this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2025
10 points (72.7% liked)

Explain Like I'm Five

18679 readers
31 users here now

Simplifying Complexity, One Answer at a Time!

Rules

  1. Be respectful and inclusive.
  2. No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
  3. Engage in constructive discussions.
  4. Share relevant content.
  5. Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
  6. Use appropriate language and tone.
  7. Report violations.
  8. Foster a continuous learning environment.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BarbecueCowboy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 3 days ago

Being underage at the time you commit a crime is not a guarantee you won't be tried as an adult. They can decide on a case by case basis already, so it was likely legal even if they had been tried at 16.

[–] chuso@fedia.io 3 points 2 days ago

Well, I am not a lawyer so I don't know if that can really happen, but you are supposed to be judged by the law that applied to you when you committed the crime, not any different scenario that could be applied to your case in the future (nulla poena sine lege, non-retroactivity of criminal law).

Consider, for example, something that didn't use to be a crime. For example, buying alcoholic drinks. If now they ban alcohol, they cannot start prosecuting people who bought alcohol when it was legal. Even if they announce they will ban buying alcohol, they cannot wait for the law to come into effect to start prosecuting people who bought it while the law was being written and knew it was going to be banned, because it was not banned yet when they bought it. This is not the same case, but it's similar.

What matters is the law that applied to you when you committed the crime, not when you are being judged.

But, as said, I'm not a lawyer.

[–] darklamer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Is what jurisdiction is that legal!?

[–] Aequitas@feddit.org 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] slaneesh_is_right@lemmy.org 3 points 2 days ago

Then the answer is most likely for profit prisons

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Generally questions like these vary by jurisdiction. Some allow trying a minor as an adult, like others have pulled out of their ass. Some don't, some might not distinguish or don't bother with a right to trial of any kind.

It's a pretty typical principle that you try someone as they and the laws were at the time of the offence, though.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 4 points 3 days ago

How is it legal? The law makes charging a minor as an adult legal.

[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Do they?

Surely if the person is 16 at the time of the offence and the offence is bad enough they will try them as an adult not wait until they are an adult.

[–] Patnou@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Reason I ask is because this king hacker, their words not mine, stole 10mil when he was 15 due to a glitch. Now he is 20 and are now trying him as an adult. I mean yea let him do Juvenile Detention and pay it back.

[–] socphoenix@midwest.social 2 points 3 days ago

That’s a quirk least in the US, most jurisdictions have exemptions to their juvenile stats that past a certain threshold of severity it’s either legal (or in some southern states mandatory) to try them as an adult. You know, to make an example of them or something…