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

[devilof76]

The thing with amputation is that the punishment is grossly disproportionate to the crime. Deterrence loses the high ground when it's bought at the expense of justice.

 

[azurepred]

pretty much, but only if its a straight up steal. You add attempted murder, sexual assault, etc to the thievery, then its another thing imo.

 

[devilof76]

It is, and there are adequate sentence structures to accomodate that. They just need to be used.

 

[quadcent]

This makes me think back to days when the option was to shoplift or starve, and I smirk knowing I was always smart enough to not get caught.

yea, petty thievery, sometimes is needed for ppl to survive out there. People can understand that. Its one thing to steal a sandwich for survival and its another to steal a sandwich and kill somebody while doing it. I know some countries will cut off your hand for stuff like that, but its not a big deal in the U.S. imo, we have much bigger problems than that, But i can also understand the anger of a store that is having their merchandise stolen.

i can see where the punishment has to fit the crime.

 

[pixletwin]

I would like to know what proportion of crime is classified as passionate crime and what is premeditated. I would use that as the classifier as to whether punishment is an adequate deterrent.

 

[Sweet Rabbit]

I would like to know what proportion of crime is classified as passionate crime and what is premeditated. I would use that as the classifier as to whether punishment is an adequate deterrent.

in ohio, the act has to be done right then, if you leave and come back to do whatever, it's considered premediated

 

[azurepred]

wasnt there once a time where if you caught your wife/husband cheating in person and you killed them, it was considered a crime of passion and the person got away with it? I though i saw that somewhere

 

[turtlepower73]

oh yes there is a time for it now in this country ..people think just because there young they don't understand what there doing.
for example in england i think but it's been some years there were 2 boys who led a little child away from his mother in a store tortured and murdered him. there out now..given new indentites because the law over there felt there could be harm done to them.
here in the usa our current presidents believes if a person does his time in prison .he or she deserves a second chance in society..i like this idea to a point.But what about murders and child molestors who slip through the crack because of the law and technicalities..i say hell no.i don't believe you can give a pedophile a second chance..

 

[devilof76]

I would like to know what proportion of crime is classified as passionate crime and what is premeditated. I would use that as the classifier as to whether punishment is an adequate deterrent.

I think a distinction should be made between crimes where the actions of the criminal were justifiable to some extent, and those that were not. An abused wife finally fighting back against her husband who kills him because years (if not decades) of pent up rage were too much for her to control should not be treated the same as a jealous husband who finds out her wife has been cheating and kills her and her lover. The former should be punished to the full extent, and the latter with extreme leniency. But the case would have to be made. It should not be written into the law that exceptions be made carte blanche, because that's just begging for disaster.

 

[Theokan]

I understand that different emotional states can cause someone to do drastic things, but like morality and conscience, self control is also an important part of what makes us human beings. As soon as you commit a serious offense such as murder or rape, part of your humanity is lost regardless of why you did it. It shouldn't matter if you're emotionally unstable or if you're too young to reason, it's all part of who you are and punishment should be equal for the same crime committed regardless of which part of your humanity is defective. Minor offenses like stealing is a different story, but when you're capable of victimizing someone with a serious offense such as rape or murder, it's no longer your problem alone, you're putting the world in danger and you become the world's problem, and it needs to figure out what to do with you.


If you thought the law is meant to exact justice, you're mistaken. The law is there to create order in the society up and foremost, justice often only takes second place to that priority. If a person is proven to be a danger to society, the priority is to separate him/her from the society so no more harm can be done. You can argue that the 13 year old boy is too young to know what he's doing when he stabbed and raped the girl, but the fact is he has proven to be harmful to society and therefore he cannot be allowed back into it. He doesn't get a second chance because that would be risking the safety of the society, again the priority is to protect the society from someone who is capable of causing this much harm to his victims, him being a minor is irrelevant to the damage he is capable of, hence why he's being trialed as an adult.


And the reason why minors can't drink or smoke or have sex have nothing to do with their inability to be responsible for their own actions. The American Government doesn't want this country to have 7 year olds having sex and little babies smoking and drinking, so they outlawed it. These prohibition laws make for a more civilized country and is healthy for the society, the whole "taking responsibility" reasoning is just an excuse to make it run.

