NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, since my other thread evolved into this anyways, and it wouldn't let me add a poll there:

What do you think of the ruling that a juvenile cannot be given the death penalty.

Here's the real kicker for me: When a juvenile is tried as an adult, they are still not treated as an adult. The way I understand it, a juvenile's parents still make legal decisions for them - a clear indicator that we do not think they are competent.

w00t, first vote. I am against the death penalty.

Damnit. I'm against the death penalty in all cases but accidentally voted for being for it in all cases.

Damnit. I'm against the death penalty in all cases but accidentally voted for being for it in all cases.
Haha, now you look like a dick.

Bump =)

Death penalty is good for children. Especially five-year-olds. So is handcuffing them if they don't behave at kindergarten.

Don't agree with the death penalty, but I do agree that Juveniles should get treated like adults when they commit "adult" crimes (murder,rape,etc).

Don't agree with the death penalty, but I do agree that Juveniles should get treated like adults when they commit "adult" crimes (murder,rape,etc).

So, do you believe that committing such crimes automatically makes them competent to stand tiral fully as an adult and make their own legal decisions?

So, do you believe that committing such crimes automatically makes them competent to stand tiral fully as an adult and make their own legal decisions?

I was actually thinking more along the lines of sentencing and punishment

I was actually thinking more along the lines of sentencing and punishment

Why can we give a child adult punishment if we do not feel that the child has the same capacities as an adult?

Why can we give a child adult punishment if we do not feel that the child has the same capacities as an adult?

Because that child has demonstrated that it has the same cappacity to harm others as an adult could and would pose an equal threat to society.

Because that child has demonstrated that it has the same cappacity to harm others as an adult could and would pose an equal threat to society.

It isn't a question of capacity to harm. Everyone who can lift a weapon has the capacity to harm others.

The question is whether or not they are psychologically aware of the result of their actions. Do they have the *mental* capacity to understand their actions? We treat children differently because we believe they have not yet developed to the adult level. If we still think so, even though they have committed and "adult" crime, then we can label them as incompetent adults at best - in which case they would be tried and punished as an *incomptetent* adult.

Edit: Clarity.

Damnit. I'm against the death penalty in all cases but accidentally voted for being for it in all cases.

aww, so there's only 2 people for it in all cases then?

I am a liberal libertarian...
I am for the death penalty for adults and juveniles.

However, it is such a waste of money to try and verify the criminal that it's hardly worth it. Just lock them up till they die and let them suffer that way.

I'm against it in all cases. Killing adults is in no way less wrong than killing children.

Killing is wrong, no matter who does it. "A life for a life" is the hight of hypocrisy.

Killing is wrong, no matter who does it. "A life for a life" is the hight of hypocrisy.

That's dogma and cliche. Who to say killing a killer isn't wrong? It's like deleting a computer virus or throwing away garbage. You're removing an obstructive element from society. Whether doing so is "right" or "wrong" according such subjective ideas as morality is irrelevant.
You break the law, you give up your rights, you become a waste of space.

That's dogma and cliche. Who to say killing a killer isn't wrong? It's like deleting a computer virus or throwing away garbage. You're removing an obstructive element from society. Whether doing so is "right" or "wrong" according such subjective ideas as morality is irrelevant.
You break the law, you give up your rights, you become a waste of space.

Nice disregard for human rights and lives there. No real argument other than your own lack of ethics, though.

Nice disregard for human rights and lives there. No real argument other than your own lack of ethics, though.

That's your own personal persuasion and dogma speaking. In a world without reason and laws, morals are entirely subjective. I have plenty of regard for human rights, thank you very much.

The main arguement against capital punishment is the fact that it costs thousands more to kill the guy than to keep them in jail for life (which could easily be rectified).

The other major problem is the possibility of someone who is innocent being killed. This is a very true and valid arguement. I'm not exactly sure, but I think about 5% of the people who are put to death are later found innocent. While "Caesar's wife must be beyond reproach" and the whole nihilist thing tell me otheriwse, I still think you shouldn't put anyone to death unless you're 100% sure, i.e. they admit, there's video evidence, etc.

