TexasCHLforum.com

I have been doing some research that is related to this type of subject for a school paper. It is now well accepted medically that the part of the brain that controls judgment does not fully develop until the early twenties. It is also well known that most people stop committing crimes as they pass through their twenties and into their thirties.

From this, I have developed a theory I am working on that some juvenile delinquency is not caused by a desire to commit crime, especially not to injure people. There is a certain element of thrill seeking in committing what the juvenile sees as a victimless crime. This is not to say the crime itself is victimless, but it may be seen that way by the juvenile, like shoplifting.

Based on the theory that the brain is under developed in regards to judgement until the early 20s then that suggests that juveniles that murder their parents, other children or adults are in some ways impaired as well. You cannot use impairment with one type of crime and not another. They both require judgement. So are you saying leniency should be granted in these cases as well?

Some folks are "goody two shoes" and never do anything wrong

This implies a negative connetation to doing the right thing. Everyone makes mistakes but not every mistake breaks the law. It's about gains. Before engaging in an unlawful action, law abiding citizens determine that the potential consequences of engaging in said action has a greater significance on themselves or someone else more so than the momentary feeling of accomplishment violating the law. The need for acceptance is not necessary. For those that break the law, the need for acceptance is greater.

17 year old boy crawls in through girlfriend's bedroom window. She may have even invited him in, but did not have the authority to do so. Dad discovers boyfriend

I'm not a lawyer but I would think this type of situation would fall under Criminal Trespass which is a Class B midemeanor, or class A if the boyfriend had a deadly weapon on his person.

I have a dear friend who was convicted of a non-violent felony when he was 18 years old over 21 years ago. The consequences for which will stay with him until the day he dies. For the past 17 years, he's been a youth pastor, he speaks at schools about crime and drugs. He is the first to volunteer for any community work. He is not the same person he was 21 years ago, anyone can clearly see that. Every day he is trying to repay a self-imposed debt to society (his time served ended nearly 19 years ago). He takes full accountability for his actions. I've heard him say many times "I had a shot at doing it right but I made a conscious decision to do it wrong therefore I must live with the consequences of that decision." He's not embarassed about his conviction and neither are his friends. It made him the man he is today. I would trust him with my most prized possessions including my life and my family's lives. So I believe even a convicted felon can become a great contributor to society but his/her contributions do not erase the transgression. He'd be the first to agree with me.

I'm sure most of you will disagree with me but these are my opinions. Although I feel everyone should have a second chance, especially those that committed non-violent crimes in their youth, it is very difficult to excute that belief. My house was burglarized a few years ago. My dog was home alone. By my neighbors estimations, the burglary must have occurred approximately an hour before I arrived home. Ever since, my dog suffers from anxiety attacks when she hears loud noises or someone unfamilar at the door. I am changed by it as well. I'm more alert to noises and unfamilar people or cars in my neighborhood. If I'm awaken at night, I cannot go back to sleep. I obsessively check door locks and alarms wherever I go. I moved hoping to rebuild the sense of security but it had no affect. I've talked with others with similar experiences and everyone said similar things. Once it's gone, you don't get it back. Although the perpetrator did not violate me physically, he or she violated my home, my personal information, my pet and potentially my family and friends homes. He or she made a choice to change my life. If the lasting consequence of that action is that he or she is not permitted by law to have a CHL, then I won't advocate for the adverse. I believe a non-violent offender has a right to personal protection and I will defend his or her right to open carry only. My opinion for a violent offender is that he or she is permitted to have access to firearm in the home only.