1. You're missing a very important distinction.
The assumption of adult responsibilities in civil matters has ALWAYS been different from the assumption of responsibilities in criminal matters. The latter is not a question of minority or adulthood, but simple humanity.
Whether or not you have sense enough to enter into a contract, drive a car, or vote is completely different from whether you know right from wrong.
The ancient common law put criminal responsibility (knowing right from wrong) at about age 7. That is STILL the case -- the purpose of the juvenile system is not to diminish responsibility but twofold: to rehabilitate if possible, and to keep juveniles out of the prison system so that they are not victimized.
And if you're thinking that kids are like puppies, you are denying both their intelligence and their humanity.
2. The juvenile system already treats kids on a case by case basis, and there are multiple hurdles to sentencing these kids as adults. First, there are only a limited number of crimes for which juveniles may be prosecuted, let alone sentenced, as adults. A hearing is held in juvenile court and the juvenile judge looks at the accused's record in detail before making a finding that he has had multiple chances in the juvenile system and cannot be rehabilitated, that he understands the criminality of his conduct, and that he is unamenable to treatment in the juvenile system. Only then does the case proceed to the regular superior court system.
There is ample opportunity for considering the accused's mental state and level of responsibility in the trial as well. And THEN there are additional hurdles to cross before a juvenile may be sentenced as an adult.
This is not something that "just happens" all of a sudden to some hapless innocent who has no idea that his crime is serious.
No - not missing it. Just don't think it's a real distinction.
The ancient common law put criminal responsibility (knowing right from wrong) at about age 7. That is STILL the case - the purpose of the juvenile system is not to diminish responsibility but twofold: to rehabilitate if possible, and to keep juveniles out of the prison system so that they are not victimized.
Actually it didn't. Common law (the doctrine of doli incapax to be precise) assumed a child was not criminally responsible in most cases until the age of 14 - which at the time was fairly consistent with the age he was allowed to carry out most adult responsibilities. There were very rare cases where a child under that age might be found to be criminally liable but they were rare and unusual. Seven was set at the absolute limit for these rare cases - it was never the 'normal' limit under common law.
Common law can be superseded by both courts and legislatures, so it's not particularly relevant to modern discussions, but it was what it was and it said what it said.
And if you're thinking that kids are like puppies, you are denying both their intelligence and their humanity.
No, I don't think kids are like puppies - and I'm frankly amazed that anybody might think I do. The point of the quote I gave isn't whether children are like puppies or not. I'll single out the bits I consider most important just to make it clear.
"Never mind. Long enough. It means that such punishment is so unusual as to be significant, to deter, to instruct. Back to these young criminals. They probably were not spanked as babies; they certainly were not flogged for their crimes. The usual sequence was: for a first offense, a warning a scolding, often without trial. After several offenses a sentence of confinement but with sentence suspended and the youngster placed on probation. A boy might be arrested many times and convicted several times before he was punished and then it would be merely confinement, with others like him from whom he learned still more criminal habits. If he kept out of major trouble while confined, he could usually evade most of even that mild punishment, be given probation 'paroled' in the jargon of the times.
"This incredible sequence could go on for years while his crimes increased in frequency and viciousness, with no punishment whatever save rare dull-but-comfortable confinements. Then suddenly, usually by law on his eighteenth birthday, this so-called 'juvenile delinquent' becomes an adult criminal and sometimes wound up in only weeks or months in a death cell awaiting execution for murder.
It's actually a separate point to the other one, which is why I put it into a separate post. There are two issues here that are relevant as far as I am concerned. The first is whether or not it is sensible to treat people as irresponsible children for some purposes and as responsible adults for others. I don't believe that is sensible or reasonable.
The second issue - the one I quoted from Starship Troopers about - relates to the fact that our society is creating more and more delinquents because we're not punishing children in a way that's appropriate for children. We let them get away with so many things (or nearly so) until they suddenly go too far for us to ignore it. And then we tend to come down on them like a pile of bricks. Our society isn't doing what it needs to do to stop these children becoming serious criminals. Once they become such, we have to treat them as such - but we should be doing a better job of preventing them reaching that stage.
I'm a teacher - my students don't turn into juvenile delinquents? Why - because their parents discipline them, and so do their teachers (with the approval of the parents in our case). Every day I see kids who aren't being disciplined and a lot of them do wind up as criminals. It's their choices, but it's not just their choice.
I lost my parents when I was nine. I was lucky. Other people took on the responsibility of seeing I was brought up right. There's too many kids now who nobody is doing that for.
Just for the record - I lost a cousin to rape and murder. At the hands of five people aged 14-22. And for at least the youngest of them, this was something that 'just happened' to them and he did have no idea of the seriousness of what he'd done.
He's now been in prison nineteen years. And his papers are stamped never to be released.
That's not the US - it's an Australian case. But it's left me interested in these issues and following them around the world and including in the US. What happened is hardly unique.
Do I think he deserved to be punished? Yes, I do. For the level of culpability and understanding he had as a fourteen year old who had basically had no effective parenting since he was at least nine, and who had not been involved in any serious crime until he was finally taken in by a group of older people which included hardened criminals.