769
submitted 9 months ago by Plw@lemmy.today to c/facepalm@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

Sure we need to figure out if the parents put her up to this as well. But we don't even know thats the case here. For all we know she heard the word somewhere and thought it would be fun to claim this. People, even children, need to face up to what they have done. Just curious, in your version of the legal system you want us to start using...at what age do we ignore what a child has done and only punish the adults? 18 when they are legally an adult themselves?

Also...The monkey in your analogy would, beyond a shadow of a doubt, be killed because it was a threat. Nobody would even think twice about putting a bullet in it.

[-] jnplch@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 9 months ago

If you look at the Wikipedia entry for “age of criminal responsibility,” quite a few countries think that children under a certain age just plain cannot be held responsible for a crime. Of course, in the US it’s different and there are some states where age does exempt from responsibility and some where it doesn’t.

[-] ByGourou@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

For me it's a slider, the older the more responsible, at 15 I would agree with you, but 10 I definitely think the parents should be the ones in court.

Would the monkey really be put down tho ? If it still holds the flamethrower of course, because it's still a threat, but after the fact I don't think so.

[-] bane_killgrind@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago

Not "put her up to it"... 'allowed the behaviour"

There's the other article about a 17 year old being killed during a welfare check so getting put down doesn't seem to make a distinction.

this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
769 points (100.0% liked)

Facepalm

2639 readers
2 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS