Juvenile Crime

We've all seen it. Good kids gone bad and bad kids gone worse. Some have what we would like to call excuses (extreme family problems, mental disorders), but what about the ones who don't have a reason, only a police record?

Should underaged criminals be allowed to slide by on their first crime and walk into adulthood with a clean slate? How about their second or third crime? What if they comitted a class A or B felony? Murder? Theft? Arson?

i think that forgivness is the best policy with teens and teen crime. as long as it wasnt murder or grand larcenty or arson or something dangerous.
a few beers, some pot. that should be forgiven as long as the kid stays clean. a mistake at 17 shouldn't follow u around for the rest of your life.

I think there are far too many kids getting away with serious crimes because they have their age as an excuse, and to add to it, their defence counsel uses things like drug abuse and coming from a broken home to justify their horrific behaviour.
I know plenty of kids that are the product of divorce, I myself was a drug addict for several years, and apart from using an illegal drug and occasionally speeding while driving, I never, ever broke the law - and neither do any of the kids I know who have had their parents split up.
I mean, yeah, kids can make mistakes, but some 'mistakes' are deliberate actions with the consequences being known full well, and most of these people are old enough to damn well know better.
There have been times when it would have been easier for me to drink drive than pay for a cab - but I never did; the risk of getting caught and the consequences were far too much for me to consider such behaviour a viable option. There have been times when I've been angry enough at somebody to want to beat them to a pulp, but I haven't because I don't need that reputation hanging around my neck forever.
I'm the first to admit that I have an incredibly short, fiery temper - if provoked, you don't want to be anywhere near me. But never once have I let a haze of rage cloud my judgement enough to lead me into handcuffs. Never once have I done something 'just for the fun of it' or allowed friends to talk me into something I know is wrong, because I know full well what the consequences would be, and I want none of it.

I don't know what laws are like overseas, but in Australia, getting caught drinking or in possession of drugs or speeding, relatively inconsequential crimes, get you a fine, and your records as a juvenile are sealed so it doesn't impact on your ability to find work etc as an adult. I think that works fine, because as Username said, a few beers, some pot, whatever - kids will be kids, and that shouldn't hamper their future happiness. However, when I read my local newspaper and see reports about teenagers getting high in an abandoned house and then setting it alight 'because they were stoned', and getting let off with probation, it makes me sick. Especially when I see these same kids sitting down at the mall a week later, heckling innocent passers-by and laughing at how stupid the judge was - and planning to do it all over again as soon as they're off probation.
I'm all for kids being kids, but I feel that they need to start learning to be held accountable for their own actions - for instance, the 14-year-old boy who threw his neighbour's kitten into another neighbour's yard, knowing that there were two large dogs in that yard. The dogs mauled the kitten to death, and the child didn't even get a slap on the wrist - he went to court, and the judge simply decided that he needed a few weeks' therapy to 'cure' him. I wish to God someone had released his name to the public, perhaps then he would have gotten a taste of his own back - I know of a hundred people who were straining their ears for the slightest whisper of his identity so that they could personally do to him what the dogs did to the kitten.
That's a horrific, sickening crime, and he got away with it - and laughed outside the courtroom!
In my opinion, he should have not only been sent to juvenile detention, but given serious therapy and a whopping great fine, as well as made to apologise to the neighbours who owned the kitten - and the neighbours whose dog killed it. Imagine their horror at having to clean up the mess.

Anyway, I'm rambling, but yeah, I believe kids should be held accountable for their actions, and have their records follow them into adulthood in certain cases (eg the boy I just mentioned - I wouldn't want him applying for a job in a pet store and getting it because the employers can't look at his history).
A crime is a crime, and the person committing it needs to accept the consequences - maybe if criminal records followed children into adulthood, they might think twice before doing something that's against the law. There's too little discipline in today's society.

I do agree. Teens should be forgiven and understood for crimes that they commit as long as it isn't that bad like larceny, murder, arson and the like. Parents also have a responsibility for their children. Teens committing crime should also be given at least a bit of punishment just to make sure they learned their lesson

Well, if they keep doing it after they're eighteen then they go to jail.
They're no longer juveniles and they don't get treated like they did when they were.
So I think that when they do such things that don't make them seem a threat to society that they should be able to just get rid of it like they're allowed to.
I think there are kids who are easily influenced, have nothing better to do, have a bad home situation, etc.
I don't think that if you're a teen and you murder someone that as soon as you turn 18 you can get it erased from your record.
You spend your time in Juvie until you're eighteen then you go to jail.
So, I don't think that serious crimes can be as easily forgotten as, say, grafitti.

My brother and his friend were spray painting the name of their band on a spot where there is already TONS of grafitti.
They just happened to get caught and they had to paint over the grafitti and do some community service.
I think he was 16 when that happened, and when he turned 18 he was given the chance to erase it from his record.
I don't think it's some easy process where you put a check next to the "yes" and it's all gone. I think you have to fill out paperwork and such.
So kids who don't think it's important to do that don't get it erased from their record.

Well, this is kinda a complicated topic.

I really think that it's all based on circumstance. What the crime was, how old the person is, the intent of the crime, etc. I mean, if they commited 1st-degree murder or something like that, or were even accessory to murder, then i think they should get the sentence for a normal adult. But if it's something like, say, theft (not that's it's not bad-it is), I think that it should be erased from their record when the come of age. Of course, if they have repeated offenses, I think that it should be marked down and not eradicated, but just as a little footnote-type thing instead of as a big red "THIS PERSON COMMITED A CRIME WHEN THEY WERE 13" or whatever. Also, though, it's a matter of judgement on the part of the one handing out teh sentence. It depends on their morality and what they think is right, as well. There is really no right or wrong on this subject (in my opinion, at least). It really is based all on opinion.

I'm not very decisive about this kind of thing...

Lots of good opinions here, and I can see where all of you are coming from. Now I'll just have to stick my face in and say my part.

I'm a criminal. Yeah. Burned a church and vandilized the parking lot. Caught two days later and charged with vandilization and arson of a place of worship. Class B felony. The only thing worse is murder. I don't regret what I did. Yes, I am twisted. Got off with easy house arrest and phsyc counseling because it was my first offence and the judge said I had a good future in front of me and he didn't want to "Screw it up" (I had straight A's at the time, and I'm well behaved at home and school). They're even giving me a chance to wipe it from my record.

Had I been in the judge's place, I would have sent myself to juvie for two years minimum, 5 years probation - even with the good grades and good conduct. A crime is a crime. I can understand petty theft and other meger offences, kids will be kids, but when the class of felony gets up there near the first three letters of the alphabet, stick 'em in a heavy shackles and give them plenty of time to think. Especially if the act was premeditated. A criminal has the potential to be a good person, but even a good person has to be taught every once in a while why they shouldn't cross the line.

It depends on what they do.

If they're into some serious crimes, then no. They shouldn't be taught that it'll be their last warning, because they'll still push the limits.

i think it really depends on what the minor has done

i mean, if a kid steals a car, maybe they should get house arrest, but not jail.
but if a kid kills someone, life in jail.
(i don't believe in the death penalty, regardless of age.)

I don't care if they're a kid or not.
Arsonists and murderers should be put away for 4 life sentences (A life sentence is 20 years) without the chance of parole.

S713:

I don't care if they're a kid or not.
Arsonists and murderers should be put away for 4 life sentences (A life sentence is 20 years) without the chance of parole.

What if they're 3? Do they not get to ever experience childhood because they come out when they're 23 because they set their house on fire?

well if a 3 year old sets their house on fire, i think that's the parent/guardian's fault. little kids have to be watched carefully. it's not their fault.
but about destroying childhood... i understand that. but if the child is really a threat to otehr people and is dangerous, that's when juvie should come in.

It pisses me off every time someone under 18 gets off with a little warning or a bull shit punishment just because they're a kid or under age. If they're old enough to do the crime then they're old enough to do the time.

i agree with Mr random guy, they all know what there doing when they commit a crime so they should get punished properly, like adults.

Fezzik:

^Oh please. You're saying a thirteen year old kid understands the value of a human life? Or even of a dollar, for that matter? I'm not saying juveniles who commit crime should be let off easy, but re-education and rehabilitation is much more important and useful for them than just punishment.

At thirteen there is NO reason for them not to understand the value of human life. Either way, if they kill somebody or burn down a school a church they are a danger to the public.
Yes, each case varies so there would be some differences in sentencing but at least 20 years in each case.

^So are you saying that most 13 year olds are not capable of thinking for themselves?
From a lot of observation I had with children, they are already able to know what they are doing by the age of 10. In my opinion, children need a second chance but they still need to be punished in a way so they can learn from it. The worse thing that can happen is not taking any action at all for what they've done.

EDIT: I completely agree with Cigarettes and Suicide

Ah! Can somebody delete this post and the other one on the other page please? Sorry!