Stricter punishment is the answer to juvenile crime

[jesse]

I belive it is an effective way, yet there's still talk about emotional scars, humilation and so on. Under what conditions and how should it be administrated? Or is it morally wrong altogether?

[Simon_Peter]

Hey Confused,

Nice to hear from you, its been awhile since we last talked. I'm sorry if i sound arrogant. I am working with a local school as we speak, to help prevent adolescent crime. I am advising the school, on how to create an in-house legal system. Currently they have a students council. However its ineffective for several reasons, many students are left unheard.

I presented the school with a proposal. Which I think can be used for the greater good. This proposal is a business venture, but has a regular donation like a charity. With this money, we could ask lots of businesses to pitch ideas to the school. I also think the project will alleviate stress related conditions, by giving students a chance to speak about things that concern them. And actively change things in society

It’s a multi faceted website, with several purposes. It alows children to post their problems online and seek help. Also with a little intelligence, the students could increase their monthly budget of £2800 per month. Which would give them another worthwhile extra-curricular activity, and give them experience in handling a company. But also they can speak to the schools authority, to help change the school.

Many young people are effected by mental illness for one reason, they don’t speak about things that bother them, letting problems build up. It also helps them integrate into society, after they leave school. They will gain an understanding of how politics work. With this, they will know how to make change happen diplomatically, hopefully reducing anti-social behaviour.

Essentially this is an Online Game, however it is played with real money and real issues and real results. It is a sandbox simulation of a government. Giving the students more power.

p.s good to see you again

Regards
Simon

[Negative Proof]

I'd really like to focus my response on the subtitle of this thread.

"Is fear good for their lives?"

I'd say yes, as long as that fear is valid. Attempting to scare children with nonsense that cannot even be proven to exist is morally wrong and reprehensible. Make the choices they make have real-world consequences.

There are a limited number of assertions I can make about this topic in general, because each case of juvenile crime is as diverse as the children themselves. Before being punished or pardoned for their wrongdoings, each child and case should be looked at individually, as there can be many determining factors. What were the parents like? What area did they grow up in? How well did they do in school? What reasons did they give for what they did? Often, children are not smart enough to know both that what they are doing is wrong and the reasons it is wrong. Experience is king when it comes to learning lessons such as these, so if these instances of deviant behavior can be used as a chance to teach, then they should be seized as such.

I believe what was said earlier in the thread (not sure by who, sorry) about stricter punishments serving to further alienate children from society. In addition, children who spend alot of time in detention centers and the like would seem to develop a strong distaste for any sort of authority, be it governmental or societal.

My only qualification for my assertions is a B+ average in a Child Psychology course at college. I do like to think that I'm insightful, though. Take only at face value.

[Confused]

I'd really like to focus my response on the subtitle of this thread.

"Is fear good for their lives?"

I'd say yes, as long as that fear is valid. Attempting to scare children with nonsense that cannot even be proven to exist is morally wrong and reprehensible. Make the choices they make have real-world consequences.

To a certain extent, a child can only learn by error leading to fear of repeating such error. If you tell your 4 year old not to touch a hot stove, odds are, they will still touch it. Naturally, they would burn their hand. The fear of repeating such a thing would prevent them from making the same mistake. That is applicable for the younger child. But as a child ages, there are some things in which it is better to fear the disappointed look on your parents face than it is to not. It is better to fear being grounded than it is to just getting lectured. It is better to fear sharing the fate of the 16 year old on death row than to fear the boy trying to convince you to rob a convenient store.

There are a limited number of assertions I can make about this topic in general, because each case of juvenile crime is as diverse as the children themselves. Before being punished or pardoned for their wrongdoings, each child and case should be looked at individually, as there can be many determining factors. What were the parents like? What area did they grow up in? How well did they do in school? What reasons did they give for what they did? Often, children are not smart enough to know both that what they are doing is wrong and the reasons it is wrong. Experience is king when it comes to learning lessons such as these, so if these instances of deviant behavior can be used as a chance to teach, then they should be seized as such.

Yes, the punishment needs to be case and age specific. But some of the factors you mention here are exactly why the kids are in a downhill slide and the fact is, a point is reached when as awful as it sounds, the child is no more capable of being rehabilitated than a habitual sexual sadist. Yes, it sucks to hear that in society, but that doesn't negate the reality of it.

I believe what was said earlier in the thread (not sure by who, sorry) about stricter punishments serving to further alienate children from society. In addition, children who spend alot of time in detention centers and the like would seem to develop a strong distaste for any sort of authority, be it governmental or societal.

