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

[SnakeDoctor]

I think there are times when minors deserve the death penalty, just as I think there are times when people with low IQs deserve the death penalty.

"Intent" is an element of murder ... if there was no intent, there was no murder. So, if you're old enough (or smart enough) to form the intent to kill, you're old enough/smart enough to commit murder, and you're old enough/smart enough to be punished for it.

It is really as simple as that.

Whether a particular killer had "intent" (or was too young/ too dumb to murder with intent) is a question for a jury.

SnakeDoc

 

[Agent0028]

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

I think it depends on the circumstance. In this case the age is less important, imo, than the mental stability of this kid. Like I said, I think he's a little monster, I think he is likely to grow up into a bigger monster. How we as a society should handle it isn't something for me to decide.

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.

That's partially true; however, there are personality disorders that we really understand too little about to say whether that is completely the case. I suspect this kid falls into that category. I think he is unable to tell right from wrong (an issue seperate from his age) or is incapable of caring, whether it is organically, or environmentally caused I have no clue.

 

[bumblebee]

Kill him now and save the taxpayers the $$$, life in prison won't be good for him by no means but we(society) need to start setting a example that this kind of violence won't be let off easy...minor or not.

 

[karamazov80]

We have predispositions. They aren't deterministic, but they do "predispose" us to doing certain things. We are "hard-wired" in that way. If you are born a psychopath who feels no empathy toward others, then you've got barriers to over-come. In that sense, without taking a stand on this particular issue, I agree with hood that some folks are just different, and you can only do so much. You can change their behavior using drugs or locking someone away, but changing the fundamental brain chemistry requires a lobotomy. Not everyone has the same ability to make choices that a functional, mature adult does. Hence the law's distinction for those people.

 

[Deckard]

Ok to kill someone : They are not in custody and a mortal threat to human life. (About to kill someone)

Not ok to kill somone : They are restrained in custody / in jail.

Just my opinion.

Besides the fact that painless death is not really justice in the same manner as a life in prison and the mental repercussions it will have on them. Granted knowing your going to die has to be about the worst thing there is. Your going to be killed this day, this time, no way to prevent it. Its sick to even think about and to me no better then simply all the sudden deciding to murder a random person. Its premeditated state sponsored murder and a pretty big oxymoron to kill someone to punish them for killing. What are you teaching? Murder and we'll murder you because murder is wrong. Clearly the death penalty as a deterrent has failed seeing as we still have plenty o murder to go around. Were still the same ____ throwing savages, we just wear suits and bluetooths now.

 

[devilof76]

I think there are times when minors deserve the death penalty, just as I think there are times when people with low IQs deserve the death penalty.

"Intent" is an element of murder ... if there was no intent, there was no murder. So, if you're old enough (or smart enough) to form the intent to kill, you're old enough/smart enough to commit murder, and you're old enough/smart enough to be punished for it.

It is really as simple as that.

Whether a particular killer had "intent" (or was too young/ too dumb to murder with intent) is a question for a jury.

SnakeDoc

I know that is true legally, but do you think it's fundamental? Consider a drunk getting into a car, or a partier firing off shots on New Year's. Is it really any less murderous than textbook 1st degree?

I think it depends on the circumstance. In this case the age is less important, imo, than the mental stability of this kid. Like I said, I think he's a little monster, I think he is likely to grow up into a bigger monster. How we as a society should handle it isn't something for me to decide.

I think he's a monster too. I'm only beating the horse to make sure it's dead. Like I said, something in my gut makes me recoil at executing a minor. It isn't the idea that all life is precious, because I don't believe that. It's something else and I can't seem to nail it down.

That's partially true; however, there are personality disorders that we really understand too little about to say whether that is completely the case. I suspect this kid falls into that category. I think he is unable to tell right from wrong (an issue seperate from his age) or is incapable of caring, whether it is organically, or environmentally caused I have no clue.

And I don't think it's ultimately our responsibility to determine if he was crazy or not. I don't believe in the insanity defense, and if it's no good for an adult, I wouldn't extend the same to a child.

I think in the final analysis, this is just really pathetic that our society has begun to produce so many of these animals. When you look at all of the causes, and understand that the ideas that lead down this road are held by as many 'responsible' adults as criminal ones, it gets hard to look other people in the eye. It's even harder to watch children with so little respect for human life that we have to start taking it away from them.

 

[SnakeDoctor]

Clearly the death penalty as a deterrent has failed seeing as we still have plenty o murder to go around. Were still the same ____ throwing savages, we just wear suits and bluetooths now.

It is difficult to say with that level of certainty that the death penalty has failed as a deterrent. Most states that have the death penalty are notorious for never following-through on the sentence. It is clear that having-and-not-using the death penalty is an ineffective deterrent.

That is a side-issue, though. Justice is more important to me than deterrance. I don't care if it deters future murderers ... I care that the executed individual is permanently deterred, and that justice is done for his victim(s).

SnakeDoc

 

[devilof76]

Murder is the ultimate crime, and I don't think that one deserves to live once they have.

The only way they could redeem themselves is if they brought their victim back to life. Fat chance, therefore...

 

[SnakeDoctor]

I know that is true legally, but do you think it's fundamental? Consider a drunk getting into a car, or a partier firing off shots on New Year's. Is it really any less murderous than textbook 1st degree?

From the perspective of the victims' families, probably not. Morally, however, I think there is a difference. A drunk driver or gunshot partier doesn't want to kill anyone ... a murderer does.

