[rayiner]

I wish people would stop using the word “child” in an effort to minimize criminal behavior by young adults. A 16 or 17 year old isn’t a “child.” The Marquis de Lafayette and James Manor were just 18 when the revolutionary war started. Societies going back to ancient times ascribed significant responsibility to teenagers. And in modern times, there is a scientific basis for distinguishing between adolescents and children when it comes to brain development. Historically, adolescents were treated like adults.

The article’s focus on moral culpability also overlooks the key purpose of the justice system: protecting society from criminals. In that respect, the age actually creates a bigger risk. People who start engaging in criminal conduct at an earlier age more likely to engage in criminal behavior as adults: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/youth-justice-involvemen... (“Continuity of offending from the juvenile into the adult years is higher for people who start offending at an early age, chronic delinquents, and young people who commit violent offenses.”). If you look at the curve of when violent conduct occurs, it peaks from ages 13-25. And it’s actually about as high at age 13 as it is at age 25, with the peak around 18-19.

A more rational and less emotional sentencing system would be harsher on teenage offenders while reducing sentences overall. If someone is committing violent crimes at age 15, that signals an increased risk of violent criminality for the next decade. Short sentences will mean that person will keep victimizing society repeatedly over that period. On the other hand, multi-decade sentences are counter productive. Violent criminality drops sharply after age 40.

[seanmcdirmid]

Young people have a much higher chance of reforming if society puts some effort into it. Juveniles especially need to be put on the right track somehow. Ignoring the problem is definitely not the answer, but neither is focusing on punishment rather than rehabilitation.

[soulbadguy]

> focusing on punishment rather than rehabilitation.

punishment is a prerequisit to rehabilitation

[y0eswddl]

no, it's not. consequences are. and we don't need to hurt people to get accountability.

[bigbadfeline]

> and we don't need to hurt people to get accountability.

Then don't hurt people, and ask that from those who do... if you don't want somebody else to do it to them.

[rayiner]

Citation needed on that first point. I think the evidence shows the opposite. People who start committing crime earlier are more likely to simply be bad people rather than people who happened to be in bad circumstances.

[seanmcdirmid]

Kids are incredibly malleable, although they are mostly a function of their environment. Childhood really the only time you have to form them. Teenager are just bigger kids.

But yes, young people are more likely to re-offend, especially if society has given up on them. Older people tend to get beaten down by lots of wisdom, either learnt the easy way or the hard way.

[rayiner]

> Kids are incredibly malleable, although they are mostly a function of their environment.

Incorrect as to the word “mostly.” See: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/from-freud-to-fluoxe... (“Roughly half or more of the variance in most personality traits is attributable to genetic factors”). And even though environmental factors play a large role, by the time you're confronted with an adolescent who has committed a serious crime, a lot of that has already been baked in through the pre-adolescent environment.

> Teenager are just bigger kids.

That’s completely contrary to science. Teenagers are teenagers. Their brains are distinct both from children and from adults. In fact, the reason violence peaks at around 18-19 is because the development of the emotional centers outruns the development of the prefrontal cortex that provides impulse control.

And of course in terms of physical strength and capacity to do violence, men reach a substantial fraction of their full adult strength by age 15.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> People who start committing crime earlier are more likely to simply be bad people rather than people who happened to be in bad circumstances.

This is an unreasonable claim without the evidence actually being provided. It reads more as the conclusion you expect to see when you pull up a given study. Especially "simply be bad people" is not a particularly scientific phrase, and is a particularly moralistic one.

[rayiner]

You've got it backward. The notion that criminals are simply ordinary people who find themselves in certain circumstances is the moralistic concept. It's something people want to be true, because it implies that we can reduce crime by fixing the circumstances that cause people to commit crime.

But science shows that criminals are literally wired differently. For example, the brains of youth homicide offenders are different than those of non-offenders. Computer models can actually predict future homicidal behavior from clinical data and brain scans: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-32782-5 ("Classification through machine learning models using these clinical and neural data predicted which formerly incarcerated youth committed a future homicide as adults with high accuracy.").

Similarly, we know traits such as ADHD are caused by brain chemistry rather than the environment. Compared to the general population, ADHD is over-represented in prison populations by a factor of 5 for youth and 10 for adults: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4301200/ ("Compared with published general population prevalence, there is a fivefold increase in prevalence of ADHD in youth prison populations (30.1%) and a 10-fold increase in adult prison populations (26.2%).").