Perhaps it does serve to further alienate the child from society. But you know what, I don't think I want that 15 year old who killed a 14 year old gang rival in my neighborhood anyways. I would hazard a guess further and say that the child in the detention center probably already harbored a strong distaste for authority.

My only qualification for my assertions is a B+ average in a Child Psychology course at college. I do like to think that I'm insightful, though. Take only at face value.

I am not big on the social sciences. I can only call it as I see it happening. I won't say that the social sciences don't have their purpose. But it seems like more often than not, it is to justify the action rather than prevent the action.

[Negative Proof]

An interesting post, Confused.

I'd really like to focus my response on the subtitle of this thread.

"Is fear good for their lives?"

I'd say yes, as long as that fear is valid. Attempting to scare children with nonsense that cannot even be proven to exist is morally wrong and reprehensible. Make the choices they make have real-world consequences.

To a certain extent, a child can only learn by error leading to fear of repeating such error. If you tell your 4 year old not to touch a hot stove, odds are, they will still touch it. Naturally, they would burn their hand. The fear of repeating such a thing would prevent them from making the same mistake. That is applicable for the younger child. But as a child ages, there are some things in which it is better to fear the disappointed look on your parents face than it is to not. It is better to fear being grounded than it is to just getting lectured. It is better to fear sharing the fate of the 16 year old on death row than to fear the boy trying to convince you to rob a convenient store.

I totally agree here, though I disagree in principal with the entire concept of death row. Life imprisonment (possibly solitary) should be the stiffest penalty we are allowed to impose. Our legal system is far from perfect, and often we do not prove that those convicted are guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt. We simply must convince twelve normal people to believe that they are guilty.

Even if one could be proven directly guilty of the most heinous crime, I still believe we would have no right as a society to end the life of another.

There are a limited number of assertions I can make about this topic in general, because each case of juvenile crime is as diverse as the children themselves. Before being punished or pardoned for their wrongdoings, each child and case should be looked at individually, as there can be many determining factors. What were the parents like? What area did they grow up in? How well did they do in school? What reasons did they give for what they did? Often, children are not smart enough to know both that what they are doing is wrong and the reasons it is wrong. Experience is king when it comes to learning lessons such as these, so if these instances of deviant behavior can be used as a chance to teach, then they should be seized as such.

Yes, the punishment needs to be case and age specific. But some of the factors you mention here are exactly why the kids are in a downhill slide and the fact is, a point is reached when as awful as it sounds, the child is no more capable of being rehabilitated than a habitual sexual sadist. Yes, it sucks to hear that in society, but that doesn't negate the reality of it.

I'm not sure I agree with this at all. A child is, after all, a child, and is still in the developmental stages. The point where an individual stops being a child and becomes an adult is very case-specific, however, and cannot be effectively attributed to a certain age, in my opinion.

We still see adults being rehabilitated due to prison time and other means of realizing the impact of what crimes they committed. The learning process never stops, as I'm sure the age variance of many involved in this very forum would attest. To assume that a child is no longer capable to learning (and changing their behavior as a result) is a terrible chance to take. Yes, I will admit that there are possibly some who will never change, but I see it as more effective to keep trying and give the benefit of the doubt than to pass that final judgement on any of them.

I believe what was said earlier in the thread (not sure by who, sorry) about stricter punishments serving to further alienate children from society. In addition, children who spend alot of time in detention centers and the like would seem to develop a strong distaste for any sort of authority, be it governmental or societal.

Perhaps it does serve to further alienate the child from society. But you know what, I don't think I want that 15 year old who killed a 14 year old gang rival in my neighborhood anyways. I would hazard a guess further and say that the child in the detention center probably already harbored a strong distaste for authority.

Indeed you may be right. But what caused this undeveloped mind to develop this distaste for authority? It's a question whose answer is far more elegant a solution than simply locking the child away from all of the "good people" because of some missing key elements in his formative years. If placed in another environment ourselves, we would likely have turned out quite different morally and ethically.

Further, those upon whom these stiffer punishments are being imposed would seem very likely to simply "fake" their rehabilitation in order to avoid further punishment, whereas using psychology and social science to determine and influence the direct source in the perpetrator's mind and world view would be a far more effective rehabilitation and would serve to teach and equip the offenders for life in society, rather than simply punish.

