Responsibility when kids break the law. (Split thread)

[Duke]

Originally Posted by Vautrin

We can make laws as strict as we want, but the laws don't operate on the dynamics that make the children stray from doing good.
You can sentence a child for 20 years, with what effect? Or you can use the "soft" approach, which is basically a sentencing of a kid to 10 years of jail (because it messes up with the law) and 10 years bored at the various psychiatrists.

I'm not sure I buy this at all. The fact that a kid is likely to escape any form of legal punishment for committing a crime isn't even close to being a deterrent. The only thing that stopped me from being the wheelman for a drug dealer friend of mine here on the west coast was the fear of getting caught. Most of my friends were pimps, prostitutes, drug dealers, car thieves, etc. I stopped because I eventually saw the life I was leading was a bad one (personal choice) but not because I was wrapped up or involved in crime. The money was great and if I had continued I would either be rich, dead or in jail, that's what snapped me out of the life. The biggest deterrent in my case was spending the rest of my life in jail, fear of death only came on my last run as a driver when we entered a high risk situation in a house to do a deal that none of us thought we'd come out of alive.

Back on topic kind of, If there's no posted speed limit how fast do you drive? Even if there is a posted speed limit virtually everyone hits the brakes when they see a cop car. Why is that, we're afraid for being punished for breaking the law and putting our privileges for driving under risk, not to mention our pocket books? Wouldn't this same mentality transfer to our youth should the law be a stronger presence in their daily lives? I have to think the answer is yes.

As parents, the only hope we have is that our child knows the difference between right and wrong (which most if not all of them do), it's just some choose to ignore it or flirt with the idea that they won't get caught. It's these little buggers that need to be dealt with legally and more strictly. It doesn't matter what kind of upbringing you have or what kind of friends you surround yourself with, being good, bad or somewhere in between is ultimately a personal choice.

[Vautrin]

Duke of course we have to respect existing laws.

But I was hinting at, the idea that ever heavier punishments for bad behavior in itself don't solve the problems. By putting a kid in jail, for 20 years you don't suddenly have a 35-year old responsible citizen at the end.
People may feel deterred out of fear, but not out of their own moral character. You were afraid you were going to be caught. You did not base the decision on the immorality of the act itself.

And the fact that most parents drive at too high speeds, and slow down when a cop car is close, actually teaches our children it is ok to break the law, as long as no law enforces sees that.

[Duke]

I agree that heavier punishments don't solve the punishment but is not a heavier deterrent still part of a possible solution? I know it was in my case.

For the others who are unaffected by harsher penalties I have to question whether or not there was ever really hope for them in the first place.

I do agree with your assessment of speeding and the subliminal messages it imposes when our children see it, I was using it as a reference to law enforcement and its implied power over controlling certain situations.

[Vautrin]

But the difference between 20 years and 50 years prison is small, in imagination. And multiple life-sentences don't mean a thing when you are caught.

But the fact is, if we do rely on the law, we already wait for the people to commit the mistakes (or let them seriously be tempted), before we do anything.

Eventually we don't want our citizens to do what is good out of fear, but out of positive personal conviction. That is what citizenship should be about.

As I suggested in the case of children becoming "problem children" there might be causes we refuse to address, especially concerning their living world. Of course it would be idiotic to blame the parents of the problem children for things they cannot possibly control.

But the absolute idiotic advice that was given to star by the professionals: "she'll have to outgrow it", is not satisfactory. For the parents and in this case for Krystal. That is insulting to both Krystal and star.

[Star]

I don't think we should put our kids in jail for 20 years either but there has to be an in-between here. If a kid in taday's day and age kill a person, he might get 3 years tops for taking another person's life. and that's only if he's in front of a very harsh judge. Most kids will get off with a year in jail and the rest on probation. This needs to change and this is the kind of thing that I mean by stricter laws.

while in jail, they do have counselling, school, anger management, everything the child needs to rehabilitate him/herself. I know this because my daughter spent some time in juvenile jail for breaches that she had. Everything she needed was offered but then again, she has to want it.

stricter punishments should be a little more then 3 years for taking a life. raise the age of consent for everything also. 12 is way too young to be making adult decisions when it comes to acquiring proffessional help or just going to see the doctors to get birth control pills. 14 is too young to consent to sexual acts with anyone of any age. it's sick! Just change it so that these kids have something to be scared of. as it stands now, they fear nothing because they litteraly get a slap on the wrist and a lecture from the judge.

[Duke]

I hate that it's going through a phase baloney, it holds as much merit with me as "terrible twos", what a crock.

As I've stated earlier or tried to, I'm not relying on the law for anything, I'm merely stating that it should ultimately be there should persons decide to wander off the beaten path. In the case of children, the law holds little to no weight.

[Vautrin]

One years for a murder (plus probation) is indeed a small sentence. I agree, and that should be several years more with the counselling et cetera. The only problem with all attention you can give to a child if it is unwilling to learn, it will not learn. Even if the age of consent should start at adulthood, there is no way to avoid that problem.

But the law cannot prevent a single crime, except by deterrence. And that is a method we should not prefer. If we cannot inspire our citizens positively to do what is right, we are fighting an already lost battle.

I'd rather look for all possible ways to prevent children to grow into "problemchildren", than send them from specialist to specialist, who all are unable to help the children, because they are not willing to cooperate.

I'm merely stating that it should ultimately be there should persons decide to wander off the beaten path. In the case of children, the law holds little to no weight.

There is nothing wrong with wandering from the beaten path, but it should not be in direct contradiction or at odds with the existing laws.

[Duke]

The problem is that you're assuming that there is help for these children when I'm sure that there are equal amounts of kids who can be helped and equal amounts of kids who don't want to be helped.

I simply can't see how the parent has any chance of curbing or molding the behavoir of the latter.

Also, specialists are a waste of time and money unless you actually want to be there and actually want to work out your problems. You're better off withdrawing the money from your account and throwing it in the fireplace for all the good it's going to do you.

[Star]

How do we know if our kids are going to become problem children when they get older? I had no clue that mone was going to turn out this way at all. she was a good girl that did everything right and didn't like to get into trouble then one day that all changed! we did go for help immediately but like i said, it wasn't useful at all. so how would you know?

[Vautrin]

But my original point was not about the specialists helping these children, but what causes these children, apparently randomly, to become problem children. And as long as we don't know that, we cannot effectively deal with ALL children, to prevent as much that they would become problem children.
Now we deal with children once they are problem children. Which is a step too late.

As far as I am aware statistics have been thrown into the equation, but with disappointing results so far. Except for parents and peers, there must be other possible causes, that contribute to the problem-behavior.

Parents existed 50 years ago, and peers existed 50 years ago. Look at other countries, look at more rural areas of the country. There must be more causes, which the scientists have not addressed enough.

[Star]

that does make a lot of sense. That would be a dream if one day there could be a simple blood test to determine whether or not your child will become a problem child in the future and take care of that problem before it even comes close to happening. That would be the best thing!

I did mention to all of the professionals that I've seen with krystal that perhaps it's something to do with her genes that would come from the paternal side of the family (not my husband btw...long story, different topic). they did mention that could be the case but how do you prove that?

[Vautrin]

As far as I am aware genetic testing for personality behavior is limited somewhat, due to the fact that life's experience can alter a person.

For example a divorce, or a fatal car crash in which the child loses a parent or a sibling. There is no way genetic science can predict the impact the events will have on the child.

I know of some personality disorders that they are somewhat hereditary. But they can also arise spontaneously in previously healthy individuals.

That's why I am also very much interested in a psychological explanation.