Posted to Center for a Stateless Society
October 25, 2013
Commentary
By Thomas L. Knapp
It happens so often these days that it almost passes without notice: A young defendant, accused of some awful crime, is “charged as an adult.” Such is the case of 14-year-old Philip Chism of Andover, Massachusetts.
The Danvers High School student, prosecutors allege, followed 24-year-old math teacher Colleen Ritzer into a bathroom, punched her in the face and slit her throat with a box-cutter.
Philip Chism isn’t allowed to quit school until he’s 16 years old — not even if he’s offered a contract to play professional soccer for the New England Revolution, a contract which, not being 18 years of age, he would in any case be ineligible to sign on his own authority.
Philip Chism isn’t allowed to drive a car for two more years, either.
Massachusetts’s “age of consent” laws are kind of strange — it’s possible that he might be allowed to have sex at 16, unless he’s lived a “chaste life” from which he was “induced,” in which case the age becomes 18. Either way, the other party to the sexual act is considered a criminal and a predator.
Nor can he vote, enlist in the military, own real estate, register a limited liability company or charter a corporation for four more years.
He has to wait seven more years before he can even legally walk into a bar, sit down, order and drink a beer.
There are very few exceptions to these legal restrictions on what Philip Chism may do and what others may do with him. These restrictions are, their supporters claim, based on the notion that at 14, Chism is not mature or competent enough to do those things. He doesn’t understand the implications and consequences. He’s a child, not an adult. He needs to be, in a word, protected.
But the instant he’s accused of a crime, all that goes out the window. For the convenience of the state and the pacification of the mob, he is magically and retroactively transformed into an “adult.”
There’s a word for that kind of thing, but I can’t use that word in a family-friend publication (it has to do with what comes out the rear ends of male cattle).
If Philip Chism is a child when it comes to school attendance, contracts, sexual encounters, driving, voting, enlisting, drinking, etc., he’s a child when he’s thought to have killed someone.
If Philip Chism is not a child when he’s thought to have killed someone, he’s not a child with respect to any of those other matters, either.
Philip Chism is either a child, or he’s not.
I’m an anarchist, but even I acknowledge that children and adults are different and will always, in any society, be treated differently.
The problem with the political way of handling these differences is that it amounts to having politicians draw numbers out of hats, letting them impose protections/restrictions (on children and adults alike) based on those numbers, and allowing them to discard those protections/restrictions when they become politically inconvenient.
If those protections and restrictions are just, they remain just even when they become politically inconvenient, and should be rigorously and universally maintained. If they are unjust, they should be discarded completely, no matter how politically convenient they may be.
While I can’t guarantee that the coming stateless society will birth a more just and sound model for handling the differences between children and adults, I’m fairly confident — if for no other reason than that it would be hard to come up with a LESS just model than the arbitrary and capricious standards now being applied to Philip Chism.
Thomas L. Knapp is currently the Senior News Analyst and Media Coordinator at The Center for a Stateless Society. He was a founder in 2006 of the now disbanded Boston Tea Party, and also ran for Congress in Missouri’s District 2 in 2008. Mr. Knapp is also a contributor and frequent commenter here at IPR.
tk, like most, I don’t expect to be fully agreed with on all my opinions. It is, however, much appreciated when another listens and understands my perspective as you do. Thank you! (Technically, btw, I am not a Taoist, though the book is a great influence. Even MNR found wisdom there, too.)
Yes, juries may well be the optimal way to go in the search for justice and maintaining a semblance of domestic tranquility, agreed.
And, while I don’t take a firm position, it may be that prosecutorial discretion should not extend to the practice of trying minors as (if they were) adults. It may be the best practice to leave such discretion to grand juries. That seems a tidy and judicious solution to an often charged situation. My sense, though, is that grand juries may be as or more merciless than prosecutors, but I admit that’s just a sense of things.
Well, RC has always been up front on two points:
1) He’s a Taoist, and as such “anti-passion” concepts like wu wei are going to heavily inform his perspective; and
2) His libertarianism is of a “lessarchist” or “asymptotic anarchist” variety. He not only doesn’t expect to see any version of libertopia, he considers the journey rather than some journey’s end point to be the reward.
I admit to occasionally questioning his libertarianism myself now and again, but I don’t think he’s deceptive about what he believes or that he considers himself a libertarian based on those beliefs rather than on some other definition.
“Passion generally leads to zealotry and sometimes psychosis or paranoia, which I suggest is in no one’s interest”
To each his own, Robert. Personally, I can’t imagine life without passion.
A, think of me as a Strawberry Fields L. There’s nothing to get hung about. I favor increased individual liberty, but I am passionate about nothing. Seems like a setup for disappointment.
Passion generally leads to zealotry and sometimes psychosis or paranoia, which I suggest is in no one’s interest.
Well, RC’s definition of “libertarian” is just different from the prevailing ones, that’s all. While I tend to hew to a “ZAPsolutist” definition myself, the fact is that the word has a long and varied history, and that RC’s beliefs, as best I can understand them, probably fall within the general range of those variations.
With regard to juries, I’d attribute to them the same qualities as Churchill did to democracy : “[T]he worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
Juries are certainly imperfect, but having 12 semi-randomly selected people be required to agree unanimously before the state can act against someone strikes me as a lot better than placing such power in the hand of a single individual or a majority of a group of people whose interests are at all times bound up with preserving/expanding state power, etc.
With respect to “age of consent,” “trying as an adult,” and whatnot, I just think it makes more sense to let a jury CONSIDER THE ARGUMENTS than for some politicians to draw a number out of a hat, declare that number a magical dividing line between childhood/adulthood, immaturity/maturity, incompetence/competence, impunity/culpability … and then excuse themselves from adhering to that number whenever they find it convenient.
In this case I wrote on the matter of “trying juveniles as adults,” but in the past I’ve written similarly on “age of consent.”
In a recent case, a Florida teen was arrested (and eventually took a plea bargain) for having a sexual relationship with a minor. My recollection is that they were 17 and 14 when it began, 18 and 14 or 15 when she was arrested.
During the course of the case, it came out that they continued to be in communication, on the initiative of the younger person, after the older person’s arrest and in violation of the court’s order. That’s one of many indications that the younger person does not consider herself to be a “victim” and in fact consented to the relationship.
Under the law, the “victim” is a “victim” whether she wants to be or not. The legislature has drawn the number out of the hat, and that’s the end of it.
I’d much rather that a jury was allowed to hear the prosecution argue that the “victim” is incompetent to consent to sex, and hear the defense argue that the “victim” is competent and not a victim at all (with the “victim” being allowed to testify to either proposition), and decide, instead of being handcuffed by the arbitrary number drawn from a hat — a number which will be capriciously discarded ASAP if the “victim” is arrested next week for murder.
“Matt Cholko October 28, 2013 at 10:24 pm
I also agree that RC seems to get some sort of pleasure out of arguing against Lism. ”
It seems like all RC does here is argue with Libertarians. RC has been posting here for a long time, but does he ever post anything that could be labeled as a passionate defense of individual liberty?
Rather odd behavior for somebody claiming to be a Libertarian.
I also agree that RC seems to get some sort of pleasure out of arguing against Lism. However, he’s generally not disrespectful when doing so, and I’d say that overall his counterpoints are a net positive for the discussions here on IPR.
Strangely, I basically agree with RC. His thoughts about juries ring pretty true to me.
As they exist today, juries are designed by the state, paid by the state, selected by the state, and told what to do by a full-time employee of the state (the judge). Then, one state employee and one state license holder try to convince the 12 jurors that their client is right (or, not wrong).
With that said, I do prefer juries to single judges, or even panels of judges. Further, I don’t know of a better way to handle legal disputes.
I absolutely do agree with Andy (and many others) that juries should be made aware of everything that they can do, not just what the judge wants them to hear.
A, IOW, on what tablet did God write, You must have juries, and they must magically have the power to nullify laws if they feel like it?
Failing that test, we’re into the morass of relativism and social institution optimization, not TRUTH. Let’s be honest, here!
A, my apologies. Yes, it was Starchild, on review.
The term ” bobble headed conformists” also sounds like a projection. Ask yourself if you are making this charge against yourself. Free your mind, look with honesty, I suggest.
Do you not see that you are MAKING the case that the jury system is ITSELF “statist”?
“According to you, they can nullify laws they feel is unjust, although they generally don’t and generally follow the state’s laws.”
This is not according to me, it is according to American common law history.
The reason that most jurors do not engage in jury nullification is because most jurors do not know that they have this right, because the judges do not inform them that they have this right, and because the subject of jury nullification has been suppressed by the education system and the media. Also, the jury selection process is further tainted by voir dire as government prosecutors try to weed out free thinking people from being on juries in favor of people who are bobble headed conformists.
FYI, the original poster whom you are quoting here was not me, it was Starchild, but as I said above, I agree with his observations here.
tk: I’d put the “off the rails” point a bit earlier than that — mid-1940s, probably, or even earlier, with SEK3 et. al as an ongoing attempted corrective.I’d put the “off the rails” point a bit earlier than that — mid-1940s, probably, or even earlier, with SEK3 et. al as an ongoing attempted corrective.
me: In a sense, we all conduct our own “ongoing attempted corrective,” yes? SEK3 was quite the character, but his words never did persuade me to drop my “asymptotic” modifier. Did he ever address the obvious non-starter for a serviceable application of un-modified anarchism, did he, to your knowledge? Did he ever address what would happen to the State’s stockpiles of WMD? I’m not sure how it’s “corrective” when the obvious first filter fails….
A: I don’t believe I know any other self-identified libertarian who would describe juries as “12-person temporary mobs.” With Libertarians like you, who needs statists?”
me: Are you serious here? First off, the “temporary mobs” term is — as far as I know — an original one, which I came up with here in recent days. I see nothing “statist” about it, it just seems…well…true.
Let’s be really radical and really open-minded for a moment: What’s a jury? It’s 12 people, generally compelled BY THE STATE, to sit in judgment of a fellow (generally) citizen. They are clearly temporary, with no particular interest or expertise in the matter at hand in the case they sit for. They are given instructions by the judge and the relevant law, and they observe duelling state-sanctioned lawyers make arguments within the state’s laws.
According to you, they can nullify laws they feel is unjust, although they generally don’t and generally follow the state’s laws.
Nevertheless, as amateurs and conscripts, I call them “mobs” since they generally lack inherent interest, expertise, who sit in court for days and then render their collective findings.
Perhaps there’s a better word than “mob.”
I generally think jury trials are a pretty good social construct, although they are hardly obviously 12 Moseses sitting for case after case.
Could you be projecting? On its face, juries are statist, so you lash out at me without information knowing that your support for juries is statist itself! Hmmm?
Oh, the irony! 😉
I think just about everyone who has spent any significant amount of time on IPR can appreciate Starchild’s sentiments.
And so have I.
“Starchild October 28, 2013 at 4:27 am
Robert Capozzi – It seems like whenever I see your comments on IPR, you are arguing against libertarianism, whether it’s sneering at Murray Rothbard or trying to undermine the points being made by proponents of individual liberty. Can you point us to anywhere online where you actually put time and energy into arguing *against* statism?
And please, let’s not waste our time attempting to parse the meaning of the words in the preceding two sentences — I think you know what I’m talking about. You give the impression of getting some sort of perverse pleasure out of arguing against libertarianism while being a member of the Libertarian Party.
I don’t believe I know any other self-identified libertarian who would describe juries as “12-person temporary mobs.” With Libertarians like you, who needs statists?”
Great points Starchild. I’ve noticed the same thing.
I’d put the “off the rails” point a bit earlier than that — mid-1940s, probably, or even earlier, with SEK3 et. al as an ongoing attempted corrective.
starchild: You give the impression of getting some sort of perverse pleasure out of arguing against libertarianism…
me: Sorry to’ve given that impression. I don’t argue “against” L-ism, I share that L thought went off the rails in the 60s-70s timeframe. I invite other Ls to get back to the Garden that Lao Tzu planted and Hayek helped nurture.
On this matter, though, I suspect that my views are more in alignment with the majority of self-identifying Ls than yours and TK’s position.
Robert Capozzi – It seems like whenever I see your comments on IPR, you are arguing against libertarianism, whether it’s sneering at Murray Rothbard or trying to undermine the points being made by proponents of individual liberty. Can you point us to anywhere online where you actually put time and energy into arguing *against* statism?
And please, let’s not waste our time attempting to parse the meaning of the words in the preceding two sentences — I think you know what I’m talking about. You give the impression of getting some sort of perverse pleasure out of arguing against libertarianism while being a member of the Libertarian Party.
I don’t believe I know any other self-identified libertarian who would describe juries as “12-person temporary mobs.” With Libertarians like you, who needs statists?
“I’ve never understood why some think 12-person temporary mobs is the way toward justice”
I don’t see it as THE way toward justice. I see it as, relatively speaking A way toward justice versus placing the power to treat the matter arbitrarily and capriciously in the hands of politicians.
TK, thanks for clarifying. From what I know of juries, I suspect that the Insurance Councils and the populace should expect wide perturbations and huge inconsistencies coming from juries, then.
I’ve never understood why some think 12-person temporary mobs is the way toward justice….
“How might these sorts of extraordinary circumstances be dealt with in ‘the coming stateless society,’ btw?”
Probably in various ways. My own preferred way is for juries to be specifically empowered to consider, rather than forbidden from considering, rebuttable presumptions of competence or incompetence — in ALL cases.
At the same time that 14-year-old Philip Chism is being “charged as an adult” for murder in Massachusetts, 17/18 year-old Kaitlyn Hunt just accepted a plea bargain in Florida for a sexual relationship with a 14/15 year old “victim” who doesn’t seem to feel very “victimized.”
In both cases, I’d prefer that juries be allowed to consider whether or not the defendant/alleged victim is an adult, instead of being legally required to just accept the prosecutor’s claim in one direction or the other in advance.
TK, yes, I would agree that IF that’s the prosecutor’s motive, that lacks integrity and is dysfunctional.
Perhaps because you tend to be literal minded and I not, I don’t see the general idea of trying minors as adults the same way you do. I see it as not making them “adults” in the law’s eyes, but rather to try minors with the RULES for adults vs. the general rules for minors as an exception, given the pronounced nature of the crime. If a minor does a hurtful act and there’s reason to believe that they did so consciously, I am open to the possibility that more severe steps should be taken to curb the minor’s dysfunctional behavior.
The specifics on how the exception is executed is another matter. I don’t defend the specifics, which may well not be applied judiciously or fairly.
How might these sorts of extraordinary circumstances be dealt with in “the coming stateless society,” btw? Might there be an Insurance Council that makes no distinction among similar acts of a 5-year-old and a 17-year, 364-day-old?
Quoth RC:
“Why would you say that because a 14-year-old could be charged as an adult for murder, s/he should have the right to sign contracts or vote?”
Because that 14-year-old is either a child or an adult.
But the formulation is backward. It’s not that if the 14 year old could be charged as an adult, (s)he should have the right to sign contracts or vote. It’s that in saying the 14-year-old CAN’T sign contracts or vote, you’re saying the 14-year-old is not competent, not mature, not an adult. And if you’re saying that, it shouldn’t be allowed to magically change just to put a “tough on crime” notch on some prosecutor’s gun.
s: If someone is charged “as an adult”, then he/she should also be allowed to have sex, vote, use alcohol and marijuana, sign contracts, etc., “as an adult”.
me: Cleverly put, but let’s look at this a bit closer, shall we? Why would you say that because a 14-year-old could be charged as an adult for murder, s/he should have the right to sign contracts or vote? Murder is a direct and clear act of aggression. The ability to sign a contract is a more abstract notion, as is voting.
If a minor commits a violent, aggressive act, the minor could be viewed as an inherent threat, needing more monitoring/isolation from the general populace for the general populace’s protection.
Your argument works for me when we’re talking about things like the drinking age or (sadly) the draft. It doesn’t port over well in this circumstance.
Excellent column Tom. I’ve made similar observations myself.
The State should not be allowed to simply treat someone as an adult when and only when they find it convenient to do so.
If someone is charged “as an adult”, then he/she should also be allowed to have sex, vote, use alcohol and marijuana, sign contracts, etc., “as an adult”.
Age-based standards are always arbitrary and dubious to begin with — tying rights and responsibilities to legal independence rather than to adulthood is a fairer and less discriminatory approach — but to write them into the law and then apply them inconsistently goes beyond dubious and gets well into “what comes out the rear ends of male cattle” territory.
The notion that you must be an adult for all things at the same time is silly. However, the basis of a functional legal system is that a person can tell what their status is. The suggestion ‘the prosecutor and defender get to argue about this is bad form. It is perfectly reasonable that some crimes that are malum per se should be tried as the crime even when the alleged perpetrator is quite young. However, it them\n makes sense at least for publicly schooled children to be taught what the crimes are, and the penalties, which I do not recall drom my school years. It is certainly more important to teach Crime and Punishment than to teach How to Fornicate — local school district in former home town had some of its 6th grade Sex Ed class plans published in the local paper, which fit precisely this description — and arguably more useful than teaching How to Engage in Literary Criticism. (If you want to teach literary criticism, you should actually present examples of literary critiques, which turn out as I saw years later to be presented in Cliff’s Notes, not ‘here, read this and criticize’.) (Mind you, I also recall reading Wuthering Heights, in iirc 7th grade, at least half the class being young enough to find the concept of romantic love about as intelligible as string theory.)
Charging a minor as an adult gives me no particular pause. It might be nice to pre-codify the circumstances under which a child is considered an adult, but since the law’s biggest purpose is to signal what is inappropriate, when and by whom, it seems to me applying a law to minors under some conditions seems quite reasonable.
I would like to know when a “stateless society” will be “coming.” Were it to come, I question whether the Insurance Counsel will address this adult/minor wrinkle as a top priority. My guess is their hands will be quite full sorting out the chaos….
?It is some bullshit, for sure.
Jill, Stephen and johnO,
All of your comments seem to assume that he actually did what he’s accused of doing.
At this point, very few people know if he actually did what he’s accused of doing. He presumably knows whether or not he did what he’s accused of doing. If he didn’t do what he’s accused of doing, the person or persons who DID do wit also know.
Everyone else has either a more-informed (the prosecutor, for example) or less-informed (all of us who have just read a couple of news stories) opinion, not actual knowledge. So we can’t really take what he’s ACC– USED of doing as evidence of whether or not he’s a competent adult, since our opinions are opinions, not knowledge.
According to the law, he’s not a competent adult if he wants to do A, B, C, D, E, F or G. But a prosecutor gets to wave a magic wand and have him treated as a competent adult if he is ACC– USED of doing H. Since IPR is not a family newspaper, I can repeat myself without self-censorship: That’s some bullshit right there.
He’ll be out by 18. He made a terrible decision following the teacher into women’s restroom. I bet he thought her asking him to stay after class was open season. This was a bad situation for the women teacher, she was willing to help him with some school work. I bet this will make teachers have another teacher or teacher aide with them at all times. Maybe, teachers should learn martial arts or have armed security. Slippery slope of armed schools. Tough decisions to be made for sure.
Momentary adultness is a form of abuse.
The legal concepts of consent and comprehension of consequence are almost impossible to prove in any other construct outside of chamber. Therefore, it would be a waste of time to argue for exemptions. Our court system has proven that the crime of murder lends itself toward adultness; regardless of the age at the time of the act. The crime itself sets the punishment, not the age of the perpetrator.
I have yet to find logic in our legal system.
I completely agree that all these arbitrary ages for diffrerent “rights” are ridiculous. If it’s going to be mandated by law, which of course I don’t think it should be, at least there should be some consistency.
Having said that, however, there’s no way a 14 year old didn’t know that murdering someone was absolutely, completely, and thoroughly wrong.
Well said. While the question of what rights and responsibilities children should have in a free society is an issue on which libertarians can legitimately disagree, I think it should be obvious to everyone that saddling someone with the responsibility of behaving like an adult, while not giving them the rights enjoyed by adults, is a particularly fucked up type of double standard.