• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

TOO YOUNG TO JAIL?, or Short-Circuiting the Impulse to Let Everyone Off the Hook

Keith Martin

Keith Martin

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
Watching the news in the last couple days about a pair of teenagers who very purposefully ran over a man on his bicycle reminded me of a proposal I first made in a late 1970s Atlanta Constitution (since merged with the Atlanta Journal) Letter to the Editor in the midst of that city being embroiled in debate about an uptick in young teenage crime, which included everything from breaking & entering to car-jackings and murder. I was still very much a hard-core leftist, and this was before my foray into university dormitory administration, so I was more of a rule breaker than a rule follower, but I could later see this as one of the straws that eventually broke the camel's back of blaming everything on society, because I observed the incongruency that is inevitable to this day when teenagers have committed heinous crimes: of course, usually, the miscreant teens are products of homes run by single mothers, so the media rush to interview the budding criminals' hapless mothers (and fathers, if they can find them, who typically have a different last name from the little crook).

What almost always happens?: some frequently-hysterical display by a woman who couldn't make it any more obvious that it's been years since she last paid any real attention to her kid. "This just isn't like my Tyrone/Bucky/Albert/Ricardo/Nikita; he's a good boy," which inevitably shifts over into blaming anyone but herself or the teenager for (usually) his actions. Nothing's fair. The schools are bad, the police are out to get these kids, they're poor, blah, blah, blah. Ultimately, the reporters -- and soon the public defenders -- gravitate into blaming the conditions these teenagers are raised in (poverty, fatherlessness, in many cases racism, discrimination, etc.), essentially portraying the criminals as the victims in the situation -- as if they were just destined to act out in ways that were beyond their control -- and should therefore receive leniency. After all, we don't want to break they mommy's hearts, now, do we?

The end result is generally a perpetuation of the narrative that it would be unfair to hold these young feral dogs and cats fully responsible for their crimes, and, worse yet, when they do become adults, their records get expunged -- while the real victims fail to receive justice.

So I wrote a published letter (don't have a copy now, so can't quote it perfectly and won't try) asserting that it just might be total bullshit that any of the scapegoated social ills actually ever cause anyone to commit violent crimes -- given that the majority of people who live under the exact same conditions turn out just fine. So, (a) the criminals are responsible for their crimes, and if they've managed to organize themselves well enough to commit those crimes, they should be held fully accountable for their actions, but (b) if societal forces do have either influence or responsibility in the crimes these hoodlums commit, then we're consistently ignoring the biggest social influence of them all: the mothers and fathers of these punks. Why are they let off scot-free? And, for those of us who assert that parents should have full power over how their children are raised, why do we not also expect ourselves to be held accountable for the negative actions of our children, just as we could lay claim to being proud of their accomplishments?

So, this was my proposal:
  • Shore up parental power to control the whereabouts of their children.
  • Shore up parental power to control the manner in which their children are disciplined.
  • Create full parity regarding punishments for crimes without basing punishment on the ages of criminals; i.e., e.g., if an 11-year-old has the wherewithal to commit murder, consider him worthy of a life sentence in prison -- or the death penalty.
  • However, after conviction and sentencing, give each biological or adoptive parent of convicted young thugs the freedom to substitute themselves in regard to carrying out the sentences.
The way that would work would be, for example, that when Little Johnny gets sentenced to 3 years for armed robbery, Little Johnny's mother or father would have the option to serve the time for him if they felt like they thought he was too young to be traumatized in that way.

This system would be operative until the death of one's parents. A 65-year-old could step in to serve a 38-year-old's 10-year sentence. However, senior citizens would be barred from taking on life sentences or death sentences.

My thinking is that this would incentivize parents to keep a much closer eye on what their children are up to.

Your thoughts?
 
