Summary
A 15-year-old boy was sentenced to life in prison for fatally stabbing a stranger, Muhammad Hassam Ali, after a brief conversation in Birmingham city center. The second boy, who stood by, was sentenced to five years in secure accommodation. Ali’s family expressed their grief, describing him as a budding engineer whose life was tragically cut short.
I readily concede the fact that a 15-year-old’s frontal cortex is not completely developed.
I reject the idea that only a fully mature frontal cortex is capable of restraining someone from murdering a teenager. Even a radically undeveloped frontal cortex is more than capable.
This kid went out that day with a deadly weapon, seeking out the person or people who had previously attacked his friend, intending to commit violence against that individual. He found this teenager. Based on this teen’s race, he believed this teen was complicit in his friend’s attack. He spent 4 minutes arguing with this teenager, then stabbed him.
This wasn’t a crime of passion. This was premeditated. He left his home that day intending to use his knife on someone. He knew his actions and intent were criminal and immoral, and he chose to act anyway.
Everything else in your last comment is an ad hominem, and doesn’t need a response.
I reject the idea that only a fully mature frontal cortex is capable of restraining someone from murdering a teenager. Even a radically undeveloped frontal cortex is more than capable.
And I suppose you’re a neuroscientist, behavioural psychologist, and generally smarter than literally every single person working in juvenile justice.
Everything else in your last comment is an ad hominem, and doesn’t need a response.
No. I was describing your character as I inferred from your behaviour, I was not making arguments based on it. Learn your fallacies: “You are a numpty, therefore, you are wrong” is ad hominem. “You are wrong, therefore, you are a numpty” is not.
And I suppose you’re a neuroscientist, behavioural psychologist, and generally smarter than literally every single person working in juvenile justice.
This is another ad hominem, disguised as an appeal to authority.
No. I was describing your character
Correct. You were describing me, rather than discussing the issue. That is, by definition. An “argumentum ad hominem”. It is an “argument against the man” rather than an argument regarding the issue under discussion.
You were describing me, rather than discussing the issue.
I have been discussing the issue. You failed, repeatedly, to acknowledge developmental psychology 101, that is, you didn’t discuss the issue. Thus, to work towards the possibility of a discussion about the original issue, I expanded the discussion to your person.
Because unless and until you realise that you’re doing your darndest to not look at relevant factors there can be no progress. And with this I’m actually out.
