When the revolution comes, first against the wall...Follow

I don't know how many of them have internet access. That would seem to be a major security problem.

Don't know what it's like in the US, but in the UK, those stories are always heavily doctored, if not outright lies.

I can't imagine US prisons are softer than UK prisons, so I would guess it's largely *********

When I was a kid in MN, forced outside daily for recess wearing only our little girl plastic unlined boots, and our little girl skirts with only little girl tights covering out legs, we stayed warm by playing Squish Squash Apple Sauce.

All the players would get in a line (only girls played) with the first one in line facing the wall. The whole line would 'squish' forward and release in time to the chant. The first little girl in line, then would have to move to the back when the chant ended at "Eevy Ivy Over".

So basically we were already nose against the wall and preferred it that way. Boys, however never participated.

I just take issue when someone comes before a judge and gets to have himself charged as a juvenile at 17, when he has 76 priors.

The Canadian system is pretty lax. I could believe those rumours started here. I wouldn't be surprised if they were true either.

Edited, Oct 30th 2009 1:13pm by Uglysasquatch

Why would the amount of priors make a difference about whether someone would be charged as a juvenile or an adult? That actually makes very little sense. You have a shining golden line in the law to differentiate adults and children,which is somewhat arbitrary. If you used the neurobiological evidence of adulthood, you'd actually push the age of juveniles up to mid-20s. However, in our culture, we see it as either 21 or 18. We treat young people differently because we see them as not having the competence of adults--in many ways (they can't vote, their parents still make a lot of legal decisions; the age of consent for sex is about competence) so we have a different sense of laws.

What confuses me is why people go on and on about why people should be tried as adults, making a nonsensical determination that something is an "adult decision" whereas it really seems as if they should focus on juvenile sentences for certain crimes to be more serious and long-lasting. You want the laws on juveniles to be differentl there is no reason to determine that suddenly they should become an adult.That might seem more logical even if I personally disagree with it.

And you have to have that line somewhere--between adulthood and childhood and it doesn't seem to make sense to have the line be the seriousness of the crime when you are talking about issues of competence and judgement.



Edited, Oct 30th 2009 2:27pm by Annabella

I know. In Massachusetts, you are considered an adult on your 17th birthday--only by the courts. The kids would ask all the time why they are only considered an adult in the courts when they are punished. I had no real fucking answer. It's not like little Jimmy is so civic minded that they decide to let him vote early. But if he robs a liquor store, suddenly he has SUCH EXCELLENT JUDGMENT that he's treated like a 40 year old. And that doesn't even address the issue of trying juveniles (14 in MA, younger elsewhere) as adults.

Being a juvenile and needing rehabilitation that addresses someone developmentally isn't the same thing. Being competent as an adult and having issues that might make it difficult for you to be in juvenile detention are two different issues. It's a problem when we muddle up making a juvenile an adult ONLY in the court of law when you really are expressing your own frustrations about the most serious juvenile offenders, their potential for recidivism and the heterogeneous populations in detention.

I don't know if you realize it but in a lot of states, kids who commit serious crimes are usually housed in different units than kids who haven't.

Edited, Oct 30th 2009 4:27pm by Annabella

Who said any of those 76 priors were serious crimes? 76 priors still means that the kid isn't taking any of this seriously.


Sure, but until that facility gets built( which will be never), I think we need to bump the kid to an adult, so he can get a conviction serious enough to keep him off the streets.

Ps. Actually, in most states, they already have them.

Ha, ha, Canadian crime?

Someone slept with someone elses moose?

Yeah because there are only like 20 million women.

Sure. Did you think I was against giving children the right to vote? I'd say a 12 year old is possibly too young, but I think 15 and up, we're getting into an age where people are aware enough of their environment and if interested in politics, can be informed enough to make an educated decision. I think those not informed enough to make a decision wouldn't even bother to show up to vote, so what difference would it make?