I realize how soft on crime my views seem at this point, so allow me to clarify a bit. As I said before, there should be some penalties that are quite stiff (as there are now) to serve as a deterrent for crime. Fear should have a real-world basis. I believe the only place we overstep the line is the death penalty. For children, however, I believe the penalties are stiff enough. The next steps to take should involve more individual case work and should work on getting to the "root" of the problem, rather than simply attempting to scare them into doing right (which obviously has not worked for multi-offenders).

My only qualification for my assertions is a B+ average in a Child Psychology course at college. I do like to think that I'm insightful, though. Take only at face value.

I am not big on the social sciences. I can only call it as I see it happening. I won't say that the social sciences don't have their purpose. But it seems like more often than not, it is to justify the action rather than prevent the action.

I can totally relate to your position on social science, as I too used to regard it as some sort of philosophy for excusing the morally delinquent. However, in addition to my child psychology course, I was also fortunate enough to take a sociology course.

After my experience in this class, and with the wonderfully bright professor who taught it, I began to change my view. I learned that seeking an explanation for a criminal or socially unacceptable behavior is simply an attempt to avoid placing direct blame on the perpetrator in order to get past the defensiveness that this would cause, and serves to illuminate the direct psychological cause. Once the cause is learned, that single facet of a person can be dissected, and an attempt at correction can be made.

My professor also worked for a certain state department (not sure which... Dept. of Human Services, maybe?), but she was an active social worker. Often, she would bring in old case files with all of the names obscured in order to show us the real-world applications of sociology. So this information that lead me to change my views did not simply come from a textbook and a biased professor, but from an actual social worker whose impact changed many lives. In particular, many of the prison inmates that she worked with were truly rehabilitated and did not become repeat offenders.

As I said above, I do not believe that everyone can be rehabilitated, but to give up on so many (or even just one) because of so few seems morally wrong to me. Blaming those who do wrong because the environment they grew up in lacked a critical element of healthy social development seems equally as wrong.

[Simon_Peter]

Hello Everyone,

I see the general consensus is for stiffer punishment, In one sense i agree. Having stricter punishment, would be a requisite of responsibility. So First the courts must determine if the child is guilty secondly you have to determine the child understood his actions. The greater the understanding, the stricter the punishment. The mental age of a child will differ enormously, you could be a 13 year old. With a 6 year old mind. Plus Punishment is factored through our understanding of justice. Extreme cases, are dealt with more severely.

Currently punishement differs from case to case. Punishment is determined by the legal presidents of past cases. So a child who committed a crime such as murder, All children who commit the same crime, would all be treated the same. Thats legal presidence. A child commits murder, his sentence was death, another child would have to have the exact same punishment. Because that would be the legal president. So when dealing with the issue of giving stricter punishement we have to factor in the legal presidence that would effect more children. Its difficult not to be controlled by the presidence.

If we have a softer punishement for children, then that means the legal president would be softer. Unless of cause a really bad crime was committed, then the punishement could be upgraded. So in other words, being softer with kids means that we firstly are not killing of the second generation. And secondly we are not confined as much to the rules of legal presidencies. Punishments can always be upgraded as individual cases. Rather than setting a legal presidence of stricter punishement.

Once we have a legal presidence of stricter punishement, we would have to give that out, unless the child went to the court of appeal. So having softer punishement allows us more flexibility in giving out punishments. At the moment every individual cases can have the death sentence. But setting a legal presidency of stricter punishement every child murderer must have the death sentence, as stated by legal presidency. Or every Child murderer must have life imprisonment. At the moment our legal presidency's are flexible.

So when setting legal presidents, it would be good to know how you would increase the punishement. Because at the moment, the law is set up so that it can pick and choose its sentences easier. When you hear the headlines, of children getting five years for murder. These cases are few and very far between. This is media hype, it does not state all the information, and no one can have an informed decision if this was either a reasonable or unreasonable sentence.

Regards
Simon

[Confused]

There are a limited number of assertions I can make about this topic in general, because each case of juvenile crime is as diverse as the children themselves. Before being punished or pardoned for their wrongdoings, each child and case should be looked at individually, as there can be many determining factors. What were the parents like? What area did they grow up in? How well did they do in school? What reasons did they give for what they did? Often, children are not smart enough to know both that what they are doing is wrong and the reasons it is wrong. Experience is king when it comes to learning lessons such as these, so if these instances of deviant behavior can be used as a chance to teach, then they should be seized as such.

Yes, the punishment needs to be case and age specific. But some of the factors you mention here are exactly why the kids are in a downhill slide and the fact is, a point is reached when as awful as it sounds, the child is no more capable of being rehabilitated than a habitual sexual sadist. Yes, it sucks to hear that in society, but that doesn't negate the reality of it.

