NationStates Jolt Archive

To all those under 18: I now understand that, since you are incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong, and of making rational decisions, and of any emotional control, I now forgive and forget anything you may have said in a rash moment here on this forum. Your widdle heads are just too immature to understand.

SCOTUS, logic, oxymoron. Even the expert testimony showed that the arbitrary age of 18 is just that - arbitrary, in determining the maturity of a criminal offender.

And using the public consensus as a guideline as to how to make judgements? Where is THAT in the Constitution? When we get 30 states out of 50 that pass laws outlawing gay marriage, will the court then decide that gay marriage should be outlawed as a matter of federal law, because of "consensus"? Consensus is for legislation, not adjudicating!

And since when does international law play a role in US criminal law?

Under 18's, do you feel your intelligence is being insulted here?

Rant, rant, etc....

Selgin

I remember when we used to kill all those under the age of 18 damn liberals. :mp5: :confused:

Selgin

I remember when we used to kill all those under the age of 18 damn liberals. :mp5: :confused:

Not sure I understand what you are saying ... :confused:

Wow, condescend much?

Not sure I understand what you are saying ... :confused:
Its okay. Neither do I.

Wow, condescend much?
No, just bringing SCOTUS decision on under 18 death penalty to its logical conclusion, based on the arguements made.

four days, baby

four fucking days

I'm sure there are many under-18s who will take offence to this post because of the fact that they are not as immature as you make them out to be.

No, just bringing SCOTUS decision on under 18 death penalty to its logical conclusion, based on the arguements made.
So, thats a yes?

I'm sure there are many under-18s who will take offence to this post because of the fact that they are not as immature as you make them out to be.
You misunderstand the thread's point. I was being sarcastic. I do not believe that most under-18's have heads full of mush. However, SCOTUS decision that they cannot be executed, partially based on the evidence presented that they are not fully mature, seems to believe just that.

So, thats a yes?
Condescending to SCOTUS, not under-18's.

You misunderstand the thread's point. I was being sarcastic. I do not believe that most under-18's have heads full of mush. However, SCOTUS decision that they cannot be executed, partially based on the evidence presented that they are not fully mature, seems to believe just that.
If you don't have full rights under the law, how can you be expected to bear its full penalties?

You misunderstand the thread's point. I was being sarcastic. I do not believe that most under-18's have heads full of mush. However, SCOTUS decision that they cannot be executed, partially based on the evidence presented that they are not fully mature, seems to believe just that.
So you're suggesting that we first test any murderer under the age of 18 and then execute them if they're "mature enough???"

If you don't have full rights under the law, how can you be expected to bear its full penalties?
You have the full right under the law at any age to not be murdered. By anyone.

You have the full right under the law at any age to not be murdered. By anyone.
True, buts that irrelavant to this argument.

So you're suggesting that we first test any murderer under the age of 18 and then execute them if they're "mature enough???"
I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I'm simply pointing out the logical fallacies in SCOTUS decision. Why 18? Why not 19? There's some evidence, according to one of the people who filed a friend of the court brief, that the brain isn't fully developed until the early 20's. Let's let them off, too.

As far as testing any murdered, isn't that what's done already? At least in cases I've heard about, anyone under the age of 18, to get tried as an adult, must get certified as an adult by the court.

feel my inteligence being insulted? damn right

True, buts that irrelavant to this argument.
As relevant as your statement.

As relevant as your statement.
I was pointing out a logical fallacy in your argument, I think thats pretty relavant. Its a red herring, as it has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

Anyway, you feel that despite the fact that people under 18 are not given full rights under the law, they should still bear penalties as harsh as those who do have those rights? And why not 19 or 20? Because an age has to be set. It is an arbitrary number, but thats what the law does. Why aren't you allowed to drive until 16? I'm sure some could do fine before that, and others shouldn't drive until 18. The law has to set an arbitrary age restriction. The same thing goes with drining, smoking, and age of consent laws. Thats the way it works.

I was pointing out a logical fallacy in your argument, I think thats pretty relavant. Its a red herring, as it has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

Anyway, you feel that despite the fact that people under 18 are not given full rights under the law, they should still bear penalties as harsh as those who do have those rights? And why not 19 or 20? Because an age has to be set. It is an arbitrary number, but thats what the law does. Why aren't you allowed to drive until 16? I'm sure some could do fine before that, and others shouldn't drive until 18. The law has to set an arbitrary age restriction. The same thing goes with drining, smoking, and age of consent laws. Thats the way it works.
If someone is "mature" enough to commit murder, they are mature enough to suffer the consequences.
And no, an age does not have to be set. The states have dealt with that issue just fine. Minors who get the death penalty must first be certified as an adult, at least in the cases I've heard about - I'm sure it varies from state to state. This has always been a matter for the states to decide.
The states decide on legal driving age, legal drinking age, etc.

I also found very interesting that the case that was decided in SCOTUS today concerned a 17-year old who bragged about how he could murder someone and then avoid the death penalty because he was a juvenile. Looks like he was right.

