Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner

The Youth Criminal Justice Act = BS.

7K views 87 replies 21 participants last post by  Brainstrained 
If you are responsible enough to make the decision to end someone else's life, you are entirely responsible enough to deal with the consequences.
You seem to be missing the basis of adult responsibility, upon which is founded silly things like, er, voting and running for public office.

If you are not "responsible" enough to make the decision, but you make it anyway then...your logic fails.

Let a four year old decide about the household bills for a few months. Being able to make the decision does not mean being fully responsible. It just means that you are not a deer in the headlights.
 
What about non-adult responsibility, (ie under 18)? Does it exist? If so, at what point? When it is convenient?
.............
If you have made the decision & executed it, then you should be responsible for it, no matter what your age or mental condition.
I think these two excerpts sum up the discontinuity. Society has, rightly in my opinion, decided that age does matter. By necessity, there is some arbitrariness to that decision, but the lines are there. 16 for driving, 18 for voting, 21 (?) for public office, etc. But you do not want any such lines in the justice system?

If we want to throw kids in with the big dogs, then hand them a license, let them vote etc. and watch the "big dogs" tear them apart should they choose to act like "adults", to be truly impartial about it. After all, age does not matter, does it?
 
No argument. Age does matter and, for the most part, the lines are a good thing. However, when certain lines are crossed, they need to be dealt with on an as needed basis.

Would it be appropriate (in this case) for society to sit back and say, ah hell, he's only a kid, let him go?

At what point are his actions deemed serious enough to be dealt with as an adult? Two killings? Ten? A hundred? How many deaths?
Considering that he was 17, I do not have a problem. I was just surprised at your statements that implied zero age consideration. Perhaps you just meant in this case, given his age at the upper-edge of the grey "adult" range.

Below certain ages (let's use 8 years old, as an extreme) I do not think any actions can be dealt with as adult actions. They are not by any measure, the actions of adults (ie. zero biological basis). But there is greyness and the Act in question looks to be a reasonable reflection of the grey.
 
Vague usage of terms BigD, especially considering, as MD pointed out, direct democracy and, in addition, the Workers' Party at the heart of the most well-known form of fascism. It's amazing what people can justify doing to others once a given collective feels righteous.
 
What does that accomplish? I have no interest in "justice" as simply a symmetrical pursuit for crime and punishment (eye for an eye). I can understand why people consider it that way (it is a deeply subjective concept), but I do not see it as such.
 
That would not give me closure nor do I consider closure to be above common laws. Every family would require its own specific closure meaning that crimes would depend upon the subjective need for closure. Sounds like a socialist closure welfare system. ;)
 
First of all, the last person to make a reasonable judgement would be one in such a heightened emotional state. In such a state, dismembering and other various practices may seem to be justice. Second, while not murdered, a family member of mine was viciously attacked and put into a temporary coma and has not yet fully recovered (and never will; the victim is quite old).

Sorry Sinc, but you resorted to the weak, "walk a mile" argument and stepped onto a mine. Care to backtrack to facts?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top