I don't buy the argument that in order to treat children as moral agents when they commit a crime you must also give them voting rights. These are just two separate things - the moral issue of, "Don't murder," is much clearer cut than the moral issue of choosing who to vote for. You can expect a child to develop the moral capacity to understand that murder is wrong and not do it on that basis long before they develop the capacity to make decisions about politics.
We can expect kids to "know" not to murder, but this is not coextensive with the level of moral responsibility needed to hold someone responsible for the gravest of acts. Kids learn "not to murder" around 3-4 years old as a bit of abstract propositional knowledge, but this is not the same thing as having moral responsibility which is an integrated and deep comprehension of moral norms, and series of personality traits (e.g. impulse control). It's not just a matter of things being clear cut.
Moral development continues quite late in life. We have the choice of where to locate both enfranchisement and criminal responsibility, both choices are somewhat arbitrary because moral responsibility is a spectrum, but in general, we should avoid imposing the most grave aspects of state power on someone if we do not think they are ready to exercise among the most fundamental of human rights- rights that should only be denied for very strong reasons and not just because someone isn't the 'ideal' agent to exercise them.
Look at it this way- if you expect someone will develop a great deal more- and this must be the justification for not giving them the vote- then it seems plausible that such development would have also prevented the murder. Thus you should not hold anyone who you don't think should be allowed to vote responsible in a full-throated sense.
The four reasons to punish criminals are retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and isolation. Your argument addresses retribution and deterrence, I think; isolating and rehabilitating someone dangerous seems important regardless of his age, though. Hatred, fear, contempt, indignation... feelings... aren't the only reasons to imprison violent criminals.
I don't buy the argument that in order to treat children as moral agents when they commit a crime you must also give them voting rights. These are just two separate things - the moral issue of, "Don't murder," is much clearer cut than the moral issue of choosing who to vote for. You can expect a child to develop the moral capacity to understand that murder is wrong and not do it on that basis long before they develop the capacity to make decisions about politics.
We can expect kids to "know" not to murder, but this is not coextensive with the level of moral responsibility needed to hold someone responsible for the gravest of acts. Kids learn "not to murder" around 3-4 years old as a bit of abstract propositional knowledge, but this is not the same thing as having moral responsibility which is an integrated and deep comprehension of moral norms, and series of personality traits (e.g. impulse control). It's not just a matter of things being clear cut.
Moral development continues quite late in life. We have the choice of where to locate both enfranchisement and criminal responsibility, both choices are somewhat arbitrary because moral responsibility is a spectrum, but in general, we should avoid imposing the most grave aspects of state power on someone if we do not think they are ready to exercise among the most fundamental of human rights- rights that should only be denied for very strong reasons and not just because someone isn't the 'ideal' agent to exercise them.
Look at it this way- if you expect someone will develop a great deal more- and this must be the justification for not giving them the vote- then it seems plausible that such development would have also prevented the murder. Thus you should not hold anyone who you don't think should be allowed to vote responsible in a full-throated sense.
I'll add this into the article as well.
The four reasons to punish criminals are retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and isolation. Your argument addresses retribution and deterrence, I think; isolating and rehabilitating someone dangerous seems important regardless of his age, though. Hatred, fear, contempt, indignation... feelings... aren't the only reasons to imprison violent criminals.
Are adolescents distinct from children and adults to you?