Juvenile Death Penalty in the U.S. Struck Down

Mescalhead said:
So you think that a kid, around maybe 12 who murders in cold blood will come around at about 18? It seems unlikely to me.

I implied nothing of the sort, Read my statement again.
 
Tis a step in the right direction, but not what I'd like seen. The state is supposed to be superior to criminals, though, I suppose, it never has been.
 
Bright day!
 
rmsharpe said:
They overturned Roe vs. Wade? :eek:
That is, if you have to think of abortion as state sponsored murders of minors, another cathegory of state sponsored murders of minors. Though you know that. It would be a lot more interesting to hear your thoughts of capital punnishment of minors instead (though I think I know what stand you've taken on that).


Personally, I think this is a good ruling. Let's hope you have abandoned capital punnishment alltogether in another 100 years. :)
 
zulu9812 said:
I implied nothing of the sort, Read my statement again.
Considering that the deliquent will not change in psychological disposition upon reaching adulthood, I see no reason to let them out to kill agian, and then execute them. It'd simply be better to snuff them now. If a juvenile kills and the court deems him otherwise fit for execution, I can't imagine him coming around and being subject to a conscience that takes the effects of murder on others and himself into consideration.

This is all from the supposition that the crime would have to be pretty egregious from the start for a judge to consider such a sentence. Kids can be completely rotten as well. Rotten adults don't just get that way at 18.
 
The Last Conformist said:
Would people stop using the word "murder" for either abortion or capital punishment?

(Incidentally, do the unborn legally count as "minors"?)

No they won't. Such semantics are used when arguments rely more on emotion than reason. Not to say that is necessarily a bad thing in certain cases.
 
Mescalhead said:
Considering that the deliquent will not change in psychological disposition upon reaching adulthood, I see no reason to let them out to kill agian, and then execute them. It'd simply be better to snuff them now.

Why would he be let out?
 
zulu9812 said:
Why would he be let out?

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.
 
More proof that the Supreme Court has no idea what it's doing. (Like we needed any more)
 
I like the outcome but not the decision. I dont support the death penalty but I dont think the Supreme Court should have ruled on it. The legeslature should have passed the law and the Supreme Court rule on the law.
 
zulu9812 said:
That's not really the issue. Minors are not considered fully rational, fully developed, or fully autonomous. Thus is is unfair to punish them in the same way as those who are. If it was, then that would be an indication that minors were fully rational & autonomous moral agents - thus you would have to give them the vote as well.
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%?
 
Top Bottom