i don't think lifetime bans deter cheaters much more than several year-bans together with public attention. Here in Germany almost everyone remembers the names of the cheaters involoved in some of the larger incidents (Allwermann, Natsidis, or the french connection). The failure of draconic punishment to reduce crime rates has been proven time and time again.

The doping analogy might not be pertinent to baseball (although i don't follow your reasoning at all here), but it's absolutely valid if you consider sports like cycling or running. In an environment where doping abounds, without it you don't get farther than amateur level. And even if you have to hit the ball, it does matter how far it goes when you do.

"Smiley had Moore in check after 16 moves and never let up." - lol

I have a big issue with your use of the word "draconic" here. A lifetime ban from chess tournaments isn't draconic.

Even if you want to argue that it wouldn't be more effective than a shorter ban, do you have any argument as to why a lifetime ban is a negative? What's it hurt?

well in my opinion it is generally wrong to impose punishment on a minor that affects him for life. Who does it hurt? Him obviously. As a first time offender, he should be given the chance to prove that he is willing to change. And there should be harder sanctions for mor major fraud, or for cheating at games at much higher stakes. If you hand out lifetime bans for every case of cheating, you take away any chance to differentiate.

If i were the judge, i'd salomonically ban him for life from junior events.

i guess you'd try a 16 year old accused of 1st degree murder in juvenile court too, wouldn't you?

yes of course, that's the law in germany. But there's a reason 1st degree murder is the only crime that carries punishment that affects a first-time offender for life, i wouldn't really compare that to using an electronic device to cheat at chess.

I think that's too arbitrary of a rule. I have no problem with the concept of juvenile courts and separating the punishments, but there's no need for lesser issues than crime to be tied directly to the same standards. There's nothing magical about 18 that means a person is suddenly fully responsible for their actions than they were before.

In my profession of journalism, the cardinal sin is fabrication of stories. In almost all the major incidents of fabrication, digging into the offender's past has shown that it wasn't a random incident in adulthood, but a pattern that began to show itself at a young age. The recidivism rate for offenses of dishonesty is generally huge. A person who will cheat at 16 is incredibly likely to still be a cheater at 26, 37, 57, etc.

In this case, chess's incentive to keep out dishonest players outweighs this kid's rights to a second chance when he enters adulthood, precisely because the punishment is not draconic at all. In a very large world of full of possibilities, he gets to have all of his options still available to him except play in rated chess tournaments. That is not draconic, but sensible.

Kyle, cheating in chess is totally different than other type of crimes. Crime is also related to the neighbourhood you live in and your family. So unless the guys that are cheating at chess live come from a background of family and ghettos where Houdini is the norm I dont see how the situations are analogous at all.

The ONLY question to me is should he get life imprisonment or the death penalty.