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

[quiggle]

some of these parents themselves are still kids.

so say if you had a child and he did that you want the masses to call for your jugular?

 

[devilof76]

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)

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

Sorry, man. That was directed to quiggle. I'm genuinely interested in what you know. It's not every day I get the chance to discuss these kinds of matters with a lawyer who also shares (for the most part) my political views.

 

[SnakeDoctor]

some of these parents themselves are still kids.

so say if you had a child and he did that you want the masses to call for your jugular?

It is logistically impossible for a 14-year-old to have a parent that is "still a kid" ... they'd have to have given birth when they were three-years-old. Unless you're speaking metaphorically ... then, I'd say his parents are very likely still behaving like children.

I have two kids, and would be perfectly willing to stake my life on a bet that they will never do this.

The kid is responsible for his own actions, and the parents are responsible for theirs ... fry the kid, and charge the parents with whatever you can nail them with (neglect, negligence, negligent homicide -- whatever). A child in their charge raped and attempted to murder a 13-year-old girl, and an infant ... there is some supervisory culpability there.

SnakeDoc

 

[SnakeDoctor]

Sorry, man. That was directed to quiggle. I'm genuinely interested in what you know. It's not every day I get the chance to discuss these kinds of matters with a lawyer who also shares (for the most part) my political views.

It dawned on me that you might not have been talking to me, but the rest of the post was directed at me ... so I guessed wrong. No worries. (I'd do the smiley-beer-toast thing too, but I have sworn off the use of emoticons ... haha.)

I understand your point about drunk driving/ etc. Still -- I can't see giving the death penalty out for intoxication manslaughter or vehicular homicide like I can for murder. I still think there is a moral distinction ... however slight it may be (we're talking about gradations of evil/disgusting here).

SnakeDoc

 

[devilof76]

In my response to what I quoted from you, I was trying to clarify that I didn't mean instances where 'potential' vs. 'intended' was a strong distinction. It's hard to articulate.

If you look at the law as an instrument for holding society to a moral standard, then the gradations of evil become important. I don't see that as the proper purpose of law. Humans being free moral agents (it's fundamental to our nature that we have to learn and understand right and wrong for ourselves if it is to be any use in the living and enjoying of our lives) there are conditions that need to be maintained for us to act in concert with our moral knowledge. The essence of that condition is the freedom from physical force. We cannot use rational thought to guide ourselves in nature if we live in a state where force can intercede at any given moment and throttle our free will. Reason (our basic survival tool) functions on the presumption that the world is orderly, predictable, and (not including natural calamities) safe. For human beings to function as human beings, initiated force has to be outlawed. To that end, government is instituted with the power to exercise retaliatory force against those who initiate it.

Bottom line, when a person decides to unleash physical force upon those around them, they have crossed the line into an area where their actions make it impossible for their victims to take a 'right' action. They abnegate the free will of anyone they come in contact with. What they do is beyond evil. In that sense, driving ____faced or randomly opening fire only differs from conscious murder in that they have failed to choose a target.

I see exactly what you're saying about minimizing the evil of a cold-blooded killer by equating the actions of an extremely dangerous idiot. What I'm seeing is that by saying only a first-degree murderer is worthy of that level of blame, wouldn't we be minimizing the evil done by those who think that their lack of intent makes them less evil than the conscious killer?

 

[ShadowX81]

Under United States supreme court decision Roper v. Simmons (2005), it is unconstituional to sentence a minor to death as it is considered a disproportionate form of punishment under the current "Living Consitution" apllication of the law.


Sorry, was studying for my Politics of Crime exam and just happened to be on it.

 

[devilof76]

Did that come down after the kid in Florida killed his teacher?

 

[ShadowX81]

The case actually concerned 2 minors that abducted a woman that they did not know from her home, bound her, and then threw her off of a bridge.

This increased the minumum age for this sentence to 18 years, as previous court case Stanford v. Kentucky (1989) established 16 as the cut off limit.

 

[hoodonit00]

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)

So does that mean that we can blame your parents for you posting something so silly?

 

[devilof76]

The case actually concerned 2 minors that abducted a woman that they did not know from her home, bound her, and then threw her off of a bridge.

This increased the minumum age for this sentence to 18 years, as previous court case Stanford v. Kentucky (1989) established 16 as the cut off limit.

If you don't mind me asking, what was the rationale behind the sentence being a 'disproportionate' response to kidnapping and murder?

 

[DPrime]

The notion of trying a minor "as an adult" is absolutely confounding to me.

The only reason I could think such a thing would be warranted is if somehow the child had completely matured into adulthood at an unusually early age. It shouldn't have anything whatsoever to do with the severity of the crime.

The issue here is that children absolutely DO NOT have a completely developed sense of morality, responsibility and concept of consequence. Sure, some are lucky in that they are raised properly, but others, not so much. We ALL know how impressionable kids are, even as teens (and even the good ones). What we don't often realize is just HOW FAR that can go.

Why do you think that people in this world still use child soldiers? It's well documented that child soldiers in Africa were responsible for some of the most heinous crimes that occurred. Those who used them KNEW this - they could be easily convinced to commit atrocities, more easily, in fact, than fully developed adults.

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.)

This is exactly it.

There is a reason why the age of majority is not 14, and that's the same reason minors should not be tried as adults. We can do better. Thank goodness we do not live in a society like Saudi Arabia - I can't believe some of you would actually like to see public beheadings. Fact is, we're lucky to live in a pretty safe society where violent crime is very rare - brutal, draconian punishments is not the cause for this.

 

[devilof76]

The fact that he was crying before the judge backs up what you're saying. There's a part of this kid that can stab a sleeping baby. How big that part of him is, I'm pretty sure no one knows.

An unredeemable monster would not be capable of regret.

Fact is, we're lucky to live in a pretty safe society where violent crime is very rare - brutal, draconian punishments is not the cause for this.

Best line in this thread.

 

[ShadowX81]

If you don't mind me asking, what was the rationale behind the sentence being a 'disproportionate' response to kidnapping and murder?

In this case the court used the "national consensus" test to determine how the standards of decency are evolving and therefore what is considered an appropriate punishment. In this case, they noted the increasing infrequency of state governments applying the death penalty for juvenilles.

At the time of the decision, 20 states had the juvenile death penalty on the books, but only six states had executed prisoners for crimes committed as juveniles since 1989. Only three states had done so in the past 10 years. Furthermore, five of the states that allowed the juvenile death penalty at the time of the 1989 case had since abolished it. Also, that the United States stood alone as allowing this practice at all, despite it already being disallowed under a United Nations petition we had signed years earlier.

 

[devilof76]

"national consensus"

That's too much. I hadn't realized they were that irresponsible.

Thanks for the schoolin'.

I have to go to bed now before my head explodes. You guys have fun.

 

[CelticPredator]

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.

So should we just off the unimportant people?

So does that mean that we can blame your parents for you posting something so silly?

I see his point...but he could've worded it better imo.

What I think he was trying to say is, maybe the parents made him like this. Maybe THEY sexually abused him. Maybe they stabbed him, hurt him, at such a young age he'd think what he did was normal. It happens. I know someone close to me who was kissed by some weird ass ____er who was abused as a child. He didnt know any better. It was normal to him.


Now if this wasnt the case, and the kid is some ____ed up little ____...then I dunno. I just dont know.

 

[SnakeDoctor]

There is a reason why the age of majority is not 14, and that's the same reason minors should not be tried as adults. We can do better. Thank goodness we do not live in a society like Saudi Arabia - I can't believe some of you would actually like to see public beheadings. Fact is, we're lucky to live in a pretty safe society where violent crime is very rare - brutal, draconian punishments is not the cause for this.

If you're looking for a reason NOT to hold someone responsible for their own actions ... you'll probably find one. There's always an excuse.

The 14-year-old stabbed an infant. I don't care if he can legally drink, vote or buy porn. Honestly, I don't even care if the infant didn't die (attempted murder should have the same penalty as completed murder ... don't give the kid a pass because he's an incompetent murderer). Fry him.

SnakeDoc

 

[SnakeDoctor]

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.)

Why should voting, contract rights, sex, gun ownership rights, drinking, or a change in the age of majority be prerequisites for holding someone responsible for their own actions?

SnakeDoc

 

[hoodonit00]

So should we just off the unimportant people?



I see his point...but he could've worded it better imo.

What I think he was trying to say is, maybe the parents made him like this. Maybe THEY sexually abused him. Maybe they stabbed him, hurt him, at such a young age he'd think what he did was normal. It happens. I know someone close to me who was kissed by some weird ass ____er who was abused as a child. He didnt know any better. It was normal to him.


Now if this wasnt the case, and the kid is some ____ed up little ____...then I dunno. I just dont know.

Although I agree that some people may turn into a murderer or a sexual sadist because they were abused so bad as children, I don't think that is what that poster meant. If it was, then I will edit my post and publicly appologize. I think it was a blanket statement that if your child is a trouble maker then you failed as a parent. Kids are not robots. No matter how well you raise children, they have a mind of their own. All you can do is raise them to the best of your ability and wish for the best.

 

[SnakeDoctor]

I think it was a blanket statement that if your child is a trouble maker then you failed as a parent. Kids are not robots. No matter how well you raise children, they have a mind of their own. All you can do is raise them to the best of your ability and wish for the best.

I took it as a blanket statement that if your child rapes a 13-year-old and stabs a baby, you failed as a parent. I'm not sure I'd object to that particular blanket statement. You raise them to the best of your ability, and hope/pray for the best ... but if the best of your ability churns out a homicidal maniac, I think there might be cause to question your ability.

SnakeDoc

 

[BuffyGirl]

I thought I was one of the only people who believe in the death penalty, but I do. I am sorry if that goes against others beliefs. But it's how I feel. He should face it, if one of them happens to die.