The Age Of Crime Paradox
Trial as an adult
[quote=Wikipedia]Trial as an adult is a situation in which a juvenile offender is tried as if they were an adult, whereas they will receive a long sentence at a young age.[/quote]
There have been many cases where children have commited crimes and some of them are shockingly evil but, depending on the definition of a child, these have been treated/tried/judged in ways different than they would've been with an adult offender.
It's also a well-known fact that some criminals are subjected to a battery of psychological tests that includes, as pertains to my point, an IQ test.
An IQ score = [math]\frac{Mental \space Age}{Chronological \space Age} \times 100[/math]
Basically, if you have a low IQ, you're a child trapped in an adult body and vice versa for high IQ folks.
The law ignores mental age and tries/judges/sentences you according to your chronological age.
The reason children are treated as innocent and less liable for their actions is not because of their chronological age but because of their mental age.
The Paradox: A child is a child because of mental age but an adult is an adult because of chronological age.
[quote=Wikipedia]Trial as an adult is a situation in which a juvenile offender is tried as if they were an adult, whereas they will receive a long sentence at a young age.[/quote]
There have been many cases where children have commited crimes and some of them are shockingly evil but, depending on the definition of a child, these have been treated/tried/judged in ways different than they would've been with an adult offender.
It's also a well-known fact that some criminals are subjected to a battery of psychological tests that includes, as pertains to my point, an IQ test.
An IQ score = [math]\frac{Mental \space Age}{Chronological \space Age} \times 100[/math]
Basically, if you have a low IQ, you're a child trapped in an adult body and vice versa for high IQ folks.
The law ignores mental age and tries/judges/sentences you according to your chronological age.
The reason children are treated as innocent and less liable for their actions is not because of their chronological age but because of their mental age.
The Paradox: A child is a child because of mental age but an adult is an adult because of chronological age.
Comments (22)
Are you sure about that? When I interact with a child, I don't gauge their mental age first and then decided how to treat them. I treat them like a child because they look like a child - because their body is like a child. If during the course of conversation I notice that the child is "mature for their age" I may treat them differently - but initially I'll treat them like a child because they appear like a child.
Pertaining to law, there is a solid reason why you'd want to take the "body age" rather than the "mental age". Both concepts of IQ and mental age are actually heavily criticized as a measurement. There are too many factors for intelligence and different tests will come to different results. The law however can not allow for such variety. It needs to be clearly defined otherwise people will exploit any possibility of variety and find loopholes around the law. It requires hard and objectively measurable facts - like the age of the body which is clearly documented by a birth ceritificate - rather than a soft and subjective measure like IQ.
So you would treat a progeria child patient as an elderly citizen?
Quoting Hermeticus
So, again truth is sacrificed for convenience and that's just the tip of the iceberg as far as I can tell.
See :point: Indiana Pi Bill
I'm also a bit (actually a lot) troubled by the fact that a sizeable percentage of criminals have low IQ. Out through the window goes the much-celebrated notion of childhood innocence.
We only know the criminals who get caught, and it's more likely that the police will catch the dumbest ones first, who are also more likely to commit a crime because they think that they will get away with it.
You're confusing chronological age and biological age.
A 25 year old man is like a child compared to a 50 year old man
Evil geniuses, the smart ones never get caught! True.
However, this means that we need to take into account mental vs. physical age all the more. After all, we know it's the dumb ones (read immature/infantile) that are apprehended.
So I'd say you proved my point for me. :up:
Quoting Vince
Reread the exchange between me and Hermeticus.
There seems to be 3 components to aging:
1. Mental age (loosely mental immaturity/maturity)
2. Chronological age (the time elapsed since birth)
3. Physical age (the state of your body, its condition). Your biological age.
Intelligence quotient = IQ = [math]\frac{Mental \space Age}{Chronological \space Age} \times 100[/math]
Stress quotient = SQ = [math]\frac{Physical \space Age}{Chronological \space Age} \times 100[/math]
Cool! :up:
I named it "stress" quotient because the body puts on years (graying, wrinkles, etc.) when under physical & mental pressure.
Quoting Miller
In most cases both mentally and physically but it's not a rule written in stone.
Not so, because adults have more experience in life than children, even if they have a relatively low IQ. Low IQ isn't a severe mental impairment. Granted, it's not an advantage, but someone with an IQ of 85 or 90 is not mentally retarded. Children with IQs of 120 to 130 do not thereby have extensive experience. Life experience is an important aspect of intelligence. Brains without experience don't have much to say.
You're assuming too much. Years lived do not necessarily translate into experience. Look at Greta Thunberg, just 18 or so, and she's talks/acts like a 40 year old veteran climate scientist. Trump, on the other hand, comes off as infantile.
I guess it depends on how you define an adult.
I propose a new measure:
Experiential Quotient = EQ (not emotional quotient) = [math]\frac{Experiential \space Age}{Chronological \space Age} \times 100[/math]
1. Intelligence Quotient (IQ) = [math]\frac{Mental \space Age}{Chronological \space Age} \times 100[/math]
2. Stress Quotient (SQ) = [math]\frac{Physical \space Age}{Chronological \space Age} \times 100[/math]
3. Experience Quotient (EQ) = [math]\frac{Experiential \space Age}{Chronological \space Age} \times 100[/math]
How are IQ, SQ, and EQ related?
IQ seems to have an ambiguous effect on SQ. Some smart folks look younger then they actually are, for others it's a different story.
IQ and EQ inform each other. IQ enhances the quality of experiences and experiences boost IQ.
Now, SQ and EQ. High EQ reduces stress.
There's more but I'm going to leave it at that.
A complex relationship between intelligence, experience, and stress emerges.
Of course not. But it takes years lived to get experience.
I find Gretta annoying and Donald Trump revoltingly loathsome. However, he became President and neither of us did. (I don't know--maybe you tried and failed; I didn't even try.) Apparently he had enough experience to fill the bill for the idiot bastards in the Republican Party.
Second, children's brains are more neuroplastic. So, rehabilitation is more viable. Adult brains, dumb or smart are less flexible. Now, all brains can change, but for the same reasons a child can learn a second or third language much faster than an adult, they can also change in other ways. So, there is another reason not to treat them as small or dumb adults.
Indeed it does but, the correlation between time and experience is not all that strong or, better put, years lived doesn't seem to guarantee experience. As an illustration, take a 5 year old child, confine him to a cell for 50 years and let him out into the world on his 55th birthday. How experienced is this 55 year old? A few minor adjustments, take this metaphorically or whatever, and I'm sure you'll find quite a few real persons who match this description.
Quoting Bitter Crank
All that matters to the discussion is chronological age doesn't line up as nicely as I'd have preferred/liked with experiential age. If it actually did, the world's problems would've been solved centuries ago. We've failed to learn from our experiences - that's what's evident in the papers, radio, and TV. I don't need to tell you that Bitter Crank, c'mon! :grin:
Quoting Bylaw
You're right of course but the truth remains some chronologically adult (18 +) people have the mental maturity of a 5 year old toddler. IQ is just one measure of mental maturity and like Bitter Crank was so kind to point out, experience counts. Unfortunately or fortunately, I don't know, the relationship between time, brains, and experience is not as clear as we'd like it to be - some get a get a head start, some grow exponentially, others are gentle slope, still some flat line, you get the idea.
Neuroplasticity - yes, children's brains. However, hazarding a guess, going out on a limb here, most modifications/adaptations are in software and not in hardware.
The brain is highly plastic in juvenile development. As an example a kid (aged 8 yrs I believe) who had half his brain blown out due to a stray bullet still went on to get a degree at university. When components are lost other areas grow to take over (another case of a child born without a cerebellum being able to walk).
I don't see what sense it makes to talk about hardware and software when referring to the human brain in reasonable detail (even as an analogy it can often give the wrong impression).
I don't know why I used a computer analogy in my reply to Bylaw but it seemed relevant at the time (half-an-hour ago).
Lemme see.
It has to do with differences between children and adults and how that matters to the topic we're discussing (age, crime, IQ). Ah! I get it now. The difference has to be in software (the installed memes & apps) and not in hardware (the neural architecture) for the simple reason that many children (prodigies/savants) can outdo even expert adults.
What has he done to deserve that? You think the poor child will survive at all? He will go mad as hell. The only stuff he can relate are empty walls and the food she gets. Or they will just die of boredom. They even performed such torture to rats. The ones in empty cages had less developed brains. I could have guessed this without torture.
Quoting TheMadFool
This preassumes IQ as a measure of being grown up. A quite childish assumption.
It would be a very rare case that lacked maturity in general. As far as certain social relations, absolutely. But then what they lack is neuroplasty in comparison. We are talking about a much more entrenched situation.Quoting TheMadFoolIf you become a London cabby your brain will change in those areas to do with spatial memory. Physical changes. New pathways atrophy others become mroe likely to fire. Unless you are bringing in a dualism - something I don't necessarily have anything against, but my guess is you and others might - software is hardware in brains. You can see that children have different brains, having to do with regulation of emotions and impulses for example. You can see it in MRIs. It's not some invisible software.
