Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Age of Innocence
Last week's group brought up the topic of youth and the death penalty. In the United States of America 18 is considered the age at which one can no longer be tried as an adult, but what message is that delivering? In the Christian religion there is something that is known as the age of innocence. The age of innocence is the age in which someone is permitted into heaven without "knowing acceptance of God." It is assumed that children of such a young age cannot consciously make the decision as to what there faith is, and in the eyes of God, these people are admitted into heaven. Now, I am in no way trying to turn this into a religious struggle, but I really like the idea of the age of innocence, and I think that the timeline that is followed in religion can be a similar timeline to that of what should be followed for the law. As a Catholic, my first Holy Communion into the eyes of God took place when I was in first grade. First grade. And then the official Confirmation of the Catholic Religion comes at around eight grade. Eight grade. This happens at about age 13. This is similar to the Jewish religion, where one's Bar Mitzvah comes at the age of 13. At that age humans are considered competent enough to commit themselves to one religion for the rest of their lives. I'd be willing to wager that at this age we are also capable of knowing the law. I am certain that I KNEW and UNDERSTOOD what it meant to kill somebody at the age of thirteen. I don't think that there should be an age limit to being tried as an adult, especially in cases such as these. It should go on a case by case basis, and the rule of "age of innocence" should be employed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I cannot say that I completely agree with your post. The "age of innocence" is simply what you stated it to be, a religious concept. When it comes to the law, there are different state provisions that allow for there to be variations of ages at which people are considered to be able to be tried as adults and so forth. When the death penalty was still a viable option for juveniles it was something that was only considered for 16 and 17 year-old juveniles, as they were considered to be more mature and more competent in their decisions to commit more serious crimes. I think when it comes to the sentencing juveniles, the individual case does need to be considered but the laws that are there to protect juveniles are also very necessary. When a juvenile's brain is still developing and they are still so dependent on others, such as parents and teachers, they cannot be expected to fully comprehend all aspects of the law. When a juvenile kills an abusive parent or in a situation were they were betrayed due to their age and immaturity, they should not be tried as an adult and they should be given a chance to change and not be tried as adults.
ReplyDelete