I'm not sure I agree with this at all. A child is, after all, a child, and is still in the developmental stages. The point where an individual stops being a child and becomes an adult is very case-specific, however, and cannot be effectively attributed to a certain age, in my opinion.

Again, I will agree with the age/crime specific punishment, but the correlation between ODD and ASPD is unmistakeable and we can no more rehabilitate a sociopath at 25 than we can at 14. Not all those with ODD will become one with ASPD, but the more extreme the crime committed by the child with ODD, the more likely it is that when they turn 18 and are released back into society, the more likely it is we have just released the next Ted Bundy.

I am aware of developmental psychology. And I am more than familiar with child psychiatry. I am not trying to advocate we lock up children and throw away the key. The crime should fit the punishment and age is sometimes a factor.

We still see adults being rehabilitated due to prison time and other means of realizing the impact of what crimes they committed. The learning process never stops, as I'm sure the age variance of many involved in this very forum would attest. To assume that a child is no longer capable to learning (and changing their behavior as a result) is a terrible chance to take. Yes, I will admit that there are possibly some who will never change, but I see it as more effective to keep trying and give the benefit of the doubt than to pass that final judgement on any of them.

Yes, and we still see adults who are not rehabilitated. No, the learning process never stops, and you want to err on the side of caution. In Utopia, we all do. But in reality, I would like for you to explain your rationale to the mother of the next little girl who is kidnapped, tortured, raped, and buried alive. The impact of "they were just a child when they did it before" will likely not go over very well.

I believe what was said earlier in the thread (not sure by who, sorry) about stricter punishments serving to further alienate children from society. In addition, children who spend alot of time in detention centers and the like would seem to develop a strong distaste for any sort of authority, be it governmental or societal.

Perhaps it does serve to further alienate the child from society. But you know what, I don't think I want that 15 year old who killed a 14 year old gang rival in my neighborhood anyways. I would hazard a guess further and say that the child in the detention center probably already harbored a strong distaste for authority.

Indeed you may be right. But what caused this undeveloped mind to develop this distaste for authority? It's a question whose answer is far more elegant a solution than simply locking the child away from all of the "good people" because of some missing key elements in his formative years. If placed in another environment ourselves, we would likely have turned out quite different morally and ethically.

I would most certainly disagree. As someone who was raised under conditions that you couldn't dream up in your worst nightmares, I can say that despite it, I am a productive member of society, have never even had a speeding ticket, am independent, put myself through college, raise my children, etc...... Meanwhile you have Richie Rich next door raping and murdering their high school prom queen. The nature vs nurture debate is an old one and will never be satisfactorily answered. But to say that better nurturing could have altered the course is like saying a stronger canoe could have weathered the hurricane better.

Further, those upon whom these stiffer punishments are being imposed would seem very likely to simply "fake" their rehabilitation in order to avoid further punishment, whereas using psychology and social science to determine and influence the direct source in the perpetrator's mind and world view would be a far more effective rehabilitation and would serve to teach and equip the offenders for life in society, rather than simply punish.

So we can use the tools to understand the demented? Big deal. They have yet to do any good in preventing the demented.

I realize how soft on crime my views seem at this point, so allow me to clarify a bit. As I said before, there should be some penalties that are quite stiff (as there are now) to serve as a deterrent for crime. Fear should have a real-world basis. I believe the only place we overstep the line is the death penalty. For children, however, I believe the penalties are stiff enough. The next steps to take should involve more individual case work and should work on getting to the "root" of the problem, rather than simply attempting to scare them into doing right (which obviously has not worked for multi-offenders).

Getting to the root of the problem? Statistically speaking, can you show me any data that shows that finding out why 14 year old Tommy raped and killed 6 year old Jenny is relevant? Does it somehow help Jenny? Does it cure Tommy?

My only qualification for my assertions is a B+ average in a Child Psychology course at college. I do like to think that I'm insightful, though. Take only at face value.

I am not big on the social sciences. I can only call it as I see it happening. I won't say that the social sciences don't have their purpose. But it seems like more often than not, it is to justify the action rather than prevent the action.

I can totally relate to your position on social science, as I too used to regard it as some sort of philosophy for excusing the morally delinquent. However, in addition to my child psychology course, I was also fortunate enough to take a sociology course.

Tag on enough psychology courses for a minor and more sociology courses than I can stomach and then we can compare.

