• If you are having any problems posting threads plz message Kate. since latest update we have had 6 members with problems, sorted those but yet to find the problem.

Is 17 too young??

billybones

billybones

Thrillseeker
Legend Member
I`m starting to get sick n tired of all these 17 year olds we are not allowed to name and shame.
So many have so little regard for the law and once caught they claim they are still kids and don`t deserve to be punished.
Now when I was 17 friends and I tried our hardest to appear grown up.
We used to try our luck at the local bottle shop, went to buy cigarettes, tried going into night clubs and we have even been given a licence to drive.

Surely at 17 you know right from wrong...
 
110% they know better but I do agree that a 17y/o is still classed as a minor and as a result they should not be named.

Instead of naming the kids I think in serious cases (usually as a result of bad parenting) we need to name and shame the parents.
 
Bill - I'm not sure of the context of your post, however, our laws in WA are such that a minor's identify cant be revealed even if they are punished (yes, the criminal code can and does apply to minors, its the magnitude of the punishment that may differ).

The laws date back to when society was of the view that minors tendered to make "errors of judgment" and that they shouldn't have their lives affected negatively for doing something "stupid". Of course, the situation today is somewhat different. Some of today's "little angels" are committing crimes that would not be out of character of what is committed by adult criminals. The problem is that these laws have not changed with the times.

I'm still of the opinion that a minor's identity should not be disclosed, however, where minors are committing violent and repeated offences, then the laws need to be changed. In fact, there was an precedented situation a couple of years ago when a minor's identity was made public because this kid was a threat to society.

Just a thought.

Fudd :)
 
Its a flow on effect from younger. Childcare centers can't even give a kid timeout any more due to the mental harm, if they do they get fined.

While the extremes of canning etc are not required just talking to a kid will not always work no matter how much the do gooders want it to be true.
 
WRXXR said:
110% they know better but I do agree that a 17y/o is still classed as a minor and as a result they should not be named.

Instead of naming the kids I think in serious cases (usually as a result of bad parenting) we need to name and shame the parents.
Click to expand...


How is it fair to name n shame the parent??

Parents these days are told they cannot smack their child, raise their voice, lock them in their bedroom. All they seem to be able to do is try and talk to softly to the child and ask.... "why did you do that?"

Sometimes the child just simpy choices to be bad.

I do agree for simple crime they shouldn`t be named but for repeat offenders that choose not to listen it`s different.
 
How is it fair? Pretty simple really Bill, the majority of underage genuine criminals (as opposed to very minor stuff that gets u in a bit of strife) have a poor family upbringing leading them into a life of crime / drug abuse
 
WRXXR said:
How is it fair? Pretty simple really Bill, the majority of underage genuine criminals (as opposed to very minor stuff that gets u in a bit of strife) have a poor family upbringing leading them into a life of crime / drug abuse
Click to expand...

Sorry but I disagree, those with money can sometimes afford the best lawyers...
From what I have read in the papers most that steal cars, deal in green drugs may come from poor upbringing but then you get those that progress to white collar crime or deal in more harden drugs come from some of the better families...
Also to blame your parents shows that you don`t take responibility for your own actions.

After seeing my own mother abused I learnt it was wrong... not right.
 
My daughter had a junior high school classmate who was a real little prick always in trouble never charged got away with everything worst kid in town.
Anyway my girl had a bit of a crush on this boy and use to tell me about him, it turned out that he actuality thought the local cops liked and he could do as he wished.
By the time he turned 19 he no longer thought this.
 
Farm Boy said:
My daughter had a classmate who was a real little prick always in trouble never charged got away with everything worst kid in town.
Anyway my girl had a bit of a crush on this boy and use to tell me about him, it turned out that he actuality thought the local cops liked and he could do as he wished.
By the time he turned 19 he no longer though this.
Click to expand...

I`m happy he changed his ways but any idea why he changed and did he ever go back to apologize for the problems he had caused in the past??
 
billybones said:
I`m happy he changed his ways but any idea why he changed and did he ever go back to apologize for the problems he had caused in the past??
Click to expand...

No I never said he changed his ways Bill but he did find out that being charged as a adult was not fun and not only were not the cops not friendly,that in fact they had long memories and actuality were quite vindictive.
 
billybones said:
Sorry but I disagree, those with money can sometimes afford the best lawyers...
From what I have read in the papers most that steal cars, deal in green drugs may come from poor upbringing but then you get those that progress to white collar crime or deal in more harden drugs come from some of the better families...
Also to blame your parents shows that you don`t take responibility for your own actions.

After seeing my own mother abused I learnt it was wrong... not right.
Click to expand...

Your right, people need to take responsibility for their own actions but I will continue to believe that the majority of young people committing serious crimes (B&E, forceful robbery, bashings, car theft, glassings etc) come from a poor upbringing. Whether poor is financial or quality of parents is irrelevant. They don't know WTF discipline or responsibility is because their parents are just as bad. There's 100's of teachers who teach in less advantaged areas who will back this up. Ever seen a teacher make a year 1 student breakfast on a daily basis because they didn't get breakfast or lunch?

The only point some parents start to care is after their 15y/o kid is killed after stealing a car. Too little to late. If you think teenagers stick to the greens (dope!) you've got rocks in your head. Bucketload of minors on all sorts of gear.

White collar crimes generally aren't committed by kids. Usually comes from adults getting greedy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not saying the white collar is by kids but those that are more likely to have had a good education. Wh do you think they become greedy? Is it becaue they may hace grown up in a lifestyle where most of the things they wanted were handed to them on a plate?
 
Yep exactly and that's my point. Your simply a product of your environment.

Start off as lower class trash = generally going to stay that way and become a junkie / crim
Start off as a spoilt brat who gets what they want = never going to change.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
billybones said:
How is it fair to name n shame the parent??

Parents these days are told they cannot smack their child, raise their voice, lock them in their bedroom. All they seem to be able to do is try and talk to softly to the child and ask.... "why did you do that?"

Sometimes the child just simpy choices to be bad.

I do agree for simple crime they shouldn`t be named but for repeat offenders that choose not to listen it`s different.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you Billy Bones, although I must state that I do agree with the philosophy of not smacking, etc. I fail to see how parents can be responsible for their 17 year old's actions. Even if the kids were parented in an irresponsible way, how can you stop a 17 year old from doing what they want to do? Lock them up? I'm sure that is illegal in itself.
 
I have often thought the age of responsibility should be lowered As Alecia said
what can a parent do with a 17 year old but ask him/her nicely to be a good boy or girl.
And as others have said the rights of the child have gone to far and they will never swing back.
 
WRXXR said:
110% they know better but I do agree that a 17y/o is still classed as a minor and as a result they should not be named.

Instead of naming the kids I think in serious cases (usually as a result of bad parenting) we need to name and shame the parents.
Click to expand...

If you name the parents then you might as well just name the kid, the math wouldn't be too complicated for people to work out...
 
Your not allowed to give your kids a smack on the bum?
Yet how many men on this site have given a nice working ladies backside a little
tap every now and then?
 
happy2 said:
...Yet how many men on this site have given a nice working ladies backside a little tap every now and then?
Click to expand...

....ahhhh, reminds me of the good old days when nothing said a job well done like a good slap on the ass.......ahhhh....lol

Fudd :)
 
Farm Boy said:
A accurate and logical reply your Royal Highness, Your most humble Farm Boy is over come at your wisdom.
Click to expand...

Lol!

But yes DP, it does name the kids in a roundabout way but also puts some responsibility back on the parents for being bad parents. My concern is that if we name every 17y/o for the little stuff (underage street drinking etc) then those early one off mistakes could affect future careers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top