Is there ever a time when a minor deserves the death penalty?

[Darth Madden]

At least in prison being a sex offender of a minor he will not be having a very fun time, the other inmates will make sure of that.

 

[Agent0028]

My God...he's a 14 year old monster...

 

[devilof76]

If you're planning on executing a 14 year old, you need to change the age of majority to 14. If children can be held fully responsible for crimes, then they should be able to bear other legal responsibilities as well (signing contracts, sex without parental consent, voting, etc.)

 

[azurepred]

I don't see this thread lasting long.

, yea, i know, i wasnt expecting such a majority of ppl siding with execution though. i'm expecting some ppl to play Devils Advocate. I believe this kid deserves to be executed, but he won't. California has the power to use the death penalty, but never do. My old Rapist thread had a real good run until a bunch of idiots got it closed, so hopefully this one will ride out for a bit.

If you're planning on executing a 14 year old, you need to change the age of majority to 14. If children can be held fully responsible for crimes, then they should be able to bear other legal responsibilities as well (singing contracts, sex without parental consent, voting, etc.)

yea, some of thats true, but this kid wont be considered for execution when he should. i know ppl will say "oh he still has a chance to redeem himself and blah blah blah". i'm not saying execution should be used a lot, but there are just some people that should never be put back into our society and you would think that with the issues with no room in the jails in this state, execution would be considered more often. Some people are redeemable and capable of contributing to society but if your going to decide the kid belongs in jail for the rest of his life for despicable crimes, what benefit does that have to the society? That little girl will have to live with this the rest of her life assuming she survives and will ALWAYS worry he may come back to get her as long as he is still alive.

 

[devilof76]

I think the death penalty should be reserved (obligatory, actually) for murderers. I think life sentences should be reserved for recidivists and pedophiles, and I think they should be forced to work to pay for their sentence.

Unless you take a life, no one has the right to take yours from you. If you take one when you are underage, the question of whether you are to be tried as an adult (i.e., fully responsible for your actions) needs to be established before the crime is committed. It should not be decided on a case-by-case basis.

And, if children are to be held fully responsible for their actions, then there is no basis for limiting their legal ability to partake in the rest of the things adults are free to do.

 

[The Ween]

If you're planning on executing a 14 year old, you need to change the age of majority to 14. If children can be held fully responsible for crimes, then they should be able to bear other legal responsibilities as well (signing contracts, sex without parental consent, voting, etc.)

The problem with that argument is an 18 year old is considered an adult now, but he still can't do certain things until he's 21, like buy or drink liquor, etc. An 18 year old can go to war, get married, but he can't buy porn or have a drink.

IMO, this kid will never amount to anything. It would actually be kinder to "put him down" rather than have him in prison for the rest of his life and what he will go through there. I doubt they'll ever do that, though I don't believe in these kids going to a kid's jail then being released at the age of 18 like some of them are.

 

[The Ween]

I think the death penalty should be reserved (obligatory, actually) for murderers. I think life sentences should be reserved for recidivists and pedophiles, and I think they should be forced to work to pay for their sentence.

Unless you take a life, no one has the right to take yours from you. If you take one when you are underage, the question of whether you are to be tried as an adult (i.e., fully responsible for your actions) needs to be established before the crime is committed. It should not be decided on a case-by-case basis.

And, if children are to be held fully responsible for their actions, then there is no basis for limiting their legal ability to partake in the rest of the things adults are free to do.

I agree that it should be a life for life.

Like I said before, though you're considered an adult at 18, you still can't do everything a 21 year old can do, so I have no problem with a 14 year old being tried as an adult, yet not having all the privileges of an 18 or 21 year old.

 

[BadMoon]

I do find it hilarious that people will go to war over a person that ran a dog fighting ring, but are quick to sentence a child to death.

As Batty said, Merry Christmas!

 

[devilof76]

But humans are the scourge of the universe. We should do whatever we can do to hasten their demise.

 

[karamazov80]

I agree with Devil that the issue of responsibility has to be carefully considered. When you start saying that children are responsible for their acts in the way that a cognizant adult would be, you open a big can of worms regarding the mentally deficient and the way that the law treats children in general.

Having said all that, the Supreme Court said a few years ago that a minor could not be executed, so until they address the issue again, it seems a moot point. . .

 

[devilof76]

The problem with that argument is an 18 year old is considered an adult now, but he still can't do certain things until he's 21, like buy or drink liquor, etc. An 18 year old can go to war, get married, but he can't buy porn or have a drink.

So if he's old enough to know what he's doing when he stabs a girl 13 times, how is he not old enough to buy porn, get drunk, have consensual sex, etc., etc.?

IMO, this kid will never amount to anything. It would actually be kinder to "put him down" rather than have him in prison for the rest of his life and what he will go through there. I doubt they'll ever do that, though I don't believe in these kids going to a kid's jail then being released at the age of 18 like some of them are.

Regardless of whether he'll ever be useful to anyone, he deserves punishment for his crime. I don't know that prison is the best place to execute that function, but a mental institution might be.

I don't see extermination as right because personally, I don't know that he is capable of fully understanding the nature of his actions.

 

[Customikey]

I'm for execution, but the reasons are important. I do not believe in revenge. I do, however, believe that we should commit to doing what is best for society.

Putting this kid in prison for the next 30 years is NOT an opportunity for him to turn around. Our prison system is not (sadly) a good venue for self-improvement. If he's not a hardened criminal now, he certainly will be by the time he makes parole. Further, the cost of keeping inmates is astronomical. I don't think it's right to ask society to foot the bill to care for someone who brings nothing but death and pain to the table.
I understand there is a sentiment that all life is precious and we are all God's children. But that's not how you run a functioning society. We could bankrupt ourselves feeding rabid dogs, and I don't think that's sensible, whatever age the dog.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that children ARE responsible for their actions. All people, whatever their age, should be held responsible for their actions. All actions, digested and carried out, should carry a portion of personal responsibility. you could convince me that a child killing his little sister by feeding her a bottle of medication during play-time is an accident, but not breaking in, raping her, and stabbing her thirty times, then doing it AGAIN to a baby. The needs of the many.....

 

[jonny88]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that children ARE responsible for their actions.

l agree. l new when l was 4 years old or earlier that it was wrong to hit, or hurt someone else. let alone stab someone multiple times.

 

[Agent0028]

I don't see how he could not understand the nature of his actions. Kids a dumb, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of 14 year olds can understand the concept of rape being wrong and that if you stab somebody 30 times they're probably going to die.

My big question is what allowed him to do this. Is it extreme desesnitivty to violence where he somehow was unable to see the results of his actions, an inability to tell right from wrong, some other mental disorder? If he was unable to understand the results of his actions I think it was due to something like that moreso than his age.

 

[devilof76]

That is what I'm getting at. The ability to know why one should do what is right, and not do what is wrong is something that is too big for most adults to grasp. Not that it excuses adults, or children for that matter, but how big a role does that play in the psychology of choosing one's actions? I think it's major, and I think children are not wholly capable of operating that mechanism.

Also, I do not think that "what's good for the whole" is valid justification for anything. The issue is not the needs of the many vs. the needs of the few. The issue is what is just, and what is not. If you are not basing your standard of justice upon the rights of the individual, then you are setting yourself up for the wholesale violation of rights in the name of whatever anyone in power deems as "the public good". Whoever does not conform to the will of the people becomes sacrifical fodder to that will.

The mental capacity of this particular criminal--and every other in his class--is the most important factor in deciding how justice should be served for the children he maimed. If he knew what he was doing, and one or both of them dies, then his life should be forfeit. I'm not prepared to say that he did. If I'm wrong, then...

l agree. l new when l was 4 years old or earlier that it was wrong to hit or hurt someone else. let alone stab someone multiple times.

You were told it was wrong, and you knew you'd get in trouble for it, but you didn't know why.

Should we execute four-year olds for murder? Toddlers can get pretty angry, and they aren't known for their sense of restraint.

Should we allow 14 year-olds to enlist in the military?

 

[Agent0028]

I don't think a 14 year old can understand or comprehend the realities of a warzone. I don't think I can either. To deliberately put a 14 year old in danger is different than being able to understand A. Right and Wrong and B. that stabbing someone 30 times is likely to kill them.

I'm pretty sure that if you were to poll a few hundred 14 year olds you would find that most have the ability to recognize what this kid did was wrong. If 14 year olds can't understand their actions, how can their peers? I think the question here is whether this 14 year old could understand his actions.

 

[hoodonit00]

I'm for execution, but the reasons are important. I do not believe in revenge. I do, however, believe that we should commit to doing what is best for society.

Putting this kid in prison for the next 30 years is NOT an opportunity for him to turn around. Our prison system is not (sadly) a good venue for self-improvement. If he's not a hardened criminal now, he certainly will be by the time he makes parole. Further, the cost of keeping inmates is astronomical. I don't think it's right to ask society to foot the bill to care for someone who brings nothing but death and pain to the table.
I understand there is a sentiment that all life is precious and we are all God's children. But that's not how you run a functioning society. We could bankrupt ourselves feeding rabid dogs, and I don't think that's sensible, whatever age the dog.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that children ARE responsible for their actions. All people, whatever their age, should be held responsible for their actions. All actions, digested and carried out, should carry a portion of personal responsibility. you could convince me that a child killing his little sister by feeding her a bottle of medication during play-time is an accident, but not breaking in, raping her, and stabbing her thirty times, then doing it AGAIN to a baby. The needs of the many.....

Very well put. I agree with everything and could not have put it in words as well as you did.

 

[devilof76]

I think the question here is whether this 14 year old could understand his actions.

Yes. Do you think there should be a distinction made between an extremely ____ed up child, and a wantonly violent rapist?

 

[hoodonit00]

I don't see how he could not understand the nature of his actions. Kids a dumb, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of 14 year olds can understand the concept of rape being wrong and that if you stab somebody 30 times they're probably going to die.

My big question is what allowed him to do this. Is it extreme desesnitivty to violence where he somehow was unable to see the results of his actions, an inability to tell right from wrong, some other mental disorder? If he was unable to understand the results of his actions I think it was due to something like that moreso than his age.

Sometimes people are just wired wrong. No sense looking for ulterior motives. Monsters like this just look at things different than you and I.

 

[devilof76]

The wiring in humans is voluntary. We're in control of our minds. Moral ideas are no different from any other. (Again, I offer the moral character of most adults. I watch enough news to know that moral fiber is not so tightly woven as a lot of people would like to think.)

But, that doesn't mean that we can't be influenced by external factors, and children are a lot more susceptible to being disconnected from reality, and it's adults who influence the moral character (or lack thereof) of children more than anything else. No child, as disastrous as their mental state may be, is hard-wired.