After my experience in this class, and with the wonderfully bright professor who taught it, I began to change my view. I learned that seeking an explanation for a criminal or socially unacceptable behavior is simply an attempt to avoid placing direct blame on the perpetrator in order to get past the defensiveness that this would cause, and serves to illuminate the direct psychological cause. Once the cause is learned, that single facet of a person can be dissected, and an attempt at correction can be made.

So if you had a horrible sociology professor, would your view be different? I would love to see these successs stories of these severe juvenile offenders being rehabilitated after being shrunk to death.

My professor also worked for a certain state department (not sure which... Dept. of Human Services, maybe?), but she was an active social worker. Often, she would bring in old case files with all of the names obscured in order to show us the real-world applications of sociology. So this information that lead me to change my views did not simply come from a textbook and a biased professor, but from an actual social worker whose impact changed many lives. In particular, many of the prison inmates that she worked with were truly rehabilitated and did not become repeat offenders.

I would like to see what crimes these kids who were rehabilitated committed.

As I said above, I do not believe that everyone can be rehabilitated, but to give up on so many (or even just one) because of so few seems morally wrong to me. Blaming those who do wrong because the environment they grew up in lacked a critical element of healthy social development seems equally as wrong.

I realize my view comes across as a bit harsh and please understand, I am not talking about little Tammy who skipped school or even little Johnny who was busted for drinking under the age of 21. What I am talking about are those children who either skipped the minor stuff and went straight for the major (rape, murder, torture, etc...) or those children who have already shown a pattern for moving from the little stuff into the bigger stuff, they just aren't major players yet. At some point, we have to face reality. Reality is that some kids are simply born bad. Some choose to become bad. Some choose to become good. Some just don't care either way. But I would rather see a harsher sentence given out to little Tommy for beating up little Tammy than to wait until little Tommy rapes and kills little Tammy.

[Confused]

Hello Everyone,

I see the general consensus is for stiffer punishment, In one sense i agree. Having stricter punishment, would be a requisite of responsibility. So First the courts must determine if the child is guilty secondly you have to determine the child understood his actions. The greater the understanding, the stricter the punishment. The mental age of a child will differ enormously, you could be a 13 year old. With a 6 year old mind. Plus Punishment is factored through our understanding of justice. Extreme cases, are dealt with more severely.

Currently punishement differs from case to case. Punishment is determined by the legal presidents of past cases. So a child who committed a crime such as murder, All children who commit the same crime, would all be treated the same. Thats legal presidence. A child commits murder, his sentence was death, another child would have to have the exact same punishment. Because that would be the legal president. So when dealing with the issue of giving stricter punishement we have to factor in the legal presidence that would effect more children. Its difficult not to be controlled by the presidence.

If we have a softer punishement for children, then that means the legal president would be softer. Unless of cause a really bad crime was committed, then the punishement could be upgraded. So in other words, being softer with kids means that we firstly are not killing of the second generation. And secondly we are not confined as much to the rules of legal presidencies. Punishments can always be upgraded as individual cases. Rather than setting a legal presidence of stricter punishement.

Once we have a legal presidence of stricter punishement, we would have to give that out, unless the child went to the court of appeal. So having softer punishement allows us more flexibility in giving out punishments. At the moment every individual cases can have the death sentence. But setting a legal presidency of stricter punishement every child murderer must have the death sentence, as stated by legal presidency. Or every Child murderer must have life imprisonment. At the moment our legal presidency's are flexible.

So when setting legal presidents, it would be good to know how you would increase the punishement. Because at the moment, the law is set up so that it can pick and choose its sentences easier. When you hear the headlines, of children getting five years for murder. These cases are few and very far between. This is media hype, it does not state all the information, and no one can have an informed decision if this was either a reasonable or unreasonable sentence.

Regards
Simon

I agree that the harsher the crime the harsher the punishment, but I have to ask, why are we giving slaps on the hands for all those little offenses until the child has progressed to the point in which they now require the more harsher punishments.

As for media hype, I will be the first to admit I can't stand the media. It has a propensity for blowing things out of proportion. But I can't recall hearing anything like a child getting 5 years for murder. Instead, I hear how this child has been in and out of juvenile detention facilities since they were 5 years old and are now 15 and committed their first bonified murder. My aim is prevention not reaction. The more society says "It was because they had no mother" or "their father molested them" etc..... the more we justify it. If a 7 year old has the ability to pick up a gun, go next door and shoot their neighbors dog, they have effectively shown their capabilities. Add the lack of remorse and you already know what path this child is going down. But society can't stand the idea of "labeling" a child a sociopath. So instead, until they meet the DSM IV criteria of being 14 (I think that is the most recent age), they can't be a sociopath. Just a child with ODD and somehow we think we can successfully prevent the child from becoming ASPD by talk therapy?