Murderer (http://www.missourinet.com/CapitalPunishment/Case_notes/simmons_christ.htm)

If someone is "mature" enough to commit murder, they are mature enough to suffer the consequences.
And no, an age does not have to be set. The states have dealt with that issue just fine. Minors who get the death penalty must first be certified as an adult, at least in the cases I've heard about - I'm sure it varies from state to state. This has always been a matter for the states to decide.
The states decide on legal driving age, legal drinking age, etc.
"Mature" enough to commit a murder? Killing someone doesn't require maturity. The minimum requirements are pretty much just a 9mm and being pissed off. An 8 yr old could kill someone, that doesn't somehow make them mature.

As far as the age not having to be set. Well guess what, it is and thats well within the court's power to do so.. Unless you're planning on turining this into a States rights thread I suggest you realize this.

Also as for your edit: Yes, yes he is. But I still don't see that being very relavant.

"Mature" enough to commit a murder? Killing someone doesn't require maturity. The minimum requirements are pretty much just a 9mm and being pissed off. An 8 yr old could kill someone, that doesn't somehow make them mature.

As far as the age not having to be set. Well guess what, it is and thats well within the court's power to do so.. Unless you're planning on turining this into a States rights thread I suggest you realize this.

The issue should be if the offender is mature enough to recognize the ethics and consequences involved in his actions. They already do this for adults with insanity pleas. Deciding to try the kid as an adult is essentially the same thing. Most people gain the maturity to make moral decisions around age 12 or so. It shoule be left up to the individual court to judge on a case by case basis if the kid is mature enough to stand trial as an adult. If so, then all the consequence of such should follow.

"Mature" enough to commit a murder? Killing someone doesn't require maturity. The minimum requirements are pretty much just a 9mm and being pissed off. An 8 yr old could kill someone, that doesn't somehow make them mature.

As far as the age not having to be set. Well guess what, it is and thats well within the court's power to do so.. Unless you're planning on turining this into a States rights thread I suggest you realize this.

Also as for your edit: Yes, yes he is. But I still don't see that being very relavant.
The main issue with SCOTUS is that they took the authority away from the states to determine what they thought was appropriate for crimes committed. No, it is not within the court's right to do so - the court interprets, it cannot legislate. By setting an age, it has effectively legislated the death penalty statutes in all 50 states.
As far as being "mature" enough to commit murder, true, it doesn't take much maturity. But the link I attached showed that the murderer was very much aware of what he was doing, and did not have a mind full of mush. It goes to show that an arbitrary age is not flexible enough. That's why the states have handled it up to this point.

The issue should be if the offender is mature enough to recognize the ethics and consequences involved in his actions. They already do this for adults with insanity pleas. Deciding to try the kid as an adult is essentially the same thing. Most people gain the maturity to make moral decisions around age 12 or so. It shoule be left up to the individual court to judge on a case by case basis if the kid is mature enough to stand trial as an adult. If so, then all the consequence of such should follow.
My thoughts exactly. Which is the way it worked up until today.

The main issue with SCOTUS is that they took the authority away from the states to determine what they thought was appropriate for crimes committed. No, it is not within the court's right to do so - the court interprets, it cannot legislate. By setting an age, it has effectively legislated the death penalty statutes in all 50 states.
As far as being "mature" enough to commit murder, true, it doesn't take much maturity. But the link I attached showed that the murderer was very much aware of what he was doing, and did not have a mind full of mush. It goes to show that an arbitrary age is not flexible enough. That's why the states have handled it up to this point.
Again, what you're saying is just going to turn this into a states right argument. The court interpreted the law to mean that no one under 18 can be executed. That is within its power, it happens all the time.

Again, what you're saying is just going to turn this into a states right argument. The court interpreted the law to mean that no one under 18 can be executed. That is within its power, it happens all the time.
It must be right because the court says it is right? Their ruling just makes it a legal precedent. That does not mean the ruling was wise or right. It means that 9 justices made a call, that I consider to be a bad one. You obviously disagree, but you'll need to do better than say "Well, that's what they decided".
Not sure what you mean by "turning it into a states rights arguement", since, inevitably, just about every SCOTUS decision involves state vs federal jurisdiction. Or are you just trying to dodge that issue?

Flying Dogstar: Official Warning - Flaming, flamebaiting, and spamming. I also note that you're a UN multi. Any further violations of NationStates rules will result in your deletion and the deletion of you main nation.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

...

Getting back on-topic:

I have to agree with Selgin: The age cutoff seems very arbitrary and I don't think that someone who has committed a crime should be spared the death penalty merely on account of their age.

I am opposed to the death penalty in general because of the risk of accidentally executing an innocent person. So, while I think SCOTUS made the right decision, I think it was for the wrong reasons.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

Flying Dogstar: Official Warning - Flaming, flamebaiting, and spamming. I also note that you're a UN multi. Any further violations of NationStates rules will result in your deletion and the deletion of you main nation.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

...