Of course, none of that is to say we should do some pre-crime like process where we imprison people with ADHD who haven't done anything wrong. Instead, the point is that youth who commit serious crimes are disproportionately likely to be the ones who commit crimes due to factors intrinsic to the individual. That cuts against the popular notion that youth offenders are the ones who are more likely to be able to be "saved" through societal intervention. E.g., an adult drug dealer who shoots someone in an altercation over a drug deal may well be easier to rehabilitate than a teenager who shoots a classmate over social conflict.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> You've got it backward. The notion that criminals are simply ordinary people who find themselves in certain circumstances is the moralistic concept.

Two things can be true at once. My point was about the quote I pulled. Other perspectives on the topic are a separate matter.

> But science shows that criminals are literally wired differently. For example, the brains of youth homicide offenders are different than those of non-offenders.

Regardless, science doesn't show how these differences form; this phrasing smuggles a nature over nurture perspective as a fact: "more likely to simply be bad people rather than people who happened to be in bad circumstances" (as well as "science shows that criminals are literally wired differently" and "the point is that youth who commit serious crimes are disproportionately likely to be the ones who commit crimes due to factors intrinsic to the individual"). My point is that the statements I quoted are not strictly true, they are what the author expects to be true; I suppose there may be some reason other than morals for said expectation but, seeing as you didn't deny my framing, instead reversing it, I suspect it is accurate.

[TimorousBestie]

If you ignore the essentialist phrasing, he’s largely correct—there is a “snowball effect” where the first crime and its punishment cause further physical, mental, and social damage to the criminal that can then lead to subsequent crimes.

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=27... has some analysis of the phenomenon; The Shawshank Redemption is a popular fictional account of the same idea.

[TimorousBestie]

Your own link above collates some studies showing that certain kinds of therapy reduce recidivism.

[rendx]

> A more rational and less emotional sentencing system would be harsher on teenage offenders

This does not align with my understanding of the research, e.g. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annur... ?

> "Unfortunately, so far, the existing empirical work has not had a central place in policy, legislation, and political discourse (Loughran 2019, Nelken & Hamilton 2022). Unsurprisingly, scholars have been frustrated that their insights on, for instance, the inconclusive evidence for the deterrent effect of incarceration on violent crime or the evidence that treatment can help to rehabilitate have not had sufficient impact (Cullen et al. 2011, McGuire 2013).

> Empirical research has failed to sway policymakers and political leaders for many reasons, too many to cover fully here. For instance, one can broadly think about high levels of punitiveness in certain cultures and jurisdictions, such as the American context (Kleinfeld 2016, Muenster & Trone 2015). Moreover, there has been a penal populism where politicians have sold the public on a simplistic discourse that they need and want strict punishment against crime (Roberts et al. 2003, Windlesham 1998). Added to this is the discriminatory and racist framing of crime as part of a dog-whistle political strategy (Haney-López 2015). Another problem is a more general aversion to science, and a populist politics that drives on simplicity instead of nuanced, evidence-based policy (Huber et al. 2022). These headwinds foster a more challenging set of conditions not just for altering policy but even for the bare minimum of having robust and legitimate conversations about effective and ineffective punishment."

Or, for a lengthier investigation and many citations and projects, https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-end-of-violence-gary-sl... ?

("Twenty-five years ago, I sought out Gary Slutkin while searching for a solution to the gun violence we experienced in Los Angeles. I got far more than I hoped for. The methods he describes in his groundbreaking new book helped reduce our gun violence to historic lows and save thousands of lives.”—Charlie Beck, former chief of police, Los Angeles Police Department")

[rayiner]

As I understand it, the research you’re talking about is about the potential deterrent or rehabilitative effect of punishment. I’m talking about the effect of removing people from society during the ages when they are most likely to commit violent crime.

[rendx]

> removing people from society

Which is something the person will definitely experience as punishment, and might make matters only worse afterwards, especially if that "removal" doesn't include therapeutic processes (which is the current state of affairs mostly)?

I see a lot of parallels and a shared interest in removing/reducing violence. The title and summary of the linked book may give the impression that the focus is elsewhere; maybe the introduction will help to see more of the shared research interest, or make it clearer where you disagree on the approaches?

[mcmoor]

> I wish people would stop using the word “child” in an effort to minimize criminal behavior by young adults. A 16 or 17 year old isn’t a “child.”

This reminds me of a horrific study (that keeps getting repeated over and over!) that claims that child death rate of covid is actually not as low as people thought. Then it turns out that their definition of child is 0-18, and in the data there's a really sharp turn in death rate for age <10, precisely what people already thought.

