Two countries have not signed the UN convention on the Rights of the Child, the United States and Somalia. The US won't sign it because they want to be allowed to execute children which they occasionly do. This is totally unfair to somebody my age, I don't have full citizenship rights but I can receive all the penalties that person over 18 can get. Should the US step into the 13th century and stop executing minors?

Just curious? Have we ever executed anyone under 18 in the US?

I don't recall any minors being executed; but I do know of people being sentenced as a minor (and the execution process itself dragging out.)

To me the execution (or intensive incarceration) of a minor completely defeats the purpose of a penal system which has two goals: protecting the innocent and giving the guilty a chance to rehabilitate.

Supreme Court not ready to debate execution of juveniles



This article is a bit out of date (January 03), so it could be a higher number. As UltimateJoe said, these people aren't executed when they are minors. The system takes too long for that, but they committed the crimes when they were minors.

Why would we stop executing minors? If you commit a capital crime, you deserve capital punishment, regardless of your age. Why do you think that a person who goes on a shooting spree the day before their 18th birthday should be less liable than someone who does it on the day after?

Would you mind having a jury of 13 year olds? Before someone's 18th birthday they have don't have full citizenship rights. Adults aren't the peers of minors according to the law. Under no circumstances could minors themselves be jurors. Not getting a jury of one's peers always leads to an unfair verdict.

I just wonder what the logic is that keeps it an option, i dont know about world opinion, or why we and Somalia seem to share the option, i would imagine for different reasons, maybe not.

I do wonder what other countries practice it, i mean one day before your eighteenth birthday you are still considered a minor in the u.s, and the term minor does change around the world, i just don’t understand why we would keep this.

I am all for it- pretty much even for those two kids in , what was it, Tennessee- that went on a shooting spree and killed the teacher and whatnot? Take them out too! Just because a someone looks like a human being doesn't really make them one, I have seen too many underage predators given far too many chances at rehabilitation, and have a host of victims before the system catches up with them. I would pull the trigger or switch myself on these kids and go to sleep happy knowing they have been removed from the face of the earth, some of them 12 or 13 years old. Sometimes society has to protect themselves from these scumbags by removing them permantly, so the system doesn't even accidently give them a second chance.


The real problem is our inconsistancy when dealing with what an adult is. Here is a real world example: A man was charged with statutory rape (he was 19) and she was 15, because she was a minor and could not be trusted to make such a decision as an adult. Later that year, she robbed a bank, and was charged as an adult- Huh?

What about those two little kids in England (good thing they dont have the death penalty at all) who were ten and brutally murdered a two year old? Should they have been put to death too? I guess they arent going to be any different eight years later when they turn of legal age (and probably not after being in a correctional institution-sarcasm).

Killing anyone is WRONG (regardless of who sanctions it).

And while I dont agree with CR, he brings up a good point about consistency.

Oh absolutely those two little boys in England are poster children for child death penalty (pun intended)- they are absolutely not worth saving and will be the little sociopaths they have shown themselves to be thier entire life, and if they are let out EVER there will be more victims of thier particular quirk.

I have seen too many victims of these kind of sociopaths, and society needs protecting from them more than thier lives are worth.

So your position boils down to "I've seen too many of these sociopaths..."

Would anyone care to provide a source saying that rehabilitation is ineffective for youth? (And by that I don't mean incarceration.) EVERYONE deserves a second chance. If someone commits a terrible act he should be punished; or would you rather him simply snuffed out or given a chance to rehabilitate and repay society for his misdeeds?

Then again, the principle of the death penalty baffles me, but that belongs in another thread.

Uh..They were released a few years ago, because they turned 18. And from my knowledge they havent killed anyone yet, although the English public did find out where they were and harassed them upon their release.

I would not argue against the use of the death penalty on the basis of age - I would argue against capital punishment, period.

Like CruisingRam, though, I am presuming that those advocating the application of capital punishment to minors are also advocating the abolition of age of consent laws. If not, they are applying a heinous double standard...

Heck, I think they should have been. Probably sterilized their parents too for the abyssmal lack of parenting skills that led to that. Everyone... EVERYONE needs to be held responsible for their conscious and willful actions. If two ten-year olds kill a two-year old purposely, then why should we keep them alive?



Says who? Killing is what humans do best.

Ive hardly met a person who thinks all killing is right, have you? And until that belief is the majority of the population, killing will continue to be wrong. And I always thought that breeding is what humans do best, as we have an over populated world, if it were true that killing is what we do best, then there probably wouldnt be people with the leisure time to debate on AD, as they would be fending for their lives.



Because its inhumane to kill children, and not give them a chance to rehabilitate. After eight years, I am not the same person I used to be, and I doubt they are either. I doubt you are. People can change and denying someone that chance is repugnent. And I know someone is going to come back with the argument: But they didnt give that person they killed a chance to live...And obviously they didnt, but do we need to stoop as low as they did? Does executing a child (or any human for that matter) make society a better place to live, than if we decided simply to lock them up for life?

Also, as already stated by some in this thread, we dont even allow children to buy pornography or sign contracts because they arent mature enough. But they're mature enough to commit a crime, in a sound frame of mind? Which is it?! They are either children, or they arent, we cant oppress them on minute and then say "Well you'll have to be held accountable", the next.

The real debate then is the philosophical question of second chances and rehabilitation- I am all for it for certain crimes, but murder is not one of them. I wish those two boys nothing but ill- at the very least harrassed and beaten up until they have the decency to commit suicide. IMO- and that is the problem with this debate, it is all opinion- they have abdicated thier right to life by torture killing a young child to death. I believe that for all real murderers, where there is no question of guilt.

No second chance, no rehabilitation.

There are certain crimes that have been seen as too extreme to allow rehabilitation. Murder is certainly among them. As such, it really doesn't matter the age of the person commiting the murder, the fact that it was done at all is enough to condemn them to death. Otherwise, why have the death penalty at all? Why punish anyone? Everyone can change, right, even if you're 85!

Showing mercy to a murderer is wrong, period. Locking them up for life is much worse than simply killing them. I guess you want to see them tortured for decades, hmmm?

Thats the point Im kinda trying to make.



Showing mercy is wrong?! But killing people is OK?! And if locking them up for life is worse, than why are advocating the death penalty, since we are to show no mercy?

And I fail to see how torture and life in prison are synonmous.

Like I said, it is more of a matter of philosophy, no there are certain crimes that do not deserve mercy IMO- just death, quickly and humanely. I see no need for second chances for certain crimes, and no need to attempt rehabilitation. The crimes commited by those boys are a case in point. That is pure evil that they did, and they should have died for thier crimes, and it is a horrible thing that they walk free today, just plain wrong.

You're assuming they're guilty. What if the accused minor is innocent? How will they get a fair trial if they are sure to not get a jury of their peers? The legal system is designed to give innocent people a fair trial. Innocent people need to protected just as much as the guilty.

Statements like this infuriate me .

Have you no empathy what so ever? Does even occur to you that people aren't born bad, ever wonder what kind of society makes kids like the ones you describe. I bet you don't! And it sickens me! You are just looking at the crime not what caused it, no why's? tragedy's like columbine will keep happening if you don't start asking WHY?

Let's take the murder of Swedens secretary of state Ann Lindh as an example of how a modern society should react, she was murdered a few weeks back, the murderer was captured, the Swedes have been asking themselves what did WE do wrong that made this tragedy happen. Now my friend that is empathy. They live in a society where they take care of each other and have the ability to put themselves in their neighbors shoes. The world needs more of that.
Not this eye for an eye b*beep*.

"If we live by eye for an eye we will soon all be blind." -Ghandi

Ikeaboy69

P.S.
Nobody's all bad, not even Darth Vader

I guess I have no empathy whatsoever. When some one commits a heinous crime, I most certainly don't stop and ask myself 'what did I do wrong? or how could society have stopped this?'
The old adage of growing up poor in a broken home, blah blah blah doesn't garner any sympathy from me. I grew up poor and in a broken home, and I didn't turn into some little thug gangster wanna be. And I don't think I'm all that special.
If a minor in their teens who has the mental capacity for right and wrong and has critical thinking and reasoning skills for that age commits an adult crime then they should get charged with adult time.
I support rehabilitation and citizenship skills training in conjunction with that time, but for anyone but the minor perpetrator and maybe the parents or guardians to shoulder blame for a crime committed is ludicrous.

Why? What's wrong with the society the perp grew up in taking part in trying to make sure it doesn't happen again?

We put this kid in jail, or death row, there are others that grew up in the same enviroment with similar ideas of right and wrong to take his place as a menace to society. If we are just out for revenge every time someone does something bad, things never change.



And who would that help? Certainly not the minor in question. And it will certainly not undo the crime. What kind of person to you think will emerge from the prison when or if he does?

There are screwballs out there who will do anything for their 15 min. of fame, what kind of society creates people who will do anything for their 15. min? I think it's part of the solution to know why things happen, what is it in our society that has brought us to this? If the answer is "He just went nuts" what made him go nuts, what can we do to stop someone else from going nuts. We live on this planet together and we have to start taking responsibility for each other if we are to survive, if not for us then for our children. Am I making any sense?
I think I could go on and on, so I'll stop now.

Cheers
Ikeaboy

Do you know anything about life behind bars? The violent crime rate in prisons is *MUCH* higher than it is in the outside world. For some crimes, the criminal stands an excellent chance of being killed by the other inmates.

Besides, prison exists for three reasons:

1. To rehabilitate the prisoner for eventual return to society.
2. To punish the prisoner for their crimes.
3. To protect society from the criminal.

If all three of these are not done, then prison is pointless. In the case of murderers who are put in prison for life without possibility of parole, what purpose does society have for keeping them alive? Violent criminals are likely to remain violent and may kill others in prison, or may escape. Those put to death will never kill again and certainly can't escape.

I'm not seeing a single reason *NOT* to put them to death.

ikeaboy69 writes:


Why do you insist that it's society's fault? Take ten kids that grow up in virtually identical situations and only one of them commits a crime. Why only one? They all had the same experiences. There's a difference between empathy and hyper-emotionalism. The person who commits a crime has a choice, regardless of their background. They are ultimately responsible for their own actions and deserve to be punished for them.

ikeaboy,

Empathy? We should have empathy for people who struggle to do
right by others, NOT for people who knowingly and
deliberately commit horrible, irreversible acts of evil..

And, how do you KNOW that people are not born bad??
Perhaps there are evil spirits that enter this world as such.

What sickens me is the attitude (of some people) that we are supposed to
allow individuals to inflict irreparable damage on innocent human beings,
and after the fact, give the excuse "well, they didn't know any
better and we'll rehabilitate them."

Our energy would be better spent on making the good people of this world
that much better. I'm not interested in "rehabilitating cold-blooded
murderers." I'm interested in sending them to their next destination, via
the death penalty.....

If one is old enough to viciously take another human being's life,
he is old enough to suffer the consequences.

Evil spirits, first of all i would like to say law should not be bound by such ideas or encapsulation of people, there is more deities and religions then one could master in a life, and all that shows is how relative it is. Some people do have genetic dispositions, but even then, are they demonstrating freewill, being i truly don’t put faith in people having freewill, i guess law is just a tricky subject. Law should not be the product of a worldview, or law needs to be blind to carry itself out, or else it is just a corrupt institution of society that serves no real purpose except for its current corrupt masters.
Its that human element again.

At what age would you say a child should be responsible for its actions, a five year old, what about a twelve year old, do you think this could change person to person, or what crime it was?

I guess the idea is standards, thus the argument over this one about society having the provision to legally execute minors as it sees fit. Being i don’t agree very much with how our current legal system operates in many areas, i don’t agree with this law. More or less it reminds me of Victorian era elitists giving lobotomies to what they considered societies bad parts, without any care or humanity. What good is a society if it just as base as the people it feels so strongly against, or more to the point does it really make anything better to say execute the minor?

Being society or humanity is far from perfect, and even the closest of communities still have crime in them, what are we really punishing in criminals, or in people, and what are we punishing in minors, or do our standards down to the individual allow for us to feel it’s the right thing to execute people, if they are a serial rapist murderer, or a minor with some crime against. I guess what I am asking is would you feel just in executing a product of a society, and in the long run say fifty years, how many people would be executed under this society, or is even the act of killing relative to people.

A child is responsible for his actions. I have two kids, and they know,
at the ages of 5 and 3, what is acceptable and what is not. My 5 year
old is fully aware that it is against the moral code of our society to physically
harm another individual....(never mind murder - that's not even in his
psyche).....

Murder IS in the psyche of an individual who is evil...whether he
commits the crime at 10 or 20 or 50 is irrelevant... The fact remains
that he is responsible for his actions. I'm responisble for my actions.
You are responsible for yours....

The parents of such a child are also responsible to the degree that
they do not heed the warning signs of such an individual (and there
are always warning signs, i.e. killing small animals, etc.) It's easy
to give excuses after the fact, when it is too late. My philosophy
is to put an end to the evil by exercising the death penalty, when
appropriate. (Life in prison is sufficient as well. It should depend,
in part, on the wishes of the victim's family....)


And: of course it depends on the severity of the crime. MURDER
IN COLD BLOOD would merit the death penalty, at any age.

So say your kid at age of thirteen shot and killed a bully that was destroying his life, would you feel he should be put to death. Black and whites don’t mix with dynamics very well. Society fails if it only caters to certain people when more then that type live or occupy that society, or that the law itself could be misused, and it deals with death or a common practice to murder designated individuals. Being humanity is a far from perfected thing, and such "evil" regardless of time or place seems to exist, what purpose does the death penalty period serve, be it a minor or a adult, is it a quick fix to human suffering, a tool of revenge, all of the above. Or is it just the easy out, from a complex issue.

If my child, at age 13, shot and killed a bully who was destroying his life
there would be extenuating circumstances involved in that crime. The
judge and jury would decide what the correct punishment (according to the
law) would be (most likely not the Death Penalty).

Now, if my son deliberately sought out another child, who had done
him no wrong, and viciously murdered that child, he would deserve the
death penalty. (or life in prison, at the very least)

It really depends on the circumstances...

If it was my child that was murdered I would want the murderer
to die. It wouldn't bring my child back, but it would assure me that no
more children would needlessly lose their lives, and it would provide
a very small amount of "justice".

So...if a jealous four-year-old puts a plastic bag over his newborn sister's head to "make her go away" and the little girl dies, should the four-year-old be put to death? Should we labor to demonstrate that the four-year-old's action was pre-meditated?

I am against the death penalty at any age. I believe that people should die when their "time" comes. In the meantime, a person living out a life sentence in prison has an opportunity to think about what s/he did and change their life for the better. Who are we to say that the remainder of that person's life is worth any less than our own lives--do we have a crystal ball? Do we know more than God does?

I was raised in Michigan, which has never had a death penalty under state law. There has been one person executed in Michigan under federal law, and a couple more who were recently sentenced to death under federal law, but have not yet been executed.

Research I read in college on the death penalty indicated that:

Many with a criminal bent saw the state's action in executing someone as an example of how to settle a score.

Incidents of violent crime and murder usually went up in areas where someone was recently executed.

Pickpockets framed fellow criminals because more people being hung at a public execution brought larger crowds.

The Catholic Church taught that suicide was a mortal sin; so suicidal people would commit a murder, go to the priest and confess, then go to the police and confess. A quick trial resulted in a speedy execution. Today, people point guns at policemen, and their death is ruled to be "suicide by police."


Don't you know that the stroke of midnight can affect what is a crime? A co-worker came to work one morning and said, "I really got lucky last night. I was in bed with a girl who I picked up at the bar, and who had told me she was 21. Her dad came in, aimed a gun at me, and had his wife call the police. When the police arrived, he explained that his daughter was only fifteen, and he wanted me charged with statutory rape. The daughter said, 'Daddy, it's my birthday, I'm sixteen.' The mother looked at the clock and confirmed the daughter's statement. The call to the police had been placed at 5 minutes past midnight. The father was charged with assault with a deadly weapon." The co-worker formed a new habit. He started checking the ID's of girls he picked up.

There are mechanisms in place for crimes such as the snipers in the Washington, D.C. area; that a prosecutor can ask for a juvenile to be tried as an adult.

People convicted of murder have been found not guilty when new evidence was discovered. Imagine that the state has tried a ten year boy old for murder, found him guilty, executed him, and then... A drug addict is picked up for dealing, and admits to the same murder the ten year old boy was executed for committing. The parents file suit against the state for wrongful death and win. It's the penalty phase of that trial. You're sitting on the jury. How much money are you going to award the boy's parents?

There are a number of treaties that I have heard of which the Senate has refused to ratify. If we are truly one of only two countries in the world refusing to sign this treaty, it really makes us look like the "third world" country in my opinion. Do we really have that many children committing premeditated murder, that as a nation, we can't afford the cost of incarcerating them for life?

This post approved by Spell Check

What about that person the murderer put to death? They took an individual's life before their 'time came'.

I don't support killing minors. But like I said in my earlier post. Have we ever put a minor to death when they were under 18?

Are all lives sacred, or just a few? If religions teach that all are created in God's image, then any death amounts to desecration of that image. Another death cannot bring back the one who was slain. But to bring a person who has done murder to a place where they regret what they did and resolve to change their lives to seek the good and serve their fellow human beings is bringing a life back that was lost.

The opportunity for that person to undergo a life-changing experience is gone when an execution takes place. That's probably why the Bible says,


Besides, we've all seen what kind of peace it brings when "an eye for an eye" is the rule--just look at the Israelis and Palestinians.

You know something? As painful as this is to hear, life sucks. Yes, it is possible, however unlikely, that an executed person might be found innocent at some point in time in the future. That simply hasn't happened since the legal reintroduction of the death penalty in the 70s, but sure, anything is possible. While it's certainly unfortunate and we should do everything in our power to stop, or at least dramatically lessen the potential for mistakes, the fact that someone just might be wrongly executed doesn't change anything, sorry. You don't go hide in a closet because you might make a mistake.

Paladin Elspeth writes:


No lives are sacred. This has nothing to do with silly religious beliefs, it has to do with the protection of society and punishment. It isn't called the death revenge, it isn't called the death prevention, it's the death PENALTY! It's a punishment for a crime so heinous that no other punishment is severe enough. It is a determination of society that this individual can never again be permitted back into society. They have violated the social contract to such a degree that their lives are forfeit.

I'm not really sure where I stand on the death penalty as a general practice, but I don't believe minors should be exempt from capital punishment for capital crimes so long as capital punishment is in existence. As was brought up early in this debate, I simply do not see that any person should be held any less liable for a crime the day before their eighteenth birthday than the day after.

To this, Rancid Uncle offered arguments both in his opening post and in a post subsequent to that of Cephus:
While those under the age of eighteen and 21 do not have the rights to vote or drink, they are no less accountable for crimes than those who are of such ages or older. There is no protection from criminal prosecution merely because of age. Regarding peers, I am not familiar with any law requiring the jury for a criminal offense be the same age as the defendant. Correct me if I am wrong and there is some law requring minors to be judged only by fellow minors.

Response to Cephus' day before/day after birthday argument

Not every murderer is sentenced to death. We have juries to hear the case not only in terms of guilt but also the circumstances surrounding guilt. There are degrees of murder and manslaughter shaped by circumstances which lead juries to decide upon extended imprisonment or execution for those found guilty of killing. If two ten year-olds inadvertantly kill a two year-old they are subject to punishment though not necessarily execution. If two ten year-olds, however, are found to have understood the implications of a fatal action, planned such action and then carried out a malicious act with the desire for another individual's life to be taken, they should by no means be exempt from whatever the maximum punishment is, regardless of their age (IMO).

In a following post from kim:
This isn't the only post in this thread to address the general practice of the death penalty rather than its application to minors, but it's the one that stood out for me. Whatever arguments for the rehabilitation of criminals or the morality of execution, what this debate seems to address isn't the overall acceptance or rejection of execution as punishment but the equal application of capital punishment for capital crimes.


I would say again pretty much what I said above. Certainly a four year-old should be subject to prosecution and punishment for that crime or any other crime. There are, however, circumstances to consider in such a case. There would, in such a case, likely be child psychologists called to witness whether the child in question understood the consequences of his or her actions, whether the child in question understood death in general, etc. If by some chance a four year-old could be shown to have committed pre-meditated murder, it would fall to a jury whether they receive extended imprisonment for possible rehabilitation or the death penalty. Again, not all murderers are candidates for the death penalty, nor are all those who are sentenced to it.

Persons found guilty of vehicular manslaughter aren't (to my knowledge) sentenced to death anymore than a toddler who bludgeons another toddler to death with a Tonka truck would be.

If a minor is found guilty of crimes warranting the death penalty or any other penalty, I see no reason for granting an exemption on the basis of age. A minor who understands and conducts the same crime as an adult should, in my opinion, be subject to the same prosecution and punishment as an adult, though incarceration for such crimes could very well remain separated between juvenile and adult institutions.

We have had 100 persons on Death Row proved innocent. There isn't much incentive for financially strapped non-profits or the government to pay for further investigation/DNA tests on dead folk, particularly considering the embarrassment if it turns out an innocent has been killed. I suggest that statistically, it will/perhaps has happen, and realistically, we're not going to know. You must be in direct conversation with some omniscient being to know it "simply hasn't happened", and please thank It clearing up the ages old philosophical question of life's sacredness.

Anyway, what do we really gain from the death penalty? It's role as a deterrent is questionable at best. Recidivism? Life imprisonment w/o parole can prevent recidivism w/o revoking any chance of righting a wrongful conviction, and after appeals and Death Row, it's often cheaper (I guess we could fix that by being even less careful about the convicted having actually done the crime).

The only reason that makes sense is to fulfill an emotional need to quiet society's sense of moral outrage toward someone, who, hey, might be guilty. I understand the desire to want to kill someone for their immoral outrages- yet somehow, I never seriously consider massacring the Republicans in Congress. Basically, I don't think it should be the role of our justice system to provide group therapy to society when we're mightily peeved over some outrageous crimes. However, if the death penalty has to be kept . . .

A MODEST PROPOSAL

We should hold a national referendum on the death penalty. It will be open ballot, with everyone signing under their vote. The intro should include info on the death penalty. The question: "Should someone of sound mind who is convicted of purposefully participating in the killing of an innocent be put to death?" If the yeas have it, the death penalty will continue.

On the day of their execution, all convicts will give a DNA sample. If anytime after their execution, by discovery of new evidence, etc., the condemned is found to have been innocent, than anyone in the jurisdiction of the highest court to hear the case will have voted on whether to kill said person, and those who voted for the death penalty will have left a signed statement that it was their purposeful desire to deprive an innocent of life. The info included on the death penalty will have surely warned them that innocents would be convicted and one would eventually be killed. The recorded, contractual nature of their vote will surely expedite the trial/appeals process, we will finally have some executions on the cheap.

I'm sure that, as philosophically consistent individuals, this arrangement will not be objectional. Life isn't sacred and also sucks, apparently. You're not losing much. The execution of all voting yes will fight overpopulation, make for a kinder, gentler society, and after all, that many deaths is not a tragedy, only a statistic, like those innocents sentenced to death under the current system.

Cephus wrote:


I agree, Cephus, it has NOTHING to do with "silly" religious beliefs, it has to do with mine. Thank you very much for your OPINION, and that is all it is.

And I am as entitled to my belief that humans have souls and God is a merciful God as you are entitled to your nihilism. I will not give my opinion about your beliefs or lack thereof.

Your argument that religion is irrelevant to the laws in this country will only have merit when the majority of legislators have no religion specified in their profiles.

If there is justice and mercy in this world, it probably originated with someone who possessed a religious faith. The founder of my faith had a strong sense of right and wrong, of mercy and justice, and there is no way he would subject a child to the same penalties that adults are subjected to. He said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." If the one I believe in has mercy toward children and adults in spite of their wrongdoing ("Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"), so should I.

Trying to eradicate any mention whatsoever of this influence on laws and the ways they are carried out will not make this world a better place, just a little more comfortable for those with a low tolerance for anything that suggests there might be a higher power than the Almighty Human.

So you think that state-sponsored killing is the answer to stopping murder? It's the quick answer, the easy answer, surely easier than trying to salvage a person's miserable life and show that there might be a better purpose to it than bringing grief and tragedy to others. But as you probably learned in school, the quick, easy answer isn't always the best one. Show me the stats to back you up. Does the death penalty stop murders?

Well, are people still committing murders?

You condemn my religion-based responses; can you show me some hard evidence detached from your obvious dislike of Christians? Do you honestly think that a world devoid of religion would be any better? What would you use for YOUR moral compass?

If the fear of Hell doesn't stop murders, and fear of capital punishment doesn't stop murders, what possible reason could YOU give a person to not commit murder?

(Edited)

Just because "the majority" of a population believe in something, or feel a
certain way about an issue doesn't make it right or true... (read the quote at the end of my post)..

The founder of your faith (Jesus?) may have had a very strong sense of what
is right or wrong, and so do many of us "laypersons"... You don't have
to be a prophet to figure out what is the correct way to deal with a given
situation....

In this thread we are talking about the Death Penalty and minors.
If a minor has such little regard for humanity that he is willing to commit
the crime of cold-blooded murder, he should be punished to the full
extent of the law - THE DEATH PENALTY.

Maybe you could start caring a little more about the victims, whose
voices cannot be heard, because they have been silenced by the
horrendous actions of morally wicked individuals (who may happen
to be under the age of 18).

