Death penalty for minors? Yes or no?

[Libertine]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288512,00.html

My vote: yes.

[pussyserver - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Originally Posted by Libertine

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288512,00.html

My vote: yes.

death for minors..... I SAY NO way EVER!

if a child does not understand the magniyude of sex how could he / she understand the magniyude of a crime worthy of death??

[notabook]

I am against the death penalty period, so I'll have to go with no.

And what pussyserver just said I agree with 100%. If a minor cannot understand the implications of sex, however could they understand the implications of taking a life?

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by pussyserver

death for minors..... I SAY NO way EVER!

if a child does not understand the magniyude of sex how could he / she understand the magniyude of a crime worthy of death??

Someone who does something like this isn't a child. Someone who does something like this isn't even a human. Someone who does something like this is a piece of dangerous vermin that needs to be wiped from the face of the earth.

[J. Falcon]

I am not in favor of the death penalty, so executing a child sounds plain atrocious.

[Fap]

i dont believe in the death penalty period

[Bama]

Fry the fuckers!

That's the trouble with the human race (ok, only one of many) but we don't get rid of the bad seeds so society as a whole begins to rot.

Time to cull the herd!

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by notabook

I am against the death penalty period, so I'll have to go with no.

And what pussyserver just said I agree with 100%. If a minor cannot understand the implications of sex, however could they understand the implications of taking a life?

First off, I do not think minors (teens) are completely oblivious with regards to the implications of sex. Sure, they might be both foolish and selfish when it comes to sex, paying little attention to the possible dangers of it and caring little about the emotions of their partners, but I dare say that a vast majority comprehend enough of it to cope with it fairly well. Considering the fact that the average person loses his virginity at 16 without raping anyone, getting anyone or getting infected with an STD, this almost certainly has to be the case. In fact, when one looks at the average 15 year old, there appears to be very little difference with the average GFYer in attitudes toward sex.

But this isn't about sex. This is about cruelty. Pure, unadulterated, premeditated cruelty. Cruelty for the sake of cruelty. And I am convinced that these "kids" fully understand cruelty - if they did not, there would have been no reason for this act. It was, indeed, a truly masterful exhibit of cruelty, displaying the knowledge and ability to inflict the most amount of harm possible.

This, in my opinion, is far worse in terms of motivation than most murders. A kid who does not fully understand the implications of taking a life might murder out of greed, or anger. Only someone who was truly and utterly evil, however, would do this sort of harm purely for sheer enjoyment.

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by J. Falcon

I am not in favor of the death penalty, so executing a child sounds plain atrocious.

Read the article, and after that, consider whether or not you want to call the teens who did this "children".

[GhengisBong]

maybe, yes, and no.

[kane]

I am opposed to the death penalty but not for the normal reasons. I am opposed simply because it is actually cheaper to keep someone locked up for life than it is to execute them and people who are going to commit crimes that are punishable by death are not going to be deterred by a death penalty unless you shoot them on the spot and we kill 1000's of people of year in public executions, they will continue to do the crimes they do.

That said, when it comes to minors I think it depends on the age of the kid and what they did. the kids in the story linked in this thread obviously knew what they were doing is wrong. kinds know right from wrong. If a kid is 14 years old and is committing these types of crimes, really, honestly, what are they ever going to contribute to society? Sometimes people are defective and they are born broken and it doesn't matter if they are 14 or 44, they need to go away for good.

[D]

No way.

Killing people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong is inherently flawed.

Not to mention, a waste of a resource.

Somewhere along the line genetics or their parents or society went wrong.

If we don't learn from our mistakes, and do what we can to correct for them, we're doomed to relive them again and again.

[notabook]

Originally Posted by Libertine

First off, I do not think minors (teens) are completely oblivious with regards to the implications of sex. Sure, they might be both foolish and selfish when it comes to sex, paying little attention to the possible dangers of it and caring little about the emotions of their partners, but I dare say that a vast majority comprehend enough of it to cope with it fairly well. Considering the fact that the average person loses his virginity at 16 without raping anyone, getting anyone or getting infected with an STD, this almost certainly has to be the case. In fact, when one looks at the average 15 year old, there appears to be very little difference with the average GFYer in attitudes toward sex.

But this isn't about sex. This is about cruelty. Pure, unadulterated, premeditated cruelty. Cruelty for the sake of cruelty. And I am convinced that these "kids" fully understand cruelty - if they did not, there would have been no reason for this act. It was, indeed, a truly masterful exhibit of cruelty, displaying the knowledge and ability to inflict the most amount of harm possible.

This, in my opinion, is far worse in terms of motivation than most murders. A kid who does not fully understand the implications of taking a life might murder out of greed, or anger. Only someone who was truly and utterly evil, however, would do this sort of harm purely for sheer enjoyment.

They are not oblivious to the implications of sex - that's a "duh". However, the law currently states that they are (hence 16/17 years of age in most states/countries for consensual sex). One of the minors in the story was 14, who by law, cannot consensually consent to sex (meaning that he/she must be oblivious to the implications of sex). If that 14 year old cannot understand the implications of sex, then they surely cannot understand the concept of murder and should never, ever be subject to the death penalty – especially when no “death” has taken place. Punishments must fit the crime… the death penalty could not be applied unless they took a life.

The story is quite heinous, and yes in many ways it seems to be far worse than most murders. It was sadistic what they did, beyond sadistic really. Each of those people who contributed to the act… apparently 10 in total… each one was a Charles Manson in the making. Who knows if this was the first act of such utter depravity they have committed? These people who did this act though.. they were fucked up from the start, their brains were hardwired wrong from birth. It is my firm belief that you cannot learn to be a “Charles Manson”. You are born that way. You don’t learn to become a sadistic monster that forces the child of a mother to have sex with his mother.

Take these people and put them in prison for the rest of their days with no chance of parole. I get what you are saying in your post completely, I really do. But don’t kill them. By killing them, you become a little bit like them in the process (even in this case if nobody died, you get my point).

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by D

No way.

Killing people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong is inherently flawed.

Not to mention, a waste of a resource.

Somewhere along the line genetics or their parents or society went wrong.

If we don't learn from our mistakes, and do what we can to correct for them, we're doomed to relive them again and again.

First, this is not about killing people who kill people. The minors in question did not kill anyone. Read the article.

Second, of course it's a result of genes and environment. Genes and environment together produced a monstrous abomination, and the most prudent thing, now, would be to eradicate that abomination.

I am not talking about a "deserved punishment" here... a truly just punishment for things such as these would be far worse than death.

[Horny Dude]

In that case we kill them and then we kill their families for breeding.

[2012]

definitely not ...

train them for an hour or two on using an automatic weapon and send them to Iraq with the rest of the kids and older folks with low income that are dying in the name of freedom dust ...

[eroswebmaster]

I am against the death penalty across the board. Not because I don't believe certain people don't deserve it, but I don't trust the system to do an adequate enough job to protect innocent people from death.

[D]

Originally Posted by Libertine

First, this is not about killing people who kill people. The minors in question did not kill anyone. Read the article.

Second, of course it's a result of genes and environment. Genes and environment together produced a monstrous abomination, and the most prudent thing, now, would be to eradicate that abomination.

I am not talking about a "deserved punishment" here... a truly just punishment for things such as these would be far worse than death.

You're right in the murder thing. I'm sorry - I thought I caught the word "killed" as I scanned the second half of the article - not feeling up to reading the specifics after I felt I had already caught the gist in the first half.

That said, and article fully read, I'm still sticking to "no," as I would have even if they ended the incident by stomping her head flat.

Putting aside the ethical dilemma of murdering a moment, I think it's better to learn from something as much as possible and apply that knowledge rather than simply cut your losses, bury that something under a rug, and hope it never surfaces again - for, as it will surface again, we might as well do what we can to prepare ourselves for it.

You seem an educated individual. If you've yet to, take a moment to further educate yourself on dominant and recessive genes in alleles. Sometimes, the most horrific and crippling genetic traits can have recessive counterparts that not only provide a benefit to the individual, but potentially provide a wealth of knowledge for the science that unlocks the code. A classic example of this is with sickle-cell anemia. Only individuals with 2 sickle-cell genes suffer from the disease... but the same allele, in individuals with only one sickle cell gene, provides the individual with an immunity to malaria.

I'm sure this example is analogous throughout all of genetic science - and I feel we owe it to ourselves to learn what we can as the situations present themselves to us.

If we kill them - we learn nothing, and set ourselves up for failure tomorrow.

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by notabook

They are not oblivious to the implications of sex - that's a "duh". However, the law currently states that they are (hence 16/17 years of age in most states/countries for consensual sex). One of the minors in the story was 14, who by law, cannot consensually consent to sex (meaning that he/she must be oblivious to the implications of sex). If that 14 year old cannot understand the implications of sex, then they surely cannot understand the concept of murder and should never, ever be subject to the death penalty ? especially when no ?death? has taken place. Punishments must fit the crime? the death penalty could not be applied unless they took a life.

The story is quite heinous, and yes in many ways it seems to be far worse than most murders. It was sadistic what they did, beyond sadistic really. Each of those people who contributed to the act? apparently 10 in total? each one was a Charles Manson in the making. Who knows if this was the first act of such utter depravity they have committed? These people who did this act though.. they were fucked up from the start, their brains were hardwired wrong from birth. It is my firm belief that you cannot learn to be a ?Charles Manson?. You are born that way. You don?t learn to become a sadistic monster that forces the child of a mother to have sex with his mother.

Take these people and put them in prison for the rest of their days with no chance of parole. I get what you are saying in your post completely, I really do. But don?t kill them. By killing them, you become a little bit like them in the process (even in this case if nobody died, you get my point).

On your first paragraph, I have two things to say. First, I agree with you that the death penalty for minors has no place in a society which prohibits them from having sex. However, I think that the fault here is with the latter law. Considering the fact that roughly 50% of people have sex before reaching the age of 16, I believe that that is clearly the wrong age limit to use. Age of consent laws (on subjects such as sex and alcohol) often reflect the unwillingness of parents to have their children do what they themselves did when they were the same age.
With regards to the second point you make in your first paragraph, that the punishment must fit the crime, I disagree. One who takes a life in justified anger, in my view, undoubtedly deserves a different punishment than one who takes a life out of greed, or one who takes a life motivated by pleasure.

I agree with you that there is a big chance that the tendency to commit such acts is likely to be determined in large part by genes. However, even if it were not, it would not make much of a difference - one does not choose ones initial environment, and thus ones personality, which is determined by genes and environment, is something one can not choose. Since this personality is what shapes later choices, which in turn further shape ones personality, it is impossible to speak of a truly "free" decision to become what one is.

Therefore, when I refer to these people as "evil", I do not intend to say that they are people who knowingly and willingly choose to perform evil actions. Rather, I mean to say that they are, indeed, a physical embodiment of evil. This is not their fault, and therefore they should not be punished by inflicting upon them the same kind of suffering that they inflicted upon others. Rather, they should be removed entirely. Quickly and painlessly, not as a punishment, but as the act which can remove their presence from humanity in the gentlest and most efficient way.

That is also why I do not agree with your statement that one would become more like them by executing them. Certainly, following ones initial moral outrage here - by having them brutally raped and slaughtered in the most painful way possible - would achieve that. That, however, is not what I am in favor of. I merely believe their miserable lives should be ended in the same way one would end the life of a rabid dog - not for the sake of revenge, but to remove them from this world.

(please note, practically speaking, I agree with you in that prison sentences are probably the best option - if only because no court will ever be able to fully determine guilt)

[picaso]

no death penalty

[DatingGold]

negative

[GreyWolf]

No way should any kid on this planet have a death penalty tied to their crime. This attitude is totally backward, does nothing to give closure to any victim and the death penalty never was a deterrant.

Kids have murdered, and each case is totally different. Some are "errors" which were never intended, others deliberately killed their parents etc and they were executed when of legal age (sick idea).

Generally, you get the children you deserve. They were never born criminals and their conduct is usually a reflection of the society they live in. A society that plays Judas and tries to wipe their problems under the carpet by the death penality is taking the easy way out and ignoring the core problem.

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by D

You're right in the murder thing. I'm sorry - I thought I caught the word "killed" as I scanned the second half of the article - not feeling up to reading the specifics after I felt I had already caught the gist in the first half.

That said, and article fully read, I'm still sticking to "no," as I would have even if they ended the incident by stomping her head flat.

Putting aside the ethical dilemma of murdering a moment, I think it's better to learn from something as much as possible and apply that knowledge rather than simply cut your losses, bury that something under a rug, and hope it never surfaces again - for, as it will surface again, we might as well do what we can to prepare ourselves for it.

You seem an educated individual. If you've yet to, take a moment to further educate yourself on dominant and recessive genes in alleles. Sometimes, the most horrific and crippling genetic traits can have recessive counterparts that not only provide a benefit to the individual, but potentially provide a wealth of knowledge for the science that unlocks the code. A classic example of this is with sickle-cell anemia. Only individuals with 2 sickle-cell genes suffer from the disease... but the same allele, in individuals with only one sickle cell gene, provides the individual with an immunity to malaria.

I'm sure this example is analogous throughout all of genetic science - and I feel we owe it to ourselves to learn what we can as the situations present themselves to us.

If we kill them - we learn nothing, and set ourselves up for failure tomorrow.

I know about genetics (and honestly, I think that the genetic aspects of behaviour are rather more complicated than dominant and recessive genes - it seems more likely to me that the meta-structures of DNA play a large role here, coupled with their almost infinitely complicated interplay with environment), but I would be opposed to making them mere objects for study since, in my view, that would be cruel and inhumane.

If one does not assume the existence of a soul or afterlife, death is a rather meaningless nothingness, which apart from our fear of it - and that ends when death comes anyway - would seem far preferable to a pained life as a guinea pig without any future prospects.

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by GreyWolf

No way should any kid on this planet have a death penalty tied to their crime. This attitude is totally backward, does nothing to give closure to any victim and the death penalty never was a deterrant.

Kids have murdered, and each case is totally different. Some are "errors" which were never intended, others deliberately killed their parents etc and they were executed when of legal age (sick idea).

Generally, you get the children you deserve. They were never born criminals and their conduct is usually a reflection of the society they live in. A society that plays Judas and tries to wipe their problems under the carpet by the death penality is taking the easy way out and ignoring the core problem.

First, I am not talking about each case. I am specifically talking about cases like the one described in the article, which consist of cruelty for cruelty's sake.

Second, while I do believe that behaviour is in large part an effect of the state of society, I do not believe that this somehow implies that society or the individuals it is composed of "deserve" anything, since that would imply the existence of some higher authority determining what exactly one "deserves" for specific actions. Whether or not they were born criminals is not important, what is important is what they are now: monsters. I agree with you though that wiping such problems under the carpet would not suffice - much better to bury them under 6 feet of solid earth.

Just out of curiosity... what exactly do you believe the "core problem" you mentioned is?

[Mr Pheer]

In this case I would say no since they didnt murder the victims. But thier punishment should be severe, as in a grueling torture in public. Sadly, the pussies that run our country and the pussies that vote them in wont go for it.

If they had murdered the vicims, I would say execute them by whatever means produces the most painful and slow death, in public. But once again, the pussies in control wont do it.

If you start making painful examples out of the people that cause harm to other people, you'll but a major deterrent on violent crime.

Those of you against this kind of shit have obviously never felt the anger that comes when someone you love is harmed by one these animals.

Anybody remember the american kid that vandalized someone's car in China, and they beat his ass with a cane on public square? Thats the kind of shit that needs to happen here.

[D]

Originally Posted by Libertine

I know about genetics (and honestly, I think that the genetic aspects of behaviour are rather more complicated than dominant and recessive genes - it seems more likely to me that the meta-structures of DNA play a large role here, coupled with their almost infinitely complicated interplay with environment), but I would be opposed to making them mere objects for study since, in my view, that would be cruel and inhumane.