 

[King Darkness]

I was drinking, smoking and having sex when I was a minor

 

[fosing]

I was drinking, smoking and having sex when I was a minor

...but its a norm nowadays. minors, booze, and sex. the kids are damn alright. dont tell the police on me.

 

[Sweet Rabbit]

I was drinking, smoking and having sex when I was a minor

having sex with yourself doesn't count

 

[King Darkness]

...but its a norm nowadays. minors, booze, and sex. the kids are damn alright. dont tell the police on me.

I'm sure its always been the norm, older generations just like to pretend like things were different but that shat aint true.

 

[King Darkness]

having sex with yourself doesn't count

No? Well thats ____in' lame! Who makes these rules?!?!?

But I starting having sex with a girl when I was 16, still a legal minor, so.....

 

[devilof76]

15.

If you thought the law is meant to exact justice, you're mistaken. The law is there to create order in the society up and foremost, justice often only takes second place to that priority.

There is no necessary dichotomy between justice and the maintenance of order in society. A society that maintains it's order at the expense of justice has declare that it can exist in a state of injustice. Good luck with that.

And the reason why minors can't drink or smoke or have sex have nothing to do with their inability to be responsible for their own actions. The American Government doesn't want this country to have 7 year olds having sex and little babies smoking and drinking, so they outlawed it. These prohibition laws make for a more civilized country and is healthy for the society, the whole "taking responsibility" reasoning is just an excuse to make it run.

No individual is the porperty of the American government. Insofar as the lives of the individual are not the property of society, society has no right to dictate the actions of the individual in the name of upholding it's own standards of proper behavior.

Society is only an aggregate of individuals, who in no way attain rights in aggregate that they do not possess separately. Either the individual is a slave to others and has no rights, or the individual is free to choose their own actions. It's either or. No civilization can exist as part free, part slave.

 

[King Darkness]

You think too much.

 

[devilof76]

My head does kinda hurt.

 

[King Darkness]

Over thinkers such as yourself need to stay away from psychedlic drugs

 

[Theokan]

15.



There is no necessary dichotomy between justice and the maintenance of order in society. A society that maintains it's order at the expense of justice has declare that it can exist in a state of injustice. Good luck with that.



No individual is the porperty of the American government. Insofar as the lives of the individual are not the property of society, society has no right to dictate the actions of the individual in the name of upholding it's own standards of proper behavior.

Society is only an aggregate of individuals, who in no way attain rights in aggregate that they do not possess separately. Either the individual is a slave to others and has no rights, or the individual is free to choose their own actions. It's either or. No civilization can exist as part free, part slave.

You're talking about an ideology, where as I'm talking about a practical truth. Not always is there a perfect solution to create order and be just at the same time, even though that may be ideal, there are many cases where you have to consider which has a higher priority when both can't be met. Injustice does exist in our system, so does chaos, law is there to give us the best it can do, with a priority in keeping order and safety of the society. Obviously in a perfect world you will get both justice and order in absolute, but in reality one often sacrifices for the other. If you give a murderer justice that allows him to walk free after he's served his time, you're sacrificing the order of the society by giving him another chance to do harm and create chaos. There is no perfect system, but a good one should make sure a convicted murderer and rapist is kept out from society for the rest of his/her life unless proven innocent, with no weak excuses such as mental instability or being a minor which sets him free. To believe in everything you've said earlier, you have to believe that the US law system is flawless. I don't share that same belief.

US citizens don't have as much rights as we're led to believe. And no it's not all black and white, it's not either you're free or you're a slave, this has proven to be false if you have any knowledge outside of US at all, where people in other first world countries are neither slaves nor do they have complete freedom to do whatever they want. Minors in the US are dictated and prohibited from smoking/drinking/sex, the lawful reasoning behind it is that they "lack the responsibility for their own action", so it would fly in our court that doesn't believe in dictatorship. Considering it creates a more civilized environment and there's nothing morally wrong with keeping children from experiencing those things at too early of age, it's actually a good thing and why it passed in the first place. The only debatable thing is what age is considered a minor, but that's a different subject all together.