[dangoldin]

Currently in the US when you turn 18 you end up "losing" your juvenile criminal record. A proposal I read that made sense was keeping the juvenile record hidden unless you end up committing a serious crime after 18. Once that happens your juvenile record is opened up again. At least that's an incentive to play it safe after turning 18.

[MetaCosm]

That isn't really true, and a lot of adults learn this if they got into trouble as kids. The juvenile system has a bent towards privacy, but that is all it is -- a bent.

You can either have your juvenile record "sealed" or "expunged" but neither is automatic.

Asking for your records to be sealed is possible a number of years after the conviction dependent on location. In most places it is 3 years of no offenses except minor traffic violations and you can request getting juvenile records sealed.

Asking for expungement is much more restricted and not even available in most locations. In the rare places expungement is possible it is a long and involved process.

Now, here is what sucks more -- getting your records sealed may seem like the obvious choice -- you don't want that shoplifting thing following you around. But, if someone pulls your record and sees "sealed" they are likely going to think you did something FAR worse than shoplifting.

Additionally, sealed records don't mean "from everyone forever" -- those suckers can pop up in adult trials if they fit a pattern, if they should apply to sentencing or just if the judge thinks they should.

Don't fuck up too much when you are kid, it will haunt you.

[dangoldin]

Ah interesting - thanks for clearing this up. Yea that "sealed" record issue seems odd - I would expect it to be more along the lines of not being available rather than sealed so the requester doesn't actually know that a record actually exists.

[Spoom]

Also there are certain federal agencies which are able to look into sealed (and even expunged or pardoned) records, such as USCIS.

[watwut]

If the "normal" punishment is not enough to deter that person, why do you think re-opening juvenile record would made any difference?

[dangoldin]

You're probably right but I think the cost of implementing this is low enough to give it a shot. It's not going to solve the entire problem and may not even solve 1% but might still be worth doing for the scenario where it does help.

[Theodores]

In the UK 17 is a golden age for crime and getting away with it. IANAL, however, I think that you are not an adult in the eyes of a court of law, yet, being over 16, mummy and daddy do not have to be told - so no beatings at home and no prison cell/fine/community service.

Fortunately most teenagers don't know about the relative benefits of being 17, but, if you decided that making an honest living was for losers and that a life of crime was worth giving a go, that year of being 17 is the best time to do some 'apprenticeship'.

Is this the case in the U.S. and Canada?

[pierlux]

I've heard of many cases in Québec, where if the crime is judged severe enough, a 16-17 yo would end up being treated as an adult instead of going through juvenile courts.

[67726e]

I think it varies from state to state, but I know in the state of South Carolina one is considered an adult at 17 in court for some reason. I think the prosecutor can also choose to charge you as an adult if the crime is serious enough.

[al2o3cr]

"Fortunately most teenagers don't know about the relative benefits of being 17, but, if you decided that making an honest living was for losers and that a life of crime was worth giving a go, that year of being 17 is the best time to do some 'apprenticeship'."

Sure, but which banks are hiring 17-year-olds as executives? ;)

[danielweber]

Even if the legal system pretends they never happened, there is no requirement on other people in the US to pretend you never did those things. Which is both good and bad.

[a3voices]

It might make sense but it makes it even more difficult for them to find jobs. People who commit serious crimes generally don't think rationally, so incentives don't help much.

[jordan0day]

"People who commit serious crimes generally don't think rationally"

This, exactly.

I don't know why so many people seem to think tougher prison sentences/three-strikes laws, etc. will deter much crime. If you're going to commit a crime, you've already convinced yourself that you're going to get away with it.

I think people like to think this way because it's so much easier than trying to solve the problems that lead to crime in the first place.

[thatswrong0]

> I don't know why so many people seem to think tougher prison sentences/three-strikes laws, etc. will deter much crime.

Not only that, but once you go to prison, at least in the United States, you'll likely go again. Going to prison makes you unemployable, makes you lose certain federal assistance, and leads to close contact with gangs. When you finally get out, you often won't even be able to vote, you can't find a job, and you'll probably get evicted. You're pretty much a second-class citizen at that point, worse off than you were before. If we want people to commit fewer crimes, prison should be the last resort (at least for non-violent offenders), not the first step. Better alternatives exist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism#Drug-Related_Crime

[dangoldin]

I'm pretty far removed from this world of crime and only relay what I read coupled with my biased experiences but I suspect crimes build on top of one another. If you get away with a small crime earlier you'll end up breaking the seal and moving on to higher risk crimes. If you keep on getting away with it you end up taking on more and more risk. At the same time there are not enough resources to enforce a low level crime so fixing the underlying problems is a much better idea.

If you're interested in this topic take a look at When Brute Force Fails (http://www.amazon.com/When-Brute-Force-Fails-Punishment/dp/0...) - I found it a good take on crime in the US.