If one does not assume the existence of a soul or afterlife, death is a rather meaningless nothingness, which apart from our fear of it - and that ends when death comes anyway - would seem far preferable to a pained life as a guinea pig without any future prospects.

I wasn't saying alleles were the answer... my point was that the "example [of dominant and recessives] is analogous throughout all of genetic science"... as well as in anything, I gather... for every yin, there's a yang. For every action, an opposite and equal reaction. If we're to figure it out, we gotta start somewhere.

And why are your future prospects gone if studied? Many people have accomplished a great many things from behind bars.

I think committing yourself to a period of incarceration where you suffer steady observation coupled with an occasional pin prick and where you may have to, infrequently, answer a battery of test questions is a lot more humane and sensible of a situation than having your life ended...

But hey, maybe that's just me.

Not everyone has as calm and collected an approach to the idea of death as your argument presents... in fact, I don't think it's going too far our on a limb to say that few actually do.

And that's just from the prisoner's perspective. From society's perspective, there's much to be gained from study, and the best thing that we may arguably gain from capitol punishment - deterrence - isn't even an issue with minors. Everyone thinks they're immortal until about 25.

So, no... I really don't think we should kill them just for some misplaced sense of revenge contorted into justice.

[fluffygrrl]

One will indubitably be charged as adults, being over 16 and with all the aggravating circumstances (premeditated/lieing in wait, group, etc).

In which case he may actually get a death sentence.

The other's pretty much free, I don't see it sticking to him, especially as he seems to be the more helpfull to police. He'll just spend 4 years in juvenile. Odd, huh.

[GreyWolf]

Originally Posted by Libertine

First, I am not talking about each case. I am specifically talking about cases like the one described in the article, which consist of cruelty for cruelty's sake.

Second, while I do believe that behaviour is in large part an effect of the state of society, I do not believe that this somehow implies that society or the individuals it is composed of "deserve" anything, since that would imply the existence of some higher authority determining what exactly one "deserves" for specific actions. Whether or not they were born criminals is not important, what is important is what they are now: monsters. I agree with you though that wiping such problems under the carpet would not suffice - much better to bury them under 6 feet of solid earth.

Just out of curiosity... what exactly do you believe the "core problem" you mentioned is?

Hear ya! For kids committing cruel acts, just my , but can't see that falling into a death penalty situation. Tho agree there is a tendency to extract revenge even if their asses get kicked till they bleed *lol*

If you take examples of... probably more laid back and less "intense" societies, - it is very rare to have children behaving like that. (But agree - it can and does happen).

UK had an extreme case where an infant was stolen from it's mother and a couple of young boys around eight then totured that baby and left him on a rail track to be mangled. It's a totally unexplainable crime and both boys were held in care for years - and subsequently had legal reviews (by a judge experienced with kids) who eventually took the recommendations from professionals that they be released when in their mid/late teens. They were released and now live in other countries - specific locations unknown.

Other examples are where the death penalty used to apply to kids in the US - a few murdered their parents. Just thinking of three between 9 and 13 - they were all convicted and eventually executed when of legal age. The irony was they were all severely abused by at least one parent and sometimes two (assortments of physical and sexual abuse) and they just blew - one threw gas over his parents in bed and threw a match.

Hard to pin down the "core problem" - that may differ with each person, but generally abuse of kids can cause them to become involved in further abuse of others. Kids learn from their parents and others - there can be a range of external factors which may also play a role. A quick check of a sample 100 people in custody for serious physical offenses will show a high percentage who were the victims of some form of abuse in earlier life. It's a vicious circle and these people often think they have the "right" to do to others what was done to them.

[Libertine]

Bah. I'm arguing a point I don't even support myself.

Although I suppose I would rather enjoy seeing the guys who did this get boiled in oil, I am against the death penalty. It does not deter crime, and it reflects badly upon any society that performs it, since it represents the rather uncivilized idea that institutionalized murder is somehow an intrinsic right of the state. In reality, no state should either have or want the right to kill unwanted elements when they pose no immediate danger to others and there exists an alternative. Protecting society from people guilty of such atrocities, however, can be achieved by locking them up.

