Children And Accountability

[Traveler]

I have thought about this for some time.

If children are not to be held accountable as adults (according to the Supreme Court and the United Nations as well as many international watch dog groups) it should be a crime to introduce children to any adult information such as entertainment (music, videos movies etc), literature or any other material that would encourage them or allow them to make adult decisions for which they cannot be held accountable. Freedom of expression and freedom of speech cannot apply – If children are not accountable then society must protect all children until they are 18 and accountable and cannot allow them to be used or influenced to perform adult acts. Violation of their youth must be considered child molestation and a felony. I do not think society can survive without accountability.

The Traveler

[Amillia]

I agree. But how are we to keep the youth from accessing these things? I know my kids got them at school from friends and associates who stole them. Who would be held accountable?

surveilance is becoming more and more prominent, but life is becoming just one big movie huh? of us!

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Amillia@Mar 3 2005, 02:44 PM

I agree. But how are we to keep the youth from accessing these things? I know my kids got them at school from friends and associates who stole them. Who would be held accountable?

surveilance is becoming more and more prominent, but life is becoming just one big movie huh? of us!

Simple my friend - the source of material and the gate to the material is held responsible. For example if someone is making adult material available on the internet for access by children they are accountable under the law - as well as parents that allow access to the internet.

Since the Supreme Court was under pressure by the United Nations then any nation that allows it citicizens to place adult material on the internet where children can access it should be subject to international sanctions.

However, I am not sure the UN can handel the international sutff - considering the oil for food in Irac and the problem of peace keepers in Afraca. Maybe we should start with sanctions against the UN and have the UN inforce that. :)

The Traveler

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Traveler@Mar 3 2005, 02:36 PM

I have thought about this for some time.

If children are not to be held accountable as adults (according to the Supreme Court and the United Nations as well as many international watch dog groups) it should be a crime to introduce children to any adult information such as entertainment (music, videos movies etc), literature or any other material that would encourage them or allow them to make adult decisions for which they cannot be held accountable. Freedom of expression and freedom of speech cannot apply – If children are not accountable then society must protect all children until they are 18 and accountable and cannot allow them to be used or influenced to perform adult acts. Violation of their youth must be considered child molestation and a felony. I do not think society can survive without accountability.

The Traveler

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Do you mean that it should be illegal to expose children to material that is sexually explict? Or do you mean that we should not be allowed to expose our children to material designed to help them reason and think like an adult?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

I thought the Supreme Court's decision was a legal train wreck. Note to Justice Kennedy: If you want to be a legislator, run for Congress.

And that bit about deciding what the American constitution is, based on foreign laws and on treaties which the U.S. has not even ratified -- good grief, man, are you even trying to pretend it's our Constitution you're applying and not your personal preferences?

Right-thinking liberals are supposed to despise generalizations, no? That's why Lawrence Summers got tarred and feathered (figuratively) by the Harvard faculty for suggesting that there might be some differences, on average, between the way men and women approach certain fields of study. Yet conventional-wisdom liberaldom thinks it's self-evident that every 17-year-old must a priori be less mature than every 18-year-old.

There is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent a state from letting a jury make the individualized determination of whether a murderer is sufficiently mature to be counted among the most depraved. (The actual 17-year-old killer in the Supreme Court case decided one night he wanted to see what killing someone was like, so he and his friends kidnapped a woman out of her home, bound and gagged her, and dumped her off a high bridge to drown.) I believe that if I, at age 17 (not all that long ago), had decided to commit a depraved murderer, I would have been far more mature, far more capable of telling right from wrong, and thus far more depraved and worthy of the ultimate punishment than the average dull thug who's eligible for hanging.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Traveler@Mar 3 2005, 01:36 PM

I have thought about this for some time.

If children are not to be held accountable as adults (according to the Supreme Court and the United Nations as well as many international watch dog groups) it should be a crime to introduce children to any adult information such as entertainment (music, videos movies etc), literature or any other material that would encourage them or allow them to make adult decisions for which they cannot be held accountable.

What on earth are you talking about?

Just the opposite is true. Responsible parent have every obligation to provide children with information that will help them make adult decisions for which they shall be accountable.

I assume that you are trying to make some obscure reverse-osmosis, contra-logical sarcastic commentary on something or t'other but it ain't working.

[sgallan]

PD -

From a literalist constitutional perspective you may have a "trainwreck" point. From the perspective of humanity you are severely suspect. It sort of reminds me of the the legitmacy of the Dred Scott decision.... which was of course abhorrant from the perspective of today.... but the proper decision given the constraints of the constitution then. You would no doubt defend that one then, and while would be correct on a technicality, you would be as morally wrong then, as you are now.

I am glad a slightly right of center court made the proper decision. Occasionally we need to be protected from our more primitive selves IMNSHO. Or should we have civil wars, or new Governments, everytime something like this happens?

[sgallan]

On second thought PD.....

Remember that six year old who shot somebody in Michigan? You ever seen any six years olds? Yup..... six years should get the death penalty. I mean somebody at sometime must of told that kid...... " it is bad if you kill somebody". Kid didn't listen.... lethal injection for the six year old. Or for that matter the really smart five year old. What the heck..... lets say that a bunch of fundamentalist Muslims decide to move to Wyoming. Enough where they take over the all facits of the state Government. You would be okay if they inacted fundamentalist Islamic law right?

Exactly where do you draw the line? Do you let my extreme senario's actually come to pass before you actually address the issue?

[pushka]

Hmmm...I'm trying to reason with what Traveler was first saying...about allowing our children to see 'Adult' material...I believe most media, dvds, cds, videos and some books? and movies at the cinema is covered by a censor which guides adults as to whether or not it is suitable for a child/teenager of a certain age. Of course it would be very difficult to make it 'against the law' to allow your child to see any of this unsuitable material in their home or anywhere else...how could it be policed, unless you are suggesting the Big Brother scenario should be brought in. It is the responsibility of the parents to try to ensure their child is not exposed to unsuitable material, however in the real world the children are exposed, and as another member suggested, if they are exposed to it, they should be taught the rights and wrongs of whatever they witness...and how to act responsibly, so that they don't turn into pyschotic killers or sexual deviants...if that is what you are suggesting happens to all children/teens who see material of an adult nature? Is that what you were suggesting?

[Traveler]

This discussion reminds me of one of my first trips to Japan. While traveling in the countryside I noticed vending machine after vending machine that sold beer open to the public. I ask my host if children were allowed to drink beer. They informed me that it is forbidden for children to drink beer. I then asked how they kept children from obtaining beer from the vending machines. They looked at me as though I was stupid and did not understand anything and said, “It is against the law.”

We train our children differently in the USA. Not just as parents but as a society.

The Traveler

[Amillia]

I have wished several times we were more like the Japanese in our training up and schooling of our children.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Scott,

You've got the Dred Scott decision absolutely backwards. It was a grotesquely activist, nonoriginalist decision, not "the proper decision given the constraints of the constitution then." Read the bloody decision. Can you point to the clause in the 1850s Constitution that dictated that a black man had "no rights that a white man was bound to respect"? Justice Taney pulled that standard out of his hat, just like Justice Kennedy did with the Roper case. As for "Or should we have civil wars, or new Governments, everytime something like this happens?", if Taney hadn't played philosopher king from his southern perspective, the Missouri Compromise would have lasted and maybe there wouldn't have been a civil war. Let the law get too far out of synch with the national consensus, and you wind up increasing divisions and hostility, not eliminating them. Same thing's happened with abortion.

As for "drawing the line," nobody's talking about executing six-year-olds. The line has already been drawn, with a recognition by the majority of states that have a death penalty that, occasionally, 16- and 17-year-olds are mature enough and depraved enough to be held just as responsible for their murders as 18-year-olds. The law makes those individualized determinations about teenagers all the time -- they can be determined individually to have the requisite maturity to have abortions without their parents' consent, or to be emancipated from their parents altogether.

The 8th Amendment is actually one of those areas where I do believe that some "activism" by judges is inevitable. The amendment's language that "cruel and unusual punishments" are prohibited is very broad, and needs some amplification as to what punishments are cruel and unusual. One way to approach the question might be to restrict the prohibition to those punishments that were being imposed at the time of the amendment's ratification. Instead, we've gone with an "evolving standards of decency" standard, where the standard of what's "cruel and unusual" can be updated over time to reflect society's changing consensus on what that is.

The problem is that the Court has gone way out ahead of even that standard. There is no solid national consensus that 16- and 17-year-olds never deserve the severest punishment. In fact, of the states that impose the death penalty, the majority of them do make those people eligible in certain circumstances. So where's the consensus? Where's the justification for the Court to take this question out of the democratic process?

Worse still, the Court (as it has done more than once recently) referred to other countries' practices in support of its decision. Those laws are utterly irrelevant. We are governed by our consent, and there is absolutely no connection between our consent and what the French or Belgians do in their countries. I doubt Kennedy would invoke European standards in interpreting the Constitution on the abortion question; if he did, he'd have to overturn Roe v. Wade, as virtually every European country has far more restrictive anti-abortion laws than we do. The U.S. is one of only six countries in the world that allows abortion on demand up to viability (and beyond, for all practical purposes).

As for your hypothetical of an Islamic fundamentalist government taking over Wyoming, first, I'd say that since there is no chance in the world of that happening, I don't see the wisdom in justifying turning democracy over to a bunch of lawyer oligarchs -- whose views reflect the assumptions of their particular professional class, which is definitely not congruent with the country's as a whole -- based on a hypothetical with virtually no chance of happening. By that logic, I could justify virtually any government abuse of power if I could show it were necessary to prevent some grave danger, no matter how far-fetched. Government involves trade-offs between idealism and reality, between freedom and stability. You can't strike an intelligent balance without weighing both the gravity of the harm to be guarded against, and its likelihood.

Exactly where do you draw the line? Do you let my extreme senario's actually come to pass before you actually address the issue?

So why are you so convinced that you and I shouldn't have any say in "drawing the line," but should turn government over to the lawyers? I think the line that the majority of the states have drawn is a reasonable one. You'll note that, under the lines they drew, six-year-olds weren't getting the ax. Democracy does work sometimes.

You would no doubt defend that one then, and while would be correct on a technicality, you would be as morally wrong then, as you are now.

Doesn't even deserve a response.

[sgallan]

PD -

Given that 16 and 17 years olds are not adults, that makes them children. That you would rationalize the killing of children has me considering your stance as entirely immoral. Get over it.

I've said this before...... the draconian USA you envision would not be a place I would want to live or raise my child. I probably would be incarcerated, and my wife would probably have a life sentence. Luckily our form of a Democratic Republic does indeed work well so that these things don't often happen.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by sgallan@Mar 4 2005, 03:45 PM

PD -

Given that 16 and 17 years olds are not adults, that makes them children. That you would rationalize the killing of children has me considering your stance as entirely immoral. Get over it.

I've said this before...... the draconian USA you envision would not be a place I would want to live or raise my child. I probably would be incarcerated, and my wife would probably have a life sentence. Luckily our form of a Democratic Republic does indeed work well so that these things don't often happen.

Scott,

As a practical matter, even if a 16 year old were sentenced to death, he wouldn't be a "child" when executed, even in Texas. I'm not "rationalizing the killing of children" and you damn well know it.

If a 17-year-old raped and murdered my daughter, I'd want him dead, and that desire is entirely just and moral. I don't need to defend my morality to you on that point.

Frankly, I'm getting just a little tired of the "You conservatives would throw me in a concentration camp!" schtick. What is it about you guys that makes you so paranoid, seeing a Franco or worse under every bed? Is there a little projection going on here -- you assume that everyone hates their political opponents as much as you apparently do?

I believe in reasoned debate -- which, incidentally, requires presuming your opponent is acting in good faith, not that he's just barely being restrained from throwing you in jail or sending you a visit from a death squad. How many times is it now that you've said I wish "people like you" didn't exist, or would throw you in jail if I had the chance? I know plenty of Mormons who have that kind of persecution complex about their Church membership, seeing vicious anti-Mormons behind every deviation from the Seminary-style party line. They make me sick, too.

Real democratic citizens are capable of confronting disagreement without getting fainting spells about how the world will end if their opponents get their way. (Read Richard Hofstadters' classic "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" -- written mostly about the Cold War Right, but acknowledging the Left had its paranoids, too; they now seem to have come to dominate that side of the ideological aisle.) What is it with liberals and the word "scary?" I've never used it to describe an opponent or his ideas. They may be wrong, misguided, or contemptible, but "scary"? Please.

[sgallan]

PD -

As far as I am concerned you are immoral in your support for this kind of thing. And people who would kill teenagers, usually a mess of hormones in combination with really f'd up family (if you could call them that) situations, leaves me to believe you could easily take the next step of locking up people like me..... and especially my wife. And I could care less how offended you get by this. What the hey.... give me a few minutes..... I can rationalize anything too.

[sgallan]

**** What is it with liberals and the word "scary?" ****

Interesting you have taken the next step of using the "L" word for everybody who is not as conservative as you. Though I have some liberal social views (actually libertarian) I hardly qualify as a liberal.

And you would suggest I am the one seeing demons.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Traveler@Mar 4 2005, 09:38 AM

This discussion reminds me of one of my first trips to Japan. While traveling in the countryside I noticed vending machine after vending machine that sold beer open to the public. I ask my host if children were allowed to drink beer. They informed me that it is forbidden for children to drink beer. I then asked how they kept children from obtaining beer from the vending machines. They looked at me as though I was stupid and did not understand anything and said, “It is against the law.”

We train our children differently in the USA. Not just as parents but as a society.

The Traveler

I wonder why it is that Japan doesn't invent squat while the US is the creative engine that drives world technological and cultural creation.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Snow+Mar 4 2005, 11:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Mar 4 2005, 11:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Traveler@Mar 4 2005, 09:38 AM

This discussion reminds me of one of my first trips to Japan.  While traveling in the countryside I noticed vending machine after vending machine that sold beer open to the public.  I ask my host if children were allowed to drink beer.  They informed me that it is forbidden for children to drink beer.  I then asked how they kept children from obtaining beer from the vending machines.  They looked at me as though I was stupid and did not understand anything and said, “It is against the law.”

We train our children differently in the USA.  Not just as parents but as a society.

The Traveler

I wonder why it is that Japan doesn't invent squat while the US is the creative engine that drives world technological and cultural creation.

You are kidding right? Cause that just isn't true.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by sgallan@Mar 4 2005, 08:17 PM

**** What is it with liberals and the word "scary?" ****

Interesting you have taken the next step of using the "L" word for everybody who is not as conservative as you. Though I have some liberal social views (actually libertarian) I hardly qualify as a liberal.

And you would suggest I am the one seeing demons.

Liberals are demons?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Also, Scott:

And people who would kill teenagers, usually a mess of hormones in combination with really f'd up family (if you could call them that) situations, leaves me to believe you could easily take the next step of locking up people like me..... and especially my wife.

Let's take a step back and look at this logically. Until a couple of weeks ago, the majority of states with a death penalty (including, I believe, Arizona) allowed it to be applied to 16- and 17-year-old murderers in the worst circumstances. It follows that "people who would kill teenagers" ran those states, and (since the elimination of that eligibility for the death penalty was by judicial fiat, not a majority vote of a legislature) probably still do.

Are you and your wife in jail? Didn't think so.

If you want to talk about locking people up and "draconian" government policies, we'd probably agree that the great increase in the number of things made felonies is a bad thing, along with the proliferation of regulatory sanctions with criminal penalties that make such broad ranges of conduct illegal that discretion is essentially left to prosecutors as to who they want to throw in jail. My libertarianism takes the form of a belief that things that are obviously wrong, and have traditionally been crimes, ought to be punished strongly, but that government should tread carefully in extending criminal liability beyond that. It follows that the horrific federal sentencing guidelines for drug offenses are a cruel joke.

As for teenager murderers being "usually a mess of hormones in combination with really f'd up family (if you could call them that) situations", you're probably right -- but I think you could describe most over-18 murderers the same way.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Amillia+Mar 4 2005, 10:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Mar 4 2005, 10:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Mar 4 2005, 11:12 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Traveler@Mar 4 2005, 09:38 AM

This discussion reminds me of one of my first trips to Japan.  While traveling in the countryside I noticed vending machine after vending machine that sold beer open to the public.  I ask my host if children were allowed to drink beer.  They informed me that it is forbidden for children to drink beer.  I then asked how they kept children from obtaining beer from the vending machines.  They looked at me as though I was stupid and did not understand anything and said, “It is against the law.”

We train our children differently in the USA.  Not just as parents but as a society.

The Traveler

I wonder why it is that Japan doesn't invent squat while the US is the creative engine that drives world technological and cultural creation.

You are kidding right? Cause that just isn't true.

It's absolutely true. There is no doubt that it is true.

Japanese invent nothing and with the exception of cheap animated cartoon, create no world adopted culture.

The West, and more specifically invent 95% of the world's technology. How could you think otherwise? Take a look at the following list and tell me, what on it, or otherwise, did the Japanese invent:

The internal combustion engine

The diesel engine

The electrice engine

The automobile

Trains

Planes

Modern rockets

Missles

Modern ocean ships

Typewriters

Computers

Personal computers

Hardrives

Computer printers

Computer mouse

Word Processors

Radio

Stereo

CDs

Cameras

Video Cameras

Digital Video

Vaccums

Toasters

Televisions

Radio telescope

Motion pictures

Motorcycles

Submarines

Repeating riffles

Firearms

Lasers

Traffic light

Odometer

Canned food

Frozen food

Interchangeable parts

Modern cloth manufacture

Modern steel manufacture

telephone

x-rays

ultrasound

radar

Magnetic Imaging

CT

Mammography

Artifical organs

Open heart surgery

Polyester

Rayon

Electricity

Electric lights

Facimile machines

Copy Machines

Telegraph

Computed Radiography

Nuclear fussion

Modern toliet

Microphone

Electronic amplifier

video games

electric guitar

Come one Amillia, don't make me wait all day. What did they invent?

Cigarette lighter? (no)

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Sushi.

Which my 3-year-old daughter likes.

[Snow]

It's fairer to say the Japanese discovered, not invented sushi. If Sushi had to be invented it would have taken an American, or an Englishman at least.

While the Japanese culture may be brilliant at taking someone else's idea, refining it and perfecting it, original thought and creativity id'nt da bomb in Japan.

[Amillia]

Come one Amillia, don't make me wait all day. What did they invent?

Cigarette lighter? (no)

Japanese inventions!!!!

[pushka]

Originally posted by Amillia@Mar 6 2005, 11:22 PM

Come one Amillia, don't make me wait all day. What did they invent?

Cigarette lighter? (no)

Japanese inventions!!!!

You gotta be kidding, right????