All three are a danger to society, all three should be punished heavily -- but the narcissism, self-absorption, and criminal disregard for the safety of others of a drunk driver is not morally equivalent to the level of evil required for a repeated stabbing.

SnakeDoc

 

[azurepred]

I noticed someone said something about parole. Just FYI, there will be NO chance of parole when he is found guilty of sexual assault, the stabbing of an infant and stabbing the girl 30 times has no impact of that ruling, but if someone so young already knows they will be locked up for life, there's a good chance they will attempt a breakout eventually, so theoretically speaking what happens if he breaks out and does the same thing again? Is it then the state that has blood on their hands?

I have a 14yr old brother and I know he knows right from wrong and the consequences of doing a crime like this. Like others have stated, there is something very wrong going on in his brain.

 

[devilof76]

The thing wrong with his brain is immorality and/or amorality. Personally, it's a crime to label that as a mental disorder.

From the perspective of the victims' families, probably not. Morally, however, I think there is a difference. A drunk driver or gunshot partier doesn't want to kill anyone ... a murderer does.

All three are a danger to society, all three should be punished heavily -- but the narcissism, self-absorption, and criminal disregard for the safety of others of a drunk driver is not morally equivalent to the level of evil required for a repeated stabbing.

SnakeDoc

But the two drunks know that their actions have a high potential to end a life, and they consciously evade that fact. In essence, they have declared to themselves that it does not mattter if someone dies.

A more stark example is a politician chosing to implement an economic policy that for all intents and purposes will place a great many people in the path of starvation. He doesn't want to kill anyone, but he believes he has the greater good to consider (which is also an evasion) and in effect, lies to himself to obscure the fact that his actions will likely mean the death of many.

I guess I just don't understand the difference between a killer who is honest about what he is doing and one who is not.

 

[hoodonit00]

We have predispositions. They aren't deterministic, but they do "predispose" us to doing certain things. We are "hard-wired" in that way. If you are born a psychopath who feels no empathy toward others, then you've got barriers to over-come. In that sense, without taking a stand on this particular issue, I agree with hood that some folks are just different, and you can only do so much. You can change their behavior using drugs or locking someone away, but changing the fundamental brain chemistry requires a lobotomy. Not everyone has the same ability to make choices that a functional, mature adult does. Hence the law's distinction for those people.

Agreed. It would be one thing if all serial murderers and rapist all came from unloving or abusive homes. That is not the case. Some of these people are brought up in loving households but still turn into psychopaths in the end.

 

[quiggle]

well he is no one important to society, not like he will be some famous person who will discover a cure for diseases or humanitarian. he dies now a nobody even if he lived a couple of more year still nobody.

 

[SnakeDoctor]

But the two drunks know that their actions have a high potential to end a life, and they consciously evade that fact. In essence, they have declared to themselves that it does not mattter if someone dies.

[...] I guess I just don't understand the difference between a killer who is honest about what he is doing and one who is not.

You don't see the difference between death as a risk of an act, and death as the purpose of an act? Between death as a potential outcome, and death as the intended outcome? Between "it does not matter if someone dies" and "I will make someone die"?

I'm not excusing the behavior of a drunk driver (lock them up and throw away the key) ... but to equate a drunk driver and an intentional murderer diminishes the evil of the latter.

SnakeDoc

 

[quiggle]

no he sees the difference, it's just all a matter of perspective. what you see doesnt mean what she and I see, and what you say might not be correct in God's view.

 

[devilof76]

What the hell do you know about what I see? The world is the world, and it available for all of us equally to see for what it is. If there were a God, it would be seeing the same object that we're looking at, so no, there is no important difference. Consciousness is not subjective.

You don't see the difference between death as a risk of an act, and death as the purpose of an act? Between death as a potential outcome, and death as the intended outcome? Between "it does not matter if someone dies" and "I will make someone die"?

At a certain point, risk becomes so extreme that it is almost guaranteed that someone will die. I'm not talking about the guy who drives home from the bar every night after 2-3 beer, or someone firing a gun in an area with low population density, or a legislator raising taxes.

... but to equate a drunk driver and an intentional murderer diminishes the evil of the latter.

SnakeDoc

At a certain point, no, I see no difference.

 

[SnakeDoctor]

no he sees the difference, it's just all a matter of perspective. what you see doesnt mean what she and I see, and what you say might not be correct in God's view.

I don't pretend to speak for God. Still, at least in Christian theology, there is a distinction between killing (without intent) and murder (with intent) ... and, for what its worth, between murder, and killing as just punishment.

SnakeDoc

 

[devilof76]

I think the Greeks were much clearer on the matter. They didn't have 'mercy' clouding their judgment.

 

[SnakeDoctor]

What the hell do you know about what I see? The world is the world, and it available for all of us equally to see for what it is. If there were a God, it would be seeing the same object that we're looking at, so no, there is no important difference. Consciousness is not subjective.

I used the term "see" as a synonym for "understand". You previously stated outright "I guess I just don't understand the difference between [...]". I only "know about what you see" because you told me.

Lighten up. Nobody's talking down to you ... I was simply rephrasing the question to try to understand your thinking on this matter (and to further elaborate on my thinking on the matter). All is well.

SnakeDoc

 

[Mr.NoCredit]

Fry his parents too. It's not just the kids fault, it's his damn parents fault. Bad Parenting leads to this kind of thing happening. Try him as an adult, give him the death penalty and give the exact same sentence to his parents, both of them. (giving consideration that he even has two valid parents)