Quote:
Originally Posted by Tfong
Major crimes like murder and rape lets say. Why do we care what the mental capacity of the young offender is? The damage to the victim is still the same.
15 year old with a gun kills your family member vs a 20 year old with a gun.
The end result is still the same, a family member has died and the damage to their family remains the same whether or not a 15 or 20 year old committed to it.
Why are we so concerned with how the offender feels rather than the victim? Oh because they have to live with the "guilt?" why are we not looking at the victims case where...they are dead no matter how u cut it.
If your loved one is shot and killed. Are you going to be "aww thats too bad, he didn't know any better?" just because its a young offender?
Its more along the lines of creating exceptions allows for precedents which allows for loopholes. If u make no exceptions then the rest don't exist. Distinction of minor/major crimes are where i draw the line, so petty theft versus murder lets say.
This is the reasoning im applying to "child soldiers". While yes its a shame that he is coerced or brainwashed into supporting enemy troops. But that does not diminish the damage he/she has done. A grenade thrown by a 15 or 20 year old has the same destructive force and a person(s) is still dead. Thats why its a war crime for people to recruit child soldiers. But lets not diminish that a 15 year old with a rifle is as deadly as a 20 year old with a rifle.
|
Removing the concept of moral blameworthiness from our criminal law would be a truly radical departure. A purely consequence-focused criminal law would punish the person who negligently kills another person in a car accident exactly the same as a person who plans the deliberate killing of his wife.
Very few people would call that justice.