In the Middle Ages fathers were allowed to kill their children, but modern society prohibits that practice.
But the tradeoff is that modern society has a problem with out-of-control kids. A case in point: A 13-year-old crashed a stolen car while being chased by police on Saturday, April 8, 2023, in Woodland, California; the wreck killed a woman and injured 10 others, including him. The photo below shows the aftermath. What a mess.
Other cases of children who wreak havoc include robbery, murder, gang activity — and, of course, school shootings.
Why some kids behave criminally is complicated. Lack of parenting and supervision, sure, and growing up in a dysfunctional social environment contributes to juveniles’ problem behavior. But not all kids from bad neighborhoods with lousy parents are bad kids. On some level, bad kids choose to behave badly.
Sanctimonious types will say we need to return to restore traditional families and values; to wit, in a “Leave It To Beaver” society, kids don’t commit horrific crimes. But that society never existed, and was always impossible of being realized. “The Beav” and his family were a TV fantasy sold to the masses in order to sell soap. There have always been inner cities, poverty, broken families, and juvenile criminals.
Needless to say, high-profile crimes by kids provoke public outrage, and prosecutors usually respond by trying them as adults, so they can be punished with adult penalties (e.g., life in prison). But in October 2018, the Washington supreme court decided “it’s unconstitutional to sentence juveniles of any age to life without parole” (see story here), reasoning that children’s brains aren’t fully developed, and therefore they can’t be held fully accountable for their actions.
But there’s a conservative-liberal philosophical split on this issue. The more conservative you are, the more likely you are to think that’s claptrap. In 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court’s freshly-ensconced conservative majority went the other way, breaking with the same court’s earlier 2012 decision, saying it’s up to the states (see story here). They agreed that “[d]etermining the proper sentence in such a case raises profound questions of morality and social policy,” but just wouldn’t take responsibility for having the final word, in the process discarding the notion that the U.S. Constitution protects citizens from overreaching state action.
The philosophical split is two-fold: Conservatives are more inclined to crack down on juvenile offenders, but mostly the conservative justices want to eviscerate the federal government and empower states, with trickle-down impacts on child criminals.
So if you’re a conservative, you’d throw the book at this 13-year-old car thief turned killer when he gets out of the hospital. If you’re not, what to do with a kid like this? Lock him up in juvie until he’s 21, then turn him loose on society, hoping he grew up and learned to be responsible while incarcerated with teenage robbers and murderers?
The juvenile and adult criminal justice systems have different objectives. The former aims to rehabilitate; the latter to punish. For that reason, and others, juvenile and adult courts are separate. What the two systems have in common, though, is they both aim to keep dangerous individuals off the streets, at least in theory. (At this point, cue background laughter.)
Many crime victims, and people worried about becoming victims, think our criminal justice system is laughable. Here in Seattle, we have street people who’ve committed dozens of assaults, yet they’re still on the streets. I’m sure the same is true in other cities. If you’re robbed, you want the perp(s) to rot in jail. If your loved one is murdered, you want to state to throw the key away, even if the murderer is a kid.
The 13-year-old boy who stole a car, ran from the police, and crashed into other cars is a killer. He probably didn’t intend to hurt anyone, and likely is too young and immature to appreciate the seriousness of his actions; but that won’t stop some people from considering him a murderer, and pointing to him as an example of someone who should be locked up permanently.
That’s revenge talk, and civilized people aren’t supposed to seek retribution (it’s not nice), but I guarantee there will be a great deal of frustration if he’s “allowed to get away with it.” Some people, at least, will say “I don’t care what his excuse or problem is, I want him punished.” Others will say, “I don’t believe in revenge, but I want society protected from him.”
Our criminal justice system consistently fails to protect us from incidents like this. Deterrence is difficult or impossible to quantify, maybe there’s some, but it doesn’t feel like there is, especially when things like this keep happening.
In college, I learned there was an ancient Polynesian society that had a very low crime rate. They had no laws, prosecutors, courts, or jails. But they did have an annual feast day, with a human sacrifice, who was elected by the entire village. Let’s just say bad behavior was rare in that tribe.
I’m not suggesting that as a solution, even if it were practical, which it isn’t. Nor am I arguing for reinstating a parental prerogative to kill their children. That wouldn’t work anyway for kids don’t have parents, because they’re in jail or absent or on drugs, or whatever. I do think we have to keep dangerous people off the streets for our own self-preservation. That’s the starting point for any debate about how to deal with dangerous juveniles; how to do that, and what (if any) limits to put on it, is what we’ll be arguing about.
