![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 7 of 7. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Racer on March 1, 2006, at 17:04:15
Now to admit my guilty secret: I often "watch" CourtTV during the day. That is, I put it on, and sometimes pay some attention to the anchors. Nancy Grace, of course, raises my blood pressure, but the subject on which she really gets under my skin is juvenile justice. The other subject is mental illness, so you can imagine when the two coincide...
Anyway, her view seems to be that a juvenile who commits an "adult" crime should face the adult punishment. And I simply cannot agree. Seems to me that juveniles are fundamentally different from adults. Their brains have not yet finished developing, they don't have the perspective that adults do, they don't have the level of impulse control that adults are expected to have, and they don't have the psychological maturity to comprehend fully the consequences of their actions. In my view, their immaturity must be taken into consideration when it comes to their punishment. In fact, I would say that there is no justice involved when a juvenile is held to the same standards that would apply to an adult.
There have been two recent cases where these issues have come up. The case of the kid who killed his grandparents, the so called "Zoloft Defense" case; and the more recent case in New Mexico where the kid killed his family on Sam Donaldson's ranch. In both cases, the kids were under 15 when they committed the crimes, and in both cases mental illness was involved. The Zoloft kid was 12, and the defense was that a bad reaction to Zoloft may have been involved. The other boy was 14, and there were allegations of child abuse, as well as clear cut PTSD caused by his mother's death.
And then there are the cases that involve strictly mental illness, such as the Andrea Yates case. About which enough has been written on this board.
Anyone else have any opinions about this subject? It was on my mind, and I thought I'd find out how other people felt about it. So, weigh in, weigh in...
Posted by deirdrehbrt on March 1, 2006, at 20:28:47
In reply to Juvenile Justice?, posted by Racer on March 1, 2006, at 17:04:15
A few things come to mind with this:
The first is that in my state, girls as young as 13, and boys as young as 14 are permitted to marry, with parental consent. It seems this state feels that in some cases, children this young are able to make adult decisions.
***DON'T GET THE BLOOD BOILING JUST YET***
I know of no cases where that has happened. This is a very old law, from a different time. It's just still on the books.IRL, I think that children are funamentally different than adults. I see it in my own children. I see the difference in the six years separating my daughters. It seems to me that children work on a more primal level. Their concerns are self preservation, play, learning, etc. They haven't learned yet that society is something that needs to be contributed to. They are necessarily narcissistic, and that's as it should be.
As far as punishment for crimes, I think that what's happening is that we are hearing more about children who commit crimes on the news. It is occupying a disproportionately large segment of the news. Things such as Columbine and other school shootings took up major segments on the news. Every time a child commits a violent act, or brings a gun into the school place, it makes front-page news.
People start to think "Something has to be done". "These children must be held accountable". In my opinion, children don't make this up. Children learn, and children act out. Putting children away as criminals doesn't alter what other children learn. They are learning from adults.
Obviously, if a child commits a violent act, or crime, if you will, there needs to be some action taken. I don't think that the nature of that action should rest with a jury of twelve who knows nothing about child psychology. Even judges, I don't think, are qualified to make such decisions.
Perhaps, pre trial, if the particular child is shown to have "grown-up faculties", and was in full awareness of the act and it's consequences, that child should be held to the same standard as an adult, but I don't think that most children fall into that category.
In my opinion, a child who commits a horrible crime, is, in fact, a very sick child, in need of care. I'm in favor of the juvenile court system. Holding children to the same standards as adults makes about as much sense as holding your cat accountable for throwing up on the comforter. They aren't equipped for that accountability.
Ok... babbling again.
--Dee
Posted by Dinah on March 1, 2006, at 22:28:08
In reply to Juvenile Justice?, posted by Racer on March 1, 2006, at 17:04:15
I've got no problem with juveniles being held accountable for their actions. Not a five year old, but a thirteen or fourteen year old, yes.
We mature all our lives. I'm watching tapes of me in my twenties, and just cringing. But I knew better than to kill or rob or point a gun at someone well before I was eighteen. My son has known it for many years already. Psychologically mature he may not be, but he could easily comprehend the results of his actions. By the age that children are allowed to be left unattended, I am assuming that we are admitting that they have a minimally appropriate level of accountability. In most states that's what? Thirteen? Twelve maybe even.
There are people with biologically poor impulse control all their lives. People of fifty with less impulse control than many fifteen year olds.
Any mitigating factors such as mental illness can always be brought up at trial.
I don't think they should be in adult prisons though.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 3, 2006, at 9:40:18
In reply to Juvenile Justice?, posted by Racer on March 1, 2006, at 17:04:15
People see juveniles committing crimes and get scared. And people don't understand juveniles who commit crimes or how they could come to such a state that they become violent.
The natural inclination is to draw away from things we are afraid of and things we don't understand.
The same is probably true of those who are mentally ill and commit crimes, and the more horrific the crime the more we are afraid.
But you can not convince me, no way, no how that there is a kid, no matter what he's done, who can not be salvaged.
The whole juvenile justice system stinks. Kids who become violent need help, not punishment. They should be separated from "civilized" society, sure, to protect others, but rehabilitation should be the goal and it should be aggressively persued.
The kids should get very intensive counseling, the best education their minds are cabable of absorbing and (somehow!) exposure to love and caring.
Posted by Dinah on March 3, 2006, at 10:56:06
In reply to Re: Juvenile Justice?, posted by AuntieMel on March 3, 2006, at 9:40:18
I don't disagree with that, which is why I don't believe in sending them to prison with adults.
But I don't think the separation period should be any less than for adults. Or that we should assume that they didn't know what they were doing.
Actually, come to think of it, if any prisoner is ever going to be released from prison, I think that no matter what the age rehabilitation should be a major goal. And even if they're never going to be released, rehabilitation should *still* be a major goal.
So does that mean I go back to thinking that juveniles not be treated any differently, but that the entire system needs to be fixed?
Posted by AuntieMel on March 3, 2006, at 13:36:22
In reply to Re: Juvenile Justice? » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on March 3, 2006, at 10:56:06
Reasoning for different treatment? Sure, there is an age where kids know right from wrong and know going into something that they are making a mistake.
But kids really don't have fully cooked brains yet, and the ability to control impulses is much less than for adults (for the most part - there are exceptions in either direction.)
And kids just don't have the concept of time down yet and think of the "now" more than the "later"
Long punishments for kids to me accomplishes about the same as scolding the puppy hours after he messes the carpet. They just don't make the connection.
My youngest just turned 21. By the justice system she was "grown up" three years ago. But she still has trouble with keeping a lid on herself at times. Not as much as a three years ago, by a long shot, but she's still a work in progress.
And I remember when I was the same age. I thought I was grown up, but I still did what felt good at the moment and didn't think much of the long term consequences.
Posted by Dinah on March 3, 2006, at 16:57:19
In reply to Re: Juvenile Justice? » Dinah, posted by AuntieMel on March 3, 2006, at 13:36:22
Depends a lot on the seriousness of the crime, the history of the child, the circumstances, etc.
Which is, I suppose, why there are hearings as to whether any particular child should be tried as an adult, aren't there? Or have I been watching too much TV.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.