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.
I felt that even at 10, these boys were ripe for execution.
If they are old enough to kill someone in cold blood, then yes, they are old enough to get the injection.
And i doubt they can be rehabilitated. Once a dog tastes human blood, he becomes more likely to attack more.
I don't like this crap that "They are not mature enough or they don't know what they are doing". Come on by 11 or even 10, you should know right from wrong.
That 12 year old boy? Send him to death row, ASAP.
Its called pest removal. Not playing God. I dont consider it murder either. Anymore than I consider it genoside when i go on a cockroach killing spree with a can of raid.
Originally posted by SkipShipman
Also young people are judicially much more defenseless, hence easy prey for a court system not necessarily renouned for fairness. Our court system is broken, so why execute anyone for that matter?
Originally posted by JediMaster
If you do not punish, then the wrongdoer will not learn why his actions were bad. Kill them before they can kill again. Simple as that.
Originally posted by JediMaster
Not really. Then they do not know what they did was wrong.
By putting them in jail you do not show them the pain that their victims felt. An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth.
Originally posted by torque
It's not a deterrent issue, nor is it bloodthirst.
It's the simple fact that these people have something very wrong with them.
Life imprisonment is costly and really does nothing either for the parents of the victim or for the perpetrator.
JediMaster- If you do not punish, then the wrongdoer will not learn why his actions were bad. Kill them before they can kill again. Simple as that.
Originally posted by f10869
Putting someone in an 8X10 cell with no windows for the rest of your life isn't cruel and unusual? The only sex they will ever have is of the gay variety. That isn't cruel and disgusting? And WE have to pay for this - that IS cruel and unusual punishment.
Why should WE have to pay for something that we don't want in the first place? Fry the little bastids and move on.
Originally posted by torque
I can find statistics to back up any viewpoint.
When I say it's not a deterrent, I mean it's not something that will make the next little killer think twice. I mean it's going to stop this particular one from harming anyone else again.
I never said to kill anyone with something wrong with them. But there are people in this world who are broken. Period. Broken and not fixable.
These ideas of helping and caring and nurturing the killer are noble, I guess, but who's paying for it all? Everything in this world, no matter what country you live in, comes down to cash. So who's going to pay for it?
Of course there would be the normal outcry for them to have a chance at life again... maybe get parole. Fine. And by then, having gone in at such a young "impressionable" age, they will have learned quite a few new tricks from their fellow inmates. They don't normally come out better, rehabilitated people. They simply come out bigger and stronger and with more knowledge of how to do things.
What's your answer? Tell it to the woman who's toddler has been beaten to death. She lives every day knowing the ones who did it are out there with new identities getting another chance. Bravo for them. Hopefully they won't kill again, but do you want them living next to you and your kids?
Prisons are already overstuffed as it is.
Prison is a horrible place, and a lot goes on in there that people on the outside would never even dream of.
What do you propose to do with the ones who are simply unqualified to remain among the human race?
I find it hard to believe that a death penalty trial and execution is more costly than giving someone a life sentence that could go 80 years. I'm going to check that out myself. I think the appeal process and the years of sitting on death row jack up the cost. You cannot let rabid dogs run loose to tear people apart. You also cannot house them for the sake of keeping them alive at any cost. So you tell me the answer. Tell me where the money's going to come from to rehab these little murderers.
Tell me what you're willing to do for the parents of the victims. Nobody thinks of them, and what they have to live with for the rest of their lives. Tell me the answer for them. And don't include them turning to god for solace because that's not an acceptable answer. You want the killers to live and be helped, so you tell me what the answer is for all parties involved.
Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Civilization was built on the death penalty. The very first code of laws ever written. The code of Hammurabi.
Uncivilized tribes dont have the death penalty, they usually just banish thier members.
So, the death penalty is VERY civilized. Every great civilization in history has had it.
Originally posted by torque
I wish I had the time it takes to take selective quotes and rip 'em, but I don't.
It all boils down to money, no matter how you want to look at it as a moral issue. You -know- this to be a fact.
This can of worms is huge and expensive. To clean up the prison system, you'd have to address the social issues which cause people to end up in there in the first place. You'd have to clean up the corruption in the system from the beat cop up to the judges. You'd have to reform laws and madatory sentences and add more rehabilitative services in order to lower the inmate population. You'd have to make the system fair for rich and poor alike. You'd have to address the issues of poverty and drug addiction. You'd have to address the issue of health care costs. It all ties in together and it's not going to be done. It won't be done because it's too expensive and will not profit our society in cash rewards.
If you don't believe there are broken people out there who will never be fixed, no amount of statistics will change your mind.
The entire tone of your argument is one of moral superiority.
Those who want the death penalty want it for bloodlust or revenge. I've stated several times already that these are not my personal motivations.
I've admitted here and elsewhere that the system is flawed, which is why I'd only administer it in a case where there is NO doubt, not just "beyond reasonable doubt".
And the suggestion of pre-emptive death sentencing is just too ignorant as no one has given the opinion that people should be killed on the basis that they might someday do something.
Nobody's playing god. In fact, to argue the "playing god" concept with an atheist is pretty much not going to work.
Just making the punishment fit the crime and making sure they can never come out to do it again.
Originally posted by torque
it should be given only when there is NO doubt, not just beyond reasonable doubt