Why, exactly, should we punish children who commit crimes more leniently than adults who commit the same offenses? Gideon Yaffe thinks it is because they cannot vote, and so the strength of their reasons to obey the law is weaker than if they could. They are thus less culpable when they disobey. This argument invites an obvious objection: why not simply enfranchise children, thereby granting them legal reasons that are the same strength as enfranchised adults, and so permitting similarly severe punishment? Yaffe answers this question by arguing that child enfranchisement would objectionably undermine the values of political equality and self-government. This article explores some serious doubts about these arguments. It closes by questioning Yaffe’s reliance on a retributivist theory of punishment, contending that, once we reject retributivism in favor of more humane and productive alternatives, the thesis that child criminals deserve a break—which Yaffe assumes to be undeniably correct—becomes less plausible.

中文翻译：

---

Yaffe谈民主公民和少年司法

到底为什么我们应该对犯罪的儿童比对犯同样罪行的成年人宽大？吉迪恩·雅菲（Gideon Yaffe）认为，这是因为他们无法投票，因此，他们遵守法律的理由的力量比他们能够投票的力量弱。因此，当他们不服从时，他们的罪魁祸首就更少了。这个论点引起了一个明显的反对：为什么不简单地赋予儿童权利，从而给他们合法的理由，使其与被成年人享有同样的实力，并允许同样严厉的惩罚呢？雅菲（Yaffe）辩称，儿童权利的提高会有害地破坏政治平等和自治的价值观，从而回答了这个问题。本文探讨了对这些论点的一些严重怀疑。最后，我们质疑耶夫对分配主义的惩罚理论的依赖，并认为，