« Examining the crimmigration connections between sentencing and deportation | Main | How many fundamental rights in the Bill of Rights can be uniquely regulated for adults under 21? »

December 15, 2015

NY Times debates " What Age Should Young Criminals Be Tried as Adults?"

The Room for Debate section of the New York Times has this new set of notable commentaries discussing the appropriate age for when an offender should (or should not be) brought into adult court for trial and sentencing. Here is the section's set up:

The governor of Connecticut has proposed raising the age juveniles can be tried as adults to 21 in attempts to keep more young people out of cycles of incarceration.  Michigan, one of few states that still charge 17-year-olds as adults, is also considering raising the age for eligibility of juvenile status to 18.  Is this a good idea?  What age is appropriate for young law-breakers to be tried as adults?

Here are the contributions, with links via the commentary titles:

December 15, 2015 at 11:34 AM | Permalink


Saying Michigan is one of the few states that tries 17 year olds as adults is misleading. Georgia is trying two 13 year olds as adults.

Posted by: Erik M | Dec 15, 2015 1:02:59 PM

NM recently tried a 15 and a 16 YO as adults.


So I agree with Eric M. that this debate is set up on a very misleading foundation which makes me skeptical of its well intention.

Posted by: Daniel | Dec 15, 2015 3:47:41 PM

This crime was committed at age 14.

Joe, a pro-criminal advocate, will oppose the death penalty.

The idea that a lawyer in the form of a judge will coddle this criminal is intolerable.

This awful left wing web site does not include the race, but we know the criminal is black. Black on white crime is many times more frequent than white on black crime. The number of rapes of white women by blacks is around 35,000. The reverse is close to zero. Thank the pro-criminal, anti-white lawyer profession protecting, privileging and empowering the black criminal. Why? To generate massive government make work jobs for the lawyer profession, of course.


I strongly support a direct action group of crime victims and their surviving families' bringing the violence to the judge for coddling this criminal. The judge should be made aware of his fate ahead of sentencing.

Because the judge has absolute legal immunity, violence is fully justified in formal logic. While the laws of physics all have some small degree of uncertainty, the laws of formal logic have zero uncertainty.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Dec 17, 2015 10:18:27 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB