Tuesday, September 07, 2004

Sixteen Year Old Murderers Aren't Adults

In the state of Missouri, it is understood by most that one is considered an adult at the age of eighteen. When referring to “adult” we will mean mature and of legal age. Therefore, a sixteen year old male who shot and killed one man and seriously injured the victim’s fiancé in a carjacking would be tried as a juvenile, right? He’s only sixteen, which makes him a minor. One might think that should be the case, but why, then, are the courts debating to try him as an adult?
I find it funny how the rules always seem to bend in favor of the state government. Adults are supposed to be mature, meaning that they are grown-up, experienced, and or responsible. Consider this with the sixteen year old male. He’s obviously not what we would define as mature. More importantly, he isn’t of legal age which makes me ask why you can try him as an adult. Yes, he committed murder, and yes I agree that he should have to pay serious consequences. What I don’t agree with is how you don’t consider, for instance, a responsible sixteen year old supporting themselves and being an abiding citizen of the state of Missouri as an adult. Yet, when a sixteen year old kills someone, and proves that they are not mature or responsible, you deem them to be an adult? I’m not necessarily saying that the benefit of being regarded as an adult is unfair, because I wouldn’t consider it a privilege if I were the sixteen year old boy. However, as the responsible, independent, sixteen year old, I would want to be recognized as an adult because it would benefit me. Of course, this is not the case. It seems that the system is always working in your favor to hold back the ones who deserve the title, and lock away those who don’t.
As crime continues to grow and more and more minors begin to get involved, I believe that who you consider to be an “adult” needs to be justified. I agree that breaking the law has consequences, but your law indicates that one must be eighteen to be an adult. Therefore, it either needs to be followed or changed so that the rules apply to all and don’t have to be altered to fit your needs.

5 Comments:

Blogger Haley said...

I think that if someone can commit murder then they are certainly old enough to be tried as an adult.

I do agree that a standard should be set to what an adult actually is, so I do see your point on that part.

September 7, 2004 8:24 AM

 
Blogger MsCMP said...

I certainly agree!! It is certainly true that to be considered an adult for most other things you have to be what 18-21? Well, if he's 16, true he committed a terrible crime and I also feel that he should be held accountable for his actions, but he's 16, if he were an adult, a true adult, do you think that he would have committed those actions in the first place? I believe that there is some extent to being an adult and true maturity may be a factor of it. I think he's 16 and should be tried as a minor as he is.

September 7, 2004 8:44 AM

 
Blogger lawrkd said...

If you aren't old enough to vote or go to war until you are 18, then how can you be old enough for an adult trial. The army isn't putting guns in the hands of 16 yr. olds to go to war. They aren't developed enough to make those decisions - they aren't adults. I agree with you. A 16 year old is still a minor.

September 7, 2004 12:50 PM

 
Blogger Robby said...

If a sixteen year old has sense enough to know what the outcome of holding that gun and pulling the trigger is, the death of the other person. Then I believe he should be tried as an adult. With personal opinion aside I really believe that a more accurate line needs to be drawn in certain situations.

September 9, 2004 9:14 AM

 
Blogger Danno420 said...

In most states you are given the chance to get your drivers liscence at 16. This obviously means you can make adult decissions. Even though you may not be of legal age your mind still has the capacity to commit a crime. Commit: v.t. to do;perform;or perpetrate.

May 5, 2006 8:59 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home