Too young to kneel? (Young Offenders - What Should The Law Do With Them?)

Member Name: mo79

Product:	Young Offenders - What Should The Law Do With Them?
Date:	01/11/00 (14 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: The current system can be a deterrent for current and future juveniles, but that's it - it's not a solution

Disadvantages: Children are destroyed instead of helped, with children you can't exchange an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth that simply, in my opinion

Juvenile crimes of every severity is definetly quite a difficult subject to discuss. I don't even know how to begin writing this review, all I know is that I'm interested in the subject and I'll follow some kind of stream of consciousness.
First of all, why do certain children turn to crime? There's a variety of reasons, ranging from the way a child's brought up, their environment, or insatiable urges, and there's more I'm sure, that I can't think of as I write. Eitherway it's tragic on any scale of severity that children have to turn to crime, but also age of the offender aside it's not exactly warming either for the victim or whatever. But they're just kids, just give them a warning - but they can get away with murder, as could've happened in the tragic Bulger case.
Focussing on violent crime, I think it's definetly neccessary to assert some kind of harsh authority on those kids, but because they're kids their motives won't be like adults, so applying laws specificly on adults to them is going to be a hard task. That's why there's a flaw in the rule; it's vague, there's some silly laws and above all it's definetly not concise to encapsulate everything.
But murder is murder, it's a life that has been taken for whatever reason, and it wasn't an accident it was intentional. I don't have any kids of my own, but if I was a parent who's child had been killed by another I would rightly want that child to pay severely for that crime, but when you're not directly involved in the crime, like say us in the Bulger case, you're confused. It's a kid, but it's a murder. It's confusing.
Unlike adults, children up until they reach their teens can be moulded. Once you become an adult you've pretty much nailed the nails of who you are, what you want to be and why you are into your personality. Of course you can change, but wherever you came from, t
he seed and the environment you've grown in will always play a root in your personality.
That's not to say criminals are all children from damaged environments - that's too simple. But when you're a child you can change, and while you're a child you're still learning and growing. You don't find violence the same as you do when you mature, if you're so inclined with people against it.
With crimes not so severe such as theft, it would be easy to deliver a punishment. Community service, a warning or if needs be a little time in jail. This should serve as a taster of what might happen if they continue there ways, but if it has no effect there's nothing you can do, and that's the worrying black hole. Even I don't know what to say. If they aren't deterred, can't be deterred or won't be. They're eventually going to meet the wrong fate path when they become adults, no matter what crime they do.
When it comes to things as heavy as murder? What? Jail? - Is that too much, and a warning? That's too lenient. I honestly don't know what to say. But there has to be a better network for children rather than brushing them under the same adult laws, under a sort of mini-adult moniker, as that's a shoddy and easy way to me personally. Of course very violent crimes of this sort are rare, but now we're aware of them, we should set up a safety net now.
Referring to the Bulger case, I don't know those two boys but should they be feeling remorse for what they did, and at that early an age then they'll probably be paying for crime forever. If they're not, keeping them locked up inside is a safe option, but rehabilating them into better persons would be better. In my mind though as a non-victim you can't exchange and eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth even in such serious juvenile crimes like this. Both the murderers and the little boy who died are victims. If it's possible to mo
uld the murderers into atleast somewhat functional normal adults than that will be saving 2 out of 3 lives, and isn't that better? Although no one can forget that they murdered an innocent little boy with intention, but not with the intention an adult has, maybe. This isn't to say that murder shouldn't be gotten away with or any crime. But we should be saving children as the persons doing the crime are often the victims as much as the other children or adults. Adults who are able to be responsible for themselves fully with all the knowledge they gain are responsible entirely for all their actions.
This is a tough subject. I don't know if I've just written waffle, made some sense, or just confused or not gotten anywhere. Please comment if you can. I appreciate open comments no matter how bad as they'll help me piece this debate together myself.

Summary: