for.

Depends on age and severity of the crime. It's really subjective.

I have only one statement to make, concerning your question............... A teenager can pull the trigger of a weapon, just like an adult. Check out the latest stats on armed robberies and home invasions............teenagers. Its bad enough, that a child under 12 years of age, cannot be charged with a homocide. at least not in Tennessee. Time to wake up folks, teenagers are committing all types of crimes. they know the system will not send them to prison, so there is really no deterent for them.

It probably would depend on the actual age of the teenager (13 versus 19) and whether or not the crime was theft or murder. The law was put into place for a reason, therefore, it must be taken into consideration, and probably usually is.

depends...if a 17 year old murders his girlfriend after raping her for 10 hours and then slices her to pieces I think he should be tried as an adult

For it. If it is a grown up crime, you'll do the grown up time. And I am not talking about 13 year olds, but if you're 15 and commit a violent crime you should be treated as an adult in court.

If they can do the crime they should do the time. I am not saying locked them up with grown ups but they should pay for the crimes they commit just as if they were adults.

I believe that is fine and fair to charge them as adults but they should follow the progress of individuals and have a little more compassion come parole hearing time, if there a reoffender then there will be no progress on there rehabilitation and therefore will not get compassion and ultimatly there parole will be shot down, but despite popular belief people can change, especially if there first major (excuse the term) fuck up is when they are only a teen, to make it clear I don't believe this should be put into effect in every circumstance, an example being first degree murder and violent sex crimes.

I think that if they commit a crime that shows an "Adult" level of intent and calculation, they should be tried as such. If they commit a crime such as say... accidental Vehicular Homicide, and it's ruled to be the product of youthful inexperience rather than malicious intent, then I'd be more in favour of loosening their sentence, if only because putting a teenager into prison for an extended period for a non-malicious crime is a good way to have them come out ready and willing to commit crimes that *Are* willfully violent. However, if a teenager has a long track record of crime showing that they did commit the crime with malicious, criminal intent, or if the crime they committed was something obviously done with criminal intent like gunning someone down in a gangwar or robbery, I'd say that they've proven their "Adulthood" well enough to be treated just like any other criminal.

I think its a case by case call. There have been cases were teenagers committed murder just because they assumed they would not be tried as an adult.

As adults. I think we baby our teenagers too much. So much so that they don't understand the true consequences of their actions. If we punished a 14 y accordingly as an adult for robbery then they probably won't repeat the offense as he/she gets older. But if we keep allowing this child to get away with it, no more then a slap on the wrist, the they will develop a pattern that it is partially acceptable for him/her to do it.

i see both sides on this. if a teenager is just as capable as an adult of putting thought into, planning and commiting a crime they are just as capable as an adult of taking the consequences for this crime. on the other hand they are not given the rights of an adult so why should they be given the same punishment as one? The law does not see them the same as adults when it comes to posative things (entering a contract to have a cell phone plan) so why should they see them the same when it comes to negative things (being punished for a crime)?

I'd have to say against,(even though this will seem biased since I'm 14),because you can considerably damage someone's future.say a 15 yr old commited armed robbery and were given 12 years.They would completely lose their chance at a normal future.When they get out at 27 with nothing but $100, a bus ticket, half a High School education,and having no functioning abilities in normal society on account of growing up in prison,their most likely course off action will be to commit another crime and one probably more serious then their previous offense.Otherwise they can attempt to slavage their education while having to get a low payng job at McDonalds cleaning gum off the bottom of tables to desperately try to stay afloat.Also,as a moral thing,I don't think it's right for some kid to have to face the possibility of capital punishment wether they murdered someone or not.Juvinille court gives the person a chance at a better start when they pay a reduced debt to society.They could lead a normal life having learned at a young age how serious some things can be but not being destroyed for it in the process and become respectable members of society.Punishing a still deveoping teen that severely will almost guarantee them to either end up with a dead end life or turn them to a life of crime since prison is all they know,which pretty much defeats the purpose of the legal system if it ends up creating more career crimminals.

For yo...

I believe it is not fair to put all teens in the same bag. But something has to be done about it so the teens will be more responsible and the parents will take the time to look after their offspring. 1]The legal adult age should be 18 for all offenses. 2]If an 18 year old commits a crime or whatever other illegal action: 2a]The perpetrator should receive a psychological evaluation to determine his mental age. 2b]If determined the perpetrator has the correct mental age for an 18 y.o and no psychological disorders what so ever he will stand trial as an adult. 2c]If determined he has a mental age of a 14 year old he will stand trial as a juvenile bearing in mind he is mentally challenged [real age 18]. 2d]If determined he has a mental age of a 12 year old but his real age is 18, he will not stand trial but will be committed to a mental institution for the mentally challenged under the parents responsibility and under court supervision. This is only and idea which I have not had the time to polish. There are too many cases of mentally challenged kids that stand trial as adults and are even sentenced to death. The idea is to protect the mentally challenged, they may be physically fully grown but their mental age is that of a child. Sorry I did not have the time to do a better job. Regards.

Totally For! My 15 year old friend was killed three years ago by another 15 year old boy. All the guy got was one day in jail and 30 months minus a day or probation

If they do a brutal crime, yes try them as adults. They know what is wrong. Why give gang members more reasons to recruit young kids.

Against!!

Depends on the crime. If a youth commits murder I am completely for! Just because your under 18 doesn't mean that when you kill someone your any less capable of going to jail. Youth shouldn't get off so easily. Something should be done to change things.

It depends on the situation. With this recent incident, involving the beating of a young girl, which basically exhibits sociopathic group behavior, I think they should be tried as adults. They knew what they were doing, and have little remorse for their actions.

It depends on the crime & how close the teen is to being an adult. Armed robbery, murder, assault are just a few examples of things IMO that should have them tried as adults. Teens these days think that they ARE adults. If they want to act like them & do stupid shit, then they should be treated as adults in the justice system.

For. Although, when I was younger (early teens), I got caught shoplifting. I was tried as a minor and that's the only reason the consequences were not nearly as bad as they could have been. I deserved worse. However...My parents disappointment in me and the way I felt when I was caught was enough to keep me from doing it again.

Read my comments on everyone elses answers

There needs to be more consistency in this country when it comes to age. - In some states you can't drive until you're 16, but commit a crime at 15 and your tried as an adult, but your not adult enough to drive - You can vote at 18, but in most states can't drink until you're 21. - You can join the military and risk life and limb at age 17, but can't vote or enjoy a good margarita until years later Who comes up with this stuff, and what is their rationale? Set one age when you can do all of the above including being charged for the adult crime you commit.

huh?