We protect minors because they are children, and they are allowed to make mistakes.

At a certain point, we say someone is an adult and fully responsible for their actions, because “that’s who they are”.

It’s not entirely nuanced—and in the US, at least, we charge children as adults all the time—but it’s understandable.

But you create an incentive for organized crime to recruit youth to commit crimes and not have to suffer the consequences.

At a certain point, poorly thought out "protections", turn into a system that protects organized crime, because criminals aren't as stupid as lawmakers, and exploit the system.

There is a big difference between making a mistake as a kid that lands you in trouble, and working as a underling for organized crime to commit robberies, drug deals, and violent crime, and not having to face responsibility for their actions.

The legal system has so many loopholes for youth, for certain groups, that the law is no longer fair, and that is its own problem, contributing to the decline of public trust.

▲

ahtihn an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> working as a underling for organized crime to commit robberies, drug deals, and violent crime

Have you ever considered that these children are victims of organized crime? That they aren't capable of understanding the consequences of what they're doing and that they're being manipulated by adult criminals?

The problem here isn't the lack of long term consequences for kids.

▲

ryandrake an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

What's the alternative? A 14 year old steals a pack of gum, and he's listed as a shoplifter for the rest of his life?

Just because exceptions are exploitable, doesn't mean we should just scrap all the exceptions. Why not improve the wording and try to work around the exceptions?

	▲	Fogest 7 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		If you don't think this crime is a big deal, then why do you think this crime would matter if it was in the public record tied to their name? These two ideas you have are not compatible.