No more death penalty for crimes committed under 18

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by IowaStatePhiPsi
the exact scenario sugar and spice talks about may not be factual, but there have been studies that show that violent crime rates go down when a state does not have the death penalty.

Finally, Joel piledrives the conversation with what Heather should have focused on - the reason against the death penalty: IT IS NOT AN ACTIVE, EFFECTIVE METHOD TO DETER FUTURE CRIME!

We've proven time and again that criminals don't think of consequences before they commit the acts.

(coincidently, that's the best response to heather too, now that I think of it . . . )

[texas*princess]

Originally posted by hoosier
In Tenn. today, a 15-year-old boy gets mad at his school bus driver, finds and brings a gun to the bus stop, and shoots and kills the bus driver when she opens the door.

For such pre-meditated action, the boy should get the death penalty.

Wow.. that's terrible.

[hoosier]

Originally posted by KSig RC
Finally, Joel piledrives the conversation with what Heather should have focused on - the reason against the death penalty: IT IS NOT AN ACTIVE, EFFECTIVE METHOD TO DETER FUTURE CRIME!

Joel's argument is not exactly true.

I am 100% sure that nobody given the death penalty, via injection or electrocution, in GA has ever committed another crime. IT TOTALLY DETERS FUTURE CRIMES by that perp.

I'm pretty confident that it is also true in the other 49 states.

Right now we have the most people ever in prison.

Right now we have a very low crime rate, compared to post-WWII years.

Incarceration = lower crime rates.

The death penalty would be a more effective deterent IF it was timely. A perp was injected in GA Tuesday for a murder 14 years ago, and often perps are on 'death row' for 15 - 20 years, thru multiple appeals. If the perp and his lawyer got one appeal, and a 90-day deadline to submit the appeal, the death penalty's deterent effect would mean something more.

The death penalty would be a more effective deterent IF it was timely.

[AGDee]

You would also execute more innocent people if it was timely.

Minors are minors for a reason. They are not allowed to do a lot of things in this society because, developmentally, they are not able to use the highest forms of logic because their brains are not fully developed yet. Parents are held responsible for their children's actions when they are minors. They are often ticketed and sometimes even jailed when their teenager is truant from school (whether I agree with that or not is a whole 'nother thread). But, my main point is, neurologically, they do not have the same development of the skills of logic required to anticipate consequences of their actions. That is why they can't drive, vote, drink, smoke, drop out of school, sign legal contracts, etc.

I am opposed to the death penalty in any situation personally for numerous reasons. I'm glad I live in a state where it is not legal. I think that keeping a person incarcerated for life with no chance of parole is just as effective in assuring that the individual will commit no more crimes against our society. If they are deemed dangerous to other prisoners, then they should be in solitary confinement. It has also been shown to be cheaper than the appeals and and costs associated with an inmate on death row.

Dee

[squirrely girl]

hoosier - i'm pretty sure he was 14 (dover tennessee is 'bout 15 minutes from my house.) unfortunately, tennessee wasn't one of the states that allowed execution of individuals who were minors when they committed their crime anyways

- also, a teen pulled a loaded gun pulled on two police in clarksville that same day when they went to serve a truancy order...lovely

i'm not a huge fan of the death penalty, i think that in most scenarios it is applied inequitably. there are MANY flaws with it. HOWEVER - i think the part that gets to me with this supreme court decision is that it ONLY affects 70something minors/people who were minors when they did the crime

i don't have stats for you all, but i'm hard pressed to believe that there aren't hundreds or thousands of minors that kill people every year. so what made the cases of these 70 so heinous that a jury felt the necessity to dole out the DP to them. what sets them apart. it's pretty much understood that people don't magically change the day they turn 18 (it's a truly arbitrary number).

what makes 17 year old john doe any different that 18 year old john doe? nothing.

[texas*princess]

Originally posted by squirrely girl
what makes 17 year old john doe any different that 18 year old john doe? nothing.

i was thinking the same thing. someone doesn't magically become mature and responsible at 18.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by hoosier
Joel's argument is not exactly true.

I am 100% sure that nobody given the death penalty, via injection or electrocution, in GA has ever committed another crime. IT TOTALLY DETERS FUTURE CRIMES by that perp.

I'm pretty confident that it is also true in the other 49 states.

Fallacious logic - it doesn't "deter" in this scenario, it "prevents" . . . in the sense of "eliminates the possibility" instead of "takes an active role to combat beforehand"

I invite you to present any evidence that the death penalty plays an active role in repressing crime. It simply does not.

Life in prison without parole also has a 99.9% success rate in preventing future crimes by the same person, and it's significantly cheaper than administering the death penalty.

Originally posted by hoosier
Right now we have the most people ever in prison.

Right now we have a very low crime rate, compared to post-WWII years.

Incarceration = lower crime rates.

Good point, although there are far more reasons for the crime rate dropping for the last decade than simple incarceration.

Originally posted by hoosier
The death penalty would be a more effective deterent IF it was timely. A perp was injected in GA Tuesday for a murder 14 years ago, and often perps are on 'death row' for 15 - 20 years, thru multiple appeals. If the perp and his lawyer got one appeal, and a 90-day deadline to submit the appeal, the death penalty's deterent effect would mean something more.

The death penalty would be a more effective deterent IF it was timely.

I don't see any support for this anywhere - I think it would be a more efficient system, and it would alleviate the cost arguments (right now it's insanely expensive to the state to kill a prisoner). However, psychology and criminology studies have unilaterally proven, for decades, that the end results or consequences of criminal actions do not serve a strong role in determining whether that action takes place, so I really can't agree with you at all.

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by hoosier
I am 100% sure that nobody given the death penalty, via injection or electrocution, in GA has ever committed another crime. IT TOTALLY DETERS FUTURE CRIMES by that perp.

I'm pretty confident that it is also true in the other 49 states.

It also prevents crimes from innocent people who are executed due to laws in the system. Until that is addressed, the death penalty is not an acceptable method of punishment for a civilized society.

Originally posted by hoosier
Right now we have the most people ever in prison.

Right now we have a very low crime rate, compared to post-WWII years.

Incarceration = lower crime rates.

Thats a fallicous argument. Aftre WWII, incarceration rates rose and crime rose. This trend continued for a half century. If you exclude New York City from your statistics, your whole argument falls apart, and is never true.

Originally posted by hoosier
The death penalty would be a more effective deterent IF it was timely.

It has never been shown to be an effective deterant, and there is much statistical data that shows the opposite. What we do know is that many innocent people would be executed if this became reality.

So much for a fair judicial system.

I feel like if a juvenile commits an adult criminal action, then, he or she should be treated as an adult in the court system, which includes being able to be sentenced to death.

Most juveniles, unless they're mentally ill, know between right and wrong. If they're going to consciously kill someone, then, they committed an adult crime. If they consciously rape someone, then, they committed an adult crime. Reasonably speaking, if they committed these adult crimes, then, they acted as an adult. I don't know why this has to be spelled out to people.

I have to agree with ktsnake when he wrote that death is randomly (not meaning seldom) sentenced because the death penalty IS so randomly sentenced upon people. I do think there needs to be more clear cut laws or mandates or guidelines on when the death sentence is given out, for example, what crimes WILL be death sentence/life imprisonment crimes. I don't think it should be the age should be the biggest factor in sentencing the death penalty but, instead, the crime and mental state of the criminal.

[RACooper]

I see it as maturity and realization being rather arbitrary things - think back to your grade 10 class.

While yes some are more than aware of the impact of their actions - unfortunately some aren't. Whether this is due to education, age, or 'maturity' - it essentially doesn't matter. Just as some mentally challenged persons aren't competent to face the death penalty - so the same applies to some who are challeged by age and understanding.

Of course this should all be viewed in the light that I (like many Canadians or other citizens of the world) find the death penalty barbaric and flawed - finacially (court costs and such) and morally.

Now the moral issue brings up an important question for me - if so many "conservatives" or "right wing religious" folks are in support of the 10 Commandments, and so many "conservatives" and again right wing "right wing religious" foks are in favour of the death penalty. How do they reconcile the whole "thou shall not kill" aspect? and who do they reconilce Jesus' teachings which advocate forgiveness and reconciliation? Because no matter how you phrase it the issue of the legitamacy of capital punishment will some how work its' way into the debate - a consideration that I find important; if only to understand the foundation of the capital punishment establishment.

Finally if economics are a deciding issue - can someone post numbers for the cost of executing someone in the US and housing them for say 35 years?

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by RACooper
Now the moral issue brings up an important question for me - if so many "conservatives" or "right wing religious" folks are in support of the 10 Commandments, and so many "conservatives" and again right wing "right wing religious" foks are in favour of the death penalty. How do they reconcile the whole "thou shall not kill" aspect? and who do they reconilce Jesus' teachings which advocate forgiveness and reconciliation? Because no matter how you phrase it the issue of the legitamacy of capital punishment will some how work its' way into the debate - a consideration that I find important; if only to understand the foundation of the capital punishment establishment.

This is a really good point, but it's an extension of the "anti-abortion, pro-death penalty?" (or vice versa) arguments . . . hopefully someone elucidates me on these . . .

Also, for the record, I'd love it if we could separate "conservative" and "right-wing religous folks" - they are not the same, and not even necessary or sufficient conditions. Bad hijack, I know.

Originally posted by RACooper
Finally if economics are a deciding issue - can someone post numbers for the cost of executing someone in the US and housing them for say 35 years?

As of the last study I read, it costs twice as much to kill a person than to house them until average age of death (which was 35-40 years of incarceration) - i believe it was $2 million to prosecute/execute, and $1 million to house.

[TxAPhi]

Texas needs a third option when dealing with capital crimes: life without parole.

If legislators lacked incentive to give Texas juries the option of assessing life without parole sentences in the past, they now have plenty with the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court banning states from executing juvenile killers. Senate Bill 60 would establish a life term without parole. We urge senators meeting today to consider the bill to pass it out of committee.

Death penalty proponents lobbied successfully to quash such legislation in the past. They believe it would weaken the state's death penalty system — the busiest in the nation. As it stands, Texas jurors now have just two sentencing options in capital crime cases: execution or life in prison, which actually means a minimum of 40 years. After 40 years of a life sentence, a convict is eligible for parole.

We have long argued that the death penalty is wrong because of the potential of executing an innocent person. Moreover, the deck is stacked against poor defendants. We've also complained mightily about the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which has acted as a rubber stamp for prosecutors. The Texas appeals court didn't think it was a problem for a defense lawyer to sleep through portions of his client's capital murder trial.

Even so, it's understandable how jurors might opt for the death penalty over a life sentence given the current sentencing choices. The possibility of parole, however small, could mean that a violent criminal might one day be set free. The death penalty ensures that a criminal won't be free again. Life without parole would accomplish the same goal.

Momentum is building for the life without parole option, says the bill's sponsor, state Sen. Eddie Lucio, D-Brownsville. This month, the U.S. Supreme Court left Texas with only one option in dealing with minors who commit capital crimes: Life with the possibility of parole. Thankfully, Texas no longer will be able to sentence 17-year-olds to death, but the state should have the option of putting them in prison for life without parole. Lucio's bill would not eliminate the death penalty for adults.

For years, the state has needed a third option for dealing with people who commit capital crimes. Texas and New Mexico are the only death penalty states that don't offer jurors the option of sentencing criminals to life without parole. The Legislature can and should change that.


ETA (from another article, Alaska is added): Forty-seven other states lock up their most heinous killers without the chance of ever getting out. Only Texas, Alaska and New Mexico do not.