No more death penalty for crimes committed under 18

IowaStatePhiPsi · #1 03-01-2005, 10:58 PM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._death_penalty

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4308881.stm

Kevin · #2 03-02-2005, 10:53 AM

I used to support the death penalty until a jury in my state didn't give it to Terry Nichols, one of the conspirators in the OKC Bombing. If he doesn't get the death penalty, then no one should.

Because of the fact that it's handed out in such a random manner, I can't support it at all.

So good move by the S.C..

valkyrie · #3 03-02-2005, 12:42 PM

It's about time.

IowaStatePhiPsi · #4 03-02-2005, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ktsnake
Because of the fact that it's handed out in such a random manner, I can't support it at all.

That and several states have had cases with innocent persons on death row (Oklahoma City had a forensics lab altering evidence to help convict people for crimes they didnt commit).

I've heard of cases with persons who were executed being found innocent years later- including one guy 50 years later! Hard to end the sentence if the person was put to death by the state. At least if they were jailed there's some restitution in being freed.

RUgreek · #5 03-02-2005, 03:31 PM

this ruling is a mistake, treating juvenile murderers differently, I see no reason why the death penalty shouldn't apply to them if it applies to adults. It's still up to the judge and jury in sentencing to pass these penalties. Either make the death penalty apply to all or none, not this crap.

So I guess if the two kids from columbine didn't commit suicide, no one would care that they would be protected from getting the death penalty?

PhiPsiRuss · #6 03-02-2005, 03:34 PM

I'm against the death penalty, but what bothers me about the decision is the citation of "world opinion." So much for an independent judiciary.

valkyrie · #7 03-02-2005, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RUgreek
this ruling is a mistake, treating juvenile murderers differently, I see no reason why the death penalty shouldn't apply to them if it applies to adults. It's still up to the judge and jury in sentencing to pass these penalties. Either make the death penalty apply to all or none, not this crap.

So I guess if the two kids from columbine didn't commit suicide, no one would care that they would be protected from getting the death penalty?

Uh, we treat juveniles differently in many, many situations. Children under 18 can't vote, etc. Why should the death penalty be any different?

sugar and spice · #8 03-02-2005, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RUgreek

So I guess if the two kids from columbine didn't commit suicide, no one would care that they would be protected from getting the death penalty?

No, actually, I don't think that those kids SHOULD have gotten the death penalty. Why did they kill themselves after shooting up the school? Because they decided that death would be easier to take than the fallout of their actions if they remained alive. They knew that if they were allowed to live to 75, they'd spend a lot of that time regretting their actions and hating themselves and being miserable.

That's the problem with the death penalty -- most people would suffer infinitely more if they were allowed to live with what they've done than if they were put to death.

texas*princess · #9 03-02-2005, 04:43 PM

I'm really torn on this issue.

I know juveniles can't vote, or even buy cigarettes. But I think if they can pick up a gun (or knife or whatever) and kill someone, they should be treated like adults.

And while I agree w/ S&S's post about the columbine kids, I'm not sure how that would affect the nation's prison systems. I guess there are a bunch of variables (like the number of people who get out on parole, the amount of people on death row, how many executions take place a year and a bunch of other stuff) that would contribute to it. What if being locked up didn't make them regret their actions? I mean, if they were sick enough to bust out guns and kill so many people, there is the possiblity that being behind bars won't be enough to make them feel remorse or regret. I don't think the death penality is the answer either, because even then, they may think it's no big thing.

hoosier · #10 03-02-2005, 04:57 PM

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.

sugar and spice · #11 03-02-2005, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by texas*princess
What if being locked up didn't make them regret their actions? I mean, if they were sick enough to bust out guns and kill so many people, there is the possiblity that being behind bars won't be enough to make them feel remorse or regret. I don't think the death penality is the answer either, because even then, they may think it's no big thing.

Here's my thoughts on the issue of the death penalty, although I will admit I'm really, really bleeding heart on this issue. IMO, there are two types of murders: those committed in the heat of the moment, and those committed in cold blood. A sane person would only commit the former (and then only when driven temporarily insane with pain/anger/etc., as in the guy who comes home to see his wife getting it on with some other guy and shoots them). A crazy person could commit either. Overall, I think that the only way that a murder can be committed is when the person is at least partially out of their mind when it's done. A person who is one hundred percent sane understands the consequences of such an act and that it's unacceptable.

