After recently studying this area for part of a course I have a few questions to ask you wonderful people...

1) How can we calss juvenile delinquents "delinquent", as this would mean they have failed in their (moral) duty to the nation. Sure they've broken laws and need to be punished, but have they learnt enough in life to have a full set of "acceptable" morals?

2) Would the (re)introduction of harsher punishments and corpral & capital punishment ease some of these problems?

Well, the answer to that first question really depends on how juvenile they are. You could say for a twelve-year-old for example that they didn't realize they were doing something wrong, or just what effects their actions would have. But for a fifteen- or sixteen-year-old, things are different. They are old enough to have developed a full-grown sense of morals.

As for the second, I don't know. Those things were abolished for a reason, methinks. But I don't know enough of the matter to give a conclusive answer to that one.

I think generally this term is used for repeat offenders who never learn, don't want to learn and couldn't care less.

As for punishment....hmm we don't punish "adults" with corporal and capital punishments so for kids it would be wrong....and it goes against all that human rights mumbo jumbo.
As good as capital punishment sounds for clearing jails and giving very deserved deaths to certain people it isnt a perfect system
Just have to look at the USA and see that it is far from an ideal system and definitely does nothing to stop criminals in a deterrent sense

corp punishment isnt right except in the cases of rape and/or murder, and maybe assault. i just think crime should be paid back in kind. to encourage the whole do onto others as you would have them do on to you. Im a firm believer in that violent crimes should have violent penalties, then maybe they will realize what they did was wrong. I mean maybe not that drastic on the first offense for something like assault, but thats depending on the circumstances, but repeat offenders should be dealt with harsh, and rapists and murders should be dealt with in kind

National morality seems to change more than my sock drawer it seems nowadays. A person whether they are 12 or 75 have certain amount of reason about them, and that's what needs to be looked at. In all honesty age has nothing to do at all with knowledge of their actions. A 12 year old is caught dealing drugs at school, a 45 year old man pleads insanity. Was the 12 year just confused or did he see money and ignore the consequences? Just as the older man, was he really insane or was he just trying for a lesser sentence? The point is, just because someone is older or younger does not mean they any more or less responsible for their actions. I don't think enough credit is given to the intelligence of people and we label them as either too young to know any better or too old to even check their colostomy bag.
As for the reintroduction of harsher punishments, I wonder when they were really all that harsh to begin with? I've seen criminals get 10 years for smoking a joint, while another convicted of rape gets out of prison in 5 years for "good behavior" <-- Now there's a play on words. I think "Does not work well with others." rings to mind.

"I say take em out in the back with a baseball bat."

Have you been reading "Starship Troopers"?

Its people who question why they are called deliquents and debate the reason who are causing half the trouble with kids. Who cares! Help the kid don't talk about changing the name of the problem to make it sound less terrible. Example:


WWII-->Shell Shock
Vietnam--->Post Traumantic Stress Syndrome
Gulf War--->Combat Fatigue

All of the above describe the same symptoms, But who do you think has the more serious problem. The guy with Shell shock or the guy with Combat fatigue(what is he sweating?). The harsher the name the more attention it gets.

Political Correctness is the worst idea since the Spanish Inquisition.

[img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img] Lord Killjoy

Delinquent means to neglect or violate duty or law. So can a less-than-legal-majority aged person be delinquent? YES. What should we do about iT?

First, most of the time (IMO) by the time the law enforcement gets involved, it's too late. The basic behaviours and beliefs backing them have been formed, have proven valuable in some way and are set.

It starts in the home. If a child does not have a solid teaching *and* example of right vs. wrong, then he/she learns how best to survive whether it be within the law or not. Granted, there are kids who still turn 'wrong' even if their home environment seems perfect. But in these cases, typically things aren't as 'perfect' as is first seen--there is a lack of something vital to their development as a moral and honest individual.

A 12 year old has a grasp of right and wrong, so the argument that they are too young to understand is about so much bull. Now they may not fully comprehend the widespread effects of their actions and consequences, but make no mistake that when they break a window, assualt someone or commit another crime, they are in complete control of their faculties.