Juveniles vs. the death penalty

[Kirkus]

The Supreme Court will be deciding whether or not juveniles should be subject to the death penatly. Apparently the U.S. is only one of a handful of countries that executes juveniles, and only 19 states allow it. I figure this will be a hot topic and just love to stir the pot.

My opinion? Should juveniles receive the death penalty?
If the nature of their crime warrants it... damn straight they should.

I support capital punishment 100%, for adults or juveniles. Even in cases of mental deficiency. I believe punishments for violent crimes should not consider "rehabilitation" but rather the protection of law-abiding citizens. If a person proves, by committing a violent crime against another, that they aren't able to live in a law-abiding society, they should be permanently removed from society.

[Sebastien447]

The Supreme Court will be deciding whether or not juveniles should be subject to the death penatly. Apparently the U.S. is only one of a handful of countries that executes juveniles, and only 19 states allow it. I figure this will be a hot topic and just love to stir the pot.

My opinion? Should juveniles receive the death penalty?
If the nature of their crime warrants it... damn straight they should.

I support capital punishment 100%, for adults or juveniles. Even in cases of mental deficiency. I believe punishments for violent crimes should not consider "rehabilitation" but rather the protection of law-abiding citizens. If a person proves, by committing a violent crime against another, that they aren't able to live in a law-abiding society, they should be permanently removed from society.

Goodness, we just don't get along too well on the political front kirki! Always enjoy hearing what you have to say, BUT ...

1) How does killing people tell people that it's wrong to kill people?

2) It has been proven that the death penalty is not a deterrent to the act.

3) It costs far more to kill a person than it does to keep them locked up for the rest of their lives.

4) A person kills somebody close to me ... I'd rather they languish in some hell of a prison until death. I consider that to be much more of a punishment than being killed by injection, and drifting off.

[3mlm]

And, Kirkus, what age juveniles are you talking about?

The six year old who beats his baby brother to death? He should get the death penalty?

The 15 year old who's part of a group robbing a 7-11 where a 21 year old kills the clerk and then gets life imprisonment for identifying his minor accomplices?

What about the 100 or more innocent folks executed in the last 100 years? Or is that an acceptable error? One a year?

[shtexas]

I'm with Sebastien and 3mlm on this one.

[Kirkus]

Oh little pot-stirrer me :o I have to admit I didn't expect much support.

One at a time:

1) How does killing people tell people that it's wrong to kill people?
2) It has been proven that the death penalty is not a deterrent to the act.
I believe in our culture it's obvious, if not inherent, that killing another human being is wrong. If someone has to be deterred by fear of punishment, then I have to wonder if, morally, they aren't already past the point of no return.


3) It costs far more to kill a person than it does to keep them locked up for the rest of their lives.
So I've heard... and what the hell is that about anyway?


4) A person kills somebody close to me ... I'd rather they languish in some hell of a prison until death. I consider that to be much more of a punishment than being killed by injection, and drifting off.
That's a good argument. But doesn't that make you even more barbaric than those who share my belief? (I don't mean that in a mean way, I'm just not sure how else to phrase it.) Besides, what good is punishment if there's no chance for the aggressor to have learned from his punishment and possibly be rehabilitated?


And, Kirkus, what age juveniles are you talking about?
The six year old who beats his baby brother to death? He should get the death penalty?

Those are 2 excellent questions that I don't have answers for. Apparently I shot my mouth off without expecting a challenge like that. The six year old who beats his baby brother to death? Well, we obviously can't put a 6 year old to death. And that makes me rethink my comment about the mentally deficient.


The 15 year old who's part of a group robbing a 7-11 where a 21 year old kills the clerk and then gets life imprisonment for identifying his minor accomplices?
Since the 15 year old wasn't directly responsible for the murder than absolutely not.


What about the 100 or more innocent folks executed in the last 100 years? Or is that an acceptable error? One a year?
Putting an innocent person to death is never acceptable (That's kinda the whole point I'm trying to make). But don't you think with forensics today the chances of that happening are much smaller?

My whole point is this: Violent crimes, especially those that end the death of the victim, in my opinion, are unforgivable by society. Every God-given right that applied to the victim, right down to the right of life, has been taken away by another man. How anyone can argue that the criminal should retain any rights, right down to the right of life, is just impossible for me to understand.

[Kirkus]

Goodness, we just don't get along too well on the political front kirki!


Told ya I wasn't a "left-hander". ;)

[3mlm]

Since the 15 year old wasn't directly responsible for the murder than absolutely not.

But since that 15 year old is on death row in Texas (but now years olders), it's still a live question.



Putting an innocent person to death is never acceptable (That's kinda the whole point I'm trying to make). But don't you think with forensics today the chances of that happening are much smaller?


Maybe, but what about all those folks on death row today from convictions before the "forensics today." Â*Do they get a chance. Â*Why do you think the Republican governer of Illinois stayed all death sentences?

Frankly, until the law enforcement establishment can convince me that they aren't making the mistakes they've made in the past in convictions, I'm against any penalty that makes it impossible to reverse wrong verdicts.

[Kirkus]

But since that 15 year old is on death row in Texas (but now years olders), it's still a live question.
I don't know the situation. But it sounds to me like the 15 year old had no direct part in the murder. If that's the case, then I absolutely don't agree that he should be on death row. The fact that the "shooter" isn't and the 15 year old is tells me that something is wrong. If it's that cut and dry. Had they all planned to go out, rob a 7-11, and kill the clerk, then I'd say the premeditation warrants the death penalty.


Maybe, but what about all those folks on death row today from convictions before the "forensics today." Do they get a chance. Why do you think the Republican governer of Illinois stayed all death sentences?

Frankly, until the law enforcement establishment can convince me that they aren't making the mistakes they've made in the past in convictions, I'm against any penalty that makes it impossible to reverse wrong verdicts.
I absolutely agree. And I would support all stays of execution until it could be proven without any doubt that the criminal was in fact guilty.

How many convictions have we seen in just the past 10 years that were reversed because of forensics? Too many. And it seems to me that all they're given is a pat on the pack, a bus ticket home, and an insincere apology.

[Doll_Face]

I don't believe children should be tried as adults, and I don't agree with the death penalty. Seems barbaric to me.

[Sebastien447]

We are barbaric to still employ the death penalty in this country Dollface. We, along with a host of third world countries, are the only citizens who allow our government to kill it's own people.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/abret.html

From Amnesty International ...

What signs are there that the battle to abolish the death penalty is being won?


At the turn of the last century only three countries had permanently abolished the death penalty for all crimes. Today, at the beginning of the 21st century, over half the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. Indeed, over the past decade more than three countries a year on average have abolished the death penalty in law or having abolished it for ordinary crimes have gone on to abolish it for all crimes. Moreover, once abolished, the death penalty is seldom reintroduced.

This trend reflects the growing awareness that there are alternative punishments to the death penalty that are effective and which do not involve the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of justice.

A striking example of the growing public support against the death penalty is the illumination of the Colosseum in Rome whenever a death sentence is suspended or commuted anywhere in the world. It is also illuminated whenever a country establishes a moratorium on executions or abolishes the death penalty.

[Kirkus]

barbaric adj
1: without civilizing influences; "barbarian invaders"; "barbaric practices"; "a savage people"

The following were taken from http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us Each of the criminals in the excerpts below were 17 years old when the murders were committed. I've removed both the criminal's and victim's names.

*********************
The criminal participated in a robbery at a yogurt shop. Four teenage girls, who were working at the shop, were shot to death and strangled in the incident. The yogurt shop was set on fire before the assailant(s) fled the scene.
*********************
The criminal and 2 co-defendants fatally shot a 29 year old male 1 time with a 12 gauge shotgun and caused the death of a 21 month old female by abandoning her in an area where she was not likely to be found. The criminal and 2 co-defendants carjacked the victim for his vehicle. The criminal and 2 co-defendants then dumped the 29 year old male victim in an orchard and took the 21 month old female child, while strapped in her car seat, and placed her in a tall grassy area. The criminal and co-defendants fled in the victim's vehicle.
**********************
Convicted in the robbery and murder of a 73 year old female. The victim was killed inside her home after the criminal broke in through a window. She was struck in the head with a pair of shrubbery shears and then was trounced by the criminal, resulting in her chest being crushed. Her throat was also cut. Costume jewelry and a carton of cigarettes was taken from the home following the murder.
**********************
The victim and her 76 year old mother were inside their residence when the criminal broke in from the back yard. The two women offered the criminal his choice of two vehicles in the garage and then offered him $125 in cash if he would not harm them. The criminal took the money and then turned a kitchen knife on the two women, stabbing the the daughter eight times and wounding the mother to the neck. Before fleeing, the criminal set the house afire. The daughter was pronounced at the scene. Her mother survived.

Without apology, the victims are going to get my sympathy not the murderers. The victims are the people whose rights should be protected. Not the barbaric killers whose value of life can be measured by a carton of cigarettes or $125 in cash.

You'll never convince me that these murderers deserve to remain alive following their heinous and barbaric crimes.

I remain pro death penalty.

[Doll_Face]

I understand Kirkus. A 15 year old guy stabbed and beat his mother to death yesterday because she wouldn't let his 19 year old girlfriend spend the night. I thought about this thread when I heard the report. DAMN.

But, I still cannot condone the death penalty. I say REHABILITATION and hard labor.

And I hope Charles Manson never receives parole.

[Sebastien447]

That visceral reaction toward heinous murders allows people to turn around and, seconds later condone that very act. For me the bottom line is that it makes no sense to tell people it's wrong to kill people by killing people. Pro death penalty folk can spin their rationalizations till kingdom come, but it won't change the truth. The truth is that it's wrong to take a human life, whether it's by another person in anger, or by the government in the name of justice.

A while back Donahue (miss that guy) was pushing hard for a publicly televised execution ... his belief being that once people are allowed to see the realness of a person put to death, that they'd be much less likely to support it. I believe he is correct in that assessment. The majority of people in this country are for the death penalty. But for most of them that position amounts to only words on a piece of paper. If they forced themselves to face up to the reality of the act, I think many would change their opinion on the matter

[Kirkus]

That visceral reaction toward heinous murders allows people to turn around and, seconds later condone that very act. For me the bottom line is that it makes no sense to tell people it's wrong to kill people by killing people. Pro death penalty folk can spin their rationalizations till kingdom come, but it won't change the truth. The truth is that it's wrong to take a human life, whether it's by another person in anger, or by the government in the name of justice.

A while back Donahue (miss that guy) was pushing hard for a publicly televised execution ... his belief being that once people are allowed to see the realness of a person put to death, that they'd be much less likely to support it. I believe he is correct in that assessment. The majority of people in this country are for the death penalty. But for most of them that position amounts to only words on a piece of paper. If they forced themselves to face up to the reality of the act, I think many would change their opinion on the matter

I have trouble with the "tell people it's wrong to kill people by killing people" argument. I suppose I just see a difference in the senseless, brutal murder of an innocent human being compared to the state sanctioned execution as a way of protecting society.

I understand the opposing arguments here -- and totally respect them. And with such a hot issue it's nice to have a civil discussion about it.

My original point, then I'll let it go:
The death penalty, not as a punishment, not as a deterrant, but as a way to protect society from anti-social, violent behavior.

[shtexas]

The great Justice Harry Blackmun (who believed in the death penalty before) wrote in a dissenting opinion, which I believe was right before he retired:

"Twenty years have passed since this court declared that the death penalty must be imposed fairly and with reasonable consistency or not at all, and despite the effort of the states and courts to devise legal formulas and procedural rules to meet this...challenge, the death penalty remains fraught with arbitrariness, discrimination...and mistake...

From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death. For more than 20 years I have endeavored...to develop...rules that would lend more than the mere appearance of fairness to the death penalty endeavor...Rather than continue to coddle the court's delusion that the desired level of fairness has been achieved...I feel...obligated simply to concede that the death penalty experiment has failed. It is virtually self-evident to me now that no combination of procedural rules or substantive regulations ever can save the death penalty from its inherent constitutional deficiencies... Perhaps one day this court will develop procedural rules or verbal formulas that actually will provide consistency, fairness and reliability in a capital-sentencing scheme. I am not optimistic that such a day will come. I am more optimistic, though, that this court eventually will conclude that the effort to eliminate arbitrariness while preserving fairness 'in the infliction of [death] is so plainly doomed to failure that it and the death penalty must be abandoned altogether.' I may not live to see that day, but I have faith that eventually it will arrive. The path the court has chosen lessen us all."