I'm done with explaining how wrong that you are. I just wanted to be the 100th response on this thread ;)
LOL...

sorry but you are wrong, you're not the 100th you are the 101st to post on this thread

No, I'm saying that 16 should be the age that they can be charged as an adult regardless of the crime. If a 13 year old murders someone, depending on the cirumstances, and number of family members...they should be charged as an adult.

A lot like a murder case works, if someone kills a hobo they don't get life (well, for the most part anyway).

right or wrong in most cases is black and white. A nine year old child knos if it was wrong to do somethign or not.

Who taught you how to count?
I'm #100
:P

in repsonse to the original question, I thin it is 1 and 3. Let the punishment fit the crime (it should be this way no matter what) and yes charge the child if the child commits the crime.

Now a perfect example which I just found out abot the other day.

New York State law dictates, that in the case of arson, if it is found that a fire is started due to a child 7 years of age or older playing with fire, then the fire inspector is required by law to arrest that 7 year old and press charges for arson.

I do not believe the child would be kept with adults during their imprisonment, and they would be schooled and rehabilitated at the same time, but yes they are arrested and charged for their crime, because at age 7, generally speaking, a child does know it is wrong to play with fire.

here's a quick math class smarty pants
20 posts per page
5 complete pages of posts = 20 x 5 = 100 posts
your post is #1 on page 6
duh = 101

When your little finger clicks onto the topic page you will notice a number that is representing the # of post on each thread. When I posted the 100th it was at 99. Therefore,I am #100 :)
Just look back at the # and subtract...this is why our school system stinks so much bc of ppl like YOU!

ok I'm going to type slower so you can understand better

if you click on my topics you will get a different total of posts (difference of 1) you'd get from recent posts (m2 snafu)
you are the first post on page 6 - hence you are #101

do you get it now

just because there were 99 posts prior to you, doesnt mean someone else didnt post while you were typing your answer. I suggest you go back and manually count each response, only then will you know for certain without doubt that yu were the one hundredth post.

get'em Daniel

some people just are naturally slower than others

not saying that's a bad thing

I agree but thats just too much work to prove that I'm #100 ;)

dorks

Wow, the most interesting agruement going on here is whether or not l4u has the 100th or 101st post..

Just to put this to bed, the 'my topics' does not count the first post as a 'reply'. However the 'recent posts' counts them all, including the original post. If you were to say you were the 100th 'reply', you'd be more correct. But you were the 101st post on the thread.

I agree with you on this. Now let's put it like this. Throw ohysical age out the window, dont even consider it forsake of argument. Two people go up in court for murder. One is found to be in their right state of mind and to know that murder is wrong. They get punished for murder. The other one is found to be mentally challanged and immature, thus they are not legally capable of being tried as an adult becuase they do not have the mental capabilities.

MOST kids, know if something is right or wrong. It is not a question of understanding, it is a question of whether they knew it to be wrong in the first place, not why it is wrong. So again, I agree let the punishment fit the crime, and charge the individual based o their mental capabilities.

I can see that. So, I agree 100(no pun intented)%
lol ;)

Ok, this is a good post to use for my question (not singling you out lol but it provides the perfect setting to ask).

A nine year old boy chooses to plan to use a firearm on his father and rommate because he is upset with them (reason doesn't matter). This little boy has just shown that he is capable of CHOOSING to do something he knows will seriously hurt another person, and for the sake of argument I am not gonna discuss whether he understood death or not.

He CHOSE to SHOOT his father and room mate knowing they would be hurt badly, becasue he was upset with them; or maybe because he thought it would allow him to live with his mother instead.

THIS is a very dangerous person (yes person; you do not become a person at a certain age), and I for one would not want him to be free and loose to CHOOSE to do this again the next time he is upset. Especially considering that by not punishing him for the crime, you are teaching him that it is really ok for him to do so.

Let's say he is let free to live as a normal child. goes through school and is bullied or just plain ignored. He has already shown he is capable of violence. He now chooses to act out his frustrations by shooting everybody at school.

The boy has to be charged and punished, as well as taught if neccesary, that this behavior is unnaceptable.

Persoanllly I prefer it when she is slow and gentle oops

Daniel had to go and kill the thread