What is the legal basis for trying a juvenile as an adult? I understand that it is generally only done for serious crimes, and I believe the reason is to not have the perpetrator's criminal record simply sealed at a certain age, but what is the legal basis in the United States for this? If you are not yet a certain age, or have passed an age, you just aren't that age... period. As a society we are obsessed with arbitrary numerical figures as a cut-off for certain privileges, and enforce them strictly to the extent that a 21 year old cannot be served alcohol at 1:00am on their birthday because presumably it falls under the previous serving day. And I'm pretty sure that same 20 year old couldn't petition the court to be tried as a 21 year old such that they might be found not guilty of a minor in possession charge happening the day before. Falsifying your age for any reason (other than a social fib) is normally considered illegal. Certainly there is an expectation that if provided for official governmental purposes, or when entering into a private party contract where age may be germaine, the information provided will be correct. So what is the legal basis, logic, reasoning, age cut-off, crime severity, or any other standard that must be met to authorize a court to not recognize the correct natural age of a child and hold them to the standards of an adult? And does a defendant have any say in the matter such as it being part of a plea deal? Bonus question: If declared an adult by the court and then acquitted, does the juvenile retain any adult privileges? (I suspect not, but again it doesn't pass my personal reasonableness test...)
Juvenile Proceedings in General The question seems to assume that having reduced penalties for offenders below a certain age, or special courts or modes of trial for accused under a specific age is natural and automatic. It is actually a comparatively recent feature of US law, and exists only because statutes have so provided. Such statutes are largely matters of state law, and vary from state to state. When a judge orders that an accused minor &quot;be tried as an adult&quot;, the judge is not pretending that the minor is actually over the age of majority, nor ignoring the accused's actual age. Rather, the judge is following a procedure authorized in the same law or body of law that authorizes special juvenile procedures in the first place. Such a finding determines the procedure for dealing with a particular charge or case. It does not make the child a legal adult. The procedures for making such a determination are generally spelled out in detail in the law of the relevant jurisdiction. The details will vary. Almost anything can be part of a plea deal, and juvenile treatment could in theory be part of such a deal, when the relevant law permits, if the judge approves. I believe that is unusual, however. Maryland Some crimes are, in specific circumstances, to be handled in adult court. In other cases, there is an option to have a case to adult court, following a hearing, in which the child (or the child's representative) can present reasons not to move the case. Specifically: Code section 3-8A-02 sets out the purposes of the juvenile court system. Section 3-8a-6 (see below) specifies the circumstances under which a judge may move an accused child to an adult court, and the procedure for doing so. Code section 3-8A-03 outlines when a matter is under the jurisdiction of a juvenile court, providing that: (a) ... In addition to the jurisdiction specified in Subtitle 8 of this title, the [juvenile] court has exclusive original jurisdiction over: (a) (1) A child who is alleged to be delinquent or in need of supervision or who has received a citation for a violation; (a) (2) Except as provided in subsection (d)(6) of this section, a peace order proceeding in which the respondent is a child; and (a) (3) Proceedings arising under the Interstate Compact on Juveniles ... (c) Criminal cases under compulsory public school attendance laws. -- The jurisdiction of the court is concurrent with that of the District Court in any criminal case arising under the compulsory public school attendance laws of this State. (d) Limitations. -- The court does not have jurisdiction over: (d) (1) A child at least 14 years old alleged to have done an act which, if committed by an adult, would be a crime punishable by life imprisonment, as well as all other charges against the child arising out of the same incident, unless an order removing the proceeding to the court has been filed under § 4-202 of the Criminal Procedure Article; (d) (2) A child at least 16 years old alleged to have done an act in violation of any provision of the Transportation Article or other traffic law or ordinance, except an act that prescribes a penalty of incarceration; (d) (3) A child at least 16 years old alleged to have done an act in violation of any provision of law, rule, or regulation governing the use or operation of a boat, except an act that prescribes a penalty of incarceration; (d) (4) A child at least 16 years old alleged to have committed any of the following crimes, as well as all other charges against the child arising out of the same incident, unless an order removing the proceeding to the court has been filed under § 4-202 of the Criminal Procedure Article: (d) (4) (i) Abduction; (d) (4) (ii) Kidnapping; (d) (4) (iii) Second degree murder; (d) (4) (iv) Manslaughter, except involuntary manslaughter; (d) (4) (v) Second degree rape; (d) (4) (vi) Robbery under § 3-403 of the Criminal Law Article; (d) (4) (vii) Second degree sexual offense under § 3-306(a)(1) of the Criminal Law Article; (d) (4) (viii) Third degree sexual offense under § 3-307(a)(1) of the Criminal Law Article; (d) (4) (ix) A crime in violation of § 5-133, § 5-134, § 5-138, or § 5-203 of the Public Safety Article; (d) (4) (x) Using, wearing, carrying, or transporting a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime under § 5-621 of the Criminal Law Article; (d) (4) (xi) Use of a firearm under § 5-622 of the Criminal Law Article; (d) (4) (xii) Carjacking or armed carjacking under § 3-405 of the Criminal Law Article; (d) (4) (xiii) Assault in the first degree under § 3-202 of the Criminal Law Article; (d) (4) (xiv) Attempted murder in the second degree under § 2-206 of the Criminal Law Article; (d) (4) (xv) Attempted rape in the second degree under § 3-310 of the Criminal Law Article or attempted sexual offense in the second degree under § 3-312 of the Criminal Law Article; (d) (4) (xvi) Attempted robbery under § 3-403 of the Criminal Law Article; or (d) (4) (xvii) A violation of § 4-203, § 4-204, § 4-404, or § 4-405 of the Criminal Law Article; (d) (5) A child who previously has been convicted as an adult of a felony and is subsequently alleged to have committed an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult, unless an order removing the proceeding to the court has been filed under § 4-202 of the Criminal Procedure Article; or (d) (6) A peace order proceeding in which the victim, as defined in § 3-8A-01(cc)(1)(ii) of this subtitle, is a person eligible for relief, as defined in § 4-501 of the Family Law Article. Code section 3-8A-05 provides that: (a) Cases of delinquency. -- If a person is alleged to be delinquent, the age of the person at the time the alleged delinquent act was committed controls the determination of jurisdiction under this subtitle. (b) Acts under § 3-8A-19.1(b). -- If a person is alleged to have committed an act under § 3-8A-19.1(b) of this subtitle, the age of the person at the time the alleged act was committed controls the determination of jurisdiction under this subtitle. (c) Other cases. -- In all other cases under this subtitle the age of the child at the time the petition is filed controls the determination of jurisdiction under this subtitle. Code section 3-8A-6 provides, in relevant part: (a) How waived. -- The court may waive the exclusive jurisdiction conferred by § 3-8A-03 of this subtitle with respect to a petition alleging delinquency by: (a) (1) A child who is 15 years old or older; or (a) (2) A child who has not reached his 15th birthday, but who is charged with committing an act which if committed by an adult, would be punishable by life imprisonment. (a) (b) Hearing -- Required; notice. -- The court may not waive its jurisdiction under this section until after it has conducted a waiver hearing, held prior to an adjudicatory hearing and after notice has been given to all parties as prescribed by the Maryland Rules. The waiver hearing is solely to determine whether the court should waive its jurisdiction. When the juvenile court &quot;waive[s] its jurisdiction&quot;, the child is brought before an adult court and treated as an adult. Section 3-8a-6 further provides: (d) (1) The court may not waive its jurisdiction under this section unless it determines, from a preponderance of the evidence presented at the hearing, that the child is an unfit subject for juvenile rehabilitative measures. (d) (2) For purposes of determining whether to waive its jurisdiction under this section, the court shall assume that the child committed the delinquent act alleged. (e) Criteria. -- In making its determination, the court shall consider the following criteria individually and in relation to each other on the record: (e) (1) Age of the child; (e) (2) Mental and physical condition of the child; (e) (3) The child's amenability to treatment in any institution, facility, or program available to delinquents; (4) The nature of the offense and the child's alleged participation in it; and (e) (5) The public safety. (e) (f) Procedures. -- If jurisdiction is waived under this section, the court shall order the child held for trial under the regular procedures of the court which would have jurisdiction over the offense if committed by an adult. The petition alleging delinquency shall be considered a charging document for purposes of detaining the child pending a bail hearing. Falsifying Age The question now asserts: Falsifying your age for any reason (other than a social fib) is normally considered illegal. This is by no means generally true. Falsifying age to obtain a benefit not otherwise available, such as a reduced price, is fraud. Also unlawful is falsifying age to purchase age-restricted products, such as alcohol. But except where a specific law creates one, there is no general legal duty to provide one's true age.
The government has the choice They can prosecute the child for a crime in the adult system and the defendant then has the right to a jury, or they can refer the matter to the juvenile justice system (JJS) in which case any sentence is administrative and rehabilitative, not criminal and punitive. Some jurisdictions have removed certain classes of crime from the JJS and others allow the prosecutor or the JJS judge to refer the matter to the adult system. You may argue that this is a distinction without a difference, however, SCOTUS did not agree in McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971). The fifth amendment says &quot;No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law&quot; and SCOTUS was satisfied that the JJS provided that. They were also satisfied that because the prosecution was not criminal, the sixth amendment's right to a jury trial was not engaged. The JJS was established around the turn of the 20th century out of a belief that juveniles were more amenable to rehabilitation and that juvenile crime was a product of lack of parental supervision and societal influences whereas adults made a conscious choice to be criminals. In theory, the idea was to create a more sympathetic and less adversarial system to allow orders that were aimed to promote rehabilitation rather than punishment. Its success in that regard has been, at best, mixed. With the rise in crime in the US (but also worldwide) from the 1970s to 1990s, it became more politically beneficial to be &quot;tough on crime&quot; and more children were diverted from the JJS to the adult system - especially if they were people of colour. Even though crime rates have crashed since the turn of the 21st century, this is still many politicians' go-to response.
Your kid is not in trouble; he's a minor. You're in trouble. A criminal case for the charges a prosecutor would bring, i.e. destruction of property (the data) or for a relevant cyber or computer crime (malware, etc.), and/or a civil case for damages due to the destruction of the data would both hinge on one point: the concept of intent. See intent - Wex Legal Information Institute and Civil Law vs. Criminal Law: The Differences | Rasmussen College. Did you knowingly intend to cause damage or data loss with the structure of the name? It's pretty clear you did. The structure of a name that can invoke an SQL command is not in any sense a standard name in spelling or format or punctuation. So how would you convince the jury or judge that you had no intent when you named your kid? The possible poor design of a data system that didn't sanitize inputs is no defense. Saying the door was unlocked so I assume the homeowners didn't care if I trashed their house will get you laughed into jail or on the hook for a stiff civil judgement.
The law doesn’t “defines a minor as a legal person below (some age)” It defines it as a natural person below (some age).
In germany, a child below the age of 14 cannot be guilty of a crime. However, a family court may order measures regarding the welfare of the child. In a case like the one you describe, or even somewhat less extreme ones, this might be taking the child out of the family and into a care home where the child would be locked up for his or her own good.
Most place it isn't illegal, but unless the company has some good reason for asking (such as the ones that Nij outlines) then it might open them up to accusations of ageism. In other words, if they have no good reason for asking they would have difficulty explaining to a court why they wanted that information if it wasn't to facilitate age discrimination.
I presume that the document refers to "barn" and "barnebarn". Norway has forced heirship laws, which refers to offspring as "barn", not limited to those under the age of majority. Interpreted in the context of Norwegian law, there is no assertion in using the word that it grants a right to minors. When you add the additional condition that the recipient must have reached the age of majority, there is no conflict. In this kolonihage bylaws document, which is probably similar to the one you are looking at, §11.2.1 requires that a tranferee fulfill the criteria required for the allocation of parcels, and §11.2.2 addresses the non-necessity of paying the transfer fee in the case of death of the member, and does not create a special inheritance right. It also says that the new contract must be established. But a minor cannot establish a contract, and in general cannot be forced to fulfill the obligations of a member as spelled out in §9. You should check with a lawyer to be certain, of course.
If one day the child goes around to the father's house, perhaps in a state of upset, and says, "That's it, I'm staying," what is the legal position of the father? An eleven year old child really has no say in the matter. A judge in a custody case may consider what the 11 year old has to say but is unlikely to give it much weight. (In contrast, a judge is likely to give a lot of weight to the views of a child who has a job, who is doing O.K. in school, and is a year or two from becoming a full fledged adult.) This is up to his parents to resolve absent circumstances not present here (e.g. the child has made bona fide allegations of child abuse, or the parents are both incarcerated). And, if the parents can't resolve the dispute, it is up to a court in a case where parenting time is at issue (probably either a legal separation or a divorce in this case). For example, while (as noted below) the police will not generally drag a child kicking and screaming to the other parent without a court order, if the child is at his father's house, the father can absolutely drag the child kicking and screaming to the child's mother's house, no matter how much the child doesn't like it. Moreover, while the father will not be violating any law, if he does not do that, a child custody judge is likely to look dimly upon a parent who intentionally withholds visitation from another parent without good cause, when the court considers what kind of child custody arrangements to put in place. And, the court has extremely great discretion in these matters. The judge is also likely to be pretty unhappy with both of the parents for failing to be capable of communicating or cooperating over child rearing related issues, because they are apparently so focused on not getting along with each other over their issues with each other. In particular, if the mother calls the police claiming "child abduction," what will be the police position? Will they come to the door of the father? Will they drag the child kicking and screaming back to mother's house? It is not generally illegal for a married parent in a situation where there is no child custody order in place to have that parent's child with them over the objection of the other married parent. Absent a court order to the contrary, the police will probably call this a "civil matter" and will be unlikely to take any action until there is court guidance, absent exigent circumstances like evidence of recent not previously adjudicated claims of child abuse or neglect. The way to resolve this would be with a court filing of some sort seeking to resolve the parenting time issue, if necessary, on an emergency basis. Post-Script Whether or not the parents want to end the marriage, this situation is long overdue for court intervention. I've had couples who "pull the trigger" too soon, but this would not be a case of that type. Either the father or the mother needs to find a solicitor (if at all possible to afford that) and get the court system involved. If there is a breakdown in communications over matters related to the child, and the child is not cooperating in the face of an ambiguous parenting situation involving two parents who can't communicate about their child, the situation is out of control. Prompt court action could prevent a more negative outcome in the future by creating stability and structure in the situation.