Sure we need to figure out if the parents put her up to this as well. But we don’t even know thats the case here. For all we know she heard the word somewhere and thought it would be fun to claim this. People, even children, need to face up to what they have done. Just curious, in your version of the legal system you want us to start using…at what age do we ignore what a child has done and only punish the adults? 18 when they are legally an adult themselves?
Also…The monkey in your analogy would, beyond a shadow of a doubt, be killed because it was a threat. Nobody would even think twice about putting a bullet in it.
If you look at the Wikipedia entry for “age of criminal responsibility,” quite a few countries think that children under a certain age just plain cannot be held responsible for a crime. Of course, in the US it’s different and there are some states where age does exempt from responsibility and some where it doesn’t.
For me it’s a slider, the older the more responsible, at 15 I would agree with you, but 10 I definitely think the parents should be the ones in court.
Would the monkey really be put down tho ? If it still holds the flamethrower of course, because it’s still a threat, but after the fact I don’t think so.
Nah their parent or guardian need charges, because at 10 you need to be provided the means the accomplish anything, including crime.
If you provide a monkey a flamethrower and let it loose in a building, they aren’t charging the monkey with arson.
Sure we need to figure out if the parents put her up to this as well. But we don’t even know thats the case here. For all we know she heard the word somewhere and thought it would be fun to claim this. People, even children, need to face up to what they have done. Just curious, in your version of the legal system you want us to start using…at what age do we ignore what a child has done and only punish the adults? 18 when they are legally an adult themselves?
Also…The monkey in your analogy would, beyond a shadow of a doubt, be killed because it was a threat. Nobody would even think twice about putting a bullet in it.
If you look at the Wikipedia entry for “age of criminal responsibility,” quite a few countries think that children under a certain age just plain cannot be held responsible for a crime. Of course, in the US it’s different and there are some states where age does exempt from responsibility and some where it doesn’t.
For me it’s a slider, the older the more responsible, at 15 I would agree with you, but 10 I definitely think the parents should be the ones in court.
Would the monkey really be put down tho ? If it still holds the flamethrower of course, because it’s still a threat, but after the fact I don’t think so.
Not “put her up to it”… 'allowed the behaviour"
There’s the other article about a 17 year old being killed during a welfare check so getting put down doesn’t seem to make a distinction.
Yeah, but you don’t need to convict a monkey of a crime to put it in a cage.
Right they take your monkey. They should take your kid too.
I don’t have a kid, but I appreciate your opinion.
I’m sure you wouldn’t give them flamethrowers if you had any.
Not until after I was done playing with it.
Thank you. Hell what a stupid 'revenge instead of rehabilitation" attitude some people have…