ChatterBank3 mins ago
Are teen juries a good idea?
Preston is hosting the first ever youth jury (aged between 10 and 17) to pass judgement on a case in Britain. The idea is for the scheme to sit on cases of vandalism, bullying, graffiti or binge drinking involving young people. Do you think youth juries are a good idea? Will they be able to make reasoned decisions?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6990490.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6990490.stm
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by AB Asks. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
As if a ten year old could comprehend the socio-political decisions involved in restorative justice as opposed to individualist Benthamian punishment. Or the jurisprudent phenomological collective approach to natural law versus state imposed criminal santcions.
Hell, I don't even know what I am harping on about.
We don't need courts we need the reintroduction of stocks and the cat-o-nine-tails.
Hell, I don't even know what I am harping on about.
We don't need courts we need the reintroduction of stocks and the cat-o-nine-tails.
I think in general in this country we do not give enough responsibility to young people.
My father left school at 14 and went out to work.
I am currently reading a book about the second world war and it mentions boys as young as 15 joining the navy and army and going off to fight.
A few years ago I was in the USA and went to a American Football Match (NFL).
Being the USA there were all sorts of shops inside the stadium, and almost all of them were manned by teenagers (roughly 16 to 18 years old). All the "old" people were in the crowd.
Any shop in a football stadium in the UK would probably be "manned" by loads of old women in their 60s.
Maybe we need a massive campaign to encourage kids to take a more active role in society instead of us all ignoring them. This leaves them to stand on street corners with nothing to do.
Serving on juries would be a good start.
My father left school at 14 and went out to work.
I am currently reading a book about the second world war and it mentions boys as young as 15 joining the navy and army and going off to fight.
A few years ago I was in the USA and went to a American Football Match (NFL).
Being the USA there were all sorts of shops inside the stadium, and almost all of them were manned by teenagers (roughly 16 to 18 years old). All the "old" people were in the crowd.
Any shop in a football stadium in the UK would probably be "manned" by loads of old women in their 60s.
Maybe we need a massive campaign to encourage kids to take a more active role in society instead of us all ignoring them. This leaves them to stand on street corners with nothing to do.
Serving on juries would be a good start.
I don�t often become involved in matters of opinion on AB, but in this case I�ll make an exception.
Whether or not the principle is right or wrong is nowhere near as important as the practicalities of this proposal.
Judging an issue (especially one as important as alleged crime and proposed penalties) is not straightforward. Ask any judge or magistrate and they will tell you that almost every case they deal with is different and requires a different, individual solution. Anybody that has served on a jury is also likely to say that the task is quite onerous and not to be undertaken lightly.
The proposal suggests that children as young as ten should exercise judgement over their peers. I would be surprised if there are any children of that age that could come to a properly structured decision on the sort of matters they are likely to have put before them. At age ten children are only just deemed capable of criminal intent. Younger than that and there is a blanket assumption that, whatever they are said to have done (up to and including murder), they were not old enough to know that it was wrong.
For children aged 10 to 17 the criminal justice system has specific constraints which are designed to recognise that the young people brought before the courts must be treated differently because of their age.
This proposal suggests that people of that same age group are suddenly mature enough to be able to pass judgement on important matters and I would suggest that this is simply not true.
Of course the rule of law (and hence the penalties handed down by the courts) can only be sustained by consensus. The principle of �judgement by one�s peers� is worthy, but it has its limitations (otherwise only burglars would judge burglars).
I�m afraid this is another badly thought out scheme which, hopefully, will be exposed as a non-starter before it progresses too far.
Whether or not the principle is right or wrong is nowhere near as important as the practicalities of this proposal.
Judging an issue (especially one as important as alleged crime and proposed penalties) is not straightforward. Ask any judge or magistrate and they will tell you that almost every case they deal with is different and requires a different, individual solution. Anybody that has served on a jury is also likely to say that the task is quite onerous and not to be undertaken lightly.
The proposal suggests that children as young as ten should exercise judgement over their peers. I would be surprised if there are any children of that age that could come to a properly structured decision on the sort of matters they are likely to have put before them. At age ten children are only just deemed capable of criminal intent. Younger than that and there is a blanket assumption that, whatever they are said to have done (up to and including murder), they were not old enough to know that it was wrong.
For children aged 10 to 17 the criminal justice system has specific constraints which are designed to recognise that the young people brought before the courts must be treated differently because of their age.
This proposal suggests that people of that same age group are suddenly mature enough to be able to pass judgement on important matters and I would suggest that this is simply not true.
Of course the rule of law (and hence the penalties handed down by the courts) can only be sustained by consensus. The principle of �judgement by one�s peers� is worthy, but it has its limitations (otherwise only burglars would judge burglars).
I�m afraid this is another badly thought out scheme which, hopefully, will be exposed as a non-starter before it progresses too far.
1 to 14 of 14
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.