Keith Martin said:
Watching the news in the last couple days about a pair of teenagers who very purposefully ran over a man on his bicycle reminded me of a proposal I first made in a late 1970s Atlanta Constitution (since merged with the Atlanta Journal) Letter to the Editor in the midst of that city being embroiled in debate about an uptick in young teenage crime, which included everything from breaking & entering to car-jackings and murder. I was still very much a hard-core leftist, and this was before my foray into university dormitory administration, so I was more of a rule breaker than a rule follower, but I could later see this as one of the straws that eventually broke the camel's back of blaming everything on society, because I observed the incongruency that is inevitable to this day when teenagers have committed heinous crimes: of course, usually, the miscreant teens are products of homes run by single mothers, so the media rush to interview the budding criminals' hapless mothers (and fathers, if they can find them, who typically have a different last name from the little crook).

What almost always happens?: some frequently-hysterical display by a woman who couldn't make it any more obvious that it's been years since she last paid any real attention to her kid. "This just isn't like my Tyrone/Bucky/Albert/Ricardo/Nikita; he's a good boy," which inevitably shifts over into blaming anyone but herself or the teenager for (usually) his actions. Nothing's fair. The schools are bad, the police are out to get these kids, they're poor, blah, blah, blah. Ultimately, the reporters -- and soon the public defenders -- gravitate into blaming the conditions these teenagers are raised in (poverty, fatherlessness, in many cases racism, discrimination, etc.), essentially portraying the criminals as the victims in the situation -- as if they were just destined to act out in ways that were beyond their control -- and should therefore receive leniency. After all, we don't want to break they mommy's hearts, now, do we?

The end result is generally a perpetuation of the narrative that it would be unfair to hold these young feral dogs and cats fully responsible for their crimes, and, worse yet, when they do become adults, their records get expunged -- while the real victims fail to receive justice.

So I wrote a published letter (don't have a copy now, so can't quote it perfectly and won't try) asserting that it just might be total bullshit that any of the scapegoated social ills actually ever cause anyone to commit violent crimes -- given that the majority of people who live under the exact same conditions turn out just fine. So, (a) the criminals are responsible for their crimes, and if they've managed to organize themselves well enough to commit those crimes, they should be held fully accountable for their actions, but (b) if societal forces do have either influence or responsibility in the crimes these hoodlums commit, then we're consistently ignoring the biggest social influence of them all: the mothers and fathers of these punks. Why are they let off scot-free? And, for those of us who assert that parents should have full power over how their children are raised, why do we not also expect ourselves to be held accountable for the negative actions of our children, just as we could lay claim to being proud of their accomplishments?

So, this was my proposal:
  • Shore up parental power to control the whereabouts of their children.
  • Shore up parental power to control the manner in which their children are disciplined.
  • Create full parity regarding punishments for crimes without basing punishment on the ages of criminals; i.e., e.g., if an 11-year-old has the wherewithal to commit murder, consider him worthy of a life sentence in prison -- or the death penalty.
  • However, after conviction and sentencing, give each biological or adoptive parent of convicted young thugs the freedom to substitute themselves in regard to carrying out the sentences.
The way that would work would be, for example, that when Little Johnny gets sentenced to 3 years for armed robbery, Little Johnny's mother or father would have the option to serve the time for him if they felt like they thought he was too young to be traumatized in that way.

This system would be operative until the death of one's parents. A 65-year-old could step in to serve a 38-year-old's 10-year sentence. However, senior citizens would be barred from taking on life sentences or death sentences.

My thinking is that this would incentivize parents to keep a much closer eye on what their children are up to.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...
I like it.
But I don’t think that it will sell in today’s feelings based society.
 
