Should decade(s) old sexual misconduct allegations even matter, especially if the crimnal was underage at the time?

Should decade(s) old sexual misconduct allegations even matter, especially if the crimnal was underage at the time?

I feel like crimes committed at that age should be given the benefit of the doubt, since virtually nobody that age is rational, logical enough to think through their actions; especially the consequences and after effects. Even if we're talking homicide (aside from exceptional circumstances), they should be allowed fairer sentencing than if they were mucher older at the time.

Consistency of character is what matters the most. And one crime, especially at a young age, is not consistent enough to characterise them.

Attached: google-search-result-for-brett-kavanaugh-nervous.jpg (1024x1024, 172K)

Speaking as someone with someone close to them who was harmed yearly by another underage person, I disagree.

It's very common to use a tragedy, either yours or someone else's, to justify your own prejudices. Even the most ardent racists have similar origins. :/

>It's very common to use a tragedy, either yours or someone else's, to justify your own prejudices
I agree. And that's why it's up to a lawyer and prosecutor to duke it out, and not you or I.

In my opinion they should. People change, but if someone committed crimes in the past, then it gives an idea what kind of impulses they have. Being rational doesn't have anything to do with it, I don't want to be close with people who don't commit crimes because they know that the consequences of their actions may be dire. I want to be close with people who don't want to commit crimes because they are innately decent people. And anyway if someone committed crimes in the past, I'll worry they will commit crimes in the future.

Post posted before I was done. I don't know what you hoped to accomplish with comparing me to a racist. As if that would somehow stop me from harboring deep seated hatred for the ilk that preys on others.

Then why do most underage/teenage people not commit crimes? Clearly the majority is logical enough to realise that crimes are bad, even at that age.
Also what
Said

But whether or not past conduct issues, and crimes, should matter after time has passed, and the public attitude towards it, remains. As well as the ethics side of it, not necessarily the legal.

>Then why do most underage/teenage people not commit crimes?
The same reason most children don't disobey their parents or adult figures, even when they're in the wrong.

I'm not interested in the ethical quandaries when I've already seen firsthand the damage it causes. I'm more curious as to your stake in this.

>Clearly the majority is logical enough to realise that crimes are bad, even at that age.
tell that to my neighborhood, where 1 in 5 boys my age had a criminal record by graduation.

by that same logic, why should kids be prosecuted anyways?
>Columbine happened 20 years ago, committed by high schoolers
>lol kids will be kids
just suck it up and deal with it. Not like bitching about it on Jow Forums of all places will erase your sexual predator history. I have a strong hunch that you're just trying to defend your personal self without putting it in the OP because you know absolutely nobody would side with you.

>I'm not interested in the ethical quandaries
That's concerning.
>when I've already seen firsthand the damage it causes.
I've seen firsthand how my sister's murder plays out, but it's still wrong to be vengeful over it.
>I'm more curious as to your stake in this.
Irrelevant and ad hominemic.

>why should kids be prosecuted anyways?
Because some consequences should be applied. But it should also be relative given various factors.

>That's concerning.
What are you going to do about it?
>but it's still wrong to be vengeful over it.
You've provided a conclusion with no support.
>Irrelevant and ad hominemic.
Then don't address it, fool.

most white teenagers get away with crime, or given a slap on the wrist

>What are you going to do about it?
Again, irrelevant and ad hominemic.
>You've provided a conclusion with no support.
Tu quoque.
>Then don't address it, fool.
Freedom of speech.

but he's right. seeking vengeance for any reason, even if someone wronged you, makes you the bad guy.

>Tu quoque.
I feel no sorrow for individuals who prey on others due to my personal experiences. Conclusion + support. You feel it is wrong to be vengeful to those who would harm you or your loved ones because...?
Because...?

>I feel no sorrow for individuals who prey on others due to my personal experiences.
That's bigotry.

>You feel it is wrong to be vengeful to those who would harm you or your loved ones because...?
Because it IS wrong, it only adds to the problem, and is simply making excuses to be cruel and inhumane yourself. That makes you worse than whoever wronged you.

Not him, but because revenge is not a good thing to bring into a court of law.

Danny stabs your mom and kills her. So you stab Danny and kill him. Court did see him as a murderer, but now it sees you as a murderer. You didn't "kill a killer" in court, you just killed a human. Sure, everybody on facebook or whatever will tell you they'd do the same thing, they don't blame you, etc. But the court is not your friend or your enemy. It caters to whoever is the victim, or whoever they deem to be the victim.

essentially, its just stooping to their level and basically repeating what they did. i.e.: you're the one committing the crime at that point. there's an old saying I can't find anymore, but it basically means a villain isn't someone who throws the punch the hardest, just who throws it last.

