How we treat many decisions made by immature and foolish 15 years old's and later recanted in their adulthood. Should, after all the facts that can be obtained, be judged on an individual basis.

Here at least, there is a problem with kids knowing their rights. I have no problem with that whatsoever, it actually shows that they are aware of the laws.

From the age of 14, everyone is responsible for any breach of laws made, one of which is treachery/treason. So no excuse whatsoever. :-)

Which is why my particular concern was with the Home Secretary making a judicial decision in a very short time-span before the full facts were available from the relevant worldwide authorities (is the subject of our conversation currently a Bangladeshi citizen? She is apparently eligible to at least apply: if she applies, is acceptance automatic or conditional).

Without receiving official answers to questions like that, the Home Secretary is behaving like a 13 year old.

Agree. TBH though, I much prefer they bring her home now & publicly. Hand her over to the security & intelligence services, wring her dry then prosecute, convict & imprison.

Otherwise, when the hulabaloo dies down, she'll quietly come back, possibly get a new identity & be relocated.

Then free to sponge off the public purse for the rest of her life.

We need to start setting examples.

How we treat many decisions made by immature and foolish 15 years old's and later recanted in their adulthood. Should, after all the facts that can be obtained, be judged on an individual basis.

To take that even further, in today's high tech world, immature & foolish maybe, but ignorant?

In the course of the investigation the killer's phone was examined and search questions such as "How do police find DNA?" were found.

Age 16
Crime - Rape & Murder of a 6 year old.

Agree about that specific example.
Returning to the two adolescent decisions under discussion.
You have not made mistakes and foolish decisions as a non-adult adolescent which you regretted later?

If you believe that a 14 year old has the maturity, capability and the same level of responsibility as an Officer in the Military. I disagree.

IMHO: One cannot judge many negatives actions of a 14 year old, a 15 year old , etc. adolescent as one would judge a 40 year old adult.

IF is a BIG word. Stop posting what "you believe" are the thoughts of others. Saying that especially as you were an Internal Affairs officer, are you stating that ALL Military & Police Officers have always acted responsibly?

Innocent until proven guilty. Once found guilty, rule of the law to take full effect. Do you disagree?

[quote}Your answer is yes for All Laws.
Age and other circumstances are always taken into account when Sentencing. Be it prison time or released and under Supervised Probation.
Why do you disagree with the possibility of Non-Incarcerated Supervised Probation for any violation of Criminal Law?[/quote]

My disagreement is the level of responsibility and do we have any information that these two adolescents did murder an innocent.

2 posts in a space of a very short time. You often ask for referencing url's.
Where have I stated that the 2 teenagers you mentioned have killed?
Where have I stated that I disagree with non custodial sentences?

I suspect that you are assuming that "full effect" means maximum sentence, when Sirius means "to the 'full effect' of the law" which allows the Judge to set the sentence.

On another point previously mentioned,
If your opinion is correct about 15 year olds not being able to fully understand the consequences of their actions. What criterion, other than age could be used to set the point at which people are determined to be adults?

And if you cannot find a suitable answer to that question, then what age would you make it and would it still be lawful in the US to try minors under that age, as adults, for serious offences? (Lionel Alexander Tate et al)

edit] Going on from that. Why are there different ages set for various activities, such as smoking, being employed, looking after younger kids, driving, drinking alcohol, voting, having consensual sex with person of similar age and being a member of the armed forces?

That has already been answered. I can do nothing about your blindness.

You brought up the question of killing by 2 teenagers.
You brought up the matter of the law - in effect - you actually stated "full penalties of the law"
You brought up Military & Police.

There is a big difference between"full penalties of the law" & "full effect of the law"
In this country at least, once convicted, one has to return to court for the sentencing. The sentencing is based on the severity of the offence.

You're a former soldier, police officer & teacher. You've never been a lawyer or judge, so stop acting like one.
Maturity & responsibility. Hmm...

...off the top of my tongue, I can instantly think of three Mature & Responsible Military officers who acted irresponsible big time...

...world famous for doing so...

...Custer, Patton, MacArthur.

So much for maturity!

"Full" means containing as much as possible. The same as the Criminal Sentence would be - As much as possible.

In other words, the severity of the offence.
That answers both of your ridiculous questions.

These did not kill but were executed.

William Joyce (Britain - Treason)
Julius & Ethel Rosenberg (United States of America - Conspiracy)

Should they be pardoned?

Didn't Trump demand that...?

*grievously wounded blink*You're saying I agree with him aren't you? I can tell...;)

not only will lawyers have a field supping from the public purse

That was even more extravagantly-written-into-stone the minute the decision was made by a politician to strip her of her nationality though. If I remember correctly, when a home secretary intervened in the tragic and shocking James Bulger murder case (with regards the length of the prison sentences handed down by the courts) it was overturned and only added to the costs incurred by the public purse. It was described as "institutionalised vengeance ...[by] a politician playing to the gallery" at the time and I've yet to be convinced that this
instance isn't the same.