Once these objective are met, cut the whole appeal and religious complaint crap processes short and fry the guy, be they a 35 year old serial killer or a 9 year old rapist who will just as soon turn into one.

In cases of mutiple rapes and serial murders I have little to no objections to the death penalty, but killing juveniles goes way too far in my opinion.

I guess you should take another one off the first choice and put it down for the
"If we are going to use it, juveniles should be treated in every way like adults" option.
It was my original choice to pick, I guess I was just more upset with large number who were against capital punishment altogether so I picked the first option to offset it.

In cases of mutiple rapes and serial murders I have little to no objections to the death penalty, but killing juveniles goes way too far in my opinion.

At what age do you draw the line, then?

What about the two 13 year old boys who stoned [with bricks] then raped a 9 year old girl?

I am a liberal libertarian...
I am for the death penalty for adults and juveniles.

Do you think that those who have been deemed incompetent should be given the death penalty?

i am against the death penalty in all cases. not because i mourn the loss of some serial killer but because it is bad for everyone associated with it

i am also against it for juveniles because of the difficulty in drawing a reasonable line for when it is appropriate and when it isnt.

I guess you should take another one off the first choice and put it down for the
"If we are going to use it, juveniles should be treated in every way like adults" option.

Ah, so you do think they are capable of making their own legal decisions?

Do you think that those who have been deemed incompetent should be given the death penalty?

If they are as incompetent as to commit such acts, then yes. They are a waste of space and energy. They will die in 100 years anyways, why not kill them now so we don't have to pay for their housing, food, counseling, exercise, and leisure for the next century? A virus is deleted.

And yes, I'm insensitive according to YOU. But there is no other thing besides your dogma that dictates I'm insensitive. In fact, nature supports my point of view.

I'm well aware my views are at the top of a slippery slope, which is why I would be the first up in arms if they were to be implemented. I'm only saying that ideally, that's how it should be.

And yes, I'm a hyprocrite who contradicts himself, but aren't we all?

Capital punishment is fine, so long as they kill the all the people that sentenced a person to death, and so on and so on. They're all murderers and therefore deserve the same fate.
Human beings aren't machines to be destroyed when they stop working properly. Following the logic expressed in favour of the death penalty, we should also execute all mentally disabled people. After all, they are both dangerous and a drain on society.

Capital punishment is fine, so long as they kill the all the people that sentenced a person to death, and so on and so on. They're all murderers and therefore deserve the same fate.

But so are people who support abortion, euthanasia, etc. etc.

Really, what's wrong with killing people?
Murderers do it for no reason, and they get defended and set up with a life payed by normal citizens.

People who favor the killing of certain animals (and people, if you wish to make the distinction) are accused of being bad and evil.

Against death penalty period. I actually think it is too humane tho, TG me for an explanation

I'm against the death penalty, but I also recognize that it is very easy to take such the antagonistic stance when you've never had cause to support it. The real test comes when you've lost a close family member to someone else, and part of you demands 'justice'.

My uncle was shot five times in the back by a kid, and that same kid became the youngest person to every be sentenced to death in the state of North Carolina. I was young when the murder happened and didn't really know my uncle, but my mom was devastated by it all.

At first she wanted vengeance, but over time she changed her mind, and wound up being the only person in her family who didn't want the killer executed for his crimes. Needless to say, it caused a lot of heated arguments. To this day a few of her other siblings aren't on speaking terms with her.

In the days just before his execution the killer appealed to governor Easely and Senators Helms and Edwards, on the grounds that he was barely a teenager at the time and had become a completely different person in jail. He certainly had a point, and several last-minute holds were placed on his execution, but all of his pleas were eventually rejected. On the night before his execution one last appeal was made, and for a few hours it looked as though there'd be yet another last minute delay, but it never came. He was executed the next night.

