If a child is capable in taking a gun (knowing actually what that weapon is able to do) and shoot someone to kill. They are mature enough to handle the consequences.
I would say the exact opposite: that a child shooting someone shows that they are more than likely immature. I would say they they do not "know actually what the weapon is able to do" to the same extent than an adult does. That's the whole point. Your arguments sound like you assume that killing someone is a sign of maturity, so anyone capable of killing someone is therefore mature. That's very circular reasoning. Either that, or you're special-casing your argument for mature children, implying that most children who kill are mature, when that is most certainly not the case.
If a 12 year old grabs the wheel of a car and gets into a car accident, would you say that the fact that they went ahead and were capable of driving a car No! One of the most unbiased sources of information (ironically) is the insurance industry: Insurance costs a lot more the younger a person is. Why is this? It's because they get into accidents more. Why is that? It's because they're immature.
Now let's take a look at the purpose of criminal punishment: There are usually 3 purposes involved: (1) Getting the criminal off the streets so they can't do it again. (2) Deterrence. Knowing you'll be punished makes you less likely to do it. (3) Rehabilitation.
In trialing someone as an adult and increasing the punishment, you increase the amount of time they're off the street, and you add to the deterrence factor, but you don't help rehabilitation any.
Now, thing is, children are less mature than adults, so they do not think through consequences as thoroughly. (In fact, I'd argue that their killing a person only reinforces that statement.) That means they won't be as responsive to deterrence, even if the punishment is greater. I'm not arguing against deterrence in general, but I'm saying its effectiveness on children is less than it would be on adults.
Getting them off the street for decades instead of trying to rehabilitate them is also very unwise because children are more malleable than adults, and they're far more likely to be receptive to rehabilitation than adults, so it would be far more wise to try to rehabilitate them, and let them go earlier (perhaps on parol on probation, if you like), because they are more likely to get better than an adult, more set in their ways, would.
The upshot? Trialing children as adults does the exact opposite of what would be more effective for kids. It increases deterrence when deterrence is ineffective, and it ignores and hampers rehabilitation when rehabilitation is most effective. Furthermore, it certainly does nothing to help the victim other than giving a sense of vengeance. (Let us not forget that vengeance is also meant as a form of deterrent.. it serves no other noble goal, though it purports to in order to get more ingrained in society. And if you think vengeance alone is effective, you clearly haven't watched enough mafia movies. :P)
Of course, perhaps we have different goals in mind. I want to try to turn people who make mistakes into good citizens... I don't want to damn anyone who does something bad to an eternity of pain when there is an alternative.
So yes, I think children should be tried as children. They're not "getting away with it". Rather, we should try to help them grow and turn them into productive citizens instead of ruin their lives when they aren't even fully cognizant of what they've done. We should apply the laws that are most effective for who they are.
[ Parent ]