go for teenagers. "Because the law says so, and until the law is changed, you obey it or suffer the consequenses."

If you're old enough to choose to break the law, you're old enough to pay the consequences for it.

That's just how I feel. I'm sick of all these murderers who have a history of violent behavior going back to "childhood," that has never been dealt with. We have to start nipping it in the bud NOW. The safety of the society should take precedence.


Sidhe

And it worked to keep you straight. I know my ass was grass if I did anything wrong, so I kept straight. Nowadays when a kid does wrong the parent will nuture the little bastard and find out whose fault it "really" was. Kids shouldn't be stuck up for, they are deceitful, slimey, conniving, smelly little demons and should be dealt with appropriately.

Four years is a long time to a 17 year old. Hell look how long high school seemed :P

Even if your statement is intended in jest, I have to respond ...

It's s blink of an eye for the dead victim, and their family.

At 17 I was a different character altogether from the character I was at 21

Ah, but did you murder someone at 17, and then at 21 say "Why, that was a foolish thing to do, and I can't even understand why I did it?"

Everyone changes between those ages, the question is the degree of change. Even if the 17-year-old murderer learns the folly of his ways, and at 21 is only robbing convenience stores for the money instead of the thrill of killing, that's not enough improvement.