|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Apr 2nd, 2003 07:42 PM | ||
| punkgrrrlie10 |
Does it bother anyone that we are one of the few countries left that do this. Others in league with us are: Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Somalia and Saudi Arabia (all models of human rights) and we lead the way by far in numbers, mostly Texas alone, in executing more juvenile offenders than those other countries. |
|
| Apr 2nd, 2003 03:50 PM | ||
| kellychaos |
Quote:
|
|
| Apr 1st, 2003 07:07 PM | ||
| Skulhedface |
I would agree to a point that the death penalty should be extended to 16 or 17. Someone earlier had mentioned "they can't vote, but we can sure kill them (paraphrase)" Well, voting and politics in general require a bit more study, much more of a glance than basic right and wrong. Politics have so many shades of grey that I don't blame them for making the voting age 18, however, in the case of a psychologically normal 16 year old (meaning one who is not schizophrenic or mentally retarded) they should KNOW that murder is wrong. And I only agree with the death penalty because I believe it is a GRAVE injustice to the family of the victim that such a murderer would only have to worry about the occasional butt raping once in awhile. I always thought about it like this: I was anti-death penalty until I thought about how I'd react if a cold blooded murderer deliberately killed someone I was very close to. No one deserves to lose their lives, especially not the innocent, but I believe if you're willing to TAKE a life, you should be required to forfeit yours as well. |
|
| Apr 1st, 2003 03:11 PM | ||
| mburbank |
The younger the criminal is, the greater the chance of significant change. Real remorce, Rehabilitation, etc. Put in a more Christian light, a child has a real chance at repentance, redemption and salvation. For those of you beyond Juvenile years, think back on the person you were at say, fifteen. In all likelihood, you are a significantly different person now, way more so than the difference between a person of forty and a person of fifty. A completely non legal argument, and one that while I believe, I personally find moot, as all killing is immoral in my judgement. |
|
| Apr 1st, 2003 03:07 PM | ||
| Dixie | fry em | |
| Apr 1st, 2003 03:05 PM | ||
| punkgrrrlie10 |
Florida has actually outlawed the execution of minors. THey set the limit at 18 in '94 in Allen v. State as violative of the Florida constitution against cruel and unusual punishment. Judges usually conduct the interview and excuse jurors for cause and the lawyers get a set amount of challenges in which s/he can excuse a jury for no reason at all but once they run out, they are left w/what they got. As far as setting sentences, when it comes to death penalty cases, the jury decides based on the rules that the judge gives them and the law in the jurisdiction. Death sentencing is based on state law and there are different procedures based on what state you are in. I bring in the issue of the jury b/c of the issue of jury nullification can't even be used if they are excusing those who are against the death penalty. I have all the research from the academics and stuff on the subject, I'm just wondering what all of you're thought personally are and why. It would be nice to hear perhaps non-legal reasons to be for or against it besides the whole "hang em high" thoughts. |
|
| Apr 1st, 2003 12:18 PM | ||
| kellychaos |
Quote:
|
|
| Apr 1st, 2003 12:10 PM | ||
| Helm |
I'm against capital punishment for everyone, so naturally 16 and 17 year olds don't deserve it any more than anyone does. Quote:
Isn't punkgrrrrrrrrrrrrle studying Law? Clarification on this, please. |
|
| Apr 1st, 2003 11:57 AM | ||
| mburbank |
I am for the pre-emptive execution of anyone who A.) Is known to posess a weapon and B.) Has demonstrated the capacity to commit a violent crime. The problem with a smoking gun is that is has already been fired. We need to stop people before the murder is commited, the earlier the better. |
|
| Apr 1st, 2003 09:17 AM | ||
| El Blanco |
I just found out about a ten year old who lured away a 3 year old from a library to rape and murder him. Think he had no idea what he was doing? Anyway, I know its not that relivent. This just seemed like as good a time as any to bring it up and to say I want off the ride. |
