Adolescents are less guilty because of age?

This topic brings up a very controversial debate about the age of which a crime is committed and its consequences. I think that Lee Malvo's sentence of life in prison is sufficient for the crimes that he has committed, given that he was only 17 years of age. Although I say this, I do believe that he was fully aware of his actions; that his cognitive capabilities was similar to that of an adult's. Malvo was not officially an adult yet, had he been, then yes, he should have been sent to death row. I guess this sort of floats around the official laws and rules that our country has set down.

This has been a very controversial topic in our society. In high school I took a psychology class and we discussed this very question in depth. Because Malvo did receive a life sentence I feel that he was tried as an adult as he should have been. When determining a sentence for a minor, I think it's important to look and what crime he/she committed and how she did it. If you look at that way, you can distinguish whether the minor should be tried as an adult. In Malvo's case I think there is no question that he should have been tried as an adult.

The blog really talk about a very controversial topic. Should the guilty be judged differently just because of the younger age? Actually, the teenager have the sense of what is right and what is wrong, and they have the ability to judge the right or wrong. However, they still insist to do so, that will be the problem of the teenager not the law.

This is a really interesting topic to think about. It is known that teenagers can tell right from wrong, but depending on what children's mentors teach them as children, their ideas of right and wrong can be very skewed. In this case for a 17 year old to participate voluntarily in the killing of so many people, I would venture to say it is not too bold to say his morals are slightly skewed do their teaching, just like any other child is taught morals from a mentor. Do to this, is there any reason Lee Malvo shouldn't be tried as adults? From my perspective, I doubt he will ever change his morals. If you want to have faith, then give him a couple life sentences with a miniscule possibility of parole, but I would not recommend it.

This topic is so controversial and has so many different sides to it, very interesting choice for a blog post. I see both sides to it, and still haven't quite figured out where I stand. On one hand I think it's interesting that part of our brains is not fully developed until our mid 20s, but on the other hand making a decision like killing people is unforgivable. I also think it's interesting that people think had his trial been held at a different time that he would've gotten the death penalty.

agree that people can be easily manipulated by others, I feel that most young adults would be able to distinguish between right and wrong. However, the argument that may come out of this is what age is it that people are able to distinguish right from wrong. This is probably part of the main discussion when people are trying to determine whether to try someone as an adult or not. As far as this case, I feel that Malvo should have been tried as his adult because of the crimes committed and because he seems to be at an age where he should be able to distinguish between right and wrong.

I think it depends on the case, the crime, and the mental state of the criminal. Age should have a say if they are extremely young and they don't know that why they did was wrong. These cases are very rare however. Typically if a person is in their teens and kills someone, they know what they are doing and they know it's wrong. I believe that if a person can distinguish right from wrong, their cases should be handled the same across the boards, no matter what the age. There are other crimes where age could be taken into consideration, however murder of another person is a very serious crime and should be dealt with as such.

All of these cases I think need to be evaluated on their own. There's really no real answer. It's really hard to sentence someone so young to death, and at the same time prison capacity, the severity of the crime, and hope for improvement are all factors that effect that decision. Morally, this is a question I don't think anyone can answer, or should try to answer. But I can acknowledge that someone has to do it ( just don't make it me).