<font color = lightgreen> [img]graemlins/madhell.gif[/img] All right! I'm bloodthirsty! [img]graemlins/madhell.gif[/img]

[img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img] Seriously, I simply must write that down in my diary. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

***************

Let me reiterate: <font color = white>If a 17-year-old commits an adult crime, then the 17-year-old must accept the adult consequences.</font></font></font>[/QUOTE]Wow, surprisingly I've never heard of an adult crime before??
What's the exact definition of an adult crime? And if for example shoplifting was classed as a child crime would adults be charged the same as a child?
First I've ever heard of it, I was just there thinking crimes were not reserved for any specific age.

THAT'S the whole point! The age of a MURDERER doesn't matter. Crime is not reserved for a specific age. The murder committed a crime, he should pay the consequence.

Talthyr, that is NOT murder. The dictionary says:
Main Entry: [1]mur·der
Pronunciation: 'm&r-d&r
Function: noun
Etymology: partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Old French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal
Date: before 12th century
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
The key word here is unlawful. Executoin is perfectly legal. You can call it "murder" all day long, but it doesn't make it so.

As for the "if a 9 year-old kills a 3 year-old" question: I have never said that there can't be extenuating circumstances. If a person is legitimately unaware of the difference between right and wrong, then that must be taken into account. But if a teenager commits a crime, fully aware of what they are doing, then let them face the penalty.
One of my best friends lost his father. He was coming home a bit late from work and stopped to get gas. Two teens (aged around 16) threw a bag over his head, kicked him in the nuts, and smacked him with a fire extinguisher. They hit him 4 times before he finally fell. Then they continued hitting his head until his skull cracked open. They threw the body in his trunk and took off.
When they were caught and questioned, they were asked why they did it. Their answer was that they were bored and wanted to try something new.
My friend did not attend their trial because he knew if he saw them, he'd attck them.
I would have, too.

Quote:

Originally posted by Azred: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: [qb]While that is tragic, that is no excuse for the death penalty. As has been shown, it is no deterrent otherwise there would be no murders in Texas, seeing how bloodthirsty they are there.

<font color = lightgreen> [img]graemlins/madhell.gif[/img] All right! I'm bloodthirsty! [img]graemlins/madhell.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]Whoo Hooo !!!!
[img]graemlins/firedevil.gif[/img] I'm a bloodthirtsy Texan !!! Specifically, a bloodthirsty Tex-Mexican! http://www.unique-hardware.co.uk/ser...grinbandit.gif (We're the worst)
[img]graemlins/2gunfire.gif[/img] Actually, I'm kinda proud of that. :D

So, basically it is not murder because it is lawful. Right, so if you went to a foreign country and one of your loved ones was shot for standing on an important persons shadow (hey this is theoretical) would you think that it was ok because according to them as it was lawful??
Lawfulness is differently defined all across the wrodl so without having one single recognised "law" who are we to say which things are lawfuil if someone else completely disagres?? Who can tell who's right? If you ask me the situation is made a lot easier with no more death in it than necessary, unless of course you know of a place where it is unlawful to not kill someone??

<font color = lightgreen>Very nicely stated; good points, both.

I know that many people have issues with the US not honoring the agreements Clinton signed, but an executive order is a far cry from a treaty; it does not have to be honored by any other sitting President.
I wish that there were not miscarriages of justice, but I must accept the fact that since we are not perfect that these will happen. Furthermore, I would like to see the mentally challenged protected from death penalties--they should be hospitalized instead. Finally, racial bias will be with us for centuries to come; let's just try to get past this as quickly as possible.

Those statistics are correct. In fact, no form of punishment ever invented has been a successful deterrent to crime. Even in the harshest societies with the strictest punishments people still committed crimes on a daily basis.</font>

I'm happy for you, but you haven't responded to my posts yet.
No offense, but you basically told Alexander that he's an indirect murderer.

I'm happy for you, but you haven't responded to my posts yet.
No offense, but you basically told Alexander that he's an indirect murderer.</font>[/QUOTE]Silly me, Mel. I did not, nor do i NOW, feel that it was worthy nor merited a reply. Quit trolling, I will not rise to your bait.

[ 05-29-2002, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: RudeDawg ]

Yeah, this bit I will wholeheartedly agree with, just look at one of the most extreme cases in the 1800's in England when the so called 'Bloody Code' was introduced, where the lawmakers decided that the only deterrent that would work was to be unbelievably harsh because of a supposed increase in crime (although it wasn't in reality.)
For example, during that time, the death penalty was used for over a hundred crimes, including shoplifting, pickpocketing over a shilling and many other ridiculous things.
However, during this period, crime was a rampant as ever. (although that was partially due to the small amount of convicted people actually hung in the end.)