Keith Martin said:
Watching the news in the last couple days about a pair of teenagers who very purposefully ran over a man on his bicycle reminded me of a proposal I first made in a late 1970s Atlanta Constitution (since merged with the Atlanta Journal) Letter to the Editor in the midst of that city being embroiled in debate about an uptick in young teenage crime, which included everything from breaking & entering to car-jackings and murder. I was still very much a hard-core leftist, and this was before my foray into university dormitory administration, so I was more of a rule breaker than a rule follower, but I could later see this as one of the straws that eventually broke the camel's back of blaming everything on society, because I observed the incongruency that is inevitable to this day when teenagers have committed heinous crimes: of course, usually, the miscreant teens are products of homes run by single mothers, so the media rush to interview the budding criminals' hapless mothers (and fathers, if they can find them, who typically have a different last name from the little crook).

What almost always happens?: some frequently-hysterical display by a woman who couldn't make it any more obvious that it's been years since she last paid any real attention to her kid. "This just isn't like my Tyrone/Bucky/Albert/Ricardo/Nikita; he's a good boy," which inevitably shifts over into blaming anyone but herself or the teenager for (usually) his actions. Nothing's fair. The schools are bad, the police are out to get these kids, they're poor, blah, blah, blah. Ultimately, the reporters -- and soon the public defenders -- gravitate into blaming the conditions these teenagers are raised in (poverty, fatherlessness, in many cases racism, discrimination, etc.), essentially portraying the criminals as the victims in the situation -- as if they were just destined to act out in ways that were beyond their control -- and should therefore receive leniency. After all, we don't want to break they mommy's hearts, now, do we?

The end result is generally a perpetuation of the narrative that it would be unfair to hold these young feral dogs and cats fully responsible for their crimes, and, worse yet, when they do become adults, their records get expunged -- while the real victims fail to receive justice.

So I wrote a published letter (don't have a copy now, so can't quote it perfectly and won't try) asserting that it just might be total bullshit that any of the scapegoated social ills actually ever cause anyone to commit violent crimes -- given that the majority of people who live under the exact same conditions turn out just fine. So, (a) the criminals are responsible for their crimes, and if they've managed to organize themselves well enough to commit those crimes, they should be held fully accountable for their actions, but (b) if societal forces do have either influence or responsibility in the crimes these hoodlums commit, then we're consistently ignoring the biggest social influence of them all: the mothers and fathers of these punks. Why are they let off scot-free? And, for those of us who assert that parents should have full power over how their children are raised, why do we not also expect ourselves to be held accountable for the negative actions of our children, just as we could lay claim to being proud of their accomplishments?

So, this was my proposal:
  • Shore up parental power to control the whereabouts of their children.
  • Shore up parental power to control the manner in which their children are disciplined.
  • Create full parity regarding punishments for crimes without basing punishment on the ages of criminals; i.e., e.g., if an 11-year-old has the wherewithal to commit murder, consider him worthy of a life sentence in prison -- or the death penalty.
  • However, after conviction and sentencing, give each biological or adoptive parent of convicted young thugs the freedom to substitute themselves in regard to carrying out the sentences.
The way that would work would be, for example, that when Little Johnny gets sentenced to 3 years for armed robbery, Little Johnny's mother or father would have the option to serve the time for him if they felt like they thought he was too young to be traumatized in that way.

This system would be operative until the death of one's parents. A 65-year-old could step in to serve a 38-year-old's 10-year sentence. However, senior citizens would be barred from taking on life sentences or death sentences.

My thinking is that this would incentivize parents to keep a much closer eye on what their children are up to.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...
Lived in an area in the 90's where the neighbours seemed to have their kids enrolled in a fast track training school for potential Jerry Springer guests that was sponsored by crime watch. Consequently there was a lot of neighbour bickering. I let it be known that I would not say a word to their kids but I would come directly to their houses to express my silent displeasure to them and I wouldn't be knocking.

They were lovely kids.

I like your thinking.
 
Keith Martin said:
Watching the news in the last couple days about a pair of teenagers who very purposefully ran over a man on his bicycle reminded me of a proposal I first made in a late 1970s Atlanta Constitution (since merged with the Atlanta Journal) Letter to the Editor in the midst of that city being embroiled in debate about an uptick in young teenage crime, which included everything from breaking & entering to car-jackings and murder. I was still very much a hard-core leftist, and this was before my foray into university dormitory administration, so I was more of a rule breaker than a rule follower, but I could later see this as one of the straws that eventually broke the camel's back of blaming everything on society, because I observed the incongruency that is inevitable to this day when teenagers have committed heinous crimes: of course, usually, the miscreant teens are products of homes run by single mothers, so the media rush to interview the budding criminals' hapless mothers (and fathers, if they can find them, who typically have a different last name from the little crook).

What almost always happens?: some frequently-hysterical display by a woman who couldn't make it any more obvious that it's been years since she last paid any real attention to her kid. "This just isn't like my Tyrone/Bucky/Albert/Ricardo/Nikita; he's a good boy," which inevitably shifts over into blaming anyone but herself or the teenager for (usually) his actions. Nothing's fair. The schools are bad, the police are out to get these kids, they're poor, blah, blah, blah. Ultimately, the reporters -- and soon the public defenders -- gravitate into blaming the conditions these teenagers are raised in (poverty, fatherlessness, in many cases racism, discrimination, etc.), essentially portraying the criminals as the victims in the situation -- as if they were just destined to act out in ways that were beyond their control -- and should therefore receive leniency. After all, we don't want to break they mommy's hearts, now, do we?

The end result is generally a perpetuation of the narrative that it would be unfair to hold these young feral dogs and cats fully responsible for their crimes, and, worse yet, when they do become adults, their records get expunged -- while the real victims fail to receive justice.

So I wrote a published letter (don't have a copy now, so can't quote it perfectly and won't try) asserting that it just might be total bullshit that any of the scapegoated social ills actually ever cause anyone to commit violent crimes -- given that the majority of people who live under the exact same conditions turn out just fine. So, (a) the criminals are responsible for their crimes, and if they've managed to organize themselves well enough to commit those crimes, they should be held fully accountable for their actions, but (b) if societal forces do have either influence or responsibility in the crimes these hoodlums commit, then we're consistently ignoring the biggest social influence of them all: the mothers and fathers of these punks. Why are they let off scot-free? And, for those of us who assert that parents should have full power over how their children are raised, why do we not also expect ourselves to be held accountable for the negative actions of our children, just as we could lay claim to being proud of their accomplishments?

So, this was my proposal:
  • Shore up parental power to control the whereabouts of their children.
  • Shore up parental power to control the manner in which their children are disciplined.
  • Create full parity regarding punishments for crimes without basing punishment on the ages of criminals; i.e., e.g., if an 11-year-old has the wherewithal to commit murder, consider him worthy of a life sentence in prison -- or the death penalty.
  • However, after conviction and sentencing, give each biological or adoptive parent of convicted young thugs the freedom to substitute themselves in regard to carrying out the sentences.
The way that would work would be, for example, that when Little Johnny gets sentenced to 3 years for armed robbery, Little Johnny's mother or father would have the option to serve the time for him if they felt like they thought he was too young to be traumatized in that way.

This system would be operative until the death of one's parents. A 65-year-old could step in to serve a 38-year-old's 10-year sentence. However, senior citizens would be barred from taking on life sentences or death sentences.

My thinking is that this would incentivize parents to keep a much closer eye on what their children are up to.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...
Sounds sorta like what Christ did for us on the cross.
 
Daniel DeLuca said:
Sounds sorta like what Christ did for us on the cross.
Click to expand...
That's a very interesting response, Daniel.

We certainly couldn't possibly contribute that much to our children, but I continue to believe that taking our children's place would have more integrity than trying to help them escape punishments without acknowledging that justice requires compensation.
 
MeganC said:
Commit an adult crime and pay an adult penalty. Period.
Click to expand...
My only problem with that is that, taken to a logical conclusion, it eliminates any distinction between adult and child. The unfairness of that loss of distinction would be amplified if little folks now considered children were not also given the right to vote, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, buy property, drive vehicles or undergo transsexual surgery.