Whe in detached observance of the facts, I am inclined to believe that the decision to kill convicts is based solely on vengeance. It costs more to kill one than to keep two in a jail cell for life, and such a small percentage of convicts are killed that it does nothing to free up prison space. Plus, eye-for-eye policies are more reminiscent of Hammurabi's Code than they are of Divine Justice, and therefore represent complete religious hypocrisy.

But then again I can't say I've ever felt the cold-blooded urge to demand more death to vindicate the already dead. It must be a powerful feeling if it leads so many of its protagonists to ignore the very principles on which their faith was established. And should it grip me, should a loved one of mine be butchered by a callous soul, I have no doubt that it would irreversibly change my feelings on the matter and bring confusion to my beliefs.



Forgiveness seems to be very hard to achieve. Perhaps that's why it is considered a virtue.

Very subjective. Though Death Penalty is usually granted to the most serious of cases. The level of maturity and also the seriousness of the crime should come into play.

Given the speed at which humans mentally mature, against the length of time it takes to go through the relevant execution bureaucracy, there's no real point in executing children. By the time you actually get round to pushing the button the person who committed the offense is long gone, and you're executing the body of someone else.

That someone else might be inclined to commit the same acts that got the child into that position in the first place, of couse, but they might not.

I pushed a kid down a flight of stairs when I was twelve. You could reasonably argue that I was an obnoxious little **** at the time, but I like to think that I've matured a little since then.

Against death penalty period. I actually think it is too humane tho, TG me for an explanation

If you're alluding to the fact that being kept in prison to the day you die to ponder your crimes is more of a punishment, you are correct... for most cases.

Some people, however, are so detached and cold that nothing will ever get to them, and as such, they have no purpose and serve no true punishment. They are, in essence, a waste of space, and a constant reminder to the victims' families of the crimes.

The death penalty has been illegal here since the dark ages, and things seem to run smooths without murdering prisoners.

The death penalty has been illegal here since the dark ages, and things seem to run smooths without murdering prisoners.

Nice. What country are you in?

Here in the "good 'ol" US of A, we seem to love murdering our prisoners, especially if they've been wrongfully convicted.

Forgiveness seems to be very hard to achieve. Perhaps that's why it is considered a virtue.

You make a compelling arguement (that I agree with) against killing most murderers, but once again, I was under the impression that we were talking only about killing psychopaths.

Nice. What country are you in?

Here in the "good 'ol" US of A, we seem to love murdering our prisoners, especially if they've been wrongfully convicted.

Iceland.
Public executions didn't start here untill the year 1000 (when Iceland was converted to Christianity). The last execution was in 1830 and the axe that was used is on display in our national museum.

Iceland, eh? Sounds nice. Any nation that doesn't consider the murder of prisoners a "betterment" is tops with me.

I'm for the death penalty for multiple-serious-offenders as long as they can be proven guilty beyond the tiniest shred of a shadow of a doubt. Someone mentioned videotape...

But kids? Maybe the cut-off should be 16 (it still feels too young to me), but that's about the youngest person I would have executed.

The death penalty is needlessly expensive. There should be a reasonable limit on appeals, and then the price of a professional marksman's time and and one bullet...okay, three bullets, just to be sure. As for the executioner then being a murderer, how about the executioner being a convicted, in-prison-for-life hitman? Take the condemned into a bullet-proof room, strap him to a post, place a gun with 3 bullets in it on a little table and then toss the hitman in. Biiiiiiig bullet-proof window for observers. Hitman gets out when all the bullets have been fired and he's face down on the ground with his hands behind his back. Since this guy is doing a service for his country and in prison anyway, he just gets another life sentence added, and a nice meal.

Or how about this? Facial tattoos for minor offenders: the first murder, you get an 'M' under your left eye, the second murder, you get an 'M' under your right eye, and the third major crime, you get the word 'RUN!' tattooed across your forehead. Once you're of age, any felony gets you the bullet.

My bad.

Terribly harsh words. What part of my blaring red signature don't you undestand?

I'm well aware of the costs, I'm saying in an ideal setting, where executions are without all the little nuances, and the people to be killed are clearly guilty and remorseless, I'm all for it, even if it's an 8 year old.