|
| Apr 1st, 2003 01:24 AM | ||
| The_Rorschach |
Jury of his peers, regardless of their personal belief. Personally, I think the jury selection process should be conducted between judges and not trial lawyers, but thats just me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the judge sentenced and the jury condemned. |
|
| Apr 1st, 2003 01:08 AM | ||
| Protoclown | I'm against the death penalty altogether, so naturally I am against it in the case of minors as well. | |
| Apr 1st, 2003 12:17 AM | ||
| punkgrrrlie10 |
b/c the purpose of the jury is to have laymen decide the proper punishment based on a sampling of community views. When you exclude certain views, you aren't punishing based on community standards anymore but upon those that share a common belief. That's like saying: "it's okay for you to vote, as long as you vote republican". One of the bases of the 8th amendment is common evolving decency, but the Sup. Ct. has upheld the exclusion of jurors during voire dire based on their opposition to the death penalty. So, is it constitutional to have jury of his/her peers, or is it constitutional to have a jury of specific peers who believe certain things? |
|
| Mar 31st, 2003 11:44 PM | ||
| The_Rorschach |
Come on Punk, we both know that juries are a mixed lot. After the Defense and Prosecutor get through with interviewing them, its a grab bag of assholes which neither side is entirely happy with. A lawyer doesn't even require a reason to dismiss a possible juror, well up to his quota of dismissals anyway, and only after that is he required to show prior bias. Whats the point of that question? Of course a jury should decide. Its his constitutional righ |
|
| Mar 31st, 2003 11:32 PM | ||
| punkgrrrlie10 | Should it be for a jury to decide even if jurors can properly be excluded for being against the death penalty? | |
| Mar 31st, 2003 11:31 PM | ||
| AChimp |
Hell, in Canada you can get house arrest and probation for manslaughter if your lawyer is good enough! :P I still stand by my statements, though. The difference between good and bad, legal and illegal, has already developed by the time you are 16. |
|
| Mar 31st, 2003 11:20 PM | ||
| The_Rorschach |
That is for a judge and a jury of the gentleman's peers to decide. She is asking whether we should have legal precident for indicting minors who have killed others and prosecuting them as adults for all intents and purposes. Accidental death is often called, in varying degrees - manslaughter, and carries the death penalty almost never when the accused is actually sentenced. |
|
| Mar 31st, 2003 11:19 PM | ||
| punkgrrrlie10 | Well, they've already drawn it at 15 and below. I'm just wondering the differences between 15, and 16 or 17. | |
| Mar 31st, 2003 11:12 PM | ||
| theapportioner |
Even if they are retarded or otherwise mentally ill? And how low do you go? A ten year old could do a Stone Cold Stunner and kill a three year old. Any line drawn should have some sort of rationale... |
|
| Mar 31st, 2003 11:12 PM | ||
| AChimp |
If you are 16 or 17, you can understand the consequences of what you are doing. It's not like, when you turn 18, that all the Secret Arcane Knowledge of Reality is suddenly bestowed upon you. Hell, I'm all for executing kids over the age of 12 if they really deserve it; or at least locking them up for life. I think that many people underestimate how much kids understand. I was a little kid; I knew the consequences of my actions. Hang 'em high, I say! Err... well, maybe not so high if they're just kids. 
|
|
| Mar 31st, 2003 11:06 PM | ||
| The_Rorschach |
As eligable as any other murderer. Once the voting age was 21 CLA, then it was lowered to 18, regardless of their age, there are some individuals whom I wouldn't trust with a raffle ticket let alone a voting ballot. A person capable of murder is equally capable of taking responsibility for their actions. |
|
| Mar 31st, 2003 10:36 PM | ||
| theapportioner | We assume that kids are too immature and stupid to vote, yet we take their lives away? | |
| Mar 31st, 2003 10:12 PM | ||
| punkgrrrlie10 |
I don't know if I've asked this already but... I'm writing a paper on the juvenile death penalty and I'm wondering what everyone thinks about allowing 16 and 17 year olds being capital punishment eligible. (Unconstitutional for 15 and under) |
|
