[james_8970]

Yes many children are immature. But that gives them no reason what so ever to injury and person or thing. It time our governments take responsibility and start acting upon these children. It shouldn't get to the point where the parents feel they have to send them away, once they start wreaking havoc, the government can and must punish them when the parents fail to do the punishing.

NOTHING changes when we turn 18, its a number that'll come and go, as the 40 mark does for adults. It changes nothing, i still know the difference between right and wrong and must make the right decision, failure to do so should lead to consequence. There is no excuse for a child over the age of 11 to commit any crime or wrongdoing, they know what they should do, they just chose not to do it. They should then be punished.

Last night, 5 kids under the age of 16 random attacked and killed someone on a sidewalk today. RANDOMLY! and people believe they are going to be set free with 50 hours of community service. They chose to commit this crime and for taking the life away from someone else maybe theirs should be as well!
StudentBusiness12 i'm sorry but your wrong, no one is allowed at any time to commit a crime no matter what the age. 18 is a number, that signifys nothing.
James

[Advertisements]

I come from the era when a good hiding was punishment and when NO meant NO. Most of my peers were handed out the same type of discipline and I really don't think that any of us have grown up with any sort of complex resulting from this. Don't get me wrong, there are instances where physical discipline goes too far and I am by no means suggesting those type of occurances should be the normality.

The way I see it, is that children today just like to see how far they can push things before there is any real consequences to their actions. What is most annoying and I firmly believe this, is that the children of today have too many rights and they (the children) know it. An example of this is when the child says something like "you can't touch me or i'll tell the teacher" as similarly related to previously.

What really gets on my nerves is when they want to be treated as adults in some circumstances and then when it suits them they want to take the "i'm only a child I don't know right from wrong" type of defense. Most children know whether its right or wrong to do most things, most certainly in the cases of theft and murder.

A good smack on the behind never hurt anyone in my opinion. I do have four offspring who are now grown up adults and I am proud of each and every one of them. And yes, they all recieved the same kind of discipline that I recieved when I was younger.

[Octagonal]

I come from the era when a good hiding was punishment and when NO meant NO. Most of my peers were handed out the same type of discipline and I really don't think that any of us have grown up with any sort of complex resulting from this. Don't get me wrong, there are instances where physical discipline goes too far and I am by no means suggesting those type of occurances should be the normality.

The way I see it, is that children today just like to see how far they can push things before there is any real consequences to their actions. What is most annoying and I firmly believe this, is that the children of today have too many rights and they (the children) know it. An example of this is when the child says something like "you can't touch me or i'll tell the teacher" as similarly related to previously.

What really gets on my nerves is when they want to be treated as adults in some circumstances and then when it suits them they want to take the "i'm only a child I don't know right from wrong" type of defense. Most children know whether its right or wrong to do most things, most certainly in the cases of theft and murder.

A good smack on the behind never hurt anyone in my opinion. I do have four offspring who are now grown up adults and I am proud of each and every one of them. And yes, they all recieved the same kind of discipline that I recieved when I was younger.

[StudentBusiness12]

James i didnt say they were allowed, just that due to the reasons stated they don't deserve severe punishments. Start banging up 14 year olds and they will miss out on their childhood, their education and their life experiences that could potentially make them realize their wrong doings in the future.

I do agree but some punishment is deserved, and perhaps it should be more severe than community service, however too severe a punishment would damage the child even further.

This undermines my entire arugument but i must conceed that if some 15 year old injured my grandad i would be forced to seek painful retribution upon this child.

Pehaps the punishment should be judged on the severeity of the crime as it is for adults aswell as the character of the child, but the punishment slightly toned down; UNPROVOKED murder however i conceed is a different matter.

Edited by StudentBusiness12, 27 October 2006 - 05:22 AM.

[james_8970]

Like octagonal said, children know that they can get away with anything so they like to see how far the can go without getting punishment. This shouldn't be the case! If adults lived this way, we would be in a different world, and it wouldn't be a good one at that. I firmly believe that after a child turns 12 they should be treated like an adult, they know right from wrong, so when they do a wrong doing they should be punished for it. No more of this revolving scenario that we currently face. If children continue to get away with their wrong doing it'll push them to do more sever wrong doing eventually leading to murder. If we don't fix the problem when they are young the crimes they will pursue will be of much higher severity when they become an adult.
If you had someone kill your best friend you wouldn't want them to get away with it, so the next time you see some innocent person getting killed in the paper, maybe you should feel that they should suffer the same consequences as you'd feel they should have faced if they killed someone close to you.
We as children no longer have a childhood. I believe anyways. In my family we work for the things we get, nothing is free. So I've gone to work since i was 14 so that i can afford the things I want. If i don't learn this now, life is going to be much harder when i reach university, life isn't a free ride. So no one should feel they can steal from the rich to get what they want.

