im against the death penalty. but i guess this is a typical case of an issue where opinions are not going to change.

i just want to point out 2 things... one that amnesty international is one of the most respected organisations in the world, and that they take great risks in doing their job, which they do remarkably well. and two that its ok for a state/country/whatever to decide their own laws. i just find it very funny that the us is in the same list as the axis of evil in this issue. maybe they could be good friends since they share similar views after all.

How about this:

If a 17-year old is not considered an adult, then a 17-year old should not be tried as one.

If we're going to try 17-year olds as adults, then we should no longer consider them minors, and they should be treated as adults. Meaning that not only would they face the same consequences, but they should also receive the various benefits that come with adulthood, because, as I said, we're treating them as adults.

Calm down, people. Why is it that we seem incapable of discussing a serious discussion like sentient beings, without resorting to fighting or getting personal with each other?

The last few serious discussion threads have not had happy endings...surely you're all learning from experience by now.

Let's see if this thread is still open by the time I wake up tomorrow.

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.</font>[/QUOTE]So a 6-year old who is ticked off at his little brother or sister and kills them should receive the death penalty. Simply stunning.

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.</font>[/QUOTE]She is not trolling, she is summarizing what you said - that it is somehow my fault (or the fault of people like me) that a friend of yours was murdered.

Which I find simply ludicrous, and downright offensive.

My whole point is that he is not legally recognized by the government as an adult, so if you're going to punish him as you would punish an adult, surely it would make sense to treat him as one in all other respects (and from here on change the voting/gambling/whatever age to 17).

Now that Alexander has answered to this thread, I will answer to this.
I was NOT trolling, RudeDawg, and I'm very sad that you would think such a thing of me. All I did was paraphrase your post. When you said that because of people like Alexander, other people get murdered, YES, that gave me a right to respond and ask why you would say such a thing. You reaction to me was uncalled for. All I was trying to do was subtly hint that maybe you should give Alexander a break, as you did not know where he was coming from. Instead of realising this, you call me a troll.
Now, if you've read Alexander's post, you'll know why I responded why I did. I have never tried to disparage you or your grief, but you condemned my post without noticing that what I was TRYING to point out is that Alexander has gone through a similar ordeal as you.</font>[/QUOTE]Melusine, thank you. I appreciate what you tried to do.

<font color = lightgreen>Execution of a convicted criminal is far removed from genocide; only the truly insane would ever condone genocide. Forcing half your population into a situation that amounts to slavery and degradation is also not to be accepted. This, however, raises a very important question--should a soverign nation submit to the "will of nations" and, if so, under what circumstances? Before answering, consider this: if you live in a house with other people, should you let them decide if your actions are acceptable?</font>

<font color = lightgreen>You are the first person here to state that committing a criminal act does not take away human rights. Thank you for stating that (and that is a sincere thank you [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] ) because that point had not been made clear.
Based on what you posted, I get the impression that you think that a person's human rights supercede the rights of the nation of which that person is a citizen. Do the human rights of a person who disregards the human rights of others matter?
I agree that it may not be our place to play God and determine who lives and who dies, but does not the murderer play God when taking away life?</font>

[ 05-30-2002, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Azred ]

My whole point is that he is not legally recognized by the government as an adult, so if you're going to punish him as you would punish an adult, surely it would make sense to treat him as one in all other respects (and from here on change the voting/gambling/whatever age to 17).</font>[/QUOTE]<font color="plum">The only problem with that reasoning is that it advocates allowing ALL teenagers access to beer and tobacco because a significant few are "tried as adults" after callously ending the life of an innocent.

The death penalty is a case of the punishment fitting the crime, not a matter whether teens should be allowed to smoke and drink before age 18.

For the sake of compromise, however, I WILL agree that any 17-year old who receives the death penalty should also receive full access to beer and tobacco during their interment.</font>

<font color="yellow">On a more serious note, I owe you an apology. Based on your original threads, I thought you might be a disgruntled teenager yourself. I humbly apologize for jumping to that conclusion and I am terribly sad to hear about your loss. While I disagree with your views, I admire your conviction and the fact that you are able to maintain that conviction in the face of such a tragic personal loss.</font>

The universal Declaration of human rights (only in theory so far, sadly) should override a countries law if it contradicts it, and the country in question is a signatory (which America is). For example if a country has a law which states that people are not allowed to choose & practice their own religion,
The Declaration of human rights is supposed to be followed and put into practise by the U.S.A, and yet sadly it does not follow it on key areas.

Yes, for if we do not respect their human rights, we are just as bad as they, and hypocrites into the bargain.

Two wrongs don't make a right.