Supreme Court lobbied to ban the death penalty for teen killers

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by The Hierophant: I'm not the same person I was six weeks ago, let alone six years ago when I was sixteen. I don't approve of the death sentence outright, but even so I know there are many that do. However, as such I still think that 16-17 year olds are too young for the death sentence. There is ample room for them to change their ways, and make an effort to at least partially repay their debts to those they wrong. To me, executing people so young is just a waste of potential.

Here's the fundmental difference, I don't view a sentence passed by a judge as anything other then PUNISHMENT. If a person is rehabilitated great if a person is not rehabilitated great, either way doesn't make a hill of beans to me as long as they are punished for their crimes, as decided by those in power to do the deciding. I have no problem with mercy or no mercy, that's what I pay Judges to decide. Ending of any human life is a waste of potential, but sometimes things have to be done.

[Timber Loftis]

If punishment has no rehabilitative or reform effect, then what purpuse does it serve to punish? Deterrence? -- is that what you seek J.D.? Segregation -- keeping the criminals separate from society, and thereby keeping society safe? If not, then what? What else is there other than...

REVENGE.

The lowliest of low reasons -- if you're a good God-fearin' moral person, that is.

Right?

[Donut]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: I can't say I'm in favor of executing 16 and 17 year olds, but it is weird that being born one day earlier or later could make such a huge difference in punishment. Age restrictions, and exceptions, are so incredibly arbitrary.

Absolutely! That's exactly what I said to the judge about that 15 year old girl.

[Timber Loftis]

Well, she said she was 18.

You could expound upon the idear a bit, Mr. P. Gallery. You make a good point that at some point an age difference or restriction is not arbitrary, but it doesn't really flesh out or contradict the equally good point that a 17 yr. old commiting a crime can be just as mature in his/her decision as an 18 or 28 year old committing the crime.

And what's wrong with sex with a 15-yr-old? Why, only 100 years ago, a fine upstanding 35-yr-old man with a decent income could probably arrange a marriage to the 15-yr-old daughter of a close family friend, at it was seen as perfectly normal. Oh, how our view skews over time. Romeo and Juliet were 13 and 12, respectively, right?

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

I think Juliet was around 12, give or take a year, and Romeo 15, give or take a year.

[Larry_OHF]

To back TL's comment, I know for fact that some parts of Mexico today, like in Guajaca, a young girl is ready for marriage as soon as she starts her cycle. That's not even across the ocean.

Therefore, being old enough to be a mother and wife, a 14 year old girl/woman is in charge of ALOT of stuff in her new home. Nobody is going to call her a baby no more.

[Chewbacca]

From the article: A filing from the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association and other leading medical organizations said that new research shows that areas of the brain responsible for impulse control and moral reasoning do not fully mature until age 18 or beyond. "The adolescent's mind works differently from ours. Parents know it. This court has said it. Legislatures have presumed it for decades or more. And now, new scientific evidence sheds light on the differences," the medical groups said. "Older adolescents are not simply miniature adults, with less experience or wisdom," the groups said. "They are also not as equipped as adults to engage in moral reasoning and adjust their conduct accordingly."

I find this bit of information compelling but also perplexing. If some brains dont finish developing til after the age of 18, how does making 18 the age that ones crimes become 'executionable' solve this dilema?

The community standard is that people aren't treated like "full" adults til they turn 21 and can consume alcohol legally. 18 is the age a peron can vote and in most palces a person can drive when they are 16.

It makes sense to me that the DP age, considering how permanent and serious an execution is, should be 21 simply because it is the highest standard we apply to determine adulthood. 18 would be the compromise as it is the 'official' age of adulthood. 16 and 17 year olds will still be punished for their crimes, no matter how serious or minor, but should be exempt from execution.

Of course one can use the argument found in the OP that young criminals will feel enabled to commit crimes because they think they will not recieve punishment. This is not exactly true though. Punishment will still be dealt for underage murderers, just not the punishment of death.


Another consideration with young offenders is the greater long term potential for rehabilitation after serving punishment. This is an argument that falls on the deaf ears for those who think that criminals should be punished, and not rehabilitated.

[Larry_OHF]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: You could expound upon the idear a bit, Mr. P. Gallery.

Who? That is not his real name.
Who are you making reference to?

[Timber Loftis]

Donut -- who I referred to as Mr. P. Gallery to reference the fact that the majority of the time he takes one-off shots from the peanut gallery that only hint at possibly genius posts. But, as for the genius post, he almost never delivers. It's like premature ejaculation or something.

[Larry_OHF]

I see. Thanks for the explanation.

It is hard to decide if we're supposed to laugh at a joke made or take extreme offence to an insult if we don't understand the reference.

Especially when we cannot find anything on a Google search about said reference!

By the way, there is no need to insult him. I have had complaints about your posts being as bad as what you claim Donut's to be.

Therefore, let's focus the opinions on the topic and not on the individual discussing the topic.

Oh no! I sound like Memnoch now!