Re: Wondering

For any crime and misdemeanor alike, they should face the same consequences as adults do, including the trial and the sentencing. I do not agree that sentencing should be different - sentencing should be based on the specifics of the crime, not of the criminal; and that's true even for murder. Let us not forget that the traditional mens rea age in common law, pre-19th Century, was 7. I don't think that's one bit wrong. And that, unsurprisingly, it is the usual culprits like unicef and their sycophants who are behind the moves to ban death penalty, and even incarceration for under-18 lawbreakers.

That said, it is indeed unfair and incoherent to be tried or sentenced as an adult while not having other rights as an adult too. This is part of what a social contract means - rights and responsibilities, duties and consequences of failure to carry them out, always go together. I suspect that part of the matter is indeed to infantilise the over-18 into being used to having all responsibilities without right, ie, to stop being signatories of the contract to the state and start being object of the contract to it. However, I don't think that we're doing anyone a favour by perpetuating or deepening the citizenship gaps between adults and minors, and thus support adult trying and sentencing - including for paed and child sex laws.

Also - what Dissident mentioned is extremely important too. Juvenile court isn't any more "lenient" than adult court in all important procedural rights that an accused should always have. Indeed, while the sentencing might be different and lenient, the procedure seems like taken from the Patriot Act. Which also of course reveals the view of children as cattle by the state; you punish cattle but you also have a good heart to them; yet you don't try them because they are cattle not citizens.