HabboxWiki needs you!
Are you a Habbo buff? Or maybe a rare trader with a bunch of LTDs? Get involved with HabboxWiki to share your knowledge!
Join our team!
Whether you're raving for rares, excited for events or happy helping, there's something for you! Click here to apply
Need a helping hand?
Check out our guides for all things to help you make friends, make rooms, and make money!


Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    5,640
    Tokens
    11,359
    Habbo
    djclune

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Right-Wing View Post
    I only read the starting post so sorry for any repitition.

    My opinion is it should be raised to at least 16. Why? Well..

    16 is the legal age for sex + marriage + smoking. The law clearly sees 16 as an age of responsibility and decision awareness.
    At the age of 16 you will have better judgement, that's obvious. But you understand the difference between righ or wrong at a much younger age. Are you actually comparing the maturity it takes to drive with the most basic principles that are right and wrong which even a toddler can understand.

    At 16 you can also leave school. I think 16 is the age where you are mature enough to understand the law, why it's there and what will happen if you break it.
    Again, yes, at the age of 16 you will have time to think about what you want to do in the future, what career path you want to take which are big decisions, but again, it's a failed comparison to understanding why killing someone is wrong.

    At 10 you probably don't understand much other than a policeman coming and saying "don't be naughty or you'll be arrested".
    I understood a lot more than that at the age of 10, I knew if I had done something wrong and I'm sure every normal child would understand that taking the life of someone is wrong, no matter what age.

    Why is 10 seen as the age of understanding and decision making when its breaking the law but 16 or 18 is when it is making the law?
    Because those decisions at 16 and 18 take a mature mind to understand whereas right and wrong are basic principles taught to us at a very young age.
    They should be all the same imo. And no I'm not saying 10 year olds should be allowed to marry, I think that if the law says we can make informed decisions on breaking the law at 10 but not marriage or sex until 16 - which it does - it contradicts itself. Yes were fully aware were breaking the law when we are 10 but we can't have sex until were 16 because were not informed enough to make that decision...right.
    People can't have sex legally until the age of 16 because they are going through puberty, if the legal age of consent was 10, we would have a problem with paedophiles.

    I still can't comprehend how you can compare being mature enough to drive, to understanding your own actions and whether they are good or bad decisions.
    That's when Ron vanished, came back speaking Spanish
    Lavish habits, two rings, twenty carats

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    /b/
    Posts
    54
    Tokens
    0
    Habbo
    Impeachment

    Default

    I've read a few posts, and as far as I can tell people have gotten onto the subject of young kids committing murder.
    Heres my view :

    I think the age of which you can be charged as an adult should be 16. Why? Because at 16 you know your rights from your wrongs (to a higher extent then younger kids). You also make more life changing decisions, which puts you at a more mature spot. At 7 or 10 you don't make the decision to become a lawyer, or an accountant, or an IT person. You're mentally not prepared to make that decision.

    Now while kids are raised, they learn their rights from wrongs.
    Don't eat cookies before dinner. (Kind of a dumb one, but I was taught that)
    Don't steal things.
    Don't hurt people.
    Don't break the law.

    Okay yes at 10 you're told not to break the law, but at 10, I didn't even know the law. I didn't know what was illegal. I didn't know sneaking a sip out of dad's beer while he's not looking was illegal. I was care-free wanted to be with friends. I was in 3rd grade for pete's sake.

    Now i'm 17. I know the law, I know killing someone is illegal, and drinking underage is illegal.

    Now does this exclude these young kids from federal punishments for high crimes? No. Clearly you can't slap a kid on the wrist if he commits murder. You'd be insane to do that. A kid who commits murder whether or not the kid knew it was wrong, and/or illegal should get the full punishment.

    That's like letting a guy who hit someone in the head with a sledgehammer who not knowing the guy would die, be free of any charges.

    High crimes (Grand Theft Auto, Murder, other serious felonies).. Yes the kid should have the full justice system thrown at him.

    Misdemeanors (Shoplifting, Sneaking drinks of alcohol, etc).. No, these can easily be resolved with a slap on the wrist, and giving them a firm talk about how thats wrong, and no real legal issues should be pursued.


    -------
    Already had the quick thought of someone asking me "Well, weren't you told not to kill other people?"
    Directly I don't think many were "told" to not kill someone. At that point in life as a parent (looking at a parent's point of view, I didn't get anyone knocked up..) I'd assume my kid wouldn't know how to kill someone, or want to kill someone.

    Of course with today's media, and availability of information, and access of this information, it isn't hard for a kid to get a hold of how to kill someone. I'm pretty sure, a quick google search, could prompt several answers and help a kid kill someone.

    When I was young, I hardly knew what the computer was, I was out having fun in the sprinkler, and swimming and hanging with friends. However, a neglected kid, may not have friends, and may seek attention online, may be more resourceful at finding this information then I would be back when I was 10.
    Last edited by Impeachment; 06-06-2011 at 11:01 PM.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    660
    Tokens
    0

    Default

    From a very early age you understand the word no. It's weird but my nephew is 18 months. He's currently learning to talk and only knows like 6 words and doesn't know how he's using them, before he knew how to speak any of that or before he could walk, he knew and still knows, the word no. If you say no - he will stop what he is doing. He might have a little hissy fit when you say no, but he will not continue to do what he was doing. Why? Because when he does, he is punished.

    Once he's been put to bed or I've taken away his toys for messing with the TV controls and I said no but he didn't listen, next time I said no to the controls he stopped. At 18 months, he is being punished for his actions and knows right and wrong by the TV.

    Then we get onto about 5 years of age and the child is in education. They are taught right and wrong within school and they are punished within school. The punishments are more severe in schools because they are capable of more serious wrong actions. The actions are punished and the child knows.

    I think the age of 8 is the right age for a person to be held accountable for their actions, within reason. By law, all Primary Schools are forced to teach kids as young as 5 the basic aspects of the law. Not to steal, not to cause harm to someone else. Once taught they know the difference between right and wrong and they'll match those new laws they've learned to the other forbidden things within school or home they have been punished for. Someone at the age of 8 should be held responsible if they have broken a law they know about.

    18? No way!

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Essex
    Posts
    23,585
    Tokens
    9,258

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    10 seems like a nice, wholesome number and at the age of 10 you should have at least some sense of right and wrong. It also depends what way they are labelled a "criminal" and the crime they have committed. Venables and Thompson are a prime example of true, child criminals as the crime they had committed was disgusting and they must have known what they were doing. Any 10 year old who senselessly kills like they did deserve the label of "criminal". What they did had some thought put into it. If a child accidentally kills then maybe the label could not be applied to them, but it all depends on remorse, the crime they committed etc.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    /b/
    Posts
    54
    Tokens
    0
    Habbo
    Impeachment

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay. View Post
    From a very early age you understand the word no. It's weird but my nephew is 18 months. He's currently learning to talk and only knows like 6 words and doesn't know how he's using them, before he knew how to speak any of that or before he could walk, he knew and still knows, the word no. If you say no - he will stop what he is doing. He might have a little hissy fit when you say no, but he will not continue to do what he was doing. Why? Because when he does, he is punished.

    Once he's been put to bed or I've taken away his toys for messing with the TV controls and I said no but he didn't listen, next time I said no to the controls he stopped. At 18 months, he is being punished for his actions and knows right and wrong by the TV.

    Then we get onto about 5 years of age and the child is in education. They are taught right and wrong within school and they are punished within school. The punishments are more severe in schools because they are capable of more serious wrong actions. The actions are punished and the child knows.

    I think the age of 8 is the right age for a person to be held accountable for their actions, within reason. By law, all Primary Schools are forced to teach kids as young as 5 the basic aspects of the law. Not to steal, not to cause harm to someone else. Once taught they know the difference between right and wrong and they'll match those new laws they've learned to the other forbidden things within school or home they have been punished for. Someone at the age of 8 should be held responsible if they have broken a law they know about.

    18? No way!
    Mmm.. 8 is still too low. Primary school is like an american elementary i'd guess. In which you learn the fundamentals of law. I honestly, at eight, was in some program where we learned the fundamentals of the economy, and how to invest in money.. really?

    If I were to give a good age, I still think 16 is good, but a more reasonable, 12. Pre-teen, before you are a teenager, you'd know right from wrong and be on a good track.

    12 is my final answer.
    16, now that I think of it is good, but it's also not good. It's older in life, and by then who knows what a child could do.
    /finalanswer :3

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    660
    Tokens
    0

    Default

    16 is too high, teenagers are up to all sort of knife crime or whatever these days.

    How are you comparing the law to the fundamentals of the economy and how to invest in money, the law is really simple when at the fundamentals and all the children DO understand the consequences, so why can't they be forced?

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    /b/
    Posts
    54
    Tokens
    0
    Habbo
    Impeachment

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay. View Post
    16 is too high, teenagers are up to all sort of knife crime or whatever these days.

    How are you comparing the law to the fundamentals of the economy and how to invest in money, the law is really simple when at the fundamentals and all the children DO understand the consequences, so why can't they be forced?
    What i'm saying is, Is that, while you were learning the basics of the law, I was learning the basics of money management/economy crap..
    Will answer later, kind of rushed for time.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    660
    Tokens
    0

    Default

    I am pretty sure at 8 you knew not to steal other peoples' things, not to murder or hurt anyone. Even your parents indirectly teach you that and because of that you should be punished when you do it!

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    N.Ireland
    Posts
    6,257
    Tokens
    23,061
    Habbo
    Red

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    At 10 you probably don't understand much other than a policeman coming and saying "don't be naughty or you'll be arrested".
    Children are a lot smarter than you give them credit for. 10 year olds are capable of more intelligent thought than simply 'don't be naughty or you'll be arrested.' They know the differences between right and wrong and its fact that children have made calculated murders etc. so they should be punished accordingly. I really can't see why people think 16 is an ok age. If a 15 year old murdered your loved one then do you think they should be let of scott free? :S
    +1

  10. #20

    Default

    I would honestly lower it down from 10 to maybe 8 and 1/2 or 9. Since most children should know right from wrong at that age, we all knew its bad to hurt people, if not murder or seriously harm a person!


Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •