SB 119-18: Age of Culpability Act--Failed

[Vice President Christian Man]

Age of Culpability Act

1. For purposes of any federal criminal prosecution, a minor child aged ten (10) years or older shall generally be deemed to be capable of criminal culpability for purposes of establishing the mens rea required for a conviction. The defense may rebut this presumption for any minor child aged at least ten (10) years but less than twelve (12) years. The defense may not rebut this presumption for any minor child aged at least twelve (12) years but less than eighteen (18 ) years.

2. Nothing in this act shall limit any civil lawsuit arising from the otherwise criminal conduct of a minor child. In any such civil lawsuit, the parents or guardians of the minor child shall be jointly and severally liable for any damages awarded due to the otherwise criminal conduct of their minor child.

3. This act shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of passage.

The senator from Virginia is recognized.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Well the senator of Virginia is apparently declaring war on children.

What have kids ever done wrong to you?

They can be brought to justice as an adult, starting from the age of possibly 10 already. But we're raising the ages for age of alcohol consumption or age for sexual consent.

Even owning a teddy bear is going to become a criminal offense in Atlasia.

You give them all the disadvantages of being an adult, while taking away all the advantages of being a child.

Look, a brain of a 12 year old is simply not fully developed, they're dependant on their parents and they should not be treated as adults before court. You don't treat them as adults in different regards of the law. It should be consistently applied.

This bill is a disgrace, and a form of distrust towards all the children in Atlasia.

The first responsability for what the child does, is with that of the parent.

It should be one of the two, you treat a child as a full adult or you treat a child as a child.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Age of Culpability Act

1. For purposes of any federal criminal prosecution, a minor child aged ten (10) sixteen (16) years or older shall generally be deemed to be capable of criminal culpability for purposes of establishing the mens rea required for a conviction. The defense may rebut this presumption for any minor child aged at least ten (10) sixteen (16) years but less than twelve (12) eighteen (18) years. The defense may not rebut this presumption for any minor child aged at least twelve (12) years but less than eighteen (18 ) years.

2. Nothing in this act shall limit any civil lawsuit arising from the otherwise criminal conduct of a minor child. In any such civil lawsuit, the parents or guardians of the minor child shall be jointly and severally liable for any damages awarded due to the otherwise criminal conduct of their minor child.

3. This act shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of passage.

Proposing amendment.

I think this is a fair compromise, because generally age of culpability starts at 18 in foreign countries

Youth incarceration is not really something that should be encouraged. Chances are very low you'll end up with a productive adult, if you lock them up at a very young age, and usaully criminal behaviour is the symptom of something underlying, usually bad parenting or a horrible environment.

16, and no further.

The senate and the right has been in favour of strict parenting, puts value at parenting but you also need to put responsability there. I know it's always the parents, but it usually is (or the broader environment), from my experience. Parenting matters. Education matters.

This amendment, or no passage. Take it or leave it. Hopefully the senator of Virginia can at least accept a compromise for once.

Unlike some others, i do have some experience with youth counseling and accompaniment (not something i've shared often here), so i do hope people at least are willing to listen to me, based on that. People advocating youth incarceration really have no idea what they're talking about.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Lincoln did this regionally already and that's probably the best place to decide this.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Just a reminder to any Belgians who cant read or think critically that there is currently NO federal limit. None. This bill sets a federal limit. It sets a federal limit much higher than the vast majority of States. Literally ANY limit is better than the status quo. The notion that it is "declaring war on children" to literally set a limit where none exists (and one that is higher than the status quo of 2/3 of the country) because you doltishly prefer a higher limit is the height of moronic thinking.

I was told previously this was proposed and the stupid left decided it would be better to have no limit rather than a limit that didnt go far enough for their tastes. So if anyone is declaring war on children, its those who would rather have no limits than getting a limit as high as they want. Again, this doesnt newly declare that children can now be prosecuted; it literally does the opposite. I think there needs to be a literacy test for Senators since its obvious 1 cant read.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Just a reminder to any Belgians who cant read or think critically that there is currently NO federal limit. None. This bill sets a federal limit. It sets a federal limit much higher than the vast majority of States. Literally ANY limit is better than the status quo. The notion that it is "declaring war on children" to literally set a limit where none exists (and one that is higher than the status quo of 2/3 of the country) because you doltishly prefer a higher limit is the height of moronic thinking.

I was told previously this was proposed and the stupid left decided it would be better to have no limit rather than a limit that didnt go far enough for their tastes. So if anyone is declaring war on children, its those who would rather have no limits than getting a limit as high as they want. Again, this doesnt newly declare that children can now be prosecuted; it literally does the opposite. I think there needs to be a literacy test for Senators since its obvious 1 cant read.

Just like the immigration Deal IRL from a republican perspective, no bill is better than a bad bill. Whatever is passed here becomes the new status quo and I'm sure all of you will howl if it is ever adjusted older later. We need to make sure we actually have a good product, not just any product.

What we did in Lincoln recently was 12 years old for assumed Culpability, rebuttable for 2 years in both directions. I would urge rejection of any bill that could invalidate that Lincoln law, as this would do in its current form.

[fhtagn]

Objecting to Lakis amendment.

It's clear Laki is ensuring that rapists would not even be criminally charged. And as someone who experienced becoming a victim of rape younger than the age Laki is proposing by someone my same age, it's a slap in the face that Laki thinks my rapist wouldn't deserve criminal charges.


These are also people Laki wants to protect:

https://www.wlwt.com/article/15-year-old-wyoming-high-school-student-charged-rape/43921818

https://www.foxbaltimore.com/amp/news/project-baltimore/juvenile-rapist-attending-baltimore-high-school-charged-in-second-rape-case-patterson-high-school-harford-county

[Mr. Reactionary]

This bill applies to federal crimes only, not regional. This has 0 impact on Regional limits set for Regional crimes. If an overzealous federal prosecutor wanted to charge a 3 year old in Lincoln with a federal crime, that is presently allowed notwithstanding a Regional limit of 12 for Regional crimes. This really shouldnt be a controversial proposal unless you are Laki and want 15 year old rapists to face literally no criminal consequences for their violent rapes.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

You make it sound like i'm advocating for something extreme but 12 is much lower than the global average. And OTL USA is very extreme in this regard compared to the rest of the world.

As i've said before, a childs brain is still developing, and if that brain has to develop in a prison, it'll surely strike again as an adult. It's not a good place. If a child does crime, esp. petty crimes, it's a sign that something is wrong, esp in the environment the child is growing up in.

Child murder & child rape is virtually unheard off, esp below 16. Maybe it's different in America.

I'm willing to make a distinction for severe crimes such as rape & murder, but not for petty crimes.

From age 16, persons may be tried as adults or as children ("jeugdstrafrecht"). The maximum age for a person to be tried as a minor is 21.

This is for instance the case in the Netherlands, because while age of culpability in some cases is lower, there is still a distinction in being tried as an adult or as a kid. And you're advocating for trialling a kid starting at the age of 10.

Minors between 14 and 17 are sentenced by juvenile justice. A young adult between 18 and 21 years may still be sentenced by juvenile justice if considered mentally immature.

For Germany, this is for instance.

Juvenile judiciary system for offenders aged between 14 and 18; separate juvenile halls.

Italy

A child aged 14 to 16 can only be held criminally liable where it can be proved that he or she had "discernment"
Notes
For offences for which an adult would be sentenced to life imprisonment, a person between the ages of 14 and 18 would be sentenced to no more than 15 years of "strict imprisonment"

For offences for which an adult would be sentenced to "severe detention" a person between the ages of 14 and 18 would be sentenced to no more than 12 years of "strict imprisonment

Romania

Persons aged 14 or 15 ("younger juveniles") can only be sentenced to educational measures

Serbia

Let's not make Atlasia a dystopia... OTL USA isn't really something to be proud off in terms of their prison system

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Just a reminder to any Belgians who cant read or think critically that there is currently NO federal limit. None. This bill sets a federal limit. It sets a federal limit much higher than the vast majority of States. Literally ANY limit is better than the status quo. The notion that it is "declaring war on children" to literally set a limit where none exists (and one that is higher than the status quo of 2/3 of the country) because you doltishly prefer a higher limit is the height of moronic thinking.

I was told previously this was proposed and the stupid left decided it would be better to have no limit rather than a limit that didnt go far enough for their tastes. So if anyone is declaring war on children, its those who would rather have no limits than getting a limit as high as they want. Again, this doesnt newly declare that children can now be prosecuted; it literally does the opposite. I think there needs to be a literacy test for Senators since its obvious 1 cant read.

My sources say there is a federal limit of 11 in OTL USA.

At the federal level, the minimum age of juvenile delinquency is 11 years, while 28 states have no minimum age of delinquency. The standards for transferal of juveniles to adult courts varies by state and may combine statutory limits with prosecutorial and judicial discretion.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Age of Culpability Act

1. For purposes of any federal criminal prosecution, a minor child aged ten (10) fourteen (14) years or older shall generally be deemed to be capable of criminal culpability for purposes of establishing the mens rea required for a conviction. The defense may rebut this presumption for any minor child aged at least ten (10) fourteen (14) years but less than twelve (12) eighteen (18) years. The defense may not rebut this presumption for any minor child aged at least twelve (12) years but less than eighteen (18 ) years.

2. Nothing in this act shall limit any civil lawsuit arising from the otherwise criminal conduct of a minor child. In any such civil lawsuit, the parents or guardians of the minor child shall be jointly and severally liable for any damages awarded due to the otherwise criminal conduct of their minor child.

3. This act shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of passage.

I'll amend my own amendment and go down to 14.

If we keep the definition of "crime" generalized, this is the lowest i wanna go and only for the lower limit, since adulthood is unique to everyone. Some fifteen year olds are wiser than some eighteen year ones for instance.

If you disagree, than you'll have to make a few distinctions clear

1. A distinction between "petty crimes" and crimes that create victims such as rape and murder. I'm willing to go lower for the latter. A lot of countries make that distinction clear.

2. A distinction in how you want to treat children, clarification, in youth justice and adult justice since this bill doesn't seem to provide that. Basically limiting what kind of sentences that can be given, like some of the nations mentioned above do. (educational measures, etc.)

3. A better consideration for human rights (which children are) generally.

Your bill literally says, "a minor child shall GENERALLY be deemed toi be capable of criminal culpability", so the original version is essential 10, in rare occasions up to 12.

Sorry, but that proofs to me that you have no understanding of how children behave at that age, and regardless of that it is still rare (at least in Europe).

Something like this deserves a bit more depth and thought and a wider debate over the senate. Shouldn't be a one-sided decision.

But i'm saying this as someone with experience, i don't really think you should go lower than that.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Just a reminder to any Belgians who cant read or think critically that there is currently NO federal limit. None. This bill sets a federal limit. It sets a federal limit much higher than the vast majority of States. Literally ANY limit is better than the status quo. The notion that it is "declaring war on children" to literally set a limit where none exists (and one that is higher than the status quo of 2/3 of the country) because you doltishly prefer a higher limit is the height of moronic thinking.

I was told previously this was proposed and the stupid left decided it would be better to have no limit rather than a limit that didnt go far enough for their tastes. So if anyone is declaring war on children, its those who would rather have no limits than getting a limit as high as they want. Again, this doesnt newly declare that children can now be prosecuted; it literally does the opposite. I think there needs to be a literacy test for Senators since its obvious 1 cant read.

What we did in Lincoln recently was 12 years old for assumed Culpability, rebuttable for 2 years in both directions. I would urge rejection of any bill that could invalidate that Lincoln law, as this would do in its current form.

Far too low too. I doubt anyone there is an expert on that matter. Besides, the senate has the right to override it regional law regarding this. If not, than capital punishment can also be decided on regional level.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Objecting to Lakis amendment.

It's clear Laki is ensuring that rapists would not even be criminally charged. And as someone who experienced becoming a victim of rape younger than the age Laki is proposing by someone my same age, it's a slap in the face that Laki thinks my rapist wouldn't deserve criminal charges.


These are also people Laki wants to protect:

https://www.wlwt.com/article/15-year-old-wyoming-high-school-student-charged-rape/43921818

https://www.foxbaltimore.com/amp/news/project-baltimore/juvenile-rapist-attending-baltimore-high-school-charged-in-second-rape-case-patterson-high-school-harford-county

Another question for you.

Given you are both in favor of capital punishment (constitutionally banned in atlasia) and lowering age of culpability, do you believe capital punishment should be used as a sentence on children above 12 years old (or above 10 if deemed criminally culpable) for severe crimes such as murder?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Just a reminder to any Belgians who cant read or think critically that there is currently NO federal limit. None. This bill sets a federal limit. It sets a federal limit much higher than the vast majority of States. Literally ANY limit is better than the status quo. The notion that it is "declaring war on children" to literally set a limit where none exists (and one that is higher than the status quo of 2/3 of the country) because you doltishly prefer a higher limit is the height of moronic thinking.

I was told previously this was proposed and the stupid left decided it would be better to have no limit rather than a limit that didnt go far enough for their tastes. So if anyone is declaring war on children, its those who would rather have no limits than getting a limit as high as they want. Again, this doesnt newly declare that children can now be prosecuted; it literally does the opposite. I think there needs to be a literacy test for Senators since its obvious 1 cant read.

My sources say there is a federal limit of 11 in OTL USA.

At the federal level, the minimum age of juvenile delinquency is 11 years, while 28 states have no minimum age of delinquency. The standards for transferal of juveniles to adult courts varies by state and may combine statutory limits with prosecutorial and judicial discretion.

Your source is Wikipedia and if you follow the provided citation for that quote there is nothing about federal minimums, let alone a minimum of 11. Wikipedia is not a reliable legal source.

Here is a link to a 2023 Congressional report that says there is no limit and quotes the actual text of the law.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL30822.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjouq6nlYaEAxXtDkQIHcbTCbYQFnoECDYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0JdEWbmTDNypKVtIzfexZi

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Just a reminder to any Belgians who cant read or think critically that there is currently NO federal limit. None. This bill sets a federal limit. It sets a federal limit much higher than the vast majority of States. Literally ANY limit is better than the status quo. The notion that it is "declaring war on children" to literally set a limit where none exists (and one that is higher than the status quo of 2/3 of the country) because you doltishly prefer a higher limit is the height of moronic thinking.

I was told previously this was proposed and the stupid left decided it would be better to have no limit rather than a limit that didnt go far enough for their tastes. So if anyone is declaring war on children, its those who would rather have no limits than getting a limit as high as they want. Again, this doesnt newly declare that children can now be prosecuted; it literally does the opposite. I think there needs to be a literacy test for Senators since its obvious 1 cant read.

My sources say there is a federal limit of 11 in OTL USA.

At the federal level, the minimum age of juvenile delinquency is 11 years, while 28 states have no minimum age of delinquency. The standards for transferal of juveniles to adult courts varies by state and may combine statutory limits with prosecutorial and judicial discretion.

Your source is Wikipedia and if you follow the provided citation for that quote there is nothing about federal minimums, let alone a minimum of 11. Wikipedia is not a reliable legal source.

Here is a link to a 2023 Congressional report that says there is no limit and quotes the actual text of the law.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL30822.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjouq6nlYaEAxXtDkQIHcbTCbYQFnoECDYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0JdEWbmTDNypKVtIzfexZi

It's a long text and i don't see it immediately, but well i'll assume wikipedia is wrong on it since you seem to quote a reliable text and will be more familiar with the domestic system.

One thing i at all cost wanna prevent is the following:

In a limited, but growing, number of instances involving drugs or violence, federal
law permits the trial of juveniles as adults in federal court.

Like, i don't think (esp. for crimes that are not murder or rape), someone should be brought in front of a federal court and be tried as an adult.

And this bill also does not clarify "juvenile court" vs "adult courts".

[fhtagn]

Objecting to Lakis amendment.

It's clear Laki is ensuring that rapists would not even be criminally charged. And as someone who experienced becoming a victim of rape younger than the age Laki is proposing by someone my same age, it's a slap in the face that Laki thinks my rapist wouldn't deserve criminal charges.


These are also people Laki wants to protect:

https://www.wlwt.com/article/15-year-old-wyoming-high-school-student-charged-rape/43921818

https://www.foxbaltimore.com/amp/news/project-baltimore/juvenile-rapist-attending-baltimore-high-school-charged-in-second-rape-case-patterson-high-school-harford-county

Another question for you.

Given you are both in favor of capital punishment (constitutionally banned in atlasia) and lowering age of culpability, do you believe capital punishment should be used as a sentence on children above 12 years old (or above 10 if deemed criminally culpable) for severe crimes such as murder?

I'm not sure where you get this delusional idea that I support capital punishment, especially when I've stated often in game and on forum that I don't support it.

One can oppose capital punishment and support sending rapists to prison.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

For the record, when the Senate debated regional capital punishment, I was the sponsor and voted in favor. Fhtagn voted No, which was the majority position.

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=566813.0

[Dr. MB]

Here we go again

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Objecting to Lakis amendment.

It's clear Laki is ensuring that rapists would not even be criminally charged. And as someone who experienced becoming a victim of rape younger than the age Laki is proposing by someone my same age, it's a slap in the face that Laki thinks my rapist wouldn't deserve criminal charges.


These are also people Laki wants to protect:

https://www.wlwt.com/article/15-year-old-wyoming-high-school-student-charged-rape/43921818

https://www.foxbaltimore.com/amp/news/project-baltimore/juvenile-rapist-attending-baltimore-high-school-charged-in-second-rape-case-patterson-high-school-harford-county

Another question for you.

Given you are both in favor of capital punishment (constitutionally banned in atlasia) and lowering age of culpability, do you believe capital punishment should be used as a sentence on children above 12 years old (or above 10 if deemed criminally culpable) for severe crimes such as murder?

I'm not sure where you get this delusional idea that I support capital punishment, especially when I've stated often in game and on forum that I don't support it.

One can oppose capital punishment and support sending rapists to prison.

I was not aware you opposed capital punishment. But it's not like i know (or memorize) every single user their political views. So i was wrong in thinking you supported it and misremembered it, apologies there.

But of course, all i did was just ask a question. And you did answer so i guess we're fine there.

All i'm asking for is just to take the compromise. I don't think what the amendment currently proposes is very controversial or out of line with the rest of the world, while it would set a limit (as you ask). I think it's a fair compromise.

Given the campaigns claiming i'm pro-rapist, i don't really think younger children are capable of rape, are sexually grown and most don't even have a sexual interest prior to 13.

In reality, i believe for instance - claim what you want - but I believe that rape laws in my country are not strict enough and are left unpunished too often.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

If you want to lower it, propose an amendment that would lower it to 12 but only for rape or murder, because if you can rape you are capable of criminal culpability, i think that should be pretty clear but again i don't believe these are common occurences in that case in that age, but exceptions can occur.

Look i'll amend my proposed amendment to include it.

Age of Culpability Act

1. For purposes of any federal criminal prosecution, a minor child aged ten (10) fourteen (14) years or older shall generally be deemed to be capable of criminal culpability for purposes of establishing the mens rea required for a conviction. The defense may rebut this presumption for any minor child aged at least ten (10) fourteen (14) years but less than twelve (12) eighteen (18) years. The defense may not rebut this presumption for any minor child aged at least twelve (12) years but less than eighteen (18 ) years. In cases of rape or murder, the age of criminal culpability shall be twelve (12) years. Individuals below the age of 18 shall be tried in front of a juvenile court.

2. Nothing in this act shall limit any civil lawsuit arising from the otherwise criminal conduct of a minor child. In any such civil lawsuit, the parents or guardians of the minor child shall be jointly and severally liable for any damages awarded due to the otherwise criminal conduct of their minor child.

3. This act shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of passage.

[Pyro]

I propose the following amendment. This introduces AO terminology into the criminal code and permits AOs charged with a violent felony to be tried as adults in certain circumstances. This also ensures those under the age of 18 are eligible to receive sufficient support services like rehabilitation programs. Last, this disallows minors from being held in the same facilities as adults, and furthermore requires parents, or guardians, be notified in the event of an arrest.

Age of Culpability Act

Section I: Definitions
1. For the purposes of this bill, an Adolescent Offender (AO) is considered an individual charged with a felony committed when they were sixteen (16) or seventeen (17) years of age.

Section II: Offenders

1. For purposes of any federal criminal prosecution, an AO a minor child aged ten (10) years or older charged with committing a violent felony under criminal law shall generally be deemed to be capable of criminal culpability for purposes of establishing the mens rea required for a conviction.
a. The defense may rebut this presumption and request the accused be processed as a juvenile if the defendant did not use a deadly weapon, did not cause significant physical injury, or if the charge is not regarding a sex-related criminal offense.
b. AOs shall be eligible to receive the following services -
i. Access to mental health care support, youth rehabilitative and therapeutic programs, substance abuse treatment, alternatives to detention, and intervention assistance.
ii. Discharge services including mental health care support, family reintegration, and housing assistance.

2. Minors shall not be held in any prison, jail, placement facility, or correctional facility used for adults convicted or a crime or charged with crime.
a. Minors committed to the custody of a law enforcement officer shall be taken to and lodged at a certified juvenile detention facility.
b. Upon the arrest of a juvenile offender or AO, the law enforcement officer must immediately notify the parent or legal guardian responsible for the individual's care regarding all details of the arrest as well as the location of the juvenile detention facility.

for any minor child aged at least ten (10) years but less than twelve (12) years. The defense may not rebut this presumption for any minor child aged at least twelve (12) years but less than eighteen (18 ) years.

2. Nothing in this act shall limit any civil lawsuit arising from the otherwise criminal conduct of a minor child. In any such civil lawsuit, the parents or guardians of the minor child shall be jointly and severally liable for any damages awarded due to the otherwise criminal conduct of their minor child.

3. This act shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of passage.

[fhtagn]

Objecting to both amendments.

Laki's because it allowed for violent criminals to be tried as juveniles even when they're old enough to realize what they are doing is a crime.

Pyro's because his amendment is arguably no better than Laki's original amendment, and basically helps teenage rapists and murderers get away with very adult crimes they commit.

It's painfully clear those pushing forward these insulting amendments have never experienced, nor interacted with victims of violent crimes.

I certainly never expected the Senate's left to resort to rape apologism simply because a political opponent is trying to hold criminals accountable.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Objecting to both amendments.

Laki's because it allowed for violent criminals to be tried as juveniles even when they're old enough to realize what they are doing is a crime.

Pyro's because his amendment is arguably no better than Laki's original amendment, and basically helps teenage rapists and murderers get away with very adult crimes they commit.

It's painfully clear those pushing forward these insulting amendments have never experienced, nor interacted with victims of violent crimes.

I certainly never expected the Senate's left to resort to rape apologism simply because a political opponent is trying to hold criminals accountable.

Unwilling to compromise, continuing to unapologetically frame your political opponents as pro-rapist. Disappointing.

Almost all countries - especially the ones with age of culpability at 12 use consistently juvenile court. By your logical, the entire world is pro-rapist.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_juvenile_justice_system

Even OTL USA does have juvenile courts.

Georgia, Texas and Wisconsin remain the only states to prosecute all youth as adults when they turn 17 years of age. Connecticut Governor, Dannel Malloy proposed in 2016 raising the age in his state to 20

You'd basically frame all of the above states as pro-rapist.

[Joseph Cao]

Make the federal limit 13 if you really must have one, I'm not seeing the need for a massive argument here or for verbal jiujitsu over who allegedly supports what. We had a much more constructive conversation about this last session.