Take this example, something that happens every month in America: 7-year-old child obtains a firearm and uses it to commit armed robbery. Do we put that child in adult prison?

Let's say we do. Once s/he gets out, s/he goes back home, where loaded firearms are readily available to the child. Then the child murders someone with the gun. Death penalty?

It doesn't matter how many of us might agree that the now-9-year-old has committed murder and should receive the adult penalty for that adult crime. We are surrounded by an ocean of judges, prosecutors, jurors and fellow citizens who never have stood and never will stand for a 9-year-old being sent to the electric chair. Every year, children under 10 purposefully commit murder, but never have we ever even given such a child a life sentence in an adult prison.

The reason is that no possibility exists to reprogram all human beings to fail to distinguish the responsibility levels between children and adults -- or to refrain from recognizing that parents bear not total but significant responsibility for how their children turn out. Of course, nature is well demonstrated to trump nurture, so it's unfortunately always a possibility for even the best parents to have insufficient influence to alter the sociopathic life trajectory of a bad seed (thus, just the option to take the child's place), but generally speaking parents significantly influence whether or not their children commit violent crimes, most often by minimizing the import of obvious precursor behaviors (e.g., biting; or cruelty to animals). However, even in such circumstances, aren't the parents to blame if they don't request very serious intervention for such children -- intervention along the lines of specialized involuntary restriction to child-centered incarceration facilities, whether forensic or psychiatric?
 
Nature has order and sometimes it is brutal. Megan attests to that on the ranch. We strive to not be brutish but our best intentions are usurped in the Darwinian drive to cull the less capable in favor of the strong. Dan Bongino says FAFO. "Fu** Around and Find Out".
Coddling bad behavior rarely turns out good for anybody. Teenage deaths from the fentanyl epidemic bring that to light. One pill and *poof* lights out. (I have a classmate that lost his 17 year old son. One never "finishes" mourning their son. I haven't either.)
 
The Revolting Man said:
Scripture contains all of the penalties for criminal offenses. It’s not something we have to speculate about.
Click to expand...
True, but (a) does Scripture assert that no other penalties are available to civil authorities?; and, (b) if so, I believe scriptural prescriptions would approach what I'm suggesting, given that it was expected that fathers participate in punishments rendered upon their sons -- instead of, as we do in 'modern' times, outsourcing those punishments to distant authorities.
 
Keith Martin said:
True, but (a) does Scripture assert that no other penalties are available to civil authorities?; and, (b) if so, I believe scriptural prescriptions would approach what I'm suggesting, given that it was expected that fathers participate in punishments rendered upon their sons -- instead of, as we do in 'modern' times, outsourcing those punishments to distant authorities.
Click to expand...
I look at them as maximums.
 
Maddog said:
No I think our society has lost sight of restitution and punishment because in our enlightened society we eliminated slavery.
Click to expand...
Eliminating slavery caused our society to lose sight of restitution and punishment?
 
Maddog said:
No I think our society has lost sight of restitution and punishment because in our enlightened society we eliminated slavery.
Click to expand...
Thats impossible.

Widespread theft would collapse economic system since these is no reason to produce anything.
 
I think that @Maddog is saying that forcing somebody to work to repay their debt (restitution) can be seen as a form of slavery. If viewing slavery as 100% evil, you can no longer force someone to repay their debts. This goes a way to explain why punishments for criminals revolve around "time out" (jail) and sometimes capital punishment, but less restitution.

We obviously haven't gone completely down this track as we still have sentences of community service as a form of punishment, which is a form of slavery - but it is slavery to the community as a whole, just as compulsory military service is slavery to the community. We don't mind slavery to the community. What has been made unthinkable is slavery to an individual - and that means no restitution. A criminal can be expected to "pay their debt to society", whatever that means, but not be expected to pay their debt to their victim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top