Juvenile Death Penalty Banned

For those of you who haven't heard, the U.S. Supreme Court barred states from executing people under the age of 18. This means that about 70 young'uns on death row throughout the country will have to be resentenced, including that Lee Boyd Malvo kid from the Virginia sniper spree a few years ago.

The court reasoned that "no matter how heinous their crimes, they are not among the worst offenders who deserve to die" and that it's "excessive and cruel" to execute a person younger than 18 at the time of the crime.

So what's your take on this? Did the Supreme Court make the right decision?

I had to work really hard to stop myself from saying WELL DUH!
...woops.
Death sentinces are bad enough but to people who are only beginning there life?

You can't have it both ways. Either they're old enough to drink, smoke, vote for the people with the power to kill them, and be executed, or they're not.

Well, good job USA on getting into the 20th century.

Personally, I think the alternative of life behind bars is far less attractive than death. Stick me in a cell and tell me I'll never know freedom again, and I'd snap my own neck. Before my first day was over.
At the same time, no, killing children is just wrong, and I personally think that the justice system is fallable, and shouldn't allow any executions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Destai

I had to work really hard to stop myself from saying WELL DUH!
...woops.
Death sentinces are bad enough but to people who are only beginning there life?

---

Lots of times it can take years for the death sentence to be carried out. A kid who gets sentenced may not actually be ripped off the mortal coil for another 15 years.
He'll have led a long enough life by then. For example, I knew a girl who never went to jail at all, and she still managed to get herself dead before she saw 20 summers.

The problem with this is that they're not killing the kids, instead they're locking them up for life. That won't help a bunch of uneducated hoodlums. Instead of ending the lives of the twerps, we'll merely destroy their lifes. Then they'll come out of jail (If they do. If they never make it out of jail, then we may as well kill them now. Or wait until their 18th birthday. Ew. How about the day after their 18th birthday.) more likely more destructive, dangerous, and, if they're educated at all, very knowledgable about "how to be a criminal smurfhead."

Not that it matters much to me. I'd rather face off with a middle aged psycho than a healthy, strong, youthful one. And there's losers born and raised every day.
So let's try keeping them in jail. Who knows. I could be wrong. (I have been in the past. On biology exams and such)


Note: I like the new censoring system.

... I didn't know that there WAS a death sentence for people under 18.

It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.

I think the specific "child" which lead to this ruling was 17, apparently kidnapped his neighbour tied her up and then threw her onto some railway tracks. Now excuse me for being inbred, savage and hystericaly right wing but i can't help thinking being a few months off the abitary age of 18 meant that this man had no conception of what he was doing is a ridiculous idea. All cases should be juged on their individual merit, We off course have people over the age of 18 who do have no concept of what they are doing, why would it be ok for someone to die in that circumstance rather then the 17 year old?

I am against the death penalty, in all forms, so this is a step in the right direction in my mind. Yet, reading the others posts really got me thinking. Should age really be a defense? If someone is not of age, should their lack of life experience really stand up to a murder charge and make them get a lesser sentence? In that way, I agree that each case should ultimately be based more upon the circumstances of the case, that if a 17 commits murder, it's murder and they get prison. If they can prove that somewhere along the line, they can function without the need to murder, then perhaps they can be released when they are deemed safe, but I've never liked then notion that age can determine someone's sentence because sometimes people age differently.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Captain

but I've never liked then notion that age can determine someone's sentence because sometimes people age differently.

---

The point is that it has been prooved that certain capacities tend to be developed around the age of 17-18, it goes around the mental development on abstraction and all that. I could tell you the name of the guy who did the study, but I already passed that exam and it was the dullest moment in my philosophy carrer leaving aside Carnap and his damn logical positivism, also known as "stuff said by people who will die virgins".

Anyway, it has been taken as an average after several studies on this development things, and even if some people develop their minds, it does not seem fair to apply the minor age laws to just some people, because it is hard to proove if someone has reached certain capacities.

I agree completely with the Supreme Court's decision. A bunch of Fox News idiots were going "OMFG WHAT IS THE SUPREME COURT THINKING!?!?!?!"...I had to keep from busting the television.

Now when they let people under 18 have sex with whoever, marry, drink, drive, smoke, and have credit cards, then they can execute them...of course, I don't agree with executing anyone, which makes me favor this decision even more. :)

Go people in the court with half a brain!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by udsuna

shouldn't allow any executions.

---

Cheers to that! One of the many more reasons I love Canada, no death penalties.

I think its dumb how people use the excuse that these young people that commited these crimes arnt as worse as those who are older. A teenager or even maybe kids, have a conscience. Its not like they're babies still being bottled fed to the mouth. And people say that the majority of it is the parents faults, but I tend to disagree. You are responsible for you. They just provide the shelter, and the necessities.

So anyway. Im for it, they should get 'x' life in prison without parole, depending on the crime.

At first I thought this allowed kids to blow up the country with utmost lunacy, but then I realised that people can still be given multiple life sentences.

So it works out in the end. No harm done, no change. Just less death by lethal injection/electric chair/hanging/decapitation.

Is it ok for us to keep the responsibilities and privleages of adults away from minors, yet still expect them to live up to the responsibilities of an adult? Of course it isn't.

I agree with The Captain in that this is a step in the right direction. I, too, oppose the death penalty in all forms, so the fact that a certain sub group of people are not allowed to be executed is a good thing.

Quote:

---

You can't have it both ways. Either they're old enough to drink, smoke, vote for the people with the power to kill them, and be executed, or they're not. Well, good job USA on getting into the 20th century.

---

Yeah, and it only took us until 5 years into the 21st. :mad: I hate my country at times...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strider

For those of you who haven't heard, the U.S. Supreme Court barred states from executing people under the age of 18. This means that about 70 young'uns on death row throughout the country will have to be resentenced, including that Lee Boyd Malvo kid from the Virginia sniper spree a few years ago.

---

Now wait a second, he hasn't been executed yet? no f'ing way. the snipings have stopped since they were caught, just because now they barred the death penalty shouldn't mean jack. its like when you commit an act sometime ago and then a law was passed that now makes it a crime, and you aren't procecuted for that act. he was put on death row, follow through, that just doesn't make sense. the government really is a bunch of hypocrits.

Murder is always wrong, the government saying it's ok doesn't make it right. As someone else said, it's a step in the right direction.

The fact is that children can't be held completely responsible for their actions, and the law rightfully reflects this. Sure, some 17 year olds probably know damn well what they're doing, but they have to draw the line somewhere.

Now if they'd only get it through their skull that rehabilitation as opposed to straight prison time works much better...