Therefore, anyone who kills someone else will either come to regret it, if given enough time, or they are crazy (lacking in a certain ability to empathize with others). Of course, the justice system defines "insanity" slightly differently than I do.

KSig RC · #12 03-02-2005, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sugar and spice
No, actually, I don't think that those kids SHOULD have gotten the death penalty. Why did they kill themselves after shooting up the school? Because they decided that death would be easier to take than the fallout of their actions if they remained alive. They knew that if they were allowed to live to 75, they'd spend a lot of that time regretting their actions and hating themselves and being miserable.

That's the problem with the death penalty -- most people would suffer infinitely more if they were allowed to live with what they've done than if they were put to death.

h-daddy, not a single bit of this is factual, buddy, and you know better . . .you can't back any of this up

sugar and spice · #13 03-02-2005, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KSig RC
h-daddy, not a single bit of this is factual, buddy, and you know better . . .you can't back any of this up

I don't think that's something that can be factually backed up. After all, we can't know how much somebody suffers after death.

But I've read enough accounts of people in prison who have killed themselves, people who have wanted to kill themselves after regretting what they'd done, and even those who wanted to kill themselves when they hadn't committed the crime they were in for, simply because life in prison was so miserable. When I was younger, I read a quote by some man who had killed someone and spent life in prison for it. He said that he wished he'd been given the death penalty because it would have been much easier than having to live with himself. I've seen that sentiment echoed enough times that I've come to believe that there are many who feel the same way as he does. Of course, I have no statistics to back that up, but I think you know how I feel about statistics.

At any rate, I think it stands to reason that, if you assume that prison is not that great, then life in prison + (if you believe in an afterlife) having to face God for your actions would be worse than a few years in prison + having to face God for your actions. And, well, if you don't believe in a God or an afterlife, then it seems pretty safe to say that the death penalty is the easy way out.

As for the Columbine suicides -- that has always been my take on why they killed themselves, although I'm open to other ideas. What would be yours?

IowaStatePhiPsi · #14 03-02-2005, 05:56 PM

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.

KSig RC · #15 03-02-2005, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sugar and spice
I don't think that's something that can be factually backed up. After all, we can't know how much somebody suffers after death. But I've read enough accounts of people in prison who have killed themselves, people who have wanted to kill themselves after regretting what they'd done, and even those who wanted to kill themselves when they hadn't committed the crime they were in for, simply because life in prison was so miserable. When I was younger, I read a quote by some man who had killed someone and spent life in prison for it. He said that he wished he'd been given the death penalty because it would have been much easier than having to live with himself. I've seen that sentiment echoed enough times that I've come to believe that there are many who feel the same way as he does. Of course, I have no statistics to back that up, but I think you know how I feel about statistics.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnecdotal!

Quote:

Originally posted by sugar and spice
At any rate, I think it stands to reason that, if you assume that prison is not that great, then life in prison + (if you believe in an afterlife) having to face God for your actions would be worse than a few years in prison + having to face God for your actions. And, well, if you don't believe in a God or an afterlife, then it seems pretty safe to say that the death penalty is the easy way out.

Not really, actually - it doesn't a.) stand to reason . . . you feel this way, it's not inductive logic by any stretch of hte imagination and b.) it's not necessarily correct to assume that prison is hellish. In some places, this is true - in many, it's not at all. While Oz is a powerful visual, it's far from a universal.

Quote:

Originally posted by sugar and spice
As for the Columbine suicides -- that has always been my take on why they killed themselves, although I'm open to other ideas. What would be yours?

Couldn't care less, the kids are nothing special from a psychological standpoint, they just chose to take it further than most.

If you want my opinion, which is only semi-informed, I'd say they killed themselves less out of fear of punishment than for the following 'benefits' to their plan:

-it increases the 'blaze of glory' effect
-it was a final 'punishment' as part of their rebellion (like, "no one cared about me, let's see how they feel when i'm gone" - there is strong support for this in other cases, so I'm very comfortable putting it forward)

If you want a better explanation, go ahead and IM me duder, I'll hit you up - I just don't see it as at all relevant to the conversation.