Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Saturday March 17 2018, @01:14PM   Printer-friendly
from the now-we-know-who-to-blame dept.

Teenagers are more likely to plead guilty to crimes they did not commit because they are less able to make mature decisions, new research shows.

Experts have called for major changes to the criminal justice system after finding innocent younger people are far more likely admit to offences, even when innocent, than adults.

Those who carried out the study say teenagers should not be allowed to make deals where they face a lesser charge in return for pleading guilty. The study suggests young people are more likely to be enticed by these deals, and take what they see as an advantageous offer even when they have done nothing wrong.

Most criminal convictions in the UK and the USA occur as the result of guilty pleas, rather than trial. This means the majority of convictions are the result of decisions made by people accused of crimes rather than jurors.

The research was carried out in the USA, where a system known as "plea bargaining" is utilised, but the academics say their discovery has implications for countries across the world that allow teenagers accused of crimes to receive a sentence or charge reduction by pleading guilty. Specifically, the researchers recommend restricting reductions that may entice innocent teenagers into pleading guilty and making it easier for teenagers to change pleas after they have been entered.

Other research has found adolescents are less able to perceive risk and resist the influence of peers because of developmental immaturity.

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-teenagers-guilty-crimes-didnt-commit.html

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by unauthorized on Saturday March 17 2018, @06:38PM (2 children)

    by unauthorized (3776) on Saturday March 17 2018, @06:38PM (#654172)

    Welcome to cognitive dissonance. It's a bitch isn't it?

    Spanking a child that has ignored multiple verbal warnings, timeouts and "consequences", but has continued with an unacceptable and publicly disruptive behavior is torture?

    If your child behaves like that, then that raises some questions about how you raised them.

    But to return to your point, what exactly disqualifies it as an act of torture?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday March 18 2018, @12:01AM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday March 18 2018, @12:01AM (#654282)

    If your child behaves like that, then that raises some questions about how you raised them.

    Every snowflake is special, they are all unique and what works on all the snowflakes you've ever known may not work at all on another one.

    Now, beatings, they generate a fairly predictable result - not a desirable one: fear, cowering, resentment, retaliation, explosive retribution...

    --
    🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 2) by Bot on Monday March 19 2018, @12:44PM

    by Bot (3902) on Monday March 19 2018, @12:44PM (#654848) Journal

    > what exactly disqualifies it as an act of torture?
    The "excruciating" adjective prefixed to pain in the definition I have read on this thread, I guess.

    --
    Account abandoned.