Getting back on-topic:

I have to agree with Selgin: The age cutoff seems very arbitrary and I don't think that someone who has committed a crime should be spared the death penalty merely on account of their age.

I am opposed to the death penalty in general because of the risk of accidentally executing an innocent person. So, while I think SCOTUS made the right decision, I think it was for the wrong reasons.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia
Thank you, Cogitation. I was going to report him, but thought it best to just ignore him.
And a well-thought out arguement. I used to believe as you do, for the same reason. However, since I've had kids, and had the unfortunate opportunity to witness real evil in this world, I think the death penalty needs to be an option.

Thank you, Cogitation. I was going to report him, but thought it best to just ignore him.
And a well-thought out arguement. I used to believe as you do, for the same reason. However, since I've had kids, and had the unfortunate opportunity to witness real evil in this world, I think the death penalty needs to be an option.

I feel that the death penalty cannot be introduced unless you have a perfect judicial system.

Mistakes are made, when you're playing with a person's life can you really afford that?

I also found very interesting that the case that was decided in SCOTUS today concerned a 17-year old who bragged about how he could murder someone and then avoid the death penalty because he was a juvenile. Looks like he was right.

Murderer (http://www.missourinet.com/CapitalPunishment/Case_notes/simmons_christ.htm)

actually, he thought he could "get away with it" because he was a juvenile. that's rather different. and it serves rather nicely as another example of the well known fact that young people make dumb decisions for dumb reasons - which we know has to do with brain development.

I feel that the death penalty cannot be introduced unless you have a perfect judicial system.

Mistakes are made, when you're playing with a person's life can you really afford that?
I feel the death penalty is needed BECAUSE we have an imperfect justice, and penal, system. Think about it. We put some low-life murderer away for life. One of several things could happen:

1. He lives out his life in jail uneventfully.
2. He lives out his life in jail, and kills other inmates while in jail. How much further can you punish him?
3. He escapes from jail, kills more people. Even if caught, so what? Hasn't lost anything.
4. Some sleazeball lawyer gets him released from jail, kills more people. Even if he gets caught, so what? Hasn't lost anything.

The death penalty, at least in most states, is reserved for the most heinous of crimes, and is usually only assessed when it is known with virtual certainty that the defendant is guilty. Even then, multiple appeals are given, so the likelihood of executing an innocent, while possible, is extremely small.

And from a cold calculation, I would rather one innocent person get executed than many innocent people get murdered because the justice system was ineffective in incarcerating them.

actually, he thought he could "get away with it" because he was a juvenile. that's rather different. and it serves rather nicely as another example of the well known fact that young people make dumb decisions for dumb reasons - which we know has to do with brain development.
And I've seen adults make the same dumb decisions for the same dumb reasons. I think it just demonstrates he's stupid, not that he is not responsible or brain-developed enough to be held accountable for his crime.

Heck, you could get any criminal off with the arguement that they have some sort of brain deficiency. You could argue that criminal behavior itself is just a mental disease, so why should they be held responsible?

This guy was, and is, one evil SOB, and he's just lucky that SCOTUS has decided to become a legislature for his case.

Bumpety-bump?

State killing under-18s is a sick and evil practice.

Not sure I understand what you are saying ... :confused:
Just a back in my day rant.

To all those under 18: I now understand that, since you are incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong, and of making rational decisions, and of any emotional control, I now forgive and forget anything you may have said in a rash moment here on this forum. Your widdle heads are just too immature to understand.

[...]

Under 18's, do you feel your intelligence is being insulted here?

I am seventeen. I feel my intelligence is being insulted by this post but not by the SCOTUS decision it is intended to mock.

You are right in that an arbitrary age boundary for responsibility is impractical. I sincerely hope that this decision, therefore, will become a slippery slope eventually outlawing the Death Penalty in its entirety, and thus allow the US to become a civilized nation at last.

Now that I'm 19, I agree that all people under 18 are complete idiots. By next year I'll be agreeing to the drinking age being put back up to 20 as well.

Now that I'm 19, I agree that all people under 18 are complete idiots. By next year I'll be agreeing to the drinking age being put back up to 20 as well.
Its True. ;)

I absolutely believe in the Death Penalty... with a simple caviat:

Treat the disease... but if the treatment doesn't work, kill the cancer before it kills the host (society).

(#1) Anyone can "make a mistake" or commit a "crime of passion" or be "out of their head" for any number of reasons (including false conviction). They should NOT be executed. They could very well be totally salvagable citizens.

(#2) It is conceivable, though unlikely, that a person who has committed a (capital) crime of Violence might find him/herself in a similar situation a second time. Harsher penalties/"reeducation" may apply, but execution is still not warranted.

(#3) Forget it. Anyone bad enough to get convicted 3 times (3 false convictions? get real...) is a sociatal Cancer - regardless of age. No Mercy, for they had none.

BTW, I would personally make it retroactive. :mp5:
We need the Jail space for rehabilitatable salvagable criminals, not to feed Malignant Tumors.