It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Juvenile Death Penalty: Fair or Unfair?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 05:55 AM
link   
"NEW YORK — In the dark, early-morning hours of Sept. 8, 1993, Shirley Crook was awakened by a light in her hallway.

The Fenton, Mo., woman was subsequently robbed of $7, bound with duct tape and wire and driven to a park, where she was shoved off a railroad trestle to her death in the river below.

Christopher Simmons (search) was sentenced to death for robbing and killing the 46-year-old housewife. He was 17 years old at the time.

Simmons should have died for his crime 2½ years ago. But appeals from Simmons' attorneys resulted in a stay of execution, and his case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court last October. A decision is expected in the coming weeks.

At issue in Roper v. Simmons is whether executing 16- and 17-year-old murderers is no longer acceptable in the United States. Along with the lives of 72 young inmates, advocates on both sides of the death-penalty debate believe what's really at stake is the future of capital punishment in America."

www.foxnews.com...

This "kid' should die for his crime. What do you think? Read the effort he went through to murder this woman. What should be the age to pay with your life for murdering another human. Should 10 year olds be put to death for murder?




posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 06:03 AM
link   
He knew what he was doing by trying to get rid of the body, so since he knows the difference between "right and wrong" he knew he was doing wrong and was trying to cover it up.

He needs the death sentence for doing this, or else basically anyone under 18 can murder someone and get away with it persay.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Huria86
He knew what he was doing by trying to get rid of the body, so since he knows the difference between "right and wrong" he knew he was doing wrong and was trying to cover it up.

He needs the death sentence for doing this, or else basically anyone under 18 can murder someone and get away with it persay.


This is exactly why many "gangs" use under age juveniles to do the murdering. Under 16 gets a free ride..............



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 06:11 AM
link   
He's old enough to no what he was doing (I'd go as far to say you pretty much know what you're doing from single numbers) so he should not be excused for such. However, I don't believe in the death penalty so these two points kind of counter-act each other.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Nada
He's old enough to no what he was doing (I'd go as far to say you pretty much know what you're doing from single numbers) so he should not be excused for such. However, I don't believe in the death penalty so these two points kind of counter-act each other.


Why don't you believe in the death penalty? Is it "faith" based? or some other reason.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 06:29 AM
link   
I think that if someone is old enough and capable enough to weild a weapon, and to knowingly premeditate & commit such an act, then they are old enough and capable enough to be held responsible for their actions.

Whether the offender should die for their crime is a comlpetely different matter. I do not believe that the death penalty warrants itself as a valid punishment, and so I would therefore never condone the use of the death penalty.

[edit on 1-3-2005 by Paul]



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 06:32 AM
link   
The separation between "juvenile" and "adult" punishment should begin at the same time that the separation between "juvenile" and "adult" privileges.

Ideally, I'd love so see some 13-year old prosecuted as an adult and to be found Not Guilty. Then have him (or her) turn around and sue for the right to vote (not to drink, or something else equally indulgant, but to vote), arguing that if he's to be held to adult standards of accountability, then he should enjoy all of the adult responsibilities, not just the punitive ones.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whiskey Jack
The separation between "juvenile" and "adult" punishment should begin at the same time that the separation between "juvenile" and "adult" privileges.

Ideally, I'd love so see some 13-year old prosecuted as an adult and to be found Not Guilty. Then have him (or her) turn around and sue for the right to vote (not to drink, or something else equally indulgant, but to vote), arguing that if he's to be held to adult standards of accountability, then he should enjoy all of the adult responsibilities, not just the punitive ones.


So basically if someone is old enough to murder then they should have the right to vote?



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 06:46 AM
link   
I think the "good"
Dr knows this has been done before......I can't see his remarks, but I'm thinking if their anything like his usual posts it's something like, "kill em all and let god sort em out"



His other three posts recieved no repsonse....he had to go with something used before that he knew would hit people.... for attnetion?...points?....Who knows?




[edit on 3/1/2005 by LadyV]



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 06:52 AM
link   
He knew what he was doing and thus he should be tried to the full extent of the law HOWEVER the death penalty is wrong and should be abandoned.

Many good and innocent people have died over such a horrible punishment and no-one has the right to take anothers life away, even the state. I take much more pleasure seeing these scum rot in their cells for the rest of their life and I think it is a much harsher punishment.

thanks,
drfunk



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Why don't you believe in the death penalty? Is it "faith" based? or some other reason.


It is not "faith" based, I'm an athiest. As for my reasons it's a debate I've had a number of times over my time on here and it's not really one I really wish to get into again if you don't mind.


[edit on 1-3-2005 by John Nada]



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
So basically if someone is old enough to murder then they should have the right to vote?


Better put would be to say that if we're holding someone to adult standards of judgement (because the "tried-as-an-adult" thing isn't just for murder anymore), it's implying that their judgement functions at an adult level. Therefore, if they're expected to function in the world as an adult, why should they not have the rights and responsibilities of an adult?