>That's bigotry.
>What are you going to do about it?
>it only adds to the problem
Does it?
>and is simply making excuses to be cruel and inhumane yourself.
Letting the law do what it must is being cruel and inhumane?
>That makes you worse than whoever wronged you
Conclusion and no support.

Who said I would kill Danny? This whole thread is about granting leniency to underage perpetrators. I said no in the context of the law.

just for the vengeance argument a few posts before that one. I should have clarified.

>Does it?
It does.
>Letting the law do what it must is being cruel and inhumane?
Letting the law do what it must by YOUR STANDARDS would be cruel and inhumane. Wishing harm and revenge on somebody, no matter the context, is cruel, inhumane, and wrong.
>Conclusion and no support.
Attribution error.

Basically implied in .

Up to a point. First offences or minor crimes? Absolutely. Shooting up the school and killing multiples? Even the lightest sentence isn't going to save you.

I found the American.

>It does.
Conclusion with no details.
>would be cruel and inhumane
I agree.
>Wishing harm and revenge on somebody, no matter the context, is cruel, inhumane, and wrong.
Conclusion with no details. It's as if you read these on the back of a cereal box but haven't actually thought about it.
>Attribution error
Fucking what.

>Conclusion with no details.
Petitio principii.

Ah, so your sister wasn't murdered. Just some bull you thought up to give yourself more credence.

The same could be said for
>
>as someone with someone close to them who was harmed yearly by another underage person
And unfortunately, that's the same retort you see tossed at victims of violent crimes.

where the hell did you get that?

>The same could be said for
Not at all. If your, or his, I can't tell, sister was really murdered, you'd actually be able to back up such bold statements as
>Wishing harm and revenge on somebody, no matter the context, is cruel, inhumane, and wrong.
Which means absolutely nothing in a vacuum. If user's sister was murdered, and he came to the conclusion that wanting vengeance is cruel, inhumane, and wrong, I'd love to hear that whole story of how he went from dead sister, to Siddartha. user is either unable to do so because his sister wasn't murdered, or unwilling. Either way, this conversation isn't worth pursuing without knowing how he came to the conclusion that wanting vengeance is wrong.

>If user's sister was murdered, and he came to the conclusion that wanting vengeance is cruel, inhumane, and wrong
Probably because it is wrong to do that? He'd only be using her murder to front his own agenda by seeking whatever vengeance he had in mind.

>I'd love to hear that whole story of how he went from dead sister, to Siddartha.
Because that's the right way to go about any death of a close one.

>Either way, this conversation isn't worth pursuing without knowing how he came to the conclusion that wanting vengeance is wrong.
Because it is wrong to do that. Very simple. You're not entitled to someone's life story.

>He'd only be using her murder to front his own agenda by seeking whatever vengeance he had in mind.
Yes. Now why is this wrong?
>Because that's the right way to go about any death of a close one.
Says who?
>Because it is wrong to do that.
Says who? This conversation is clearly not worth pursuing. You took your moralities from some sort of TV show where someone's sister was murdered. That's not how reality works. Goodbye.

>Now why is this wrong?
Because it's general abuse and perversion of someone's death. And taking advantage of something sensitive and tragic to haphazardly justify whatever crimes and abuse you want to commit.

>Says who?
People who are actually capable of basic ethics.

>That's not how reality works.
It clearly does for him and a lot of other people.

Depends on how old you were when you committed them and what effect it had on the victim

A minority of the population has misconduct disorder or is antisocial. Some have a very bad environment. I think the problem here isn't the prosecution but the punishment. Teeagers who do crime should have a different form of punishment than a serial killer/cocaine drug lord person. We need different institutions to fix this shit

In Kavanaugh's case, I'm not so sure. The allegation was over thirty years ago, all parties at the time were underaged, and drinking was involved. But the victim still hasn't been able to shake it off, even to this day. Yet he hasn't been guilty of much since, aside from some suspected gambling problems, and allegedly lying under oath once or twice.

This crime is hard to investigate

No this shit is getting ridiculous. Everyone has dirt that can get them crucified at this point.

Weeeee. Fuck off pussy.
When Clinton got a blowjob the fucker called for his head.