• bane_killgrind@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Nah their parent or guardian need charges, because at 10 you need to be provided the means the accomplish anything, including crime.

    If you provide a monkey a flamethrower and let it loose in a building, they aren’t charging the monkey with arson.

      • Knedliky@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 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.

      • bane_killgrind@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 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.

      • ByGourou@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        For me it’s a slider, 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.

    • AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      If you provide a monkey a flamethrower and let it loose in a building, they aren’t charging the monkey with arson.

      Yeah, but you don’t need to convict a monkey of a crime to put it in a cage.