quote:The United States remained virtually alone in the world in imposing death sentences on those who were juvenile offenders--under the age of eighteen--at the time they committed their crimes. Only the United States, Congo, and Iran have executed juvenile offenders in the past three years. Twenty-two U.S. states continued to allow the death penalty to be imposed on juvenile offenders; eighty-three--thirty-nine of whom were black--were on death row as of July 1, 2002.
Congo and Iran.
Many conservatives on this board argue that juveniles are too young to have sex. The law says they're not old enough to drink. Or vote.
But they can still make a decision that could result in the government deciding they deserve to die? That same government that's protecting them from themselves by insisting they don't drink alcohol?
posted
Murder of juveniles is my second biggest irritation with the death penalty. The judicial system's penchant for thinning the black population is my first.
Luckily for those of us who like these kinds of things simplified, according to K-Dub's stats, half of the juveniles executed are black. Most of the other half is almost certainly Hispanic.
White people must have amazing consciences...
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'm with you on what your fighting for Kasie, but I just want to point out that what other countries are doing has nothing to do with the morality here. Killing children is wrong because they still have the oppurtunity to change, grow and learn new things at that age; and are less aware of the consequences surronding their actions. The fact that Spain (for instance) agree has nothing to do with it.
posted
I honestly don't know that we have many pro death penalty people on this board. I used to be, until I gave it some thought and prayer, and I now think that being pro death penalty is at odds with my Christian beliefs. I'm no longer for it, in any case, especially in the case of juveniles.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hobbes, I think she was trying to point out what bad company we're in, not use it as an argument against it.
Kasie, i FULLY agree. It's a horrible thing to do, as it deprives children of a chance to live and change, and has no real benefits for society at all.
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am also pro life for accused criminals as well as the unborn. Even pretty much proven criminals, since I don't think any mortal institution has the right to say what constitutes such proof.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So don't kill the kids because they don't know better, but kill the adults because they're evil and a menace to society?
If we're gonna go around killing people for stuff, why not go all the way and do it to everyone, young and old? I mean, you can make an argument that children don't understand the consequences of their actions, or that it deprives children of the chance to change, or point out that it has no real benefits - but those arguments are already used to oppose the death penalty for adults, and have nevertheless been ignored.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure if you're reffering to me specifically or to everyone in general, I'll answer for me because it would be rather auspicious to claim to speak for others.
I don't know where I stand on death penalty, I'm pretty sure I'm against it, but my mind is still processing, the books not closed. I do, however, recognize that any murder is wrong, but that sometimes, one moral violation is worse than another. Just as beating a women and raping her is worse than using date-rape drugs which is worse than not believing a "stop it" at the moment of truth. All three are very wrong, but I have no qualums ranking them. (If you disagree with my ranking, that's not the point, the point would be if you disagree with ranking at all). I also think that the execution of children is worse than that of adults, a matter of scale true, but I believe the scale exists.
posted
I think this is one of those rare threads where pretty much all hatrackers are gonna agree. I don't know any of us that believe juveniles should be executed.
And Tres, if you're not talking to Hobbes, then I don't know who you are talking to...because I haven't seen anyone say "Don't execute juvies, but adults is okay" Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If no one here agrees, why is it still legal? I think hatrack is a pretty decent cross section of the population to get a pretty good idea on public opinion...
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
If you commit a crime worthy of the death penalty, and are convicted to that penalty, you should die. The fact that you are 15 is a mitagating (sp?) circumstance is some cases yes, but hence the reason that we make that decision on a case by case basis.
Over 18, no question. Ideally within a year of the decision, even.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you are wrong, Xavier. Just the fact that ALL of Hatrack reads for fun on a regular basis sets us apart from, oh, 90% of the population? And I *think* that's probably a conservative estimate.
posted
I am not a supporter of the death penalty, but I know I, for one, would understand the consequences completely were I to murder someone. I've known other minors who have killed someone, and by no stretch of the imagination were they incompetent. While I agree with the ideas presented in this thread, I see them as reasons why youths need more legal rights (like the right to use a pizza oven, for starters ) and and adults need a less severe form of punishment.
