The reason for what?

I am very surprised at the level of knowledge d2, who is not a lawyer, has regarding the juvenile process and recent supreme court opinions regarding life without parole for juveniles. I can tell you that most lawyers, even criminal lawyers, don't have the level of understanding that you are displaying in this thread, especially when it comes to the (correct) terminology you are using.

I used to read supreme and appellate court cases for fun and no profit, just on the side while playing MTTs. Not for a few years now, though. Particularly enjoyed Kozinski's writing out of the 9th circuit, but read a bunch of stuff from all over really, treating the cases like a Wiki and looking up case citations when coming across them if they looked interesting. I'm still into true crime and if I see a case that looks interesting and it has gone through appeal, I try and see if I can find it.

ETA: Judges and law clerks seem to love showing off how articulate they are, so I always found this reading to be a very rich source for expanding my vocabulary. I always look up words and terms I don't know when I come across them, hence my knowledge of the terminology.

If you are a defendant, it is almost never the correct decision to have a bench trial over a jury trial. The only exception I can think of is if you have a potential jury pool that is completely outraged (such as in the Freddie Gray trials). Judges almost always have a strong bias for the police and the prosecution, and that bias is further amplified when it comes to juvenile cases.

That's not my point. I agree with it but that's nothign to do with it.

Good law is founded on principles and philosophical analysis. Ourtcomes are a part of what feeds into evidence and expertise when we consider how to improve the process. (Also, as an aside, the process is part of the punishment).

Fundamentally, we treat and judge children differently to adults - I think that's correct.

For treating them as children.

In what way are these differences substantive rather than procedural in nature?

In what way do we treat them as children?

different rules, laws, processes etc etc

Ones made with consideration for the fact they are children. A fact that no amount of wittering on about outcomes will change.

Cool. So, which of these differences, specifically, do you think make the adult process, in your words "entirely inappropriate" for juveniles accused of serious violent crimes?

Chez,

It is true that some children have a problem with impulse control, but there are also adults that have problems with impulse control. it is true that some children have bad judgment, but there are also adults that have bad judgment. If those are the reasons that juveniles should be treated differently, then I can tell you for a fact that there are many adults that are less mature emotionally than young teenagers. I dealt with them every day.

As a society, we have to come up with the best solution for competing interests. We don't want to punish young people as harshly as people that should know better, but at the same time, there are people that are a danger to society that have to be locked up for the good of everybody. We also cannot give the impression to juveniles that they can commit whichever heinous acts they want without commensurate consequences. That is already a massive problem, as juveniles are already under the (mistaken) impression that they cannot suffer actual consequences for their actions.

I agree with you to the extent that I believe juveniles are put into adult court more often than necessary. Still, I feel like painting this whole system as completely dysfunctional and evil makes your arguments less credible and very easy to attack. What I am seeing here is a very wide net where you seem to think that a kid shoplifting a candy bar and a mass murderer are treated in a similar fashion. There may be specific things that can and should be changed. Maybe we should focus on those?

brain development, maturity, vulnerability, comprehension, experience

I'm sure there are many more reasons why we specifically treat children differently to adults but that is so much more than enough.

I'm in no way defending how adults are treated by the legal system.

We do indeed.

I largely agree wiht that. Of course a kid stealing a candy bar shoud be differently froim one who goes on a killing spree. Also an adult who steals a candy bar should be treated differently from one who goes on a killing spree. That is no defense of trying/treating children as adults.

Still not answering the question, chez. I am not asking for the differences between adults and children, I am asking you to enumerate the specific differences between the adult process and the juvenile process which make the adult process entirely inappropriate for dealing with juveniles accused of serious violent offences.

A more cynical man than I might suspect that you are acting dumb to avoid the question on purpose, but luckily for you I happen to know you well enough to know that you are actually this dumb.

If you're factually innocent and/or you know that the evidence against you is insufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, a bench trial is probably a better option. But prosecutors rarely take those cases all the way to trial, so "almost never" is probably right.

I mostly agree. Thus, my question.

I can imagine certain types of white collar cases where the defendant is relying on an accounting or tax nuance that is likely to go over the head of a jury, but those sorts of cases would be few and far between.

In that situation, you could move for a directed verdict after the state closed its case.

Ah, yes, fair point. So I guess you get the bite at the "bench acquittal" cherry in both scenarios.

I've answered the question. I just haven't answered one that misses the point.

I am indeed often too dumb to know. Knowing stuff is your strength - you are very very good at it.

Yes washoe, she did. Just like your buddy Holtzclaw.

TIL that the way discussion works is that your interlocutor just gets to answer whatever question he or she thinks is relevant, not the one you actually asked. I am going to employ this bold strategy in my professional life going forward and will provide updates as to how it's working out for me.

Or maybe, and this is a long shot, but could it possibly be, chez, that the reason you are not answering my actual question is that you *gasp* don't have a ****ing answer for it?

and I will treat you with due respect.

That will always be true but how I treat you may chnage.

Chez are you really against locking up anyone, including adult offenders indefinitely? Even the likes of Anders Breivik or that NZ Mosque killer who murdered 51 people or serial killers?

Here is a difference in the way that adult cases and juvenile cases are handled, at least philosophically. The chief principle in adult cases is that criminals be punished for their crimes. The chief principle in juvenile cases is "the best interests of the child." There is more of an emphasis on rehabilitation in juvenile cases than there is in adult cases. In reality, I feel that the best interest stuff is complete nonsense, and is often used as a pretext to completely screw up a kid's life. If you are potentially going to prison, then everybody knows to takes things seriously. If you are going to a juvenile program, there is this notion that you are sending a kid to a summer camp where they can be molded into a model citizen. It makes it really easy for the judge to say "guilty" on borderline cases which no reasonable jury or even a judge would say guilty, as they would feel that it was in the kid's best interests to send them to these programs.

I mentioned this before, but those juvenile programs are usually worse than adult prisons. The security is tighter and there is much more violence between inmates than in adult prisons. I once had to visit a juvenile client in one of those programs. It was right across the street from the county jail, but blocked by some other buildings so you would never know it was there. The security at the juvenile program was many times stricter than the jail. The juvenile program had a twenty foot fence with razor wire everywhere to be seen, similar to the maximum security prison we have in our state. The adult jail across the street had some areas with short fences and some barbed wire, but it was no where near as strict or as secure as the juvenile program. Every once in a while, I would have kids sent to jail from the juvenile programs, and they would BEG me to let them plead to as much jail time as they could at the adult jail so they would be away from the juvenile programs.

If we mean without the possibility of release then yes I'm really against

Maybe some people, should never be released but that's different.