The young and dumb defense

Law-and-order conservatives have long advocating trying older teens as adults if the crime is serious enough. It's a serious position, worth considering. Yet now I'm seeing law-and-order types all over Twitter using a version of the "young and stupid" defense they often hate. /2

— David French (@DavidAFrench) September 17, 2018

1. French raises an important point. Does our side have any guiding principles? Is the only principle winning? Are we purely reactionary? 

Social conservatives generally and Christians in particular need to have consistent principles. It can't be sheer expediency. 

2. That said, I'm not as hard on them as French. Most folks aren't philosophers or ethicists, so they reach for whatever argument is available. 

In addition, some ethicists are wretched ethicists, viz. David Gushee, Peter Singer, Judith Jarvis Thomson. Apologists for evil. They don't use philosophy to arrive at their positions, but only to justify their positions. 

3. There's a difference between a position and supporting arguments for a position. The principle isn't the same thing as arguments put forward in defense of the principle. If the arguments change, but are used to defend the same position, then that's not fundamentally unprincipled. 

Mind you, they're not unrelated. If the reasons we give for our position have no actual connection to our position, if we ditch one reason and contrive a new reason, then what's the basis for our position in the first place? Do we even remember why we're supposed to believe it? If we strayed so far from where we began, would we take the same position if this was our entry-point? 

4. I think many conservatives feel that if the good guys always play by the rules while the bad guys break the rules, then the bad guys always win. And this isn't a game. When they win, they dictate how we should live. For instance, blue states are right on the verge of terminating child custody for parents who refuse to subject confused adolescents to puberty blockers and genital mutilation. Likewise, if secular progressives have their way, you'll be fined, fired, or imprisoned if you refuse to capitulate to the LGBT agenda. So you have a lot to lose if you lose. 

5. I think many folks are genuinely conflicted about what to do with juvenile delinquents. On the one hand, it's tragic that someone on the cusp of adulthood can do one appalling thing that will ruin the rest of their life. All things being equal, we want to give people a second chance. 

Many folks think teenagers are impetuous, live in the moment, lack judgment about the long-term consequences of their actions, are easily swayed by peer pressure. We should make allowance for their immaturity. 

On the other hand, when teenagers know that at worst, they will go to juvie jail until they turn 21, they exploit the system. Some of them will commit heinous crimes with impunity. That's intolerable. 

And not just heinous crimes. You can't have an economically stable and sustainable community if looters get a slap on the wrist. If looting becomes rampant, that destroys the economic infrastructure. Life becomes unlivable. 

A permissive policy and punitive policy both have unfortunate side effects. There is no ideal solution. 

6. In addition, I think many folks are even more conflicted about imposing irreparable sanctions on the sexual shenanigans of teenagers. Many parents have, or will have, teenage sons and daughters. And many remember when they were teenagers who did foolish things at parties (and elsewhere). 

In one respect that's a principled position. I'd be a hypocrite to punish you for something I got away with. 

On the other hand, that's dreadful public policy. If I mugged an old lady, should we decriminalize mugging? There are far worse things than hypocrisy. 

7. Majority age is rather arbitrary. The usual compromise is to get tough on heinous juvenile crime. Roguery is a gray area.