Juvenile Death Penalty in the U.S. Struck Down

Sarevok said:
Im 9 months away form being 18.

Im considered to be a very mature person now, but what you are saying is that I am not rational enough to understand my actions. Do I suddenly become rational when that day comes?

Its comments like that that make me think that it is heavily unfair to generalize teens as irrational, ignorant people. Though that is 80 to 90% true, what about the other 10%?

The other 10% can still be tried as an adult and heald for 30+ years? For the protection of that 80-90%, of whom most do not have fully-formed minds, that 10-20% gets a break.
 
The Last Conformist said:
Would people stop using the word "murder" for either abortion or capital punishment?
I don't, but the point is: if an execution is murder, why isn't abortion? You might as well use the same standards across the board.

I'm conflicted on the issue myself, but I'm disgusted when abortion advocates are so ready to condemn executions. They'd rather kill the life that hasn't done anything wrong than kill the one that has! :eek:
 
cgannon64 said:
:lol:

That raises a question in my mind. If someone is too poor to pay for an abortion, does the state pay for it?

I dont think so. I know that the insurance given to federal workers doesnt cover it, and it shouldnt.
 
Dammit, we're not ******ed. If a 17 year old commits a crime he should be punished the same way an 18 year old is.
 
Most people seem to get the image of the government frying a 10 year old kid... in reality, by the time they're actually sentanced, they're over 18, or they wouldn't get death. This (Juvenile Death Penalty) refers to people who commited a crime when 17/16 and then were sentenced when over 18. (due to time differences between crime and sentence) By the time they're actually executed they're in their mid 20s.

Nevertheless, I do believe it's wrong. But it's not murdering children, as some people seem to imply.
 
stratego said:
Dammit, we're not ******ed. If a 17 year old commits a crime he should be punished the same way an 18 year old is.

Yes, rather insulting isn't it: when you commited the crime, you were a little under 18, so you didn't fully understand what you were doing, so we can't try you the same way. :crazyeye:

As long as it's only used in cases of extreme brutality and lack of conscience, I don't see why people would be against it.
 
I fail to see how a 17 year old is not mature enough to understand that what they did is wrong. I sure did not get any wiser or mature when I turned 18. There is no magical metamorphosis that happens to people when they turn 18, they don't have any sudden revelations... If a 16-17 year old killed someone in cold blood, let them fry. It doesn't bring back the victim, but serves as a good deterrent to others IMHO.
I say get rid of all this age restrictions and just have tests to determine if the person is responsible enough to do something. I'm turning 21 in two weeks, will that make me mature enough to know how much alchohol I shoud drink (especially considering the fact that I've been drinking socially since 12)? If a 13 year old can prove that he/she is mature enough to drive and knows the rules and regulations, let them drive. If they can prove they are mature enough to vote, serve in the military or drink, let them... The government should set up some sort of testing system that would let them determine whether or not the person is ready to do any of those and if they are let them do it.
 
A good day in justice, I think. May the death penalty as a whole get overturned as well. :goodjob:
 
I'll be 18 in a few weeks. I'll tell you how drastic the change is. ;)

I'm anti-death penalty, so I suppose this is good, though (I would assume) the "maturity difference" between upper minors and adults is negligible.
 
Its a sad day for America. :(
 
luiz said:
I have come to the conclusion that the death penalty as a whole is couter-productive, even if many people deserve it(including some minors). So this is a step in the right direction.

A fair death penalty trial is just too expensive, and there is always the risk(even if very small in the post-DNA world) of sentencing an innocent.
Luiz and I are in complete accord on this issue, his words are mine. End all death penalty now.
 
I don't see how the cost should be an argument against death penalty at all. Does a man deserve any less of a fair trial if it just his freedom at stake and not his life?
 
Way to focus on the least relevant part of the post.
 
Yay. Death penalties are a bad idea. Death penalties for minors are even stupider.

Focusing on the very few psycho 17.9-year as a reason for death penalties for minors is even sillier than the previous two.
 
Old enough to do the crime old enough to do the time. I'd fry a 5 year old if I though they deserved it.
 
luiz said:
I have come to the conclusion that the death penalty as a whole is couter-productive, even if many people deserve it(including some minors). So this is a step in the right direction.

A fair death penalty trial is just too expensive, and there is always the risk(even if very small in the post-DNA world) of sentencing an innocent.
I agree with this.
 
Mescalhead said:
When someone is incarcerated as a juvenile their sentences are much shorter than adults. Often times they get out in their mid to late twenties after stewing in prison and learning new "trades" in debauchery and criminality.

Well, that's a sentecing issue - morally, it doesn't mean that they should be killed. You also seem to be rejecting the notion of criminal rehabilitation.
 
Zardnaar said:
Old enough to do the crime old enough to do the time. I'd fry a 5 year old if I though they deserved it.

I agree with this... but not a 5 yr old.. unless it could be proved that the 5 yr old had a culpable mind and knew he was doing it. Nowingly caused the crime and its concequences.
 
Top Bottom