Quote:
Originally Posted by fluffygrrl
I don't understand the merits of the case against the 12 year old kid tho. A kid that age will naturally do what his parents and older siblings do, and should.
Unless we're willing to you know, convict the entire human population on Milgram experiment charges, the kid should count as a victim.
|
The same goes for almost all children that commit serious crimes, though - either they don't realize what they did, or they were created by their environment.
The problem is that without serious intervention, kids like this one are almost certain to commit crimes later in life, too. The legal system recognizes this, which is why young kids (<15) usually do not get sentenced to juvenile institutions in which they are simply locked up, but are placed in controlled environments and given fairly extensive treatment.
A larger problem with your line of reasoning is that, while it is correct, the same can be said for a vast majority of criminals. Child abusers were usually abused as children themselves, violent murderers usually suffer from mental disorders, robbers and muggers usually grew up in crime-infested environments themselves, etc.
Few people are willing to recognize it, but while free will allows us to do choose our actions freely, it does not allow us to choose the factors controlling our choices. Genes and environment create identities, and choices are made by these identities. Identities themselves are condemned for criminal acts.
Given these things, environmental influences would not be a reason to absolve this child of blame. Rather, the reason not to treat this child like an adult criminal would be that the child's identity is not fully formed yet, and thus still might prove susceptible to positive influences. With adults, whose identities have fully crystallized, chances of change are virtually non-existent.