I admit, my outraged-and-incensed-me occasionally kept feeling a "lock them up and throw away the key" approach to that case might have been too good for them, but my rational me knew that that really wasn't how the justice system we've all bought into, works. And it is flawed at times, I know. And I understand why so many people do feel much the same way as you do, Sirius. I really do, because my other half is like a great big unmoveable mountain on the issue.

What that means, people... is I get to practise my "arguments" out on him first- before assaulting you lot with them ;)

But it really is a dangerous precedent to be allowed to stand unchallenged, stripping someone of their nationality in the way it's been done in this case, at least that is my personal opinion anyway. Beyond that, I'm just really glad I don't have a role to play in what comes next, because it's going to get sooooooooooo messy :/ and probably quite a bit of a lot ugly too I expect :(

I will stop now. I did have other stuff to say, but this post is probably over-long as it is, and it was going to meander about between a number of other points/comments that have also been raised by others, so I'll leave them all to another overlong post in awhile... but in the meantime, hoping everybody has a nice weekend :)

Already answered. Can't help with your blindness as I'm not an optician.
Take your asinine bovine excrement elsewhere.

Didn't Trump demand that...?

*grievously wounded blink*You're saying I agree with him aren't you? I can tell...;)

Not at all Annie. Just referring to what Trump stated earlier before he made that remark. He "demanded" that we take all our "citizens back & deal appropriately with" then refuses to take his back :-)

As for Ms Begum. How many of our servicemen & women wounded or killed by terrorists who left these shores to fight for the enemy?
How many of those terrorists are back on these shores?
How many of then are taking full advantage of our welfare system?
HOW many of our service personnel homeless?

Sorry, even though I am not a lawyer or judge - Treachery/Treason deserves punishing & NOT handed out a "lovely house & full benefits for the rest of their life".
Start making exceptions & it soon becomes the norm.

That happens, WHY should a law abiding citizen give a damn for the country?

Why hasn't Mrs Assad been stripped of her UK nationality?

She's a WASP.

Dear Sirius B,
Anything more to add

Yes, you were asked a question, but we all know the Clyde. :-)
However, with your reasoning, I'll enhance that question - care to answer it?

Should William Joyce, Julius & Ethel Rosenberg be pardoned & should the State be prosecuted for murder?

Why hasn't Mrs Assad been stripped of her UK nationality?

ehm...

that's a very good question, WK. Do you mind if I don't answer it? ;) (I did try but it turned so rapidly into much dark-innuendo midst copious waffle about layers within layers of double-standards, I decided it would be wrong of me to inflict it on everyone else :) so I haven't, although there is a teeny taste of it below which seems to have escaped)

I've also been trying to find a definitive answer to a question I had of my own (which indirectly could have a bearing on matters-Mrs-Assad) ...and that is whether the UK has an extradition treaty with Syria? A Guardian article (dated 2000) about countries our criminals could still "safely head for" to avoid British justice, did not include Syria. A BBC report (2008) however, said:

Many countries in the Middle East - such as Yemen, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates are not party to a UK extradition agreement, [...]

A spokeswoman said: "The absence of such general arrangements with a particular country does not necessarily mean the UK is unable to seek extradition assistance in other cases.

"In appropriate cases, the UK will consider making an ad hoc request to a foreign state with which it has no general arrangements."

So requests for both... um, Mrs Assad and Shamima, could have been made... To my knowledge they haven't.

Unless the former's marriage is going rapidly downhill, I doubt we'd see a yes for her obviously, but if there had been one made in Shamima's case, and the answer (for argument sake) had also been "no" ...? Well, she might have decided of her own accord, to make herself "some other country's problem" and given the truly icky circumstances of cases like hers, I can't help wondering whether that might have been a wiser approach to take. Would it have been seen as "sufficient punishment" by those calling for her not to be returned to British soil, though - under those circumstances?

Who knows? But that is just me musing whilst I try to remember even one of the other points I was planning to get all opinionated on before :\ so feel free to ignore me :)

@Clyde: I know I'm planning a reply to you :) but I'll need to re-read parts of the thread to remember exactly what-it-was-to first, okay?

An interesting factoid arises out of a letter to today's Guardian.

"Several hundred thousand British Jews are able to become Israeli citizens."

By Sajid Javed's logic in the current case, that means that they already have dual nationality.

And therefore can have British citizenship withdrawn by a stroke of the Home Secretary's pen.

Does that remind us of a historical precedent?

Dear Sirius B,
Anything more to add

Yes, you were asked a question, but we all know the Clyde. :-)
However, with your reasoning, I'll enhance that question - care to answer it?

Should William Joyce, Julius & Ethel Rosenberg be pardoned & should the State be prosecuted for murder?

Dear Sirius B. AKA "asinine bovine excrement" name caller.

https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=83157&postid=1981716#1981716

Why not?

Unlike your belief in "full effect" for all Sentencing. Meaning as much as possible consequences if found guilty.

All cases must be considered on its merits. Which includes "full effect" and lesser penalties.

Sincerely, Clyde "Liberal"

First I see you totally ignored my http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=83157&postid=1981526#1981526 it might have helped.

It's the old "separated by a common language" problem

Pinewood Studios just announced that they will bring a famous film series up to date.

The 1st will be entitled: "Carry on Waiting" :-)