Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Or possibly even younger...
This is the contention of Judge Rightly who considers that children of such an age should be held as accountable for their actions as adults to the point of their being executed for somehow committing a capitol crime. Does anyone else agree? Or do people find it as bemusing and nauseating as I do?
Here's my counterargument from another thread:
Five year old children are in the early stages of physiological/neurological development. This is plain and simple science. The reasoning centers of the brain are nowhere near fully formed yet. They are no way aware of the ramifications of their actions as a fully grown adult, again, basic science and common sense. This is why we have laws that recognize this and are enacted accordingly, not out of "legalism". It's also why we have laws that protect children along with denying them access to things that adults are allowed - tobacco/alcohol etc for reasons that again, should be obvious. Any sane, responsible and ethical society doesn't hold five year old children as accountable for their actions as fully developed adults. Do you need links to the science? In similar manner we don't hold the mentally impaired to the same standards as those fully compos mentis.
So, why stop at 5? Why not 4? 3? How about a one year old baby? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and presume that even you wouldn't hold a baby accountable for their actions but then why not? I can say it's ridiculous with free abandon but you, not so much can you? As I mentioned in an earlier exchange on another thread regarding this: The laws as they stand have an adult having sex with a ten year old as statutory child rape, period. The minor is deemed too young to give informed consent even if they claim to. I agree with this law as the adult is a predator and the child is a victim. Do you agree with this law? If you do then you've just blown your position on accountability completely out of the water as how can a five year old be deemed old enough to commit a capital crime and a child twice that age not be accountable for having sex if they say they consented to it? That's complete inconsistency on your part and if you don't agree with that law then you've just opened up one heck of a can of unsavoury worms...My position is easily consistent on both.
This is the contention of Judge Rightly who considers that children of such an age should be held as accountable for their actions as adults to the point of their being executed for somehow committing a capitol crime. Does anyone else agree? Or do people find it as bemusing and nauseating as I do?
Here's my counterargument from another thread:
MUSK BUYS TWITTER!
“It’s bang out the machete, boom in her face and grip her by the neck." -- Andrew Tate More on your hero here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11603179/Andrew-Tate-sex-trafficking-victim-duped-porn-worker-promise-marriage.html A real piece of work...
theologyonline.com
Five year old children are in the early stages of physiological/neurological development. This is plain and simple science. The reasoning centers of the brain are nowhere near fully formed yet. They are no way aware of the ramifications of their actions as a fully grown adult, again, basic science and common sense. This is why we have laws that recognize this and are enacted accordingly, not out of "legalism". It's also why we have laws that protect children along with denying them access to things that adults are allowed - tobacco/alcohol etc for reasons that again, should be obvious. Any sane, responsible and ethical society doesn't hold five year old children as accountable for their actions as fully developed adults. Do you need links to the science? In similar manner we don't hold the mentally impaired to the same standards as those fully compos mentis.
So, why stop at 5? Why not 4? 3? How about a one year old baby? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and presume that even you wouldn't hold a baby accountable for their actions but then why not? I can say it's ridiculous with free abandon but you, not so much can you? As I mentioned in an earlier exchange on another thread regarding this: The laws as they stand have an adult having sex with a ten year old as statutory child rape, period. The minor is deemed too young to give informed consent even if they claim to. I agree with this law as the adult is a predator and the child is a victim. Do you agree with this law? If you do then you've just blown your position on accountability completely out of the water as how can a five year old be deemed old enough to commit a capital crime and a child twice that age not be accountable for having sex if they say they consented to it? That's complete inconsistency on your part and if you don't agree with that law then you've just opened up one heck of a can of unsavoury worms...My position is easily consistent on both.
Last edited:
