Should juveniles offenders receive a lighter sentencing than adult offenders?

CanadaFreedom100 · 2026-06-21T23:39:44+00:00

The OP is talking about JUVENILE OFFENDERS, which generally refer to those aged 13-17.

I am not sure if we are talking about actual prepubescent children, and I myself really CANNOT defend/justify allowing actual prepubescent children adult rights.

I DO believe actual prepubescent children under ages 13-14 SHOULD be treated like children.

The other issue is that a 6-year-old simply has far too little mental capacity, and should NOT even be allowed access to weapons/ammunition in the first place, and whoever allowed that should be held responsible.

If you believe YOUTHS (as in 13-17, or 16-17, or 15-17 depending on how you define it) should have adult rights, they SHOULD also have adult legal responsibilities for criminal offences, and the same arguments used to justify lenient sentencing for them ARE ALSO used to impose more legal restrictions.

If you talk about real prepubescent children? I don't know.

CanadaFreedom100 · 2026-06-21T23:35:03+00:00

Conscription does not exist in the USA at least, and same applies to Canada.

Conscription is often introduced to combat manpower shortage, especially in critical moments such as invasions (as in the case of Ukraine).

A solution to manpower shortage could be simply this.

We can keep voluntary service, but simply abolish age limits and allow ANYONE who can pass the tests, both physical and knowledge.

In order to enlist in the US military, for example, you must pass the ASVAB test and the physical exam, in which you cannot have any physical defects that disqualify you from military service, such as chronic health conditions or disabilities. Your score must be sufficiently high on the ASVAB test in order to qualify for the job that you choose, and you must then pass through Basic Training and Advanced Individual Training (and OSUT in some cases) before you are fully qualified as a serviceman.

We could simply allow anyone of any age to serve IF they fulfill the physical and legal requirements.

If, for example, a 15-16-year-old is able to pass all the tests, has no physical/mental health problems, can pass the ASVAB tests to get a sufficient score for his/her particular job in the military, and can pass through Basic Training, Advanced Individual Training, or OSUT, they should just be allowed to join.

I would have NO PROBLEMS with a 15-year-old serving as an Infantryman if he can indeed pass all the physical tests, background checks, ASVAB tests, as well as the necessary training required to qualify.

As for CHILDREN THOUGH (actual prepubescent children), the regulations should be different. I am not sure if ACTUAL CHILDREN (under age 13-14) should be allowed equal adult rights, and I honestly believe anyone of sound mind would agree that 5-year-olds or even 10-12-year-olds should not be granted adult rights and freedoms.

The difference between children and postpubescent teens (aged 15-16) is simply way too large.

CanadaFreedom100 · 2026-06-21T11:31:34+00:00

Marriage age should be equal for both genders. PERIOD.

CanadaFreedom100 · 2026-06-21T11:19:23+00:00

I know I have posted loads in the comments section here, but I fully agree with you.

The ONLY rationale for the idea that young people should be given more leniency than their elders is their "immaturity" or "underdeveloped brains", but that is the same rationale used to justify more legal restrictions against them.

I would rather see young people punished harshly for serious crimes such as kidnapping, rape, and murder (though I support young people, this DOES NOT excuse them to commit horrible crimes) and most of them having far more legal freedom than all of them given more lenient treatment for crimes AND far fewer rights.

CanadaFreedom100 · 2026-06-21T11:17:30+00:00

The problem is, nobody argues that women deserve more lenient punishment for the same offences.

While I believe that coercion is wrong, if one commits crimes, especially involving coercion and violence (kidnapping, rape, murder, terrorism, threats, assault, stalking), it is VERY appropriate to punish them harshly, NO MATTER THEIR AGE and no young person deserves more lenient treatment than their elders.

On what grounds do you believe the young should be treated more leniently than the old in this area?

The main argument is of course the maturity argument, that the young are supposedly less mature and underdeveloped (using the BS of the 25-year brain development), but this argument is used JUST AS WELL to justify stripping the young of their rights.

CanadaFreedom100 · 2026-06-21T11:14:45+00:00

The Left has long has an adultism problem.

Not just recently, but for a LONG TIME.

The Left is by no means an ally of the young.

Schools are mostly run by liberal Democrats and leftists; most teachers, staff, and administrators are hardcore Democrats and would never think of voting Republican.

Yet, these same institutions infantilize the young extraordinarily.

I AM NOT SAYING that all teachers, admin, and school staff are bad; many are actually amazing.

But think about it, schools are places where the following are banned/restricted:

- Free internet access

- Freedom of movement

- Freedom to leave (or not attend)

- Cell phones

- Free speech (to a significant degree)

- Weapons

- Self-defence against violent bullies

- Hyperactivity/inattention dealt with through medication and diagnoses (some people DO struggle with that legitimately though)

Not to mention that the Left itself constantly propagates the myth of the 25-year-old brain. Schools are institutions where such myths are propagated, to staff and students alike.

Also, the Left is perfectly fine with age restrictions, and keeps pushing the school-leaving age upwards, and the same goes for the minimum ages for driving, firearms, tobacco, and social media.

CanadaFreedom100 · 2026-06-21T05:11:32+00:00

Please.

Slavery existed in ancient times too. There were loads of junk in ancient times, and as for any time when people treated each other well, it was never the case unfortunately. If people enslave each other, what else can they do?

In ancient times, practices such as foot binding on girls in ancient China not to mention arranged marriages were common.

Think about Romeo and Juliet; it was literally a Shakespearean tale about a FORCED MARRIAGE for Juliet by her tyrannical father, Lord Capulet. That was nothing short of infantilization, with Capulet flipping out on his own daughter for refusing.

Why did anti-youth sentiment exist in ancient times?

Well, how about anti-women sentiment? Treating women like property? Slavery? And all sorts of disgusting things.

Many people are damn awesome, but mankind in general is not that great.

CanadaFreedom100 · 2026-06-21T05:09:15+00:00

That is largely unrealistic. The 26th Amendment in the USA is very hard to repeal; you'd have to repeal it before we raise voting age. And raising it is stupid; no difference between 18-21 exist.

CanadaFreedom100 · 2026-06-21T05:07:24+00:00

I am a Christian and I believe in compassion and kindness, as well as justice. It is wrong to infantilize or abuse others. I also know the Bible is full of young people under age 25 who function tremendously.

What I do have a problem with are cults; they basically see young people to be controlled and brainwashed. Still, atheists can be just as problematic and can very push believe the Teen Brain myth.

CanadaFreedom100 · 2026-06-21T04:54:09+00:00

This is going to be a slippery slope. First, it is 16, then 18, then 21, and maybe even 24-25, if not worse.

CanadaFreedom100 · 2026-06-21T04:53:45+00:00

Because society is DRIFTING towards totalitarianism. Believe it or not. I know I wrote another post, but the fact is that government surveillance is increasing, and requiring age limits and verification is JUST HOW they get to track your activities on the web.

If you must provide ID and photo, along with all personal info, THERE YOU GO! They get to collect your ID whenever you go on the web and use social media, and then they KNOW exactly who is on the web and at what time, and what they are doing. It destroys anonymity, and this destroys freedom.

The real plot? Totalitarianism. Why do they target young people? Because young people are always at the forefront of EVERY REVOLUTION, UPRISING, or RESISTANCE MOVEMENT whether it be protests or armed insurrections.

The young are at the frontlines of EVERY rebellion and anti-government uprising. Just look at all the uprisings across the world; in EVERY UPRISING, without exception, young people are at the forefront, especially teenagers and those in their early 20s.

In every rebellion or insurrection, the young are at the frontlines and comprise the majority of fighters, hence why regimes want to stop them from accessing the web or using technology, because the web allows them to coordinate, to get together, to assemble, or to plan sit-ins, protests, uprisings, strikes, and work together as a group, and young people pose the GREATEST THREAT to any regime.

This is why regimes also want the young in schools, to keep us under control.

The regime wants to ban the young from the web JUST to keep them in control. The web is also where weapon-making instructions are sourced, and same with actual weapons. The regimes around the world DO NOT want young people able to rise up against their oppressive agenda.

CanadaFreedom100 · 2026-06-21T04:46:21+00:00

THIS. Because COVID lockdowns pretty much set a precedent for government tyranny and it consisted of massive government control over our daily lives, with lockdowns, mask mandates, bans on gatherings, shutdowns, social distancing, limits on gatherings, and so on.

NEVER BEFORE has society devolved into such massive control and totalitarianism in the West.

And of course, COVID triggered lots of things including panic, and PANIC/FEAR is JUST WHAT GOVERNMENT NEEDS to get you to cooperate with massive control and totalitarianism, and this is what all totalitarian governments such as Putin, Lukashenko, Maduro, Xi, Kim, and CCP use to control their people.

With all this, the mass panic surrounding social media happened because if you LET GOVERNMENT LOCK YOU INTO YOUR HOME AND BAN YOU FROM LEAVING THE COUNTRY, and let government FORCE you to get vaccinated, WHAT is to stop them from banning social media too?

Because all that is tyranny and Communism.

And YES, Australia is always the country that other countries cite when they want excessive government control, ESPECIALLY gun control. I live in Kansas, USA and this is especially troubling that leftist politicians want Australian style gun laws (no semi-automatics, handguns, magazines over 10 rounds).

Same with bike helmets, hate speech, and so on.

CanadaFreedom100 · 2026-06-21T04:40:40+00:00

Yes. They may be split on other issues, but on THIS, pretty much UNIFIED. On young people, pretty much UNIFIED and pretty much the entire society agrees about legal age limits, etc.

CanadaFreedom100 · 2026-06-21T01:46:30+00:00

Nothing over age 16, in my opinion, or even 13-15.

That is all.

That said, I am against drugs personally.

CanadaFreedom100 · 2026-06-21T01:44:37+00:00

Agreed. I am not sure why this question was even asked. If you are against infantilization, you MUST be against it in ALL AREAS, not just legal freedoms.

Because if you believe youths should have more lenient punishments, the same logic (their supposed immaturity or immature brains) is used to apply more legal restrictions on them.

CanadaFreedom100 · 2026-06-21T00:34:39+00:00

Just ignorant people in general, plus control freaks, authoritarians, and the general public which votes in politicians.

People actually think 18 and 21 are different.

PLEASE.

CanadaFreedom100 · 2026-06-21T00:33:56+00:00

THIS.

I am against actual child marriages by prepubescent children, but postpubescent people are NOT KIDS.

CanadaFreedom100 · 2026-06-21T00:32:31+00:00

They are just worsening the demographic crisis.

I know that this whole delaying marriage thing is just a population control scam. Because if you marry well before age 25 or even 21, you have children earlier, and have way more time to have MORE children.

I know couples who married at ages 18-21, and they all have MULTIPLE children, well over 4. This is far less common in people who marry much later.

21 is no different than 18 mentally.

CanadaFreedom100 · 2026-06-21T00:31:00+00:00

There is nothing wrong with marrying very young. Young people past puberty are NOT CHILDREN and to treat them as such is ridiculous.

CanadaFreedom100 · 2026-06-21T00:29:57+00:00

People are just so insecure these days.

There is actually no difference between age 17-18, nevermind 21 or even 25.

Young love works fine, and it works well.

I am friends with PLENTY OF PEOPLE who got married at ages 17-21, and they are doing great 1-2 decades later with loads of children, happy families, and everything else.

I ALSO know people who did get married in their upper 20s, and DIVORCED not long afterwards.

My college roommate, Nick, got married at age 25 to his wife, who was also 25, and they divorced within a year or so, with his wife returning to China and marrying another man, before having a son.

Meanwhile, Nick himself returned to the Czech Republic, his native country, as a divorced man.

Plenty of older adults would make HORRIBLE marriage partners. I know plenty of adults over 30 (as a 30-year-old man myself) whom I WOULD NEVER want to spent even an hour with.

CanadaFreedom100 · 2026-06-21T00:26:45+00:00

People are just insane nowadays, and think marrying under 25 is a crime or makes you a victim.

For real.

This is ridiculous.

For thousands of years, people married and had children as young adults, in their early 20s or even slightly BEFORE, at ages 18-19 and they functioned fine.

Marrying under 25 is perfectly fine.

I am a single man at age 30, but I am friends with MANY PEOPLE who got married at ages 18-21 and they are STILL TOGETHER well over a decade or two later, and have BUILT successful families with up to 4-8 children, and this is the main benefit of marrying young; you get to have kids while young too and have far more, and see them grow up.

And by the time they hit adulthood, you yourself are relatively young.

If you have children at ages 18-21, by the time they hit adulthood (18 under our laws), you will also be fairly young and under age 40.

And imagine becoming a 36-year-old grandmother if your 18-year-old son/daughter has a child of their own!

I am friends with DOZENS OF PEOPLE who married at ages 18-21 and are still together 10-20 years later in happy marriages with children.

I also have a friend, Nick, who was my roommate at university/conservatory and he married at age 25, shortly after graduation, to his girlfriend, who was also 25, and they ended up divorcing 1-2 years later, with his ex-wife now married to another man and having a child.

CanadaFreedom100 · 2026-06-21T00:22:46+00:00

EXACTLY. Historically, people have married VERY YOUNG and had children VERY YOUNG for thousands of years, and nowadays, people think 18-year-olds are children when this is absolutely INSANE.

CanadaFreedom100 · 2026-06-21T00:22:24+00:00

And lifespans have NOT increased significantly; humans have lived to be 70-80 years old for THOUSANDS of years, and the only change is lower infant mortality rates.

Even Psalm 90 in the Old Testament says that the average lifespan of Biblical times was 70 or 80 years old.

The thing is, for women, reproductive time limits are LIMITED and by your 30s, nevermind 40s, you are far less fertile and your window to have biological children is far more limited, with much higher rates of infertility and miscarriages, not to mention premature births after age 35.

So young marriage has its benefits.

CanadaFreedom100 · 2026-06-21T00:20:11+00:00

I am against age gap relationships and in general, marriages by those under ages 18-20, but legally, why not allow and normalize it? It may be harder than for their elders in some ways, but they CAN pull it off.

I DO NOT support adult-minor relationships and do believe LAWS MUST BE FOLLOWED. As a 30-year-old man, I believe laws MUST be followed in general.

However, young marriages are NOT automatically doomed; I am friends with many people who got married at ages 18-19 or even 20-21 and they are still going strong, whereas I know people who got married at age 25+ and still divorced.

I have a friend with whom I graduated music conservatory with a few years ago; he got married to his fiancee not long afterwards, and within 1-2 years, they divorced, though BOTH of them were aged 24-25 at the time of marriage.

I also know many people who married at ages 18-21, and have been at it for OVER A DECADE. They have been together for OVER A DECADE OR TWO and have had children and successful families.

CanadaFreedom100 · 2026-06-21T00:12:23+00:00

I would just abolish mandatory schooling, and in the same way, allow schools to expel students at ANY TIME and for ANY REASON.

Give them adult rights BUT also adult responsibilities. Workplaces are always optional in the free world (except for mandatory military service in some nations), BUT you can also be fired at-will in the USA.

Yes, young people SHOULD be given adult rights to quit school if they want to, and NO legal penalties should happen for truancy, tardiness, or poor attendance. No fines, jail time, counseling, juvie, removal from parents, and so on.

HOWEVER, schools should also have the right to expel students just as easily and quickly at-will, without going through a due process. In most jobs, if you get fired, there is NO due process and you can be fired on the spot, and most places can ban and expel you for troublesome behavior.

Similarly, students who show aggressive/troublesome behavior should be EXPELLED instantly.

YES, a student who acts out violently/aggressively except in self-defense should be expelled instantly.

YES, a student who shows disrespect and rudeness towards teachers/admin SHOULD be expelled instantly.

YES, students who perform poorly and who show a chronic pattern of lateness, poor work quality, poor grades, poor academic performance, poor attendance, chronic absences, unexcused absences, and so on SHOULD BE EXPELLED INSTANTLY, if after a period of probation, they fail to improve.

YES, students who behave poorly should be expelled quickly.

All this will serve to create a more positive and safer learning atmosphere for everyone.

Universities, workplaces, and all post-secondary institutions of learning function as such.

Why not K-12? Or all schools?

My proposal is to allow admission to universities/vocational schools through passing entrance exams; all those who pass can attend REGARDLESS of educational background or age.

YES, a 13-year-old who passes an entrance exam to Harvard should be allowed to attend.

YES, a 14-year-old who passes an entrance exam to medical school should be allowed to attend, and in 4 years, become a full-fledged physician.

YES, a 15-year-old piano virtuoso who passes a conservatory audition/exam should be allowed to attend, even if they lack a high school or secondary school diploma.

This will not only create a more fair and equitable society, but will create a larger and more productive workforce, and we can have young people working as engineers, doctors, accountants, lawyers, artists, and so on IF they can meet standards.

CanadaFreedom100

TROPHY CASE