this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2024
-23 points (30.5% liked)

politics

19089 readers
4007 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Anybody that’s ever had a 14 year old teenage boy under their roof knows how absolutely idiotic they can be. With all those hormones pumping through their bodies I’m not sure how it isn’t an automatic insanity plea. Couple that with less than ideal family dynamic it’s amazing these type of things aren’t happening daily.

Long story short, no 14 yo should have access to a firearm. Period.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

So the trump attempted shooter could have been underaged in order to avoid being tried as an adult? Bollocks!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

While we work out how to get fewer guns into peoples hands we can put the full weight of the law on the criminals and their parents involved in these terrible crimes.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If we treat the symptom as aggressively as possible, maybe we can ignore the disease until the next one.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago
[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I wonder if The Times Editorial Board would be running this article if it were a black teen.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago

They wouldn't.

Because he would have been killed on the scene.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Old enough to plan and commit murders, old enough to be charged and tried for murder.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Devil's advocate. Then why is it even possible to be charged as a child with murder? Murder by definition involves planning. If we're going to try every kid who commits a type of crime as an adult, why do we even have a separate juvenile justice system?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Here's another: if the child is responsible enough to be charged as an adult, does that mean the parent wasn't required to be responsible?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

I propose(not really): Double Adult-ardy.

That looks bad now that I typed it out, but it's supposed to be like double jeopardy... But again, not really. If a teen is committing one of the worst crimes an adult could possibly commit, and it's so callous, there's a point of no return. Where that point is, I don't know, and of course younger would get even murkier. I'd say obviously the parent could still be culpable as in any accessory to crime, though.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Kids can very much plan a murder, as this one did. He planned to smuggle a gun into school, get out of class to go get the gun, and then re-enter the class for the shooting.

It went sideways when he was locked out of his intended target, but that doesn't mean he didn't plan it and, in fact, started planning when he was a year younger.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago

Murder by definition involves planning.

False. If this were true, "premeditated murder" would be redundant.

If somebody comes home to find their lover in bed with a stranger and shoots both of them to death, those were both murders, and they were not planned for.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

So, no, obviously he's not an adult. That said he's been armed, trained (Even if inadvertently) to be effective at killing adults.

So what do you do? do you slap him on the wrist because his pubescent mind isn't fully ready for the responsibilities of adulthood? Obviously his family is incapable of keeping him out of trouble, One might even consider them to be a bad influence. The kid isn't evil but he's been programmed that way. How do we even address that in a safe way? Obviously the parents and the close family need to be held accountable. But what does that leave this scatterbrain brain scrambled little kid who's already showing a propensity to take lives?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago

I would argue that if you reduce liability on a child, you should increase liability on those who take that liability away, i.e., the parents. That’s the whole point. Children are less liable because the parents guide them. Thus that liability shouldn’t be removed, it should be displaced.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I don't think anyone is advocating for a "slap on the wrist." The U.S. criminal justice system is the most draconian in the West, and doesn't do "slaps on the wrist," unless you're in a particular economic or social classes.

IMO, ideally, he would be sentenced for as long as it takes to rehabilitate him. Could be 5 years, 10 years, 30 years, or never, IDK, I'm not a psychologist. But, the U.S. prison system isn't really designed for rehabilitation either.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Is not*

Edit:

It's a punitive system, not a rehabilitative system. Americans still believe that punishment is the only way to handle deviancy. Most believe the punishments are not hard enough, this is the "tough on crime" take conservatives have been running on for decades.

The point of interest is what happens when those extremists are accused of crimes. Suddenly, exceptions should be carved out for them.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Yeah, we need to be asking what the purpose of trying the child in question as an adult here is:

Rehabilitation - I think the juvenile system would probably be better suited for this purpose, so no.

Deterrence - I don't think the knowledge that they might be tried as an adult has much bearing on their decision to commit the crime. I'd be willing to wager that people who do this sort of thing don't much care what the consequences are. They've given up on themselves and their own lives.

Removal - This strikes me as the main motivator. If the system has no way to rehabilitate, and recidivism is likely, then what other option is there?

Retribution - As much as the US loves its retribution, usually it's less keen to enact it on children. I'm sure some people would be happy about this aspect though.

Retaliation - I'll let y'all judge off of the tone of the rest of the comments for this one.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 months ago

The news source of this post could not be identified. Please check the source yourself. Media Bias Fact Check | bot support