And who made you the final word on such subjective things as "right" and "wrong". There is no order in the universe, we make our own order.

You're damn lucky I don't spend more time tearing you a new one. You've ruined my non-religious Passover.

Iceland, eh? Sounds nice. Any nation that doesn't consider the murder of prisoners a "betterment" is tops with me.

Our government isn't very harsh when it comes to those things. The highest prison sentence anyone can get is 16 years. Though dangerously insane people are sent to clinics as long as needed. The crime-rate is very low, the system seems to work, because the crime rates in other scandinavian countries is also very low.

Our government isn't very harsh when it comes to those things. The highest prison sentence anyone can get is 16 years. Though dangerously insane people are sent to clinics as long as needed. The crime-rate is very low, the system seems to work, because the crime rates in other scandinavian countries is also very low.

Excellent. Now, if only our frog-brained populace would learn that adopting the ways of foreign nations is a good thing...

Wait a minute, that's insulting the intelligence of frogs. Frogs, I'm indeed very sorry.

Our government isn't very harsh when it comes to those things. The highest prison sentence anyone can get is 16 years. Though dangerously insane people are sent to clinics as long as needed. The crime-rate is very low, the system seems to work, because the crime rates in other scandinavian countries is also very low.

Yeah, I totally dig Scandinavian countries. Best places to live (though kind of boring).

As I've said, I'm stuck between my nihilist and liberal leanings on this issue.

Yeah, I totally dig Scandinavian countries. Best places to live (though kind of boring).

As I've said, I'm stuck between my nihilist and liberal leanings on this issue.

What is the nihilist standpoint? :confused:

What is the nihilist standpoint? :confused:

Killing everyone, I assume.

Terribly harsh words. What part of my blaring red signature don't you undestand?


Yeah I apologize for that. My mistake.

If they are as incompetent as to commit such acts, then yes. They are a waste of space and energy. They will die in 100 years anyways, why not kill them now so we don't have to pay for their housing, food, counseling, exercise, and leisure for the next century? A virus is deleted.

So we should execute the mentally ill and the mentally retarded who are incapable of understanding their crimes?

This post was not meant to be an argument but a statement/editorial. I'm not out to change minds, but I feel few look at it from the other side. I'm pro death penalty in all cases.

A vast majority of the time when the Juvenile death penalty is discussed, it's for a kid who usually did something at 16 or 17 year olds. I live in Virginia, USA and a few years ago the entire area along Interstate-95 and 495 was terrorized by the Beltway Sniper.

If you don't remember or aren't from the US, the "Sniper" was actually two people, a 17 year old and an older man driving in a vehicle and shooting people through a hole in the trunk of the car with a rifle. I think about a dozen people got shot, a few died. I worked at the site of one of the shootings, and close to another. After it happned for weeks people were afraid to walk outside my mall, and business suffered. We had to close the windows at my school and we had to leave under police supervision when school got out for the day. Our sports seasons were almost canceled. People would run to get to wear they needed to go, and would keep their heads ducked from point A to point B. We were genuinely scared...terrified that one of us would be next with bullet through our skulls.

Those monsters killed fellow citizens of my county and my state and my country, someone who could've been my family, friend, or neighbor. John Allen Muhammed and Lee Boyd Malvo made life hell for so many and did so many horrible things. They are 100% guilty, as ballistics proved the bullets from the attacks came from a weapon they possessed when arrested. And then there was a confession from one of the shooters. There is no question of their guilt.

Though many of the shootings took place in Maryland, custody was given to Virginia because my state has no problem dealing with scum like this. However, new rules dictate that we cannot execute Malvo because he was 17 at the time of the crime. Ridiculous. If by 13 you do not realize that you DO NOT MURDER random people, you were never a worthy candidate for adulthood in society.

It makes me sick that someone like that is still alive. I used to be liberal on issues like this but when something that horrible happens to people you know and live with it touches you. I wanted both of them to die. It won't bring anyone back, and it won't put things together. But I think the very concept that we as a society now have to feed and Shelter Malvo, and give him safety and security that he stole from so many, who at his young age will live such a long time is wrong.

For some people capital punishment is acceptable, for we see it as putting down the rabid beasts of society. I've always felt that concepts and ideas are what guide humanity. We labor for an orderly society where you need not fear for your life and where you can try to find happiness for yourself. Murderers and rapists take those rights away from people. I don't feel people like that are worthy of my sympathy, because it means nothing to them anyway, they just do what they feel without regard for others.

Killing them is a statement. "You will never again terrorize good people." Death is the unescapable prison...they will never come back to hurt people again. Not me, my parents or siblings, not my neighbors or countrymen, no one.

Though many of the shootings took place in Maryland, custody was given to Virginia because my state has no problem dealing with scum like this. However, new rules dictate that we cannot execute Malvo because he was 17 at the time of the crime. Ridiculous. If by 13 you do not realize that you DO NOT MURDER random people, you were never a worthy candidate for adulthood in society.

Was he allowed to make his own legal decisions, or were they made by some sort of guardian?

This post was not meant to be an argument but a statement/editorial. I'm not out to change minds, but I feel few look at it from the other side. I'm pro death penalty in all cases.

A vast majority of the time when the Juvenile death penalty is discussed, it's for a kid who usually did something at 16 or 17 year olds. I live in Virginia, USA and a few years ago the entire area along Interstate-95 and 495 was terrorized by the Beltway Sniper.

If you don't remember or aren't from the US, the "Sniper" was actually two people, a 17 year old and an older man driving in a vehicle and shooting people through a hole in the trunk of the car with a rifle. I think about a dozen people got shot, a few died. I worked at the site of one of the shootings, and close to another. After it happned for weeks people were afraid to walk outside my mall, and business suffered. We had to close the windows at my school and we had to leave under police supervision when school got out for the day. Our sports seasons were almost canceled. People would run to get to wear they needed to go, and would keep their heads ducked from point A to point B. We were genuinely scared...terrified that one of us would be next with bullet through our skulls.

Those monsters killed fellow citizens of my county and my state and my country, someone who could've been my family, friend, or neighbor. John Allen Muhammed and Lee Boyd Malvo made life hell for so many and did so many horrible things. They are 100% guilty, as ballistics proved the bullets from the attacks came from a weapon they possessed when arrested. And then there was a confession from one of the shooters. There is no question of their guilt.

Though many of the shootings took place in Maryland, custody was given to Virginia because my state has no problem dealing with scum like this. However, new rules dictate that we cannot execute Malvo because he was 17 at the time of the crime. Ridiculous. If by 13 you do not realize that you DO NOT MURDER random people, you were never a worthy candidate for adulthood in society.

It makes me sick that someone like that is still alive. I used to be liberal on issues like this but when something that horrible happens to people you know and live with it touches you. I wanted both of them to die. It won't bring anyone back, and it won't put things together. But I think the very concept that we as a society now have to feed and Shelter Malvo, and give him safety and security that he stole from so many, who at his young age will live such a long time is wrong.

For some people capital punishment is acceptable, for we see it as putting down the rabid beasts of society. I've always felt that concepts and ideas are what guide humanity. We labor for an orderly society where you need not fear for your life and where you can try to find happiness for yourself. Murderers and rapists take those rights away from people. I don't feel people like that are worthy of my sympathy, because it means nothing to them anyway, they just do what they feel without regard for others.

Killing them is a statement. "You will never again terrorize good people." Death is the unescapable prison...they will never come back to hurt people again. Not me, my parents or siblings, not my neighbors or countrymen, no one.

Prison isn't supposed to be a punishment, it's rehabilitation. You are put there untill you are fit to go out into society again. And I don't think you understand the severety of losing your freedom, that alone is a very heavy sentence. So what's your point? You're crying out for their blood because they hurt you? Aren't you supposed to be civilized? If "you" kill them you are no better yourself.

Where I stand:

I favor the death penalty over 'Life without parole'. If someone is going to spend the rest of his natural life in prison, kill him. Why? Because you already are. That's what Life without parole is: A death sentence. That person will never be free, will never be rehabilitated and will never have a life again. Life without parole is saying that this person cannot EVER pay enough for his crime. So I say kill him. It's less cruel.

Now, when it comes to juveniles, I have a very hard time wrapping my head around the idea that someone so young, and so impressionable is beyond rehabilitation. I have a hard time imagining such a young person can't pay for their crime and become a valuable citizen again. However, if that is what society decides for a criminal youth(which I doubt I'd agree with), then the death penalty should be considered as well.

In any other case, I'm not for the death penalty. I consider it a merciful substitute for life without parole, and I see no other use for it.

I see no underlying difference between minors and adults, people will say "oh little jimmy doesn't know the difference between right or wrong, hes only having a bit of fun, he meant no-one any harm", well let me tell you this, when i was "little jimmy's" age, i knew how to look after myself, cook my tea, wash the dishes etc. etc., let alone know the boody difference between right and wrong.

This post was not meant to be an argument but a statement/editorial. I'm not out to change minds, but I feel few look at it from the other side. I'm pro death penalty in all cases.

A vast majority of the time when the Juvenile death penalty is discussed, it's for a kid who usually did something at 16 or 17 year olds. I live in Virginia, USA and a few years ago the entire area along Interstate-95 and 495 was terrorized by the Beltway Sniper.

If you don't remember or aren't from the US, the "Sniper" was actually two people, a 17 year old and an older man driving in a vehicle and shooting people through a hole in the trunk of the car with a rifle. I think about a dozen people got shot, a few died. I worked at the site of one of the shootings, and close to another. After it happned for weeks people were afraid to walk outside my mall, and business suffered. We had to close the windows at my school and we had to leave under police supervision when school got out for the day. Our sports seasons were almost canceled. People would run to get to wear they needed to go, and would keep their heads ducked from point A to point B. We were genuinely scared...terrified that one of us would be next with bullet through our skulls.

Those monsters killed fellow citizens of my county and my state and my country, someone who could've been my family, friend, or neighbor. John Allen Muhammed and Lee Boyd Malvo made life hell for so many and did so many horrible things. They are 100% guilty, as ballistics proved the bullets from the attacks came from a weapon they possessed when arrested. And then there was a confession from one of the shooters. There is no question of their guilt.

Though many of the shootings took place in Maryland, custody was given to Virginia because my state has no problem dealing with scum like this. However, new rules dictate that we cannot execute Malvo because he was 17 at the time of the crime. Ridiculous. If by 13 you do not realize that you DO NOT MURDER random people, you were never a worthy candidate for adulthood in society.

It makes me sick that someone like that is still alive. I used to be liberal on issues like this but when something that horrible happens to people you know and live with it touches you. I wanted both of them to die. It won't bring anyone back, and it won't put things together. But I think the very concept that we as a society now have to feed and Shelter Malvo, and give him safety and security that he stole from so many, who at his young age will live such a long time is wrong.

For some people capital punishment is acceptable, for we see it as putting down the rabid beasts of society. I've always felt that concepts and ideas are what guide humanity. We labor for an orderly society where you need not fear for your life and where you can try to find happiness for yourself. Murderers and rapists take those rights away from people. I don't feel people like that are worthy of my sympathy, because it means nothing to them anyway, they just do what they feel without regard for others.

Killing them is a statement. "You will never again terrorize good people." Death is the unescapable prison...they will never come back to hurt people again. Not me, my parents or siblings, not my neighbors or countrymen, no one.

HEAR! HEAR! I SECOND THAT STATEMENT. A LIFE FOR A LIFE, THATS WHAT I SAY.

So we should execute the mentally ill and the mentally retarded who are incapable of understanding their crimes?

And incapable of contributing positively to the society?
And causing a drain on time and resources?

Was he allowed to make his own legal decisions, or were they made by some sort of guardian?

If it's true that children tried for crimes aren't allowed to make their own legal decisions (once they've proven their competence), then obviously I'm against that... not that it matters for those kinds of people, though.

...If by 13 you do not realize that you DO NOT MURDER random people, you were never a worthy candidate for adulthood in society...

...But I think the very concept that we as a society now have to feed and Shelter Malvo, and give him safety and security that he stole from so many, who at his young age will live such a long time is wrong...

...Killing them is a statement. "You will never again terrorize good people." Death is the unescapable prison...they will never come back to hurt people again. Not me, my parents or siblings, not my neighbors or countrymen, no one.

Very good points. It's difficult taking a "conservative" standpoint on things (for me), but really, there isn't that much of a question in such cases.

Where I stand:

I favor the death penalty over 'Life without parole'. If someone is going to spend the rest of his natural life in prison, kill him. Why? Because you already are. That's what Life without parole is: A death sentence.

Not if you prefer living in quite contemplation being fed, clothed, and looked after, all the while only having to do menial labor. And if you're a criminal who criminals want to kill, you get the added protection thing.

And incapable of contributing positively to the society?
And causing a drain on time and resources?

I wonder how you´d like being executed, if you should happen to lose your mind...

I wonder how you´d like being executed, if you should happen to lose your mind...

Obviously, I wouldn't know. And while I do know, I'd be damn thankful. Most people want to die before going insane, vegitative, senile. It's a horrible and useless state of existence.

Yeah I apologize for that. My mistake.

It's alright, I was more put off by the whole allusion to Nazis.

Killing everyone, I assume.

Misconceptions make the world go 'round.

Obviously, I wouldn't know. And while I do know, I'd be damn thankful. Most people want to die before going insane, vegitative, senile. It's a horrible and useless state of existence.

But fun. :D

Prison isn't supposed to be a punishment, it's rehabilitation. You are put there untill you are fit to go out into society again. And I don't think you understand the severety of losing your freedom, that alone is a very heavy sentence. So what's your point? You're crying out for their blood because they hurt you? Aren't you supposed to be civilized? If "you" kill them you are no better yourself.

Someone who is a nonviolent offender, I will take the chance to help, because at the very worst, nobody receives physical harm from those people. But there's no way in hell I want to even attempt to rehabilitate certain people. There's too much at stake. Two little girls in Florida are dead because we "rehabilitated" their killers, a load of good that did. We took a chance. Look what it did.

I don't want killers and rapists to feel bad, I want them incapacitated so they can never do wrong again. I want people who endanger others in such a way terminated. If you don't want to be a part of society, then you will not be afforded the virtues society values. A person who is that cruel should not expect my mercy. I am civil. And I KNOW I'm better than any killer, because I don't seek causing harm to good people. But I'm willing to employ the Death Penalty as a means to remove even a remote threat of that waste of a human being doing it again.

And incapable of contributing positively to the society?
And causing a drain on time and resources?

I see, so wholesale slaughter of anyone you deem unnecessary, then?

I am in favour of limited apllication of the death penalty.
i support the deathpenalty for certain crimes but far greater conditions need to apply then at present. Look at Stan "Tookie" Williams
www.tookie.com www.savetookie.com
Seven time nobel prize nominee (Three Peace and Four Literature) and on California's death row for crimes he did not commit. He was a founder of the Crips, and since incarcation has written many anti-gangs books for adults and childrens.

People can change, but death is a very final option and is used too much.
I support death penalites for juveniles but not children. 14+ seems reasonable, as they can be aware of both the consequences of the action and punishment for the action.

By the way death penalties should apply only to cases with absolute positve identification of offenders, and offenders mut be irredeemable/repeat offenders, so in a way 2 strikes and you are dead.
Ideally rapists, paedophiles / child molesters, and murderers should be punishable by death, but it is too easy under the current system for the wrong person to be trialled and executed.

I would oppose the juvinille death penalty had it been brought up in legislation, however, the supreme court had no right to rule on it

I would oppose the juvinille death penalty had it been brought up in legislation, however, the supreme court had no right to rule on it

You are right, the Supreme Court should never rule on the constitutionality of any law. Oh, wait....

It's a horrible and useless state of existence.

How would you know? Useless to you maybe, but to the person in question...

Man...it took 50 posts before anyone even mentioned rehabilitation?? I'm not sure that I agree that prison isn't about punishment - I think that's an important part of it, but surely it's better to rehabilitate criminals than just let them rot?

When I was a kid, I stole some pick&mix from a supermarket...I was about 9 at the time I think. Is that the same as me stealing now?

Also...to play devil's advocate...If it's in the public interest to execute murderers, because they're dangerous, why don't we execute potential murderers? We could get everyone to do a personality test, and those who have damgerous traits, lets execute them before they get the chance to. Actually...that might not work, because people might slip through the net and we might miss a few murderers. How about we just execute everyone at birth..there'd be no more crime then, sounds like a perfect way to protect society.

Also...to play devil's advocate...If it's in the public interest to execute murderers, because they're dangerous, why don't we execute potential murderers? We could get everyone to do a personality test, and those who have damgerous traits, lets execute them before they get the chance to.

Have you checked on recent trends in 'the war on terrorism'?

I'm against the death penalty in all cases, but the third poll option made me laugh...

I believe that the death penalty is wrong and not justifiable.

1. The system isn't perfect and innocent people do get killed. (The last person hanged in Australia was afterwards proved innocent.) What about the loss of their lives to their families? Punishing the wrong person doesn't make things right with the familiy of the victim

2. It is NOT an effective deterrent for crimes. Australia has no death penalty, and crime rates in NSW are at an all time low.

3. It's illogical that individuals who kill are punished, but institutionalised killing is ok

Obviously, I wouldn't know. And while I do know, I'd be damn thankful. Most people want to die before going insane, vegitative, senile. It's a horrible and useless state of existence.

You assume that people with mental illnesses are insane, vegitative [sic], and senile. It's this sort of negative attitudes that gives people with mental illnesses such a stigma (which can prevent them from seeking treatment). With treatment, these people can lead normal or close to normal lives!

grrr!

I'm against the death penalty in all cases, but the third poll option made me laugh...

Same with me, but as I'm a weak character, I couldn't resist and picked it. Anyway death penalty (for adults of course ;)) doesn't belong in this time. People should be further than the middle ages.

Same with me, but as I'm a weak character, I couldn't resist and picked it.

I picked it too. I guess we're both weak :D

I answer "other"... And it is going to be an involved answer as to why...

Juvenile is not a concrete term...

That is right... It is an arbitrary age made in determination by the law. This "age range" defining the term has changed over time. For example, in the 1900's the official age of adulthood was 17... Now there is increasing pressure towards 21... It is a very fluid term... And in absolute truth, the age varies by individual. Some people are "adults" by 16, others may not be so till 25... Therefore the legal definition is a "fluid" standard set by society in general.

Juvenile Emancipation and Trial as an Adult....

There are cases where those falling under the legal status of being "juvenile" (that is a minor) are emancipated, and enjoin all rights as an adult in society... Sometimes this is done at the behest of a family/child, othertimes it is done in the legal sense by a court, determinig the scope of the crime the said "minor" commited. In this, it is a legal judgement, that the individual minor acts as an adult, and thus should be declaratively treated as one. For better or worse, by the law.

My thoughts on this issue...

I am against the use of the "juvenile death penalty" in the strict legal sense of the term. That is the application of the death penalty to criminals who are classified as minors by the law. That being said, however, I see no improper grounds for the ability of the law to make a case-by-case determination in the change of status of a minor to enjoining legal status as an adult before the law, and thereby applicability of trial as an adult, with the same penalty as would be of proportion to the adult. It is in that, that I do not subscibe such as "juvenile death penalty", since legally it is no longer applicable towards the "juvenile" but rather equal applicability to adults. That is, the person who falls below the typical age of adulthood, due to severity of the crime or other circumstances, is declaritively made an adult before the law. And in this, that careful determination should be made by the courts on this issue in a case by case basis.