I suppose I would prefer a world in which the sort of people who perform actions such as this would simply not exist, but sadly, simply murdering them would not remove the impact of their actions on society. A shame, really.

[D]

Originally Posted by Libertine

Bah. I'm arguing a point I don't even support myself.

Although I suppose I would rather enjoy seeing the guys who did this get boiled in oil, I am against the death penalty. It does not deter crime, and it reflects badly upon any society that performs it, since it represents the rather uncivilized idea that institutionalized murder is somehow an intrinsic right of the state. In reality, no state should either have or want the right to kill unwanted elements when they pose no immediate danger to others and there exists an alternative. Protecting society from people guilty of such atrocities, however, can be achieved by locking them up.

I suppose I would prefer a world in which the sort of people who perform actions such as this would simply not exist, but sadly, simply murdering them would not remove the impact of their actions on society. A shame, really.

It's easy to get caught up in the emotion tied with shit like this.

As I'm sure with most here, I know there's a part of me that wishes I was at the scene of this crime with a shotgun and a chainsaw and a small armed force - to do what I can to save that woman and her son from such a travesty.

But once it's done, it's done - once they're caught, it's over - and letting emotion into the equation at that point only clouds matters, I think. IMHO, you do what you can to pick up the pieces, and move on - doing what you can to prevent it in the future, and hopefully learning something along the way.

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by D

I wasn't saying alleles were the answer... my point was that the "example [of dominant and recessives] is analogous throughout all of genetic science"... as well as in anything, I gather... for every yin, there's a yang. For every action, an opposite and equal reaction. If we're to figure it out, we gotta start somewhere.

And why are your future prospects gone if studied? Many people have accomplished a great many things from behind bars.

I think committing yourself to a period of incarceration where you suffer steady observation coupled with an occasional pin prick and where you may have to, infrequently, answer a battery of test questions is a lot more humane and sensible of a situation than having your life ended...

But hey, maybe that's just me.

Not everyone has as calm and collected an approach to the idea of death as your argument presents... in fact, I don't think it's going too far our on a limb to say that few actually do.

And that's just from the prisoner's perspective. From society's perspective, there's much to be gained from study, and the best thing that we may arguably gain from capitol punishment - deterrence - isn't even an issue with minors. Everyone thinks they're immortal until about 25.

So, no... I really don't think we should kill them just for some misplaced sense of revenge contorted into justice.

A fitting punishment, I believe, would involve life in prison without any chance of parole. Coupled with frequent testing, it would reduce them to guinea pigs, in the sense that the entire purpose of their life would be the furtherment of science. Some people have achieved great things while in prison, just like some have achieved great things while waiting for execution (eg Boethius), but for the vast majority it is an existence without prospects or sense. The only reasons one would choose to stay alive in such circumstances would be a fear of death and a tiny shred of hope of one day being set free.

I do not believe that many people view the prospect of death with calmness, but I do suppose that all find the state of being dead quite calm indeed.

Although, as I said in my previous post, I do not actually support the point I was defending, my argument for the death penalty was not based on a desire for revenge (although, I suppose, the emotions behind the argument were, at least in part). Rather, it was based on a rather vague wish for a symbolic cleansing of sorts, the act of their execution serving to remove the stain they form on humanity in the most radical way possible. It was, in a way, not so much a desire for the event of their death, as it was a desire for them simply not existing.

Irrational, I know.

[madawgz]

wow thats one fucked up news story

and no, i dont think there should be any death penalty

when someone dies they are free, why would you want to set criminals free???

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by D

It's easy to get caught up in the emotion tied with shit like this.

As I'm sure with most here, I know there's a part of me that wishes I was at the scene of this crime with a shotgun and a chainsaw and a small armed force - to do what I can to save that woman and her son from such a travesty.

But once it's done, it's done - once they're caught, it's over - and letting emotion into the equation at that point only clouds matters, I think. IMHO, you do what you can to pick up the pieces, and move on - doing what you can to prevent it in the future, and hopefully learning something along the way.

To be honest, I do not believe anything can be done to prevent this sort of thing. It is the side of humanity that disgusts me most - its propensity towards unthinkable, senseless cruelty.

In truth, what scares me most are not the ones in the group who initiated this thing - undoubtedly severely warped sociopaths - but the ones who followed them, the ones who saw the wrongness of their actions, yet still took part in what happened. They are similar to the death camp guards in nazi Germany, or the people who slaughtered their neighbours in Rwanda - the masses whose moral intuitions will never be enough to persuade them to take action against obvious brutality, cruelty and injustice.

[Emil]

No. But sometimes it would be good...

[GigoloMason]

Death penalty - appeal system = pwned!

[divine116]

Originally Posted by Libertine

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288512,00.html

My vote: yes.

of course not!

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by Libertine

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288512,00.html

My vote: yes.

In the USA? Then yes, they gonna have a death penalty for everything that can walk

[BoyAlley]

[SexualDragon]

If they are like Manson and will never learn or be rehabilitated..I would say yes.

[teg0]

Thats a fucked up crime, but no on death penalty. Thats the easy way out. Let them sit in jail for a good 60 - 70 years or until they die.

[KILL_FRENZY]

Originally Posted by pussyserver

death for minors..... I SAY NO way EVER!

if a child does not understand the magniyude of sex how could he / she understand the magniyude of a crime worthy of death??

Your right

[yahoo-xxx-girls.com]

If your using fixed news as your source then perhaps you could find a better news service as to influence you into action.

If you believe fixed news you deserve what you get !

.

[sniperwolf]

NEVER! I'm against death penalty. why do you need to impose death penalty when in fact just bringing these criminals behind bars is considered punishment!
They are still humans! They might be evil outside bars due to some reason we cannot afford to understand but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to live and repent their sins. Maybe after realization they can change their traits, their views - their life! He may deserve to be in prison but no one can ever say that "he's a criminal, he should die!" coz if that's the case many have died allover the world.

[CDSmith]

I think one thing we can all agree on is that the purishments for young offenders in both Canada and the US need to be toughened up considerably.

The young offenders act in Canada is a JOKE as far as I'm concerned.

Kids can get away with murder simply because they are kids. No way in hell that is right. And yes, in some extreme cases involving premeditated brutal murder where the evidence is clearcut I am in support of ridding the world of the purpetrator permanently.

And to all of you saying arbitrarily that you are flat-out AGAINST the death penalty, God forbid it ever happens to you but something in your attitude will change if some sick punk or a group of punks ever assault, rape and kill your daughter, your wife or your girlfriend etc. When that happens those who were close to the victim almost always prefer to have those who did that to their loved one pay dearly for what they did... as in with their life.

In otherr words it's real easy to spout off about being against it when it hasn't happened to you and affected your life.

[eroswebmaster]

Originally Posted by CDSmith

In otherr words it's real easy to spout off about being against it when it hasn't happened to you and affected your life.

When it comes to doling out the ultimate punishment, something that can't be reversible, emotion should not come into play.

I have never said that if someone harmed my family that I wouldn't personally take care of them myself. But the simple fact is, we are imperfect human beings, capable of making mistakes, which we do all the time.

There are far too many cases that occurred in the past, and occur to this day where the investigators have allowed their emotions to take control and they prosecute the wrong person.

So, the reason I am flat out against the death penalty, is not because I don't think certain people deserve to die, but because I don't believe we have the right to make that choice based upon what could be very limited information compiled by people with a motive.

[eroswebmaster]

Here's just some basic info about the death penalty:

Larry Marshall, a professor at Northwestern University School of Law and the Director of The Center on Wrongful Convictions, believes 5 to 10% of the prisoners on death row may be innocent.

DNA Testing
Currently, only Illinois and New York give death row inmates the right to DNA testing.
Larry Marshall proposes The Innocence Protection Act of 2000, which would make DNA testing available throughout the country, for any inmate on death row. This Act is now under consideration in the U.S. Congress.

Racial Bias
A Chicago Tribune investigation reports that in Illinois at least 35 black prisoners on death row were convicted or condemned by an all-white jury.

