• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Juveniles criminally unimputable for murder in Brazil?!?

 
 
 
repoman said:
does anyone here have much knowledge about this issue?

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=345564&rel_no=1

This is an old article, but I think it is still what the law is.
Click to expand...

I don't know a thing about Brazil, but: Which part of that article says that juveniles are "unimputable"? It says that different sentences apply - as it should be. Being locked away for a crime you comitted with 16 until you turn 21 is hardly "being unimputable".

The situation in Brazil makes a lot more sense then the situation in the US - where people who are considered too young (by several years) to decide whether or not to drink a beer are still held fully accountable for each and every transgression of the law.
 
Yeah, I guess opposite ends of a bipolar spectrum - which is not what either country should be proud of.

Maybe there should be some level of judicial discretion for youths. So if a 14 year old shoplifts a form of diversion can be used - but have increasing levels of accountability if further acts occur. But for a heinous murder then there is either tried as an adult or a middle course that is above the juvenile system that ends at 21 years old.

If you have a 14 year old that flayed someone alive and even did more scary acts - 21 years in the criminal justice system as a minimum seems right. But also, if somehow the kid at 21 has been able to repair himself (or even not been able to) I think that there could be a dual track. Basically, for the general public this adult would now have an expunged record. But for the criminal justice system the record would be able to be used if future heinous (not minor acts) acts occurred. Also, some level of probation until the age of 25 seems sensible - but no a probation that is stigmatizing. I don't know, I am a bit sleep deprived and can't focus well now...
 
repoman said:
Yeah, I guess opposite ends of a bipolar spectrum - which is not what either country should be proud of.

Maybe there should be some level of judicial discretion for youths. So if a 14 year old shoplifts a form of diversion can be used - but have increasing levels of accountability if further acts occur. But for a heinous murder then there is either tried as an adult or a middle course that is above the juvenile system that ends at 21 years old.

If you have a 14 year old that flayed someone alive and even did more scary acts - 21 years in the criminal justice system as a minimum seems right. But also, if somehow the kid at 21 has been able to repair himself (or even not been able to) I think that there could be a dual track. Basically, for the general public this adult would now have an expunged record. But for the criminal justice system the record would be able to be used if future heinous (not minor acts) acts occurred. Also, some level of probation until the age of 25 seems sensible - but no a probation that is stigmatizing. I don't know, I am a bit sleep deprived and can't focus well now...
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's how the US works. Most offenses by juveniles are handled by the juvenile system but particularly heinous offenses may be tried as an adult, especially if they already have a rap sheet.

The real problem I see is on the lower end of the scale--in addition to the age of majority most nations have an age below which they can't be prosecuted at all. The motivation is understandable but the result is kids being used by modern day fagins because nothing will happen to them.
 
Here in Brazil, persons below 18 years of age can only be detained for 1 year or so in case of murder. Other crimes only grant them a couple months in Juvenile Care.

Some laws in Brazil are made by dreamy guilty liberals, it seems.
 
No matter how severe the crime, I don't believe in trying juveniles as adults.

Or I would under the following circumstance: If the juvenile is found "not guilty", said juvenile has the right to vote, drink, drive, seek employment, enlist in the military, rent a car, rent a hotel room, sign a contract, engage in sex, gamble, etc.

I'm not one to be fond of laws, any laws, but when a law says "the government must behave in this manner" I'm strict about it. The government has decreed that 18 shall be the age of adulthood, and the age of adulthood shall be 18. It's not an absolute decree, as one can drive at 16, drink at 21, and various states have various ages of consent. But overall, 18 shall be the age of adulthood, and the age of adulthood shall be 18.

Trying a juvenile as an adult says "you have none of the rights of being an adult but you do have the responsibilities of being an adult." Also it says "we made this rule, but we can break it when we feel like it."
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
No matter how severe the crime, I don't believe in trying juveniles as adults.

Or I would under the following circumstance: If the juvenile is found "not guilty", said juvenile has the right to vote, drink, drive, seek employment, enlist in the military, rent a car, rent a hotel room, sign a contract, engage in sex, gamble, etc.

I'm not one to be fond of laws, any laws, but when a law says "the government must behave in this manner" I'm strict about it. The government has decreed that 18 shall be the age of adulthood, and the age of adulthood shall be 18. It's not an absolute decree, as one can drive at 16, drink at 21, and various states have various ages of consent. But overall, 18 shall be the age of adulthood, and the age of adulthood shall be 18.

Trying a juvenile as an adult says "you have none of the rights of being an adult but you do have the responsibilities of being an adult." Also it says "we made this rule, but we can break it when we feel like it."
Click to expand...

The problem is that not allowing them to be tried as adults means that you get hardened criminals that know that nothing all that serious can happen to them.

It's even worse when you look at ages below which there are no real consequences. Can you say "fagin"?
 
The problem is that allowing them to be tried as adults means that the government can ignore the rules it sets for itself ... rules such as due process. Remember what H. L. Mencken said about defending scoundrels.

The liberal "road paved with good intentions" is economic fairness. The conservative one is security and safety.
 
This is like some stuff from a movie:

Warning you will see an actual murder

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available
 
I thought that light sentences for juveniles committing murder In Brazil is a reason why they being used as killers and other criminal activity by adults. So more crime is probably a result of this policy, kids get into crime early on because of it and then continue as adult.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom