NJ Judge Says Teenager Accused of Rape Deserves Leniency Because He's From a Good Fam

[KOUNTERPARTS]

This was a particularly bad call from this judge

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

You are arguing for revenge...

Revenge would be hooking a car battery up to his nutsack. I'm asking he be given proper punishment for his crimes.

If a judge can look at the actual evidence of the case and say "no, this boy should not be tried as an adult"...well then fine. But this judge decided that because the boy had good test scores and that going to prison might affect his chances for college (where he can just rape another girl) that he should not be tried as an adult...and shame on the victim for trying to derail this poor boy's life.
- - - Updated - - -

Which is a bogus justification for sure, but then there should be no justification needed at all to try a minor as a minor.
The decision if the accused is to be sentenced as an adult should be made after he is tried as a minor.
First deciding on the sentence and then on the guilt is what I object to.

It doesn't decide the sentence. It decides how the case will be tried...which is something that should be done before the case is tried, wouldn't you think?

[Jotaux]

I don't know the details of the case so I cannot comment on whether I believe the teen is guilty. Judge is an idiot for that excuse. If this kid was from a bad family would he be subject to a worse punishment? Just based on accident of birth?

[shadowdasher]

This is why people need to start taking their local elections more seriously.

[Lochton]

NJ Judge Says Teenager Accused of Rape Deserves Leniency Because He's From a 'Good Family'
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...193059728.html



What the Fuck.

Such a bullshit statement in life. Doesn't matter your blood line or 'family'.

[Jonnusthegreat]

Much of adolescents is sociological. As weird as it sounds, some cultures do not have a word or concept for adolescents, you either were a child or an adult and once you became an adult you joined the community and we're expected to contribute.

We can say that there are objective markers of puberty and adulthood though. In general, women reach full sexual maturity at 15-16, men at 16-17. After that point, any and all biological changes will be pretty subtle. Not all that different from when other apes reach maturity (15 for gorillas, 14 for female chimps and 15 for male chimps).

Yes, but we can't pinpoint the exact time puberty "stops" as far as I know. @zenkai knows of a way to test it though. That's why I disagree with arbitrary laws like this, especially when hard dates are created because "it's about right."

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Yes, but we can't pinpoint the exact time puberty "stops" as far as I know. @zenkai knows of a way to test it though. That's why I disagree with arbitrary laws like this, especially when hard dates are created because "it's about right."

Any minimum age law is going to be arbitrary. You have your age of consent, driving age, voting age, drinking age, military service age...etc.

Here's an example at 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, and 59 minutes old...you aren't considered an adult for the purposes of criminal charges..

1 minute later you are.

Was there any significant mental development that happened during that 1 minute...or are you pretty much the exact same person you were before?


Let me ask you the same question I asked Themius....are you in favour of child emancipation laws?

[Jonnusthegreat]

Any minimum age law is going to be arbitrary. You have your age of consent, driving age, voting age, drinking age, military service age...etc.

Here's an example at 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, and 59 minutes old...you aren't considered an adult for the purposes of criminal charges..

1 minute later you are.

Was there any significant mental development that happened during that 1 minute...or are you pretty much the exact same person you were before?


Let me ask you the same question I asked Themius....are you in favour of child emancipation laws?

I'm OK with laws that increase personal freedom, so yes.

I haven't really experienced it that much so I don't much about the subject. If there were a vote about it tomorrow, I'd probably be doing some research so I could be more informed.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I'm OK with laws that increase personal freedom, so yes.

I haven't really experienced it that much so I don't much about the subject. If there were a vote about it tomorrow, I'd probably be doing some research so I could be more informed.

So, you do accept that....in some cases... teenagers can be considered responsible for themselves...unless they commit a crime.

If you support the concept of child emancipation...then it's hypocritical to turn around and say "but its ridiculous to charge a minor as an adult". Both of them say that, under certain conditions, a minor can be treated as an adult. They are exceptions to the general rule.

[Jonnusthegreat]

So, you do accept that....in some cases... teenagers can be considered responsible for themselves...unless they commit a crime.

