enter the fray: our reader discussion forum
one doesn't follow the other
by degsme

Degs, if you were correct on this point "...Their brains are incapable of not being so." then we would have a lot more felons under the age of 18 or so.

Nope. One doesn't follow the other. There are other constraints on behaviour that limit violence. And also parental influence and intervention in the legal system has an impact. I know that as a mid teen I committed acts that now COULD be considered felonies (making explosives, detonating them on school grounds) and pretty much every other teen I know has broken the law atleast at misdemeanor level.

Most of us were children not so long ago that we cannot recall the experience.

You are missing the neurophysiological point. Given how brains and memory works. And given that your brain is dramatically different NEURO-PHYSICALLY. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for you to "recall the experience". This is the fallacy upon which you are building this. Its kind of like trying to remember what it felt like to not understand the english languaged. You cannot - because your brain has changed dramatically in ways that precludes that memory.

Children, reared in an average household learn right from wrong from home and/or community. They know the difference.

Right from Wrong is a very nebulous concept. Is cheating on a test "wrong"? If "knowing right from wrong" is what limits "wrong behaviour" - then clearly cheating on tests at that age isn't wrong...

OR there is something else going on. Where the CEREBRAL description of "right and wrong" is disconnected from the perception of right and wrong.

If they were incapable of knowing right from wrong or of controlling their impulses our prisons would be full of them

Only if all who committ serious offense get caught and/or are prosecuted as adults. NEITHER IS TRUE.

A 13-16 year old who rapes a little girl, kills one of more people for fun or gain, at a minimum should be given a life sentence, with possibility of parole at age 25-30 but that should be based on their cumulative record.

That's a definitional statement. And it isn't based in any sort of FACTUAL underpinnings.

View complete thread