I would suggest that the problem is in trying juveniles as adults. The who presumption of a crime that so shocks the conscience ignores the point that the cognitive functions of teenagers are not fully developed. And this is a neurophysiological fact. Its not a 'soft science' or a "touchy feely" viewpoint. It is hard neurological science.

Only in America, if you're under 18, you can't vote, you can't drink, you can't drive without taking courses, you can't have sex (legally), you have to have your parent or guardian's signature to get out of school or go to a doctor or pretty much do anything -- but you can be tried and convicted and sent to prison forever as an adult.

Damn, that's messed up.

But in some places, you can get an abortion without parental notification or permission! Wacky, eh?

I don't think I was a particularly intelligent 13 year old. (I'm sure degsme will be the first to agree with me on that.) But by the time I got to eighth grade, I knew that raping a 72 year old woman was wrong. If there's a 13 year old who hasn't figured things out by that point, putting him in prison is probably doing him a favor.

You actually cannot conceive of how you reasoned as a 13yo. You can remember your emotional memories perhaps, but your ability to cognate something then as compared to now, is precluded by the very way our brians work.

So while at 13 you knew at some level that 'raping a 72 year old woman was wrong' - i'll almost guarantee it was in the context of "I'll get in trouble if I get caught". I remember a fight I got into at age 13. My grandmother had nitted me a ski sweater and hat with a pom pom on top. I wore it to school. One of the "tough guy kids" grabbed it and started playing keep away with it.

So I did what I thought i'd been taught - IE it was something I'd been taught but in a different context, one where I had no authority to turn to - I went to grab the hat of the ringleader. he tried to dodge, slipped and fell in the icy mud and came up swinging.

When the Bus Monitor broke up the fight I was sitting astride the kid pummeling his face and I remember wondering if I was going to get in trouble for the blood coming from his lips and gums. But I had ZERO SENSE that anything that had happened was "wrong".

As an adult I would never have reacted in that manner. I cannot even begin to think the way I did back then because my brain literally works differently now as opposed to then.\

Same is true for you.

Well, yes and no. It's undoubtedly true that I've matured in ways I couldn't that I would have found incomprehensible when I was 13. And for many juvenile offense, the best approach is rehabilitation. But let's be honest: the chances of my raping a 72 year old woman now are the same as my chances of raping a 72 year old woman then. (Zero percent.) I am pretty confident the same is true of you. And if you don't have the moral clarity to come out and say that, I'm worried about you.

Its not a question of "moral clarity". You are neurophysiologically incapable of actually remembering what level of "moral clarity" you had at the time. Your brain is physically dramatically different. Not just the intervening memories and maturation - there are physical structures in your brain today that had not begun to develop in any significant way at age 13.

The most signifcant of these is the Orbitofrontal Cortex (OFC). The OFC doesn't BEGIN to develop until about age 15 or 16. And it doesn't finish developing until age 23/24. A study of the Texas Bureau of Prisons found that some 75%+ of the population of inmates sentenced on violent crimes, had a damaged or underdeveloped OFC. Those who have suffered Traumatic Brain Injury to the OFC have lost their ability to inhibit their impulses.

I assume you don't have TBI, and from your assertions you have an adult functioning OFC. But that also means you are incapable of remembering how your brain functioned when at age 13 you did not have one.

You do realize that that's a totally unfalsifiable argument, right?

degsme:

So while at 13 you knew at some level that 'raping a 72 year old woman was wrong' - i'll almost guarantee it was in the context of "I'll get in trouble if I get caught".

Wow, so when you were in 8th grade... The only reason you weren't torturing small animals, raping women, assaulting other people, etc. is of fear you would get in trouble?

You had no sense of empathy at all when you were 13? You had zero ability to relate to the pain, anguish, or suffering of others?

"the chances of my raping a 72 year old woman now are the same as my chances of raping a 72 year old woman then. (Zero percent.)"

Lucky you.

So maybe the chances of that Sullivan boy of raping a 72 year old woman then was 1 percent, and now its zeor percent. Means: There are a hundred boys running around like Sullivan that were then as inclined to rape a 72 year old, but never ran into the kind of situation where they would actually snap, but Sullivan did. Now allo all of them to mature, and maybe, just maybe, we will find that there is no reason to lock that chap up for good.

So maybe the chances of that Sullivan boy of raping a 72 year old woman then was 1 percent, and now its zeor percent. Means: There are a hundred boys running around like Sullivan that were then as inclined to rape a 72 year old, but never ran into the kind of situation where they would actually snap, but Sullivan did. Now allo all of them to mature, and maybe, just maybe, we will find that there is no reason to lock that chap up for good.

I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make.

Seriously, some of you have no problem w/ the idea of 13yos who are proven murderers and rapists living next door to you, or going to school w/ your own 13yo?

As others have pointed out, you actually believe that a 13yo brain is SO DIFFERENT from normal that you think most 13yos are only a hair-breadth's away from commiting rape/murder/heinous acts?

I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. And even if somehow that were true, and at 13 every human being that ever walked the Earth was a potential rapist and murderer - then I ask, why did 99% of every 13 year old that ever lived on this planet NOT commit heinous acts? If savagery and brutality is the default setting for 13yos everywhere - why doesn't history prove it? Why do former child soldiers in Africa and elsewhere so traumatized by their war crimes, if its what their brains are wired to do?

There's a huge vast difference between a 13yo not quite getting that its stupid to jump his dirtbike over an empty swimming pool full of broken glass or not understanding that he probably shouldn't sneak his dad's car out of the garage so that he can impress his friends from subduing and so brutally raping a 72yo woman that he tears and rips her vagina bloody.

quidfecisti:

: There are a hundred boys running around like Sullivan that were then as inclined to rape a 72 year old, but never ran into the kind of situation where they would actually snap, but Sullivan did.

I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make. 

 

He’s making the point that millions of boys do want to rape, but only Sullivan was given the opportunity to do so. Had those other boys similar opportunity, they would have done the same. Sullivan “ran into that kind of situation.” and took advantage of it.

quidfecisti:

You do realize that that's a totally unfalsifiable argument, right?

Nope - its 100% falsifiable. You can show me the research that shows that EITHER

• The OFC is not related to impulse control and congition of consequences
• The OFC is fully developed in 13yos
• the studies of the OFC are invalid.

You haven't tried to do any of those.

Most 13yos have a very limited sense of empathy. Most are NOT able to relate to the pain, anguish and suffering of others. That's precisely why the adage "Children Are Cruel" is so old.

But empathy isn't the issue here, action and consequence are. And if the brain cannot connect action with consequence except in a highly analytic manner, then that person is not capable of being fully responsible for their actions.

You clearly don't like the conclusion that 13yo aren't really responsible for their behaviour, but science tells us they aren't.