If you support the concept of child emancipation...then it's hypocritical to turn around and say "but its ridiculous to charge a minor as an adult". Both of them say that, under certain conditions, a minor can be treated as an adult. They are exceptions to the general rule.

Yeah it would be totally hypocritical. Although with crimes everyone should be tried as an adult. Not everyone is ready to accept responsibility for their actions before 18, for sure, but if you commit a crime you lose that benefit imo.

You must be confusing my posts with someone else's. I have always endorsed giving people the full extent of consequence for disobeying the law.

[WintersLegion]

Revenge would be hooking a car battery up to his nutsack. I'm asking he be given proper punishment for his crimes.

If a judge can look at the actual evidence of the case and say "no, this boy should not be tried as an adult"...well then fine. But this judge decided that because the boy had good test scores and that going to prison might affect his chances for college (where he can just rape another girl) that he should not be tried as an adult...and shame on the victim for trying to derail this poor boy's life.
- - - Updated - - -



It doesn't decide the sentence. It decides how the case will be tried...which is something that should be done before the case is tried, wouldn't you think?

While I agree that choosing to try a child as an adult in itself I do think that no one but the judge and lawyers should know that fact in order to keep it from influencing the jury. The problem is the defendant also needs to know as that can influence their decision on things like a plea deal but it's a lot harder to keep the defendant from leaking it.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Yeah it would be totally hypocritical. Although with crimes everyone should be tried as an adult. Not everyone is ready to accept responsibility for their actions before 18, for sure, but if you commit a crime you lose that benefit imo.

You must be confusing my posts with someone else's. I have always endorsed giving people the full extent of consequence for disobeying the law.

Might be my bad then...I may have been interpreting some of your statements as being against minors, in certain situations, being tried as adults. Taking a second look at your posts...I can see now that they may have been just against Zenkai's very specific argument that everyone that has reached puberty be tried as an adult.

- - - Updated - - -

While I agree that choosing to try a child as an adult in itself I do think that no one but the judge and lawyers should know that fact in order to keep it from influencing the jury. The problem is the defendant also needs to know as that can influence their decision on things like a plea deal but it's a lot harder to keep the defendant from leaking it.

The jury needs to know as well. They need to understand what giving a guilty verdict means. Also, the prosecutor, as the saying goes, will be taking off the kid gloves. This, in their mind, is not some wayward teen that got in over his head...this is a serious offender that needs to be put away. If the jury isn't informed as to why the prosecutor is going so hard...that could influence them as well.

[Jonnusthegreat]

Might be my bad then...I may have been interpreting some of your statements as being against minors, in certain situations, being tried as adults. Taking a second look at your posts...I can see now that they may have been just against Zenkai's very specific argument that everyone that has reached puberty be tried as an adult.

- - - Updated - - -



The jury needs to know as well. They need to understand what giving a guilty verdict means. Also, the prosecutor, as the saying goes, will be taking off the kid gloves. This, in their mind, is not some wayward teen that got in over his head...this is a serious offender that needs to be put away. If the jury isn't informed as to why the prosecutor is going so hard...that could influence them as well.

I'm ok with his argument if he can back it up with anything, but it honestly sounds like pseudoscience to me.

In general, I'm against rules that have exceptions or treat certain classes of citizens in a preferential way to others.

[WintersLegion]

Might be my bad then...I may have been interpreting some of your statements as being against minors, in certain situations, being tried as adults. Taking a second look at your posts...I can see now that they may have been just against Zenkai's very specific argument that everyone that has reached puberty be tried as an adult.

- - - Updated - - -



The jury needs to know as well. They need to understand what giving a guilty verdict means. Also, the prosecutor, as the saying goes, will be taking off the kid gloves. This, in their mind, is not some wayward teen that got in over his head...this is a serious offender that needs to be put away. If the jury isn't informed as to why the prosecutor is going so hard...that could influence them as well.

A juries job is to determine whether or not they believe the person is guilty information that has nothing to do with that but can influence the juries decision is something they don't need to know. A jury may decide to say they are not guilty even if they believe the child is guilty because they believe like the judge here that an adults sentence is to much for the child when it's the judges responsibility to determine proper sentencing not the juries, or they may decide the child is guilty because of the fact they are being tried as an adult from the misguided perception that they would only try someone as an adult if they actually did it.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

A juries job is to determine whether or not they believe the person is guilty information that has nothing to do with that but can influence the juries decision is something they don't need to know. A jury may decide to say they are not guilty even if they believe the child is guilty because they believe like the judge here that an adults sentence is to much for the child when it's the judges responsibility to determine proper sentencing not the juries, or they may decide the child is guilty because of the fact they are being tried as an adult from the misguided perception that they would only try someone as an adult if they actually did it.

First, this judge is not against trying minors as adults...he was against this particular minor being charged as an adult because he got good grades and came from a "good family". If the accused was only a C student and his dad was the town drunk...would the judge have made the same decision?

Second, as I already said, by not informing the jury that the accused is being tried as an adult...that also risks them becoming prejudicial about the case. They might find that the prosecutor is pushing too hard. At least if they are informed of the fact that the accused is being tried as an adult...they have the proper context for the prosecutors actions.

Third, the whole process is different moving from juvenile court to criminal court. If the motion for trial as an adult is passed...then, effectively, that's the end of that trial and a new trial begins.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm ok with his argument if he can back it up with anything, but it honestly sounds like pseudoscience to me.

In general, I'm against rules that have exceptions or treat certain classes of citizens in a preferential way to others.

To be fair, most rules have exceptions. That's kinda why we need lawyers.

[Jonnusthegreat]

To be fair, most rules have exceptions. That's kinda why we need lawyers.

I think that's a problem. The fact that we need to pay people to understand the law that governs us is a problem in and of itself. Rules need to be written more rigidly to the point where people do not need "judges" to interpret the value of statements.

[Wilian]

Affluenza is a beautiful thing.

[Vash The Stampede]

I didn't know good test scores could get someone out of rape? Might as well add that a good Christian could get away with murder with that logic.

[Techno-Druid]

A minor correction with what I said, adolescents don't dare slightly worse in tests on cognitive control, they actually do better than adults in many instances.

Adolescents are just as capable as adults of controlling their behaviors to achieve their goals.


In fact, adolescents are actually more accurate than adults at laboratory tasks that measure cognitive control; they do just fine at things like updating knowledge of rules when they change or maintaining numbers in working memory. Person-to-person differences in these types of abilities within age groups are larger than the effect of being an adolescent or an adult.

Adolescents even do just as well, if not better, than adults at tasks that come with potential rewards. For example, adolescents are faster and more accurate than adults at refraining from pressing a button when they know strong performance on the task comes with a reward. Teens perform better even in emotional contexts if they are rewarded for success.

In both of these scenarios, being focused on getting a reward is helpful. In fact, if the stakes are high, teens are more deliberative and show more activity in control regions of the brain than adults.

Now there is one exception, teens tend to do worse than adults in experiments dealing with distractions.

For example, one study found adolescents were slower and less accurate at ignoring previously rewarding stimuli when they need to direct their decision-making attention elsewhere.

So teens don’t make decisions like adults. The real difference lies in what adolescents value. Gaining peer acceptance or a reward may outweigh the value adults place on delaying reward for a long-term nonsocial goal, such as financial stability.

@Themius @Evil Midnight Bomber @Jonnusthegreat

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I think that's a problem. The fact that we need to pay people to understand the law that governs us is a problem in and of itself. Rules need to be written more rigidly to the point where people do not need "judges" to interpret the value of statements.

There's pros and cons to that as well though. A more rigid system would make it easier to understand...but can also result in restricting freedoms.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't know good test scores could get someone out of rape? Might as well add that a good Christian could get away with murder with that logic.

Well, at the very least, in this case the appeals court made sure that this kid couldn't get out of rape. I do worry about how often it may have in other cases though...both by this judge and other "boys will be boys" judges.