And that's probably the hippiest thing I've ever posted.
Posts: 2292 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we are not going to execute those who are sentenced to it we should get rid of the penalty. It does lots of damage to have a penalty that doesn't mean anything, in fact I would say that its a misuse of the idea of a penalty. Being placed in prison is hardly a penalty. A warm place to sleep, TV, AC, 3 squares, no Taxes. Why is that I'm going to college? The rate of committing crimes would drop if what you'll lose is much higher that what the crime will cause you to gain.
Due tell what good society will ever gain from allowing these people to live? I see no gain at all, just an unrelenting expense to keep them alive and well and fed, at my expense. Those who are sentenced thusly have made the choice to divorce themselves from acceptable behavior (I challenge any of you to fit murder or rape into your moral world view as acceptable.)
Eaquae Legit - I've heard this argument before, but i don't recall ever seeing numbers that show that this inequality isn't matched to the conviction rate.
I would like to add more but I've got to get some sleep. Also come now, I can be the only one that is for the death penalty.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm for capital punishment for both adults, and in some very extreme cases, minors. Do most people here disagree with me? More than likely. Will that change my opinion? I doubt it.
To me, if someone is old enough to contemplate the seriousness of their crimes, then they should be able to be tried as an adult. Growing up, I wasn't in the best of areas, and knew people who would take advantage of the juvenile system because they knew that once they were 18, they would be tried as an adult.
One thing that I always wonder, is if anyone here that's against the death penalty has ever had someone close to them be killed (or another serious crime like that)? I've never had the chance to ask, and from what I've seen from most people, the tables might turn quickly if someone was caught after killing a spouse, child, parent, etc.
I can guarantee you that if someone did intentionally kill someone close to me, I would have no qualms about that person being put to death.
posted
Kasie brought up a good point, though. I'm responsible enough for my actions to be executed, but not responsible enough to drink? Why not have a consistent definition for minors? One age where you have all the rights and responsibilities of adulthood. Or perhaps give people the chance to apply to get those rights early. Or have a Heinleinesque system where you have to qualify to be a citizen through civil service.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think deliberately killing someone -- with malice and planning aforethought -- qualifies for applying for the rights (and responsibilities!) of adulthood early.
(Our society, IMO, is far too concerned with rights, and not nearly concerned enough with responsibilities. This is merely one example of that problem.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: At the time of the crime, Beazley, now 25, was approximately three and a half months short of his 18th birthday.
quote: Beazley took the wheel and stated again that he wanted to steal a car. When Cedric asked why, Beazley explained that he wanted to see what it was like to kill somebody.
quote: Jones' cell mate from the Gregg County Jail testified that Jones told him that he and his accomplices saw Davis walking to his car and approached him. Davis told Jones and his accomplices that they could not have his car and that they would have to kill him to get it. Jones told his cell mate, in a very calm manor, that he then shot Davis.
quote: Thereafter, Patterson returned to Evelyn's house and fatally shot Kimberly and her two children, three-year-old Ollie, and six-year-old Jennifer, with a .38-revolver. Patterson shot Kimberly in the head as she relaxed on a living room recliner. He shot Jennifer in the head as she watched cartoons and played in her bedroom. Ollie, who was on the bed in the same room, was killed by a gunshot to the head. Ollie also had gunshot wounds to her left hand and neck. The children's injuries indicated that Patterson was only three feet away when he shot them, and Ollie's injuries were consistent with an adult standing over her and firing downward while she cowered in the corner of the bed and covered her ears.
posted
The argument that it cost more to put a convicted criminal to death is a poor one. The fact that something cost boatloads of money stops hardly anything else.
_________
Yeah the other half is most definatly hispanic because the whole damn system is by those rasict oppressing white assholes who spend every goddamn waking moment trying to come up with way to put some one of an other race down, because we all live a life of such richs that we just dont have anything else to do. I mean the whole damn world run by old racist white men. Who just sit around trying to make everyone else's lives miserble dull pathectic excuses for exsistance.
Posts: 1458 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've had the displeasure of sitting through and covering capital murder cases