[soulbadguy]

> I wish people would stop using the word “child” in an effort to minimize criminal behavior by young adults. A 16 or 17 year old isn’t a “child.” The Marquis de Lafayette and James Manor were just 18 when the revolutionary war started. Societies going back to ancient times ascribed significant responsibility to teenagers. And in modern times, there is a scientific basis for distinguishing between adolescents and children when it comes to brain development. Historically, adolescents were treated like adults.

Looking at the past for wisdom on how to treat young adult/people is very dangerous...

> People who start engaging in criminal conduct at an earlier age more likely to engage in criminal behavior as adults

this is not quite what the citation means. I am also very curious on how these study correct for cofactors .People who start a life of crime early are probably not comming from the best conditions in term of life circonstances. Which in it self is also a strong predictor.

> A more rational and less emotional sentencing system would be harsher on teenage offenders while reducing sentences overall.

No, that would be the fear based emotional response. The ration response would be to simply measure whether or not harsher sentencing have a better outcome. Instead of prehemtively jailing people based on dubious stats.

[bsder]

> The article’s focus on moral culpability also overlooks the key purpose of the justice system: protecting society from criminals.

I do NOT concede that as the KEY purpose. And when you call "protecting society from criminals" the key purpose of the justice system you wind up with the horribly broken mess that is the US justice system.

Yes, A purpose of the justice system is to remove from society those who cannot be trusted.

But another purpose of the justice system should be to rehabilitate those who can be. And the US justice system is HORRIFIC at that. If anything, the US justice system is a net negative on rehabilitation. The way the US system throws everybody together does more to let old criminals teach new ones their tricks than any improvement from any rehabilitation program can counteract.

[JuniperMesos]

Protecting society from criminals (or the violently and severely mentally-ill) is the only function of incarceration that is guaranteed to work. I agree with you that the US justice system is horrific at rehabilitating those who can be rehabilitated - but we don't really have a good understanding of what specific people can and cannot be rehabilitated, or how to go about actually effectively doing the rehabilitation.

Whereas someone who has committed 30 petty thefts and then gets arrested, locked in a cage, and guarded by armed agents of the state, is extremely unlikely to commit another theft as long as he remains locked in the cage.

And he's also extremely unlikely to get shot to death by e.g. a store owner trying to protect his property from theft - another important function of the criminal justice system is protecting criminals from ordinary people using violence against criminals in order to protect their own lives or property.

[magicalhippo]

> Protecting society from criminals (or the violently and severely mentally-ill) is the only function of incarceration that is guaranteed to work.

However in most cases the incarceration is used as punishment, with the length is related to the seriousness of the crime rather than the likelihood for repeating offenses.

Here in Norway we explicitly separate this, where most sentences are punishment, but some are explicitly for protecting society. In the latter case there is technically no end, just a minimum time and after that periodic reviews to determine if the person still poses a sufficient threat.

It's technically classified as a punishment due to legal reasons, like ensuring human rights and due process are respected.

[soulbadguy]

> Whereas someone who has committed 30 petty thefts and then gets arrested, locked in a cage, and guarded by armed agents of the state, is extremely unlikely to commit another theft as long as he remains locked in the cage.

How does that help, if after incarceration that person become a much hardened criminal both because of the lack meaning pathway to integration, and you know spending years locked up with the worst of society.

> but we don't really have a good understanding of what specific people can and cannot be rehabilitated, or how to go about actually effectively doing the rehabilitation.

Then let's work on that.

[mcmoor]

The theory is that people commit most of their crimes in their prime age of ~15-30. If you lock someone until out of that age, their crime rate will go down on their own. Whether or not this is cruel is another discussion.

This is actually a problem for rehabilitation studies, since now they have to sanitize this effect out of their data on how much rehabilitation treatment actuality works. This and other flaws have tainted some claims that a rehabilitation process is successful.

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/prison-and-crime-much-more-...

[bsder]

> Protecting society from criminals (or the violently and severely mentally-ill)

And this is another problem--your "justice system" should NOT be where you place your mentally-ill--they belong in a (possibly secure) medical facility and not with rank-and-file criminals. This is yet one more issue with the US system.

[JuniperMesos]

A secure medical facility is basically the same thing as a prison, as far as the people compelled by the state to remain there are concerned.

[watwut]

It is not nearly the same.

[rayiner]

> Yes, A purpose of the justice system is to remove from society those who cannot be trusted

Agreed.

> But another purpose of the justice system should be to rehabilitate those who can be

Why? Especially if it comes at the expense of the first purpose?

[05]

> The Marquis de Lafayette and James Manor were just 18 when the revolutionary war started.

And Thomas “all men are created equal” Jefferson raped his slaves[0], and then enslaved the resulting children, but we don’t do that nowadays either, because I guess some things changed since 200+years ago?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery