When is a child morally responsible for his or her own actions?

[Crystal Shards]

Then you're a sheep and part of the reason why every generation this year is going to further turn this world into a -/1 Arran with his bases cut in half. That's how fucked up the world is right now.

Oh, and we can blame previous generations too for the shit THEY'VE done.

Japanese prison camps, the A-bomb, etc.

What the fuck are you talking about?

[Candlejack]

I believe ten is too high of an age still. Using myself as an example, even when I was an eight year old, I remember my friend suggesting out of nowhere we go to the shop and steal a 16p packet of chewing gums each, and we did so. I knew damn well it was wrong to do that back then, because I was brought up to know that taking things from a shop without paying was the wrong thing to do. I did it simply because my friend was also going to do it.

[/color]

I was referring to this. I can honestly say there hasn't been a single instance when I was THAT young but a part of some sort of fashion. Or at the very least a follower to someone. So I might have been harsh in calling you a sheep; you know, father in ICU and all gets me raged; but still.

If you're referring to whatever else I was talking about then our world, without doubt, is a very cruel place. There's too much bad to all the good.

[lolDeath]

17.

[emblempride]

Sorry to just jump in here, but I personally believe it depends on the development of the child, not really a set thing. Especially considering mental disorders and other factors. Oh well. Feel free to rip this post to shreds, I'm too lazy to think this through. I'm also too lazy to come up with a general answer, yet I'm not too lazy to actually post. Yah.

Edited December 23, 2009 by emblempride

[Raven]

Then you're a sheep and part of the reason why every generation this year is going to further turn this world into a -/1 Arran with his bases cut in half. That's how fucked up the world is right now.

Back when I was eight years old, yes I did follow a lot of what my friends did, and they followed me as well. It's what kids tend to do out of habit and a lack of awareness of limits and how far lines go. I knew taking the gum was "bad", but i didn't know or care how bad at the time. All I cared about was that my friend suggested it, and whatever happened to him would surely happen to me as well. Was you ever in a situation where you said "He did it too!" as a form of defense for your actions? Just like that.

[Nightmare]

That right there just shows that you didn't really understand the concept of good and bad, at least not as much as you should have.

[Colonel N]

I haven't read over the whole topic but I get the gist of this, now, so I will just add my input...

I'll say that seven sounds pretty young to me, so probably nine or so...maybe eight, but a mature eight, not exactly your average eight-year old girl/boy will understand the full consequences of their decision to end a life, or whatever other situation may arise.

Fifteen is relatively old, and by twelve or thirteen one can easily understand enough of the consequences to know what could happen if they did anything morally "evil" or wrong, as well as whether or not it is wrong.

[Fayt Zelpher]

Personally, I think that we assume too much at least three different fronts. First, we assume too much that there is a 'good' and and 'evil'. To some extent, I agree. I would think that killing another usually wrong, but what about in self defense or the defense of another life. Stealing is wrong, but what if you have no other alternative to find food (laid off + dwindling aid in this economy)? Lying is 'wrong', but is it as bad when we do it to be 'polite'?

Secondly, I think that we place too much weight on what is legal. Just because something is legal doesn't mean that it's morally valid (Corporate behavior?) and just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's wrong (Jim Crow laws?).

But I think that the key thing here is that, as an individualistic society (no judgement call here, merely stating the facts), we place too much culpability on the individual and give too little weight to the situation. The "...but my friend made me do it" excuse is the perfect example. We humans are social creatures, and very few of us (especially kids and teenagers) can consistently resist these social pressures. (Drinking Parties for high school and college students?), Especially when we are exposed to such violence and other "questionable" content these days.

Realistically, I don't think that a person should even be legally allowed to be tried in Juvenile court until 11 or so, and certainly no government discipline (jail, mandatory counseling, etc.) until at least 13 1/2 or 14. I think that we need to realize that even if a child knows logically that something is 'wrong', we should expect them to resist peer pressure until relatively late. Personally, I think that, in many cases, 18 is too early to impose criminal culpability, in cases where we've got no family support, single unwed mother, father absent, jailed, or dead, gangs rampant, schools that are failing.

We need to put society on trial (that includes you and me) every now and then to make sure that we aren't failing these kids. We're ultimately just as guilty most of the time.

P.S. I fully expect to be denounced and ridiculed for the contents of this post, but I cannot change how I feel.

[quanta]

Personally, I think that, in many cases, 18 is too early to impose criminal culpability, in cases where we've got no family support, single unwed mother, father absent, jailed, or dead, gangs rampant, schools that are failing.

We need to put society on trial (that includes you and me) every now and then to make sure that we aren't failing these kids. We're ultimately just as guilty most of the time.

P.S. I fully expect to be denounced and ridiculed for the contents of this post, but I cannot change how I feel.

It is difficult to force people as a group to be culpable for something if you can't get them to accept some level of individual responsibility/guilt. The other issue is well... you can't expect people to be responsible if you never hold them responsible. Delaying culpability pushes back the age at which people begin to see more serious consequences for their actions, which could prolong bad behavior. On the other hand, 18 is an arbitrary cutoff point, and I can see argument for say... 21 being the age of a legal adult (since that's the legal drinking age, and there might be some level of biological/psychological argument for letting people's brains mature a little bit more). Really... +-3 years from 18 wouldn't bother me too much.

The other problem I see is that coddling bad behavior can make it worse. It's a pretty simple idea. A lower level of punishment decreases the disincentive to do something. The more important question is how much does it cost everyone else to impose the punishment relative to the payoff from imposing it; this... is very hard to calculate. Compassion is good, but compassion should not be confused with lenience. They are different things. How you punish people and whether or not this is followed by an attempt to evaluate and reform them makes a big difference to how fair things are to people who are essentially screwed by life.

I also agree that there are multiple facets to the question. Being morally responsible for something does not necessarily imply being legally responsible (and vice-versa). I believe that when people become morally responsible varies highly from person to person. But legally, I believe some sort of arbitrary number must be set in order for the law to be as fair and consistent as possible. Somewhere between 16 and 20-something is a good point for this, and given the way American society works for most people, 18 makes a lot of sense since that's when you get out of high school.

[Fayt Zelpher]

Personally, I think that, in many cases, 18 is too early to impose criminal culpability, in cases where we've got no family support, single unwed mother, father absent, jailed, or dead, gangs rampant, schools that are failing.

We need to put society on trial (that includes you and me) every now and then to make sure that we aren't failing these kids. We're ultimately just as guilty most of the time.

P.S. I fully expect to be denounced and ridiculed for the contents of this post, but I cannot change how I feel.

It is difficult to force people as a group to be culpable for something if you can't get them to accept some level of individual responsibility/guilt. The other issue is well... you can't expect people to be responsible if you never hold them responsible. Delaying culpability pushes back the age at which people begin to see more serious consequences for their actions, which could prolong bad behavior. On the other hand, 18 is an arbitrary cutoff point, and I can see argument for say... 21 being the age of a legal adult (since that's the legal drinking age, and there might be some level of biological/psychological argument for letting people's brains mature a little bit more). Really... +-3 years from 18 wouldn't bother me too much.

The other problem I see is that coddling bad behavior can make it worse. It's a pretty simple idea. A lower level of punishment decreases the disincentive to do something. The more important question is how much does it cost everyone else to impose the punishment relative to the payoff from imposing it; this... is very hard to calculate. Compassion is good, but compassion should not be confused with lenience. They are different things. How you punish people and whether or not this is followed by an attempt to evaluate and reform them makes a big difference to how fair things are to people who are essentially screwed by life.

I also agree that there are multiple facets to the question. Being morally responsible for something does not necessarily imply being legally responsible (and vice-versa). I believe that when people become morally responsible varies highly from person to person. But legally, I believe some sort of arbitrary number must be set in order for the law to be as fair and consistent as possible. Somewhere between 16 and 20-something is a good point for this, and given the way American society works for most people, 18 makes a lot of sense since that's when you get out of high school.

Without spending a long time writing this out, I will simply say that a lot of crime and bad behavior could be prevented if outside forces are not controlled. As I said earlier, we as a Western society and an individualistic culture place too much of the responsibility for behavior without first addressing the external causes of that behavior. People do make bad choices, but society makes bad choices as well. Considering that so much crime is caused by the most disadvantaged people in society, perhaps if we provided aid and support to these people instead of locking everyone up (which leads to more gangs, dropouts, lower household incomes - all of which lead to more crime), maybe we wouldn't have to worry about all these bad decisions. Rather than deciding how to punish and discipline people, let's find ways to prevent them from making bad choices in the first place.

[volkethereaper]

To be honest with you, I think we may live in a society that puts too much emphasis on individual responsibility, but it seems to me that as individuals we tend to overcompensate for this. I, and everyone (yes, everyone) I know has trouble taking responsibility for their actions. Certainly external motivators are a key component to the way we act, but ultimately it comes down to our own choices, and we can choose the other way, even if it is difficult. Why else, throughout history, are the self-disciplined regarded as heroes or leaders? Theseus, Ulysses, Siddhartha Gotama, Jesus, King Arthur, Robin Hood, Cincinnatus, Solomon, Washington, etc. These people exemplify self control and responsibility. Ultimately, the ideal of our ability to determine our own actions is something not just societal, but primal. We can think, we can choose, and therefor we have a responsibility to choose wisely. However, only those who understand this should be held responsible for it. So I say eighteen+ also, but for dramatically different reasons.