juveniles and the death penalty

But according to anarchist principle, a "justice system" built on punishment itself is the opposite of what "justice" is supposed to stand for. It is not the moral right of an established order to take authority into its own hands to exted the fist of punishment, especially death. But we as Americans don't live in a democracy. The saddest part is that many MANY Americans still believe that we do. They have their Blind Patriotic sticks shoved so far up their collective assholes that they can't possibly begin to see beyond the scope of their perpetual tunnel-eye-view.

You cannot simultaneously be pro-death penalty and pro-life. Rightwing thinkers have consistently taken this rather absurd stance, thus laying claim to their time-honored tradition of self-adulating hypocrisy. Yet they still have state-power on their side.

 

Glad to see that at least some of the people in this thread have a heart and a brain that function normally

 

So far, people have only discussed part of the question posed in the original post of this thread: whether executing juveniles is wrong. That's a public policy question that should be left to citizens to decide through the legislative process.

No one has addressed the second part of the question: whether executing juveniles is unconstitutional. The logical contortions employed by the Supreme Court majority to answer this question were patently absurd. It is inconceivable to me that the framers of our Constitution ever intended "cruel and unusual punishment" to be perpetually redefined by the policies of other nations, or even the laws of a slim majority of states, let alone the latest speculative trends in psychotherapuetic theories about the moral deliberations of adolescents.

 

HuckFinn.. so.. you're against the dealthpenalty (for minors)?

 

I don't really believe in the death penalty at all.

It really doesn't do anything, except maybe satisfy some biblical sort of sense of vengance. It doesn't save money and it doesn't prevent future crimes. Granted their ghost isn't going to kill anybody, but nobody else ius going to talk themselves out of a crime becsue they might be executed.

I don't really have any problem with the age thing... a 16 year old murderer might be different in the laws eyes, but not in mine... they knew what they were doing regardless of age. a 16 year old murderer is just as guilty as a 40 year old murderer.

My reason for being aginst the death penalty is the fact that a few people (most of them I've seen were black coincidentily) have been cleared from being lifers or being on death row because they were proven to be completly innocent by DNA findings... I think its better to just spare the whole lot of people on death row then to execute an innocent person.

 

I'm personally against the death penalty altogether, but it has no constitutional age limits. Such matters are clearly left to states to decide legislatively.

 

I think no one should face the death penality. Even if they did very discussing crimes .

 

I agree with you to a certain point: it's not so much age that matters as it is if they can be held responsible for their deeds. If a 5 year old child sneaks in it's dads car, turns the key and drives over the mailman.. can he be held responsible? Can a 40 year old person with down syndrom be held responsible in a similar case? You see, it's not about age, like you said.. so I agree. There is a side not though that usually children and even young adolescents can't be completely held responsible because their rational development hasn't been completed yet (I'm writing my final thesis on a subject similar to this, so I can give a whole rant about ages and levels of moral development blah, but I'll spare you ).. The whole problem is indeed trying to decide when to judge a person as an juvy and when as an adult. Usually it depends on each different case, but mostly below the age of 12 children can't be fully held responsible.. the period between 12 and 16/18 is shady and is reviewed individually.. whereas everything above 18 is automatically seen as 'adult'. In cases of mental handicaps a lawyer would have to make a case that the person is indeed incapable of not knowing what the consequences are.

Veyr long, very nuanced story and I haven't even started yet

So.. anyway.. I'm with you:

-totally against the death penalty (for many many reason, morally, empirically but mostly because a lot of pro-deo lawyers don't really seem to care if they win or loose.. there has even been a case of a pro-deo lawyer sleeping through the trial.. go figure).
-the boundaries between childhood and adulthood are not black/white and should be dealth with accordingle. No rigid rules but at most guidelines, so every state (and/or every case) can decide on it's own.

Just a question though HuckFinn.. I never quite understood how so many fanatical Christians in the states are so in favour of the deathpenalty.. do they believe that when you kill someone you loose your right to live? I know you are a Christian so I'm very happy to see you stand up against the deathpenalty.. but can you shed any light on the christian-pro deathpenalty views? I've always found that somewhat contradictionary..

 

Simple, jeffery, the reason I would be against capital punishment for a first offense is the reality of false convictions. Many innocent people would be dead becuz the courts were wrong, some have been framed...ie: The Hurricane...etc., others were just at the wrong place at the wrong time.
I would also offer this observation........you have way too much anger, imho, you should go for counselling, honestly, it helped me.......
And if that suggestion offends you, I am sorry, just ignore it then.

 

It does make sense that if you get a long sentence, get out again and kill again.. your second punishment should be harder. Or do you mean that if you kill two people at the same fight you should be punished harder as well? For now, I'll asume that you mean killing on two different occasions (since that would rule out 'moment of insanity'). I agree with you that a person like that would be dangerous to society and should be dealt with likewise. But.. if they are like that... are they 'evil' or 'sick'? Should we just get rid of them by killing them or lock them up and maybe study for prevention purposes?

I'm not opposed to punishment (although I'm very much in favour of punishment going hand in hand with therapy).. but I am still against just killing someone.. not matter how 'sick' or 'evil' someone is.. they can be usefull for society in my opinion.. plus the whole 'taking someones life' thing is for me not ok.. but I'm a veggie so I probably take that too far as it is

 

.
Well I am opposed to punishment, and prisons are more for the publics protection than for punishment. Crimes of passion would not warrant it, imho, only two 1st deg. murder convictions, whether they were done in a single day or 40 yrs. apart...

 

I'm confused.... opposed means 'to be against'.. right? Like being the opposition? (sorry.. english isn't my first language so..)

So.. you are against punishment.. of any form? Hm.. how would you deal with what we call 'criminals' then?

Have you by any chance read works of Foucault (birth of a prison for example)?

 

I just hope that someday, we will learn to live and coexist at such a level that prisons will become obsolete. I was taught that criminals are imprisoned mainly to keep them out of society for as long as possible, and that punishment is not the aim at all, neither is rehabilitation. So, i guess....until that day......I would say we work towards a system that actually heals these folks, and helps them get to a functioning level that allows them to be accepted members of society, living in peace, happy and productive.
My pro execution stance is cuz I see very little reason to be optimistic regarding multiple murder convicts ever rejoining society safely. So, it is to protect others, not to punish, or for revenge, just to protect the innocents.

 

Ahhh... ok.. I get it

Ehm.. yes.. agreed.. except for the execution thingie.. because like one of the previous posters said.. there is no 100% garuanty that there are no innocents on death row. Ofcourse, with the DNA techniques things will improve when it comes to convictions, but still.. a single hair can place someone on a crimescene.. I don't know about that. Plus how can you work to being a peacefull society that doesn't need any prisons while killing people like that? Hm.. I dunno. Note that I'm not talking about putting multiple murderers back into society.. overhere we have something called 'TBS'.. translates best as 'in the hands of the state' or something like that. Those are people that basically need a LOT of therapy.. you can get this for 1 year of for the rest of your life.. you stay in a facility that is a crossing between a prison and a psychiatric hospital. If done correctly, I think that's the best option out of all the bad ones.

Ah well.. very difficult subject eh? And there will always be cases where exeptions are in order..

 

I agree, it is a tough subject to take a stand on, and my hope would be that the future sees no more people becoming murderers. I appreciate your requests for clarification, they showed me that you have a genuine interest, and have given this some thought. Many others seem to misinterpret my position, whereas you very adeptly asked me to make my view more specific so you could comment from an informed perspective.

Thank you.

 

Ok before you jump out of your over-alls people I ask you to be a little open minded for a second. First off the issue about wrongfully accusing people, yes that sucks, and it does happen. These days are however limited, technology as we know is always getting better and with the advanced methods of Crime Scene Investigation and DNA testing this is something that soon will fade away. Secondly, I think there is something more worthwhile for criminal offenders of higher degrees I.E Rapists, molestors, murders. I suggest the re-emergence of a slave caste. Where after a worthwhile court hearing and (hoping DNA testing is 100% accurate in the next few years.) These criminals should no longer do time in a "prison" draining our tax dollars to keep them allive, and Intead of kill them maybe transform their psyche or at dead least get some use out of those motherf*CKers. After a trial you are sentenced to 30 years slavery. (Please dont be stupid and think I mean just African Americans or something ridiculous like that. I mean ALL offenders children included beginning at maybe the age of 15-16 if they committed murder or another of the BIG CRIMES. Have them do all the dirty work, something like the UNTOUCHABLES of India. Thus also decreasing the amount of illegal immigrants and such working for ridiculous wages putting hardworking americans on the street. I think it would boost the economy. As for how it would be setup leave that to a professional, and then if someone in their long endless days of physical labor they want to harm someone. THey should be publically executed. I think this would at least scare a normal human being into not MURDERING! Screw right and wrong I knew if you stabbed someone or shot someone they would die when I was at least 7 years old. ANd theres no coming back from death and I was afraid to commit such crimes and I learned the normal way. But for the adnormal slavery is all there worth. I dont even mean slavery the way African Americans were forced to do. THis is worse, Its living Hell, and you tell these people after there death this is where there soul will stay forever if you commit a crime again. If there still alive when there sentence runs out they could be set free to become a citizen again.

 

Ok before you jump out of your over-alls people I ask you to be a little open minded for a second. First off the issue about wrongfully accusing people, yes that sucks, and it does happen. These days are however limited, technology as we know is always getting better and with the advanced methods of Crime Scene Investigation and DNA testing this is something that soon will fade away. Secondly, I think there is something more worthwhile for criminal offenders of higher degrees I.E Rapists, molestors, murders. I suggest the re-emergence of a slave caste. Where after a worthwhile court hearing and (hoping DNA testing is 100% accurate in the next few years.) These criminals should no longer do time in a "prison" draining our tax dollars to keep them allive, and Intead of kill them maybe transform their psyche or at dead least get some use out of those motherf*CKers. After a trial you are sentenced to 30 years slavery. (Please dont be stupid and think I mean just African Americans or something ridiculous like that. I mean ALL offenders children included beginning at maybe the age of 15-16 if they committed murder or another of the BIG CRIMES. Have them do all the dirty work, something like the UNTOUCHABLES of India only instead of a birthright its a clause of freedom. Thus also decreasing the amount of illegal immigrants and such working for ridiculous wages putting hardworking americans on the street. I think it would boost the economy. As for how it would be setup leave that to a professional, and then if someone in their long endless days of physical labor they want to harm someone. THey should be publically executed. I think this would at least scare a normal human being into not MURDERING! Screw right and wrong I knew if you stabbed someone or shot someone they would die when I was at least 7 years old. ANd theres no coming back from death and I was afraid to commit such crimes and I learned the normal way. But for the adnormal slavery is all there worth. I dont even mean slavery the way African Americans were forced to do. THis is worse, Its living Hell, and you tell these people after there death this is where there soul will stay forever if you commit a crime again. If there still alive when there sentence runs out they could be set free to become a citizen again. Because I dont think people deserve to be killed, and prisons are a waste of time.

 

As I explained on a previous thread some time ago, I think that murderers do indeed forfeit their right to life, but I oppose capital punishment because the risk of error and/or abuse is unacceptable. If people could only be sentenced to death on the incontrovertible testimony of at least 2 eyewitnesses, as in the Bible, then I'd probably support the death penalty.

 

"I think if the crime fits the death penalty should be looked at. I don't care what any social worker says, people my age in their teens know just as much as a 30 year old that killing someone is wrong."

True, however I agree with Huck about the risk being too great (for wrongful conviction) I mean someone said something about DNA and all, but what if someone hires someone to kill someone? Would the person who's hands didn't get dirty walk away? Because that wouldn't be right.

On the other side, why is the death penalty the worst possible punishment? Isn't the death penalty relief from doing labor in prison the rest of your life? If you believe in some sort of heaven most criminals have time to make their peace with God/dess(s)..If you believe in reincarnation then they get a second shot right away....If you believe there's just nothing when you die, well isn't that still better than living in prison for the rest of your life?

 

Exactly thats why we make them slaves for hire. If they act up you shoot them on site. WTF I SHOULD BE KING.