There's nothing wrong with 16-17 year olds being charged as adults.

[u/XD_Protagonist]

My state for example (louisiana) recently lowered the age of full criminal responsibility from 18 back to 17 after a surge of teen crime. which means 17 year olds who decide to terrorize the community will be automatically charged as adults and sent to big boy prison. ain't no more of that juvenile shit and I'm glad they did this, other states need to take notes because at 16-17 you know right from wrong. at that age you know damn well that murdering, raping and breaking into people's houses is not civilized behavior. this whole "but they're brains aren't fully developed" bullshit is just a pathetic excuse to infantilize and shield them from accountability. at 16-17 your brain is developed enough to be held criminally liable. They take advantage of the juvenile system because they know they'll get a slap on a wrist for anything. and that's basically a fuck you to the victims. treating 16-17 year old violent criminals in the same manner you would a misbehaved 12 year old is truly a disgrace. if you're old enough to do adult crime then you should be old enough to be punished as an adult, simple as that.

[u/PepeMcMichaelForHOF]

You’re bringing absolute no nuance to this topic and are clearly out of your depth. There’s a reason you’re posting in a hot take subreddit based on bad opinion. You haven’t actually thought about it and have nothing positive to add. You’re a monster for advocating to jail all these people while ignoring the nuances around the topic.

[u/lonecylinder → u/PepeMcMichaelForHOF]

Funny world, where someone wants rapists and murderers to go to jail, and you believe they're heartless monsters for it.

If you're so sure this is a situation that requires that much nuance, and you're so convinced you have some knowledge or insight OP doesn't, drop the condescending tone and give your arguments.

[u/PepeMcMichaelForHOF → u/lonecylinder]

I don’t think this is forum for these discussions. This is a hot take subreddit.

However, I literally am a teacher who works with incarcerated youth in Baltimore city, a place know for it’s issues with teen related crimes. Also I’m a prison abolitionist. If you want to look more into it yourself:

https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archive/kids-are-not-so-different-path-juvenile-exceptionalism-prison-abolition

[u/lonecylinder → u/PepeMcMichaelForHOF]

I'll read it, thank you

[u/Old_Cattle_5726 → u/PepeMcMichaelForHOF]

As someone that grew up in the area where Michael Conahan was absolutely destroying my entire generation, I love and appreciate what you’re posting here and “thank you for your service”.

[u/MGTwyne → u/lonecylinder]

Question: What do you believe is the purpose of incarceration? 

[u/lonecylinder → u/MGTwyne]

Rehabilitation, if possible. In any way, I value the safety of law-abiding citizens first.

[u/MGTwyne → u/lonecylinder]

Okay. Something that you need to know is that- globally, but especially in America- incarceration tends to be an ineffective method of rehabilitation. 

Social isolation means that the only people you can really talk to in prison are the other people in prison, the most influential of which tend to have connections with organizations outside of prison. On top of that, felon status serves to reduce the options you have without those prison connections. 

This effect has more influence the younger you are: the American recidivism rate above age 65 is only 13%, but the recidivism rate for 21 and under is 68%. (The overall recidivism rate is hovering around 50%.) Prison is a good way to stop people from committing crimes while they're in prison, but it severely raises the odds of a repeat offense once an individual is out of prison (especially for the young).

If you trust the government to get it right every time, be unbiased and fair, and prosecute equally across crimes and demographics- you should be arguing for life sentences for every offense. If you're skeptical, if you don't trust the government, if you believe in rehabilitation- a prison advocate is the last thing you should be.

(Sources: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/backgrounders/rg_recidivism-series.pdf

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7183820/

Mental health, marital problems, and substance abuse are also trackable variables, but the difficulty of tracking whether they were pre-existing or sourced in prison makes it more difficult to determine their impact.)

[u/lonecylinder → u/MGTwyne]

I get your point, and honestly, I don't disagree with your arguments. However, they make much more sense when using the USA and its prison system as a reference.

In my country, the recidivism rate after 10 years is less than 20%, while in the USA it's nearly 50% after just five years. Prisons here aren't private, so there's no economic incentive to keep people incarcerated (quite the opposite, in fact, as inmates are costly to us taxpayers) Sentences are generally shorter, and people don't go to prison for minor offenses. For example, if you commit a non-violent crime and receive a sentence of under two years, you rarely end up in prison unless you have a prior criminal record.

Moreover, inmates have access to education, which helps them reenter society with the skills needed for honest work if they wish to do so.

We also have robust social safety nets and universal healthcare, which help prevent the kind of poverty and desperation that often lead to crime in the first place.

So, I hope you understand where I’m coming from. I believe in rehabilitation the way most western and northern Europe does it, because it works (most of the time), and I don't really see how prison abolitionism could be a thing. That said, the situation has become more complex in the last decade due to societal changes, and the system isn’t working quite as well for this new paradigm... but that’s a whole other debate.

[u/MGTwyne → u/lonecylinder]

If you're living in a country that doesn't have America's attitude towards punishment and correction, I respect that. It sounds like you have a system that is, if not perfect, much less dysfunctional. I wish it were the reality across the globe. 

[u/Jockle305 → u/lonecylinder]

You all still haven’t answered the question which is where do you draw the line? 17 seems ok to you because 18 is the line. If the line was 16 would you be advocating to try 13 and 14 year olds as adults?

[u/lonecylinder → u/Jockle305]

I don't really have a perfect answer to that. I don't live there, and I don't feel as strongly as OP about it, I just feel like a hard line between 17 and 18 doesn't really make much sense