It is a waste of time attempting to rehabilitate these people. You'd be
better off using your energy to help the good-hearted people in this
world, who may be down on their luck, and in need of your encouragement.


Voltaire once said that common sense is not so common.
I think he was right.

So I show my caring about the victims by killing someone else's child?

(This paragraph edited) Might I suggest that you share with us how YOU have shown your caring for the victims? Show us how YOUR caring helps the victims any more than your insinuation that my concern for the condemned is somehow inhumane.

Are you suggesting that the "correct" method is doing away with another life, even if the person might be innocent, even though it will deprive one more family of a person they care about?

Again, I challenge YOU as well, show me how the death penalty, whether it applies to minors as well as adults, stops people from committing murder.

"Common sense," I am sure, is practiced in Belfast and Jerusalem. "Common sense" translates to most people as an eye for an eye. You must be part of THAT majority. And you're right,





And what makes you think I'm not??? Do you know me at all?

Well, it stops that one person from committing murders.

Isn't that the reason behind capital punishment? That one person cannot function in society without harming or killing others, so they must be taken out. That effectively ends that persons career in killing others.

So we do it on a case by case basis. And God help you if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time in places like Texas, where the quality of defense you receive is particularly tied to the amount of money you have.

And that's not the only place it happens. So it means nothing to you that one hundred people on death row were found innocent. They are lucky someone noticed the errors in their prosecutions. Not everybody is that lucky. How do you figure the family of an executed prisoner feels when the real killer is arrested?

How do the families of victims feel when the person who killed their loved one walks free on a technicality?

This thing we call the justice system is not just. The guilty walk free while innocent people are executed. Attorneys wrangle to get the right judge who will be sympathetic to their cause. Consultants are used in jury selection. Politics of a certain area enter in when the District Attorney or judge wants to "send a message." Saddam Hussein and countless other tyrants have trumped up charges to execute people who have gotten in their way. You don't think it happens here?

Wouldn't it make sense to sentence a person to life behind bars without parole instead? They are no longer a menace to society there. Denial of a person's freedom is punishment, too. I'd certainly freak out knowing I had to spend the rest of my life in a locked room.

No number of executions will bring back one unjustly slain person. The United States is the last major country in the world to still have the death penalty. Why do you think that is? What do they know that we don't know?

Thats a fair assessment. I suppose it would ultimately be more fair just to stick them behind bars. Especially children.

Really? People are never murdered in prison? When did that stop?

People are not sentenced to death on Sunday, hung on Monday, and tried on Wednesday in a modern world. Persons who are sentenced to death usually have a number of appeals they are entitled to, resulting in long periods of imprisonment before they are actually executed. I have been told in the past that the cost of an execution, including the cost of the appeals process can actually exceed the cost of life imprisonment. If a person was convicted of a capital crime, condemned to death, unhappy, depressed, and perhaps pathologically disturbed from birth; is there something that is going to stop him from killing a prison guard in an effort to escape?

That's right, he's only four years old, and he'll listen to the guards explanation of right and wrong, because the guard is a better parent.


I have heard a lot of conjecture over the years on why the death penalty was implemented, but I have always suspected it was a matter of economics. In a nomadic tribe of hunter-gatherers, building a prison, hiring guards, and feeding the prisoner for life would be prohibitively expensive. At the same time, in such a society, it was more likely to be an open and shut case of convicting the person who was covered with blood and had a knife in his hand.

Is murder the type of crime which is prevented because people are afraid of the punishment? I suspect it is more often a crime of passion, with an attempt to cover it up afterward.

I have often heard men claim that if they caught a man in bed with their wife, they would kill them; because after all, it is legal to do that under "natural law." I have yet to see anyone document that "fact."

In Michigan, we are learning as a state, that a murder committed in a federal forest or on other federal property is a capital offense. The same crime in city hall or a state forest can result in a life sentence without parole. Is an average twelve year old bright enough to distinguish that fine line? Would he average adult first consult a lawyer about where, when, and how to kill someone?

Unless and until the death penalty is a uniformly applied federal statute, it will never be an appropriate deterrent. It is a patchwork, where everyone knows that if you are poor, black, and in Texas; you're a candidate for the death penalty. But then, depending on how liberal the reporter is; we are sometimes left to wonder if it is necessary to commit a murder in Texas for a poor, black, teen age male to be sentenced to death.

Imagine that one of George W. Bush's daughters brought a poor young black man home for dinner to the ranch in Texas, and someone shot the young man. Would there be an investigation? Possibly. A conviction? Not likely.

That only proves that the system works and there is enough time and legal procedure before execution to weed out those people who are, in reality, innocent of the crime. We don't have a single example of an individual who was actually executed who was later found innocent. While I wouldn't expect the legal system to try to find innocents among the executed, there are a lot of anti-DPers out there who hold that up as the holy grail and certainly could look for one. The problem is, they can't find one because so far as we can tell, one doesn't exist.

Even if it is found though, it doesn't change the effectiveness of the DP, nor should it stop it. If 1 in every thousand executions turns out to be innocent of the specific crime, I find that an acceptable loss.

Paladin Elspeth writes:


Just as yours is your opinion. The legal system has nothing to do with religion, please keep it that way.

I do not. Different point of view, I suppose.

To me, even the possibility of someone being jailed incorrectly seems so horrible that I would want the justice system to bend over backwards to reduce this possibility to the absolute minimum. The problem with the death penalty is that it is so absolute that it must be used, if at all, with absolute perfection. This is, of course, impossible.

To return to the main topic of debate, it seems strange to me that there should be no consideration of the age of the offender. The law recognizes that children and adults are not the same. (The line between the two is not exact, of course. There is not much difference between the 17-year-old killer and the 18-year-old-killer, if any. However, I don't think it can be denied that there is a vast difference between the 8-year-old killer and the 18-year-old killer.) Surely the law must take all the facts of any case into consideration. (The reason why mandatory sentencing laws are a bad idea.)

It doesn't weed them all out Cephus. Some states will not look at new evidence unless it is strictly DNA evidence. What then? Suppose I am convicted of murder, under circumstantial evidence, where no DNA evidence is available, or was not collected? I am innocent. But, the state won't accept the fact that someone else has confessed, because there is no evidence. I'm just out of luck in your scenario.

Your absolutely right, the state has no vested interest in in trying to find innocents that have been executed. But the so-called anti-DPers can't look for one readily either. Reason? In nearly every state, once the convicted party is executed, the evidence against them is destroyed by the state. Do you really think they are just gonna turn it over to your anti-DPers, so that they might be made to look bad? It ain't gonna happen, my friend.



But one in a thousand is not the statistic. According to the ACLU website, in recent years, one in seven convicted of a capital crime have been later proven innocent. At what percentage does it stop being an acceptable loss? And what is the effectiveness of Capital Punishment? Can you list one legitimate source that says that the death penalty is an effective deterrent to capital crimes? Can you cite one source that says that capital punishment is less expensive than life without parole?

Meantime, pray that you are not one of the many that ends up in the wrong place at the wrong time, and is unjustly sent to death row. I wonder, would you find your own impending execution an "acceptable loss'?

Should children under 18 who are murderers be eligible for the death penalty? Imo no, for no other reason than that it is just too despicable a penalty to put on children.

If they are not legally adult enough to drive, vote, have consensual sex, drink, join the military...they should not be punished as adults. Adults who commit murder and are found to be, beyond a reasonable doubt, guilty? let em fry.

Since 1990, seven countries have executed prisoners who were under 18 at the time of their crime: Congo (Democratic Republic), Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, USA and Yemen. The USA tops the list with 17 executions. (from Amnesty International)

Keeping up with the Joneses may be an American pastime. Perhaps we should examine exactly which Joneses we're keeping up with.

I show my care for the victims by supporting the Death Penalty.

If my child were the victim of such a crime. If my child was murdered
by another human being (whether a minor or not), he might as
well have murdered me too. I don't know if you have children, but if
you do, could you live with the loss of your child?

That child that was murdered by the two boys in England, that child had
a mommy and daddy, who will never be able to hug or kiss or LOVE
their baby EVER again. They will not see their child grow and learn
and laugh and love. Just imagine that.

It disgusts me that people can find sympathy for the vermin that would
commit such horrendous acts of violence. They don't deserve your
empathy, your pity, or your support. They don't deserve to live.

This talk of "what if the person is innocent" doesn't hold water. We should
worry more about the guity that go free (like OJ, to name one).

The Death Penalty will take a vicious killer out of the human race,
and that in and of itself makes it a viable solution.