It is weird, as most of the time the law is completely arbitrary (driving at 16; consenting for sex at 16; smoking at 18; drinking at 21; etc. etc.), with no regard for the fact that different people are at different maturity levels when they reach those ages, yet in this one instance there is nuance.
Sure, but in the examples you gave, there are set ages that we adhere to. You can drive when you are 16, not you can drive when you are 16 unless we think you are really mature then we will let you drive at 14. You can consent to sex at 16 but we dont say you can consent at 16 unless you look older and your English teacher is really, really hot. There is an age, and that age is the law.
In this case, we have a law, presumably 18, that we say before this age you are a juvenile. Now, I dont care if you want to make that age 17 or 16 or whatever, but whatever it is, that should be what it is. It just doesn’t seem like you should be able to set an age and then randomly be able to change it if this or that attorney gives a good argument, or this or that judge decides a crime is more awful than normal. It sounds like ad hoc law.
Yeah, it’s perfectly okay for a ten year old that is unarmed to kill someone.
/ sarc
Oh, and welcome BACK to FR.
;-)