And a 40 year old learning a second language, for example, compared to a child, is at a hysterical disadvantage and will likely NEVER get the accent down, or will NEVER get things like syllable tone down in tonal languages, while the child can. We can even black box the whole soft vs hardware issue. Early brains more flexible. And also parents and society bear more resposibility and have had power over that child and still do. Which makes sense since their brains are not like adults around impulse control and regulation of emotions.
12 years should not be driving cars on public roads. Yes, many adults should not either, but treating 12 years as a group and adults on a more case by case testing and punishing basis around driver's licences makes sense.
And I don't think IQ is the criterion.
I mean, I would only consider intelligence an issue regarding understand that action X would lead to someone suffering.
If you could show that 26 years low IQ person Ted, didn't understand that his actions were dangerous, then it would affect sentencing and probation vs. prison. But if he meant to hit the oher person with a car, I don't really car how low his intelligence is. If it is so low he has no idea this hurts people, he still needs to be institutionalized and we can feel sorrier for him.
To me IQ is a category error here.
He'd be a crazy vegetable if he survived at all, long before 50 years.
Intelligence is derived from the physical brain, time (age); and experience. The structure of the physical brain changes materially, as does the content which is derived from the variable richness of experience. Development is an immensely complicated process which we try to capture through various means to provide a convenient metric--an IQ score or some other number.
I'm in favor of measurement, developing stats on intelligence, finding correlations between success in life (defined in various ways) and intelligence scores -- and more. We know, for instance, that children aged 0 to 5 years who hear a lot of 'good talk' (positive, affirming, complex) by their parents develop much better intellectual skills than children who hear much less of it.
But measurement and stats have upsides and downsides: It has to be done well across a good sized population to have meaningful results. Scores can become ceilings rather than floors. Child "A" has a lower score. The existence of the lower score (lower IQ, lower grades, lower test results...) will close many doors to future activities. Average scores ("meh") can be an impediment too, because high scores are so desired (by parents, college admissions, employers, etc.). The 'average' is underrated. Over the millennia, most people have been average and have managed just fine, even in difficult circumstances.
You may have a point there. However, look at how the educational system operates. High IQ pupils are routinely awarded grade-skipping promotions. This, if anything else, is an endorsement of IQ as a measure of how "grown up" one is (skipping grades puts a child among older students).
By the way, I'm curious, how would you measure childhood, adolescence, and adulthood?
Quoting Bylaw
There are a lot of clips/videos available online that discuss and poke fun at how immature adults are. Either that means something or it doesn't. You be the judge. In short, you maybe mistaken regarding the low numbers of immature adults (oxymoron).
To All Of The Above Posters
Does the term immature adult make sense?
[i]From Collins online dictionary:
Overgrown child (British English): An adult whose behaviour is characteristic of a child.[/i]
To avoid a contradiction, a distinction has to be made...
I think this argument would make sense in relation to Cartuna if he was using the school system as an authority.
But I didn't say that there are low numbers of adults who immature in some way.. Quoting BylawAnd certainly in the sense of not being able to hold them accountable for criminal acts. In the context of judging people responsible for their acts, even the ones who are immature to a level of 5 years old - feel free to produce some statistics around this so we can see how important an issue this is and also whether is correlates with IQ - cannot them be lose in society. If there is an adult with the maturity of a 5 year old and they have committed a crime, they probably need to be institutionalized. So, as part of an argument for reducing the sentences of low IQ adults I see many holes.
One, does IQ directly correlate with maturity?
Two, given that adult brains are more fixed, even if there are adults who have low IQs and this leads to criminal acts, there is still good reason to sentence them differently from 5 year olds and even 15 year olds.
Three, I just realized I am responding to unresponded to points in my earlier post, so I will stop here, but there are other problems.
I'm only stating a widely-accepted view on the issue: the older you are (chronologically), the smarter you are. This intuition or belief is reflected in IQ = [math]\frac{Mental \space Age}{Chronological \space Age} \times 100[/math].
You question this though and IQ does seem very one-dimensional: maturity is a complex phenomenon/state of an individual [mind (reason + emotion) + body] unto himself and as a social entity. The point is if we were to simplify it, what would we end up with? IQ? Yes/no? As you pointed out, IQ is probably an oversimplification. The question is what's the alternative? Your guess is as good as mine.
Quoting Bylaw
Exactly my point. Please note there seem to be multiple definitions of "adult" and "child" and it becomes hazardous, even pointless, to discuss the matter further unless we want to get entangled in a conceptual maze.