Legal Incompetence
That same investigation reports that at least 33 Illinois death row inmates were represented by attorneys who were later disbarred or suspended.
According to the investigation, in at least 46 death penalty cases, the prosecution's evidence included testimony that was taken from jailhouse informants?a notoriously unreliable source.
Marshall suggests looking at the lessons learned from these cases. He points out a large percentage of eyewitness identifications are erroneous, and most often times jailhouse informants are unreliable. The death penalty should not be considered when this kind of evidence is involved.
Finally, Larry Marshall says we need to rethink the death penalty. He asks, "Is the risk of putting innocent people to death really worth it?"

Judge Kogan Justice Gerald Kogan, a former Florida State Supreme Court Justice, has worked on more than 1,200 death penalty cases, as a judge, a prosecutor, and a defense attorney. During his years on the Supreme Court, 28 executions were carried out. He says he has "grave doubts" about 3 of those cases. After 40 years of experience, he believes innocent people are convicted every day.

Changes Being Made
Since the death penalty was reinstated in Illinois in 1977, 12 men have been executed. During that same period, 13 innocent men were freed from death row. That news prompted Republican Governor George Ryan to announce a moratorium on executions in his state. In January 2000, Governor Ryan stated, "Until I can be sure to say with moral certainty that no innocent man or woman is facing a lethal injection, no one will meet that fate."

Source: http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/...000928_e.jhtml

[CDSmith]

As I said, it has to be one of those rare clearcut cases... ones where the person IS a known killer, a sick animal, and it's time to rid the world of him.

Like this Picton guy in BC, Canada for example.

The Jeffrey Dahmers of the world.

Cases where the combined evidence leaves no doubt as to who did it, and what they did.

Etc.

Originally Posted by eroswebmaster

I have never said that if someone harmed my family that I wouldn't personally take care of them myself.

So you're in favor of vigilantism but not the death penalty?

Interesting.

[eroswebmaster]

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Etc.
So you're in favor of vigilantism but not the death penalty?

Interesting.

No, you attempted to make a point about how those of use who have never experienced such a tragic thing as having a family member murdered or raped would have a sudden attitude change about the death penalty.

If I were to advocate vigilantism, I would advocate it in all cases. I was only talking about how I may be affected by my own personal tragedy. And even then, I may be wrong, because I would be acting on emotion, and nothing else.

[CDSmith]

Originally Posted by eroswebmaster

Changes Being Made
Since the death penalty was reinstated in Illinois in 1977, 12 men have been executed. During that same period, 13 innocent men were freed from death row. That news prompted Republican Governor George Ryan to announce a moratorium on executions in his state. In January 2000, Governor Ryan stated, "Until I can be sure to say with moral certainty that no innocent man or woman is facing a lethal injection, no one will meet that fate."

Source: http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/...000928_e.jhtml

Proves my point profusely. Now more than ever people can feel more secure about supporting the death penalty. Current technology isn't just for solving death row cases and freeing innocent men, it's also good for nailing those NEW criminals in whose cases there would otherwise have been doubt as to their guilt or innocence.


I'm just not in support of having massive prisons packed full of twisted assholes, all of whom can at some point in the future have the opportunity to make parole and go out and kill again.

[eroswebmaster]

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Proves my point profusely.

No where near proves your point.

Why? Because everyone thinks that there's always this huge amount of scientific evidence that makes the case a slam dunk, when in fact a large amount of cases are built on "circumstantial" evidence.

What is circumstantial evidence:

Indirect evidence that implies something occurred but doesn't directly prove it; proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact; proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating that the person is either guilty or not guilty.

E.g., If a man accused of embezzling money from his company had made several big-ticket purchases in cash around the time of the alleged embezzlement, that would be circumstantial evidence that he had stolen the money. The law makes no distinction between the weight given to either direct or circumstantial evidence.

Then there is eyewitness testimony *which has proved to be unreliable. ( http://www.truthinjustice.org/lawstory.htm )

Not to mention, you are asking some of the most retarded people on this planet to make decisions about the life of another individual.

Look at the Simpson trial, with all the DNA evidence they had, and the guy is running free...there is an old joke that goes something like this...

I don't want to be convicted by a group of people who weren't smart enough to figure out how to get out of jury duty.