Look, I'm not saying that kids don't commit heinous crimes, crimes they should know better than to do. But that doesn't mean that a child understands the world in the same way an adult does. Their concepts of long-term consequences are pretty severely skewed. The ideas of restraint and self-control are not well-developed in young children, heck even teenagers have poor impulse control. In general, while some of the blame for that can be laid at the feet of their parents, the largest part has to do with the physical makeup of their brains.

The age at which the human brain stops developing is somewhere between 16 and 22 years, with most stopping around the 18-year-old point. This is the main reason, any more, that the age of majority is 18. We don't consider the average person below that point to be physically capable of adult-level judgements. While many people here can probably give examples of kids under 18 who are able to function on an adult level, it's good to remember that the plural of anecdote is not data.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Whisky Jack has a point. There IS a distinction between juveniles and adults. This distinction is made by society and the lawmakers and is evidenced through tobacco, alcohol laws, gun laws, age of consent etc...

Therein lies the dilemma. These laws to make juveniles and adults distinct from each other legally is based on the notion that juveniles have not yet gone through enough years of life's experiences and are not in a position to be responsible for life's choices.

Truth be told, if anyone of my family or friends were the victim here, I am not sure whether I would be as rational about it.

But, there is a provision to allow juveniles to be tried as adults, provided the prosecutors can prove that all the faculties of an adult , ie: knowing right from wrong and the consequences therefrom in this instant crime. If the prosecutors can prove this, then the juvenile should be tried as an adult.

Reading the bare facts, it would appear that the prosecutors would, as a matter of course, apply to have him tried as an adult.

Coming on to the death penalty, there are various schools of thought. Religious asepcts aside, the question really hinges and relates back to the purpose of the law. To re-habilitate or punish VS the need to keep the general society safe from these people. And also to take into account society's notion of justice.

Locking them up for life without possibility of parole would take care of the keep society safe aspect. Therefore, the question really is one of rehabilitation VS punishment/retribution VS deterrence.

The debate has gone on for hundreds of years and I would suspect that any thread on this specific issue wuold also last for the same amount of time.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by drfunk
He knew what he was doing and thus he should be tried to the full extent of the law HOWEVER the death penalty is wrong and should be abandoned.


But at what magical point do you cut off adult punishment for "killing is wrong?" 13? 10? 7? I'd put money down that most 5 year olds can repeat the phrase "killing is bad," but does that mean that if a 5 year old is responsible for the death of someone else that we should lock them away for 20-to-life?



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whiskey Jack

Originally posted by drfunk
He knew what he was doing and thus he should be tried to the full extent of the law HOWEVER the death penalty is wrong and should be abandoned.


But at what magical point do you cut off adult punishment for "killing is wrong?" 13? 10? 7? I'd put money down that most 5 year olds can repeat the phrase "killing is bad," but does that mean that if a 5 year old is responsible for the death of someone else that we should lock them away for 20-to-life?


There should be no magical "limit", it should be up to the jury and the judge to decide and they will come up with the appropriate punishment, or lack of. The Death Penalty is wrong for any person of any age, it's barbaric.

thanks,
drfunk



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Look "life" in prison is never actually life. Far too many actually get out, even serial killers. The death sentence actually enforced and carried out ends this problem with liberal judges letting hardened killers out. If someone is convicted of "first degree" or capital murder then yes they should get the death penalty regardless of age.

The death penaty is much less "barbaric' than keeping humans is cages.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Your right Drfunk the death penalty is wrong for all ages. If killing is wrong then arent they hipocrits for killing a killer?

Just killing again solves nothing. Down with the death penalty



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Croat56
Your right Drfunk the death penalty is wrong for all ages. If killing is wrong then arent they hipocrits for killing a killer?

Just killing again solves nothing. Down with the death penalty
So you don't recognize the difference between killing and "murder"? A person walk out in front of a car and is killed, the driver is guilty of the same offense as a premeditated murder by a serial killer?



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 08:03 AM
link   
I do not believe in the death penalty - except in cases of self defense.

This teenager and others like him should be tried as adults and, if
convicted, serve adult terms in prison.

The death penalty should be reserved for cases which it would be
in our self defense to carry them out. Example - guilty terrorists who
are caught should be put to death because if they aren't.. then their
fellow terrorists will take hostages and put people to death around
the world in a threat to have them released.

I understand that people like this youth deserve to die. I understand
that. Scott Peterson deserves to die. However, there are people who
are on death row, and probably some who have been put to death, who
do not deserve to die. They were put there wrongly. They were
executed wrongly. Mistakes happen all the time. Heck ... Andrea Yates
shouldn't be in prison, she should be in a mental hospital for the rest of
her life and it should be her husband should be the one put in prison for
criminal neglect (HE was the supposedly sane one that let the tragedy
happen).

There are too many innocent victims of the failed system to keep the
death penalty as it is. It needs to be reserved only for self defense.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Good evening Dr. Horacid,

Great Topic! I want to first start by saying that my participation in your thread will focus this

1) The death penalty is not an effective solution to the problem. We have the means to:

A) Identify root causes of* crime
B) Address social issues at the root of the problem
C) Rehabilitaate individuals
D) Construct and maintain self-sustainable prisons

EDIT*

[edit on 1-3-2005 by 00PS]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join