My advocacy is for harsher punishments in an attempt to PREVENT further crimes.

As far as what the courts have as precedence in previous case laws, society is changing and the punishments should reflect such. They shouldn't take into account the fact that little Tommy was beaten by his father from the age of 6-10 so now that he is 13 and is beating his girlfriend on a daily basis, we should cut him some slack. The punishment should match the crime.

[Simon_Peter]

Hey Confused,

I agree with you on many points. I also agree with you that prevention is the best way forward. I agree that children should be labeled. I also agree that stricter punishement is the answer.

In my earlier posts i listed some ways to prevent child crime, such as the database that the UK is implementing, full of potential child criminals. They will receive 'talk therapy' before its too late. Once a child is on this database, the child we will taught citizenship from professionals. And other such things like cognitive behavior psychology. And also be taught risk assessment, and have better access to career advice. I think this will greatly reduce child crime, simply by being there offering a helping hand. Also other projects have been released, such as the one i am taking part in. Which will increase children to speak about problems that concern them before they begin to rebel against society.

In terms of child crime, i don't think there has been a punishment which is not equal to the crime, regarding children. All children do receive equal punishment currently the punishement is very strict However there should be more services preventing crime rather than fearing to do crime. The fear factor is already there.

What is a little harder is Talk therapy and other such things will be given before a child commits crime. When a child has committed crime they will receive the full force of the law. But yes, in most cases, a child needs to have equal punishement like an adult. they key aspects that are different is the place where a child ends up. Usually they go to young offenders institute rather than adult prison. To protect the child. There are also some cases when a child is deemed incompetent to stand trial, and other things that prevent a child from getting the full force of the law. This is not a weakness in law, this is the best way to approach such a controversial subject.

The law is established in a way that, gives people a chance to defend themselves. And the law is flexible in its punishments under certain conditions. The child crime area is still taboo, and still lots of loopholes, that protects a child. I don't think stricter punishement is an issue, its the protection the law gives to a minor.

Why does the law protect children, because thats is what is needed.

However most children will get equal punishment in relation to the crime. But there are other cases when it is not so easy to determine just punishement. These gray areas are called loop holes. When there is an element of protection for the criminal. That is because we don't live in despotism. Its a fine line between despotism and democracy.

Regards
Simon

[Negative Proof]

Confused,

As I'm getting quite used to saying around here as of late, we'll just have to disagree on this matter. I stated my views, you stated yours, and I believe we've provided enough of an argument on both sides to allow for a reasonably well informed conclusion. Before concluding my part in this discussion, however, I'd like to clarify a few points.

In stating that I had taken child psychology and sociology courses, I was simply providing some background on my position. I didn't mean to instigate a comparison, or to infer that you had not taken any courses on the subject. Indeed, whether you had or had not would be of little consequence, as all we are discussing is a differing opinion. I would venture to agree with you that if I had, in fact, had a horrible sociology teacher, my views might be very different, as it hasn't been terribly often that I've referred back to the course in thought or in debate. But this is the way we learn, and it's not perfect. I believe that those who teach us will always strive to influence us, even if only in small ways.

Yes, I choose the nurture side of the argument, as it seems to be the only path that allows any serious thought on the matter to continue. Arguing that nature is the answer leaves us as a society little room to affect the consequences, and little reason to look into the matter further than isolating those who are "bad apples". I won't argue that there are no bad apples (or in fact that there are no "good apples", as you are apparently living proof), but, as you insightfully put it, it's better to err on the side of caution. I believe that we often mistake a case of a neglected or abusive childhood for one of the bad apples, and isolate these individuals as a simpler way of "fixing" the problem. Looking into the psychology behind these acts does not simply seek to expose the reasons, but, as I stated, should strive to influence the individual and attempt to heal and correct any harm a troubled past or rough childhood might have caused.

I know you disagree in principle, and it seems that it is for very personal reasons that I will not question. I would suggest that it could be your high level of intelligence that got you through your childhood and made you into what you are today. Very often, though, children do fall victim to their circumstances, and it can be a very valid excuse based on their individual mental state and abilities. This is why I would suggest more individual case work before I would suggest stiffer penalties for juveniles.

I realize I haven't offered much new content to the argument, and have basically just restated my position in response to your responses. It's simply because we differ on nature vs. nurture, which is perfectly acceptable to me.