As for the punishment toned down from what adults would face. I don't believe this as, they are as smart as any adults. If they don't know the consequences to their actions then why fear doing anything wrong?!
James

[tirol]

hi all there,

did you ever cross anybody in your company, and when saying "good day", you get no response ?
We have 3 children and we DO believe that whatever happens here or there, the civil policy is a must.
"Please", "thank you" are lost words, but not only by kids ! look at the topics on the forum here !
Defeat of the parents : we see that very often, as being members of the school "ministry".
For 70 pupils, less than 10 parents come to the meetings. That's a sad reality .
Of course, when any problem occurs, that's always the fault of the "establishment", the "society".
I belong to that Woostock, May '68 age! But we never asked, but the reverse, to deny the other.
It's so easy to let a child seating in front of the TV, playing the DS or so, and just forget her/him...
that's all
tirol.

[frantique]

This is the situation in Australia at the moment. The following appeared in our Sunday newspapers today:

CHILDREN as young as 10 will be made responsible for their criminal behaviour under a NSW Coalition policy to crack down on juvenile crime.

The Sunday Telegraph can reveal the NSW Coalition plans to lower the age of criminal responsibility from 14 to 10 if elected in March.

Children's Court magistrates will also be given new sentencing options such as placing the child in care or into a rehabilitation program.

In NSW, children under the age of 10 cannot be charged with a criminal offence as they are regarded as being incapable of crime, or doli incapax.

For children aged 10 to 14 years, a presumption of doli incapax applies.

The presumption means a prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that a child was capable of knowing right from wrong and foreseeing the consequences of their crime at the time of the offence.

Under the Coalition policy, the presumption will apply to children aged 10-12 years and only for serious indictable offences such as murder.

For minor offences, doli incapax will be scrapped for children aged over 10 years.

State Opposition juvenile justice spokeswoman Catherine Cusack said the current arrangement made police reluctant to charge 10 to 14-year-olds given the difficulty in achieving a prosecution.

She said the policy was not intended to increase the number of children in custody, with the Coalition to introduce new sentencing options focused on crime prevention and rehabilitation.

"Police call these kids the untouchables,'' she said.

"But if you have a 10-year-old running around smashing car windows, something has to happen.

"The situation now is that police are reluctant to arrest these kids because of this legal hurdle and therefore these kids are allowed to continue reoffending.''

The worst teenage offenders in NSW have racked up as many as 100 charges before the age of 18 - often without spending a night in detention, legal sources claim.

One 16-year-old western Sydney boy allegedly committed 35 armed robberies and three violent assaults before finally being remanded in custody.

Another teen remains free despite setting fire to a $15,000 boathouse, smashing up a toilet block to the tune of $5000 and stabbing at least two people in random attacks.

We also have a case at the moment where an elderly woman may have to sell her home because she is being sued by a policeman who sustained injuries to his hand, which resulted in him having 3 months off work, during a seige when a young boy ended up being shot and killed by the police. Apparently the house was in the boy's name and his grandmother has been living in it (with the boy) for many years. When the boy died his grandmother inherited the house and because the policeman cannot sue the boy he is suing the grandmother because the house used to belong to the boy. The case is drawing a lot of interest because of the connection regarding a parent or guardian being sued for the actions of a minor.

[playa_in_mind]

Well I live in Texas and I am currently a jailer for our county jail. I just transfered from our state juevenile corrections center. I've learned that parents are a big part the problem, but do not forget that the kids are old enough to make their own decisions. Instead of getting a real job and getting paid minimum wage these kids want to deal drugs and make big money no matter the risks. In most cases, if someone is in jail or in a juevenile corrections center its not their first offense unless it is a MAJOR law infraction. Regaurdless, I've learned that if they are in jail as kids, I will see them in the county too.