Juvenile Death Penalty: Fair or Unfair?

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Look "life" in prison is never actually life.

You are aware that prison is supposed to be for rehabilitation whilst one is a threat to society as well as a punishment right? If one is rehabilitated and no longer a threat then they are released. If they are still a danger then life means life.

Can you name me one killer (specifically serial killer) who was convicted for life, then was decided he was rehabilitated and release, then he repeated the crime?

Originally posted by John Nada

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Look "life" in prison is never actually life.

You are aware that prison is supposed to be for rehabilitation whilst one is a threat to society as well as a punishment right? If one is rehabilitated and no longer a threat then they are released. If they are still a danger then life means life.

Can you name me one killer (specifically serial killer) who was convicted for life, then was decided he was rehabilitated and release, then he repeated the crime?

The last name is Watts. There have been several others also.

Oh, and they are called "prisons" now because rehab in the "pen" never worked.

[edit on 1-3-2005 by DrHoracid]

So basically very few over at least the last 50 years, that's what I thought. Plus, despite what you say the idea is still rehabilitation...as well as punishment.

Rehab has worked, they have prison boot camps in the midwest were convicted felons have to live in a boot camp and if they graduate they can go back into society, they are equipped with tools for success and a vision to become better citizens....I'll try to find the link, I saw it on tv (IN CHINA)

Originally posted by 00PS
Rehab has worked, they have prison boot camps in the midwest were convicted felons have to live in a boot camp and if they graduate they can go back into society, they are equipped with tools for success and a vision to become better citizens....I'll try to find the link, I saw it on tv (IN CHINA)

Boot camps work very well. However, there has been several "lawsuites" over mistreatment of the "inmates" and boot camps are dieing off due to liability issues.

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

But where do you draw the line at "others like him?" Currently the youngest child tried for murder in the US is a severely retarded 12 year old named Nethanial Abraham. Nethanial has the mental capacity of a 6 year old, so is it acceptable to you to try 6 year olds as adults for murder, and to lock them up for life?

Nethanial and his trial were a mess. And I'm glad you brought that up.

Each and every person on trial needs to have his capability weighed
individually. To say all 16 year olds should be tried as adults is silly
because not all 16 year olds are the same mentally. Same with all
12 year olds or 14 year olds. Each and every person deserves a
fair trial and that includes individual determination of culpability and
mental age.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Nethanial and his trial were a mess. And I'm glad you brought that up.

Each and every person on trial needs to have his capability weighed
individually. To say all 16 year olds should be tried as adults is silly
because not all 16 year olds are the same mentally. Same with all
12 year olds or 14 year olds. Each and every person deserves a
fair trial and that includes individual determination of culpability and
mental age.

ding,ding,ding,ding finally a person with sense..........
Specific age is irrelevant.

So let's take another tack at this: Let's try to determine the critera that would be used to determine if someone was mentally capable of adult actions. Do we look at problem-solving skills? Understanding of consequences? Ability to deal with stress in a productive manner? What objective standards will we hold individuals to?

And to take that one step further, what do you do with a 14-year old who is unconditionally acquitted of a crime, but who was determined to be an "adult" in the eyes of the law? At that point, the legal system has said the person is capable of functioning, mentally, as an adult. Do we, then, allow them the rights and responsibilities of an adult in our society should they want it?

And on the flip-side, if there's a 21-year old who, after taking the test, is determined to be sub-adult. How does the law handle that, should that individual be remanded to their parents' custody until such time as they can "test-out" as an adult?

Now don't get me wrong, I'd love it if everyone in our society could be judged not on some arbitrary standard of age, but rather on their true merit. I just haven't seen a practical method for measuring that yet that's not strongly biased one way or another.

That's right, because of this ruling, Lee Malvo, 17 at the time he killed all those people, will now not even be tried in Virginia.

If you're looking for someone deserving of the death penalty, IMO you need look no further.

DC Sniper

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

*decided to delete*

[edit on 1-3-2005 by blueorder]

By 5-4 the insane leftist on the court have just set off a chain of events that will change america forever. The vilest of crimminals that raped two young women repeatedly then "stomped" them to death will go free in just a few years. Two members to the gang that murdered these young women were on death row in texas for thier crime, now with "good" time they can be out in only a few years.

If Texas just said "stuff it" what would happen? Who would enforce this lunacy to not put these "animals" to death?

Dr., you should've known that you'd catch flak from the anti-death penalty people.

It seems to me, that the same people who are willing to let a sexually-promiscous tramp kill an unborn baby are the same ones that declare the death penalty immoral!

What's wrong with this picture?

At what age should a person be declared to know the difference from right and wrong? 12 years? 18 years? 21 years? 30 years?

I am not one bit ashamed to say that I don't have any problem with prosecuting and carrying out a death sentence on juveniles!

I knew better when I was their age and others the same age know better now!

The excuse "mentally challenged" is not an excuse also!

These "mentally challenged" certainly can tell you when they're hungry or thirsty can't they?

Those who oppose the death penalty, call me what you want, but I'm ALL for the victims and the victims are NOT the killers!

Can I ask would you be prepared to do this?
Execute a child?

IMO, the only way a person can be anti death penalty is if they ignore the reality of what's happening all around them.

Sure, the death penalty looks bad when you only look at the "theory" of it and/or have your head stuck in the sand (or somewhere else), but try looking at it from the victim's side of the issue for a change. God forbid, what if it was you or your family that was the victim. Could you still say, "Oh, but the killer is only a child"?

Originally posted by devilwasp
Can I ask would you be prepared to do this?
Execute a child?

The "child" pick up a knife or a gun, and willingly, by their own actions take another human beings life in cold blood!

If the child commited murder, then he is no longer a child!

The child is then a murderer and I have no problem with sentencing the cold-blooded KILLER!

Originally posted by Intelearthling
The "child" pick up a knife or a gun, and willingly, by their own actions take another human beings life in cold blood!

The question still remains.

If the child commited murder, then he is no longer a child!

Then you are saying that we are a better race of people and if this is so then we are conducting racial purification.

The child is then a murderer and I have no problem with sentencing the cold-blooded KILLER!

Really, why dont you get given the gun?
Frankly I couldnt do it.
Anyone here that could I am sorry but my respect for you has just been lowered severly.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Can I ask would you be prepared to do this?
Execute a child?

In cambodia a 9 year old child walked up to me and handed me a live handgrenade, I gave it back...........shortly there after about 30 teenagers opened up on me and my men. Yes, we fired back.........

Proud of it, no, but it was kill or be killed.........answer your question?

Originally posted by DrHoracid

Originally posted by devilwasp
Can I ask would you be prepared to do this?
Execute a child?

In cambodia a 9 year old child walked up to me and handed me a live handgrenade, I gave it back...........shortly there after about 30 teenagers opened up on me and my men. Yes, we fired back.........

Proud of it, no, but it was kill or be killed.........answer your question?

I think the question was execute. You killed in self defence. There is a differance.

Originally posted by DrHoracid
In cambodia a 9 year old child walked up to me and handed me a live handgrenade, I gave it back...........shortly there after about 30 teenagers opened up on me and my men. Yes, we fired back.........

That was diffrent, that is when there is heated blood and you where attacked.

Proud of it, no, but it was kill or be killed.........answer your question?

No, all you did was taje one excuse to kill and try and put it inplace of another....