Trying Children as Adults in Court

I think it is wrong to try anyone under the age of eighteen in court as an adult under any circumstances. I know that many people will go ballistic upon reading that last sentence but hear me out.

The usual reason given for trying children as adults is the heinous nature of the crime that they are accused of committing. My problem with the whole idea is that it is the child and not the crime that is supposed to be on trial. The child is innocent until proven guilty. Legally speaking it has to be assumed that the child has not committed the crime. It is the burden of the state to prove that he has done what he is accused of. Until the state has done so, he must be assumed to be a child. To do otherwise is to assume his guilt before the trial has begun.

Also, when a child is treated as an adult in court, he or she is treated exactly like an adult during the proceedings. Even an innocent child can easily be torn apart on the stand by an experienced lawyer. Everyone knows that children are not capable of the same level of reasoning as adults. It has been scientifically proven that most people do not have fully developed brains until the age of 25. Children are being sent to fight for their futures unarmed against professional soldiers.

Another thing that is stupid about trying children as adults is that after a child is found innocent they suddenly become children again. They cannot get a driver's license. They can't drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes. They cannot vote. I don't see how it is logical to consider them adults when they are on trial for their lives one day and then treat them like children again when they are found innocent the next.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not soft on criminals. If a child is found to be guilty of a crime then the discussion of whether they acted as an adult or not can begin.

What is right and wrong without God

I was recently told that it is impossible to define right and wrong without God. When I decided that God probably didn't exist, I began thinking about this very possibility. The first thing that leaps to mind is the old "might makes right" option (which is also God's option if you think about it). This option didn't appeal to me for obvious reasons. I'm not all that mighty and I don't want anyone applying their "might" to me or mine. What then can serve as the basis for morality?

I think that, if you asked everyone on Earth whether they wanted to live, the vast majority of them would say "yes". It is not logical to seek to deny someone else the right to live if we also desire that right. We cannot kill without the likelihood that someone will try to kill us. If you asked everyone whether they wanted to have their property stolen from them, most people would say "no". I cannot steal other people's property and expect them not to retaliate. I could go on but I think you get the idea. I cannot live as a law unto myself and expect to make it very far. Anyone who has been keeping up with the class can see that the Golden Rule is what I'm driving at here. The Golden Rule really does have a basis in logic and fairness. I think the Golden Rule and the principles I just derived it from are a very good basis for morality. The existence of a supreme being is also not needed to arrive at it. Even someone who has never heard of God would probably say that the Golden Rule is a sensible and powerful tool for living a moral life.

Funday

I am always hearing how people want more balance between their work and private lives. The media regularly reports that more and more Americans are working longer hours. Very few are even able to take the two weeks of vacation that most workers are allowed each year. Many families are growing farther apart because everyone is so busy that there is no time for the members to spend time or even communicate effectively with each other. I would like to propose a solution to this problem. I call it Funday.

Funday would be a bonus day that we would add to each week. This would be an extra weekend day. Monday through Friday would still be reserved for work, but now everyone would have an extra day to relax on the weekend. We could put it right after Sunday. My initial impulse was to call it Robertsday since it was my idea. A friend of mine came up with a better idea. He suggested that we could call it Funday. Not only does Funday sell better than Robertsday but it makes it very clear what the purpose of the new day would be.

The number of days in a week has been set at seven because of the biblical story of creation. There is no command from God that set the number of days in the week to be seven. The religiously devout just chose that number early on to fit with the story of Genesis. The only command God ever gave regarding the days of the week is that we must all rest and worship on the seventh day. If we have an eight day week those who wish can still do that.

The choice of the number of days in the week is an arbitrary one. I don't see why it can't be arbitrary in a fashion more to everyone's favor. If enough of us got together and demanded a change to the calendar it would happen. I can't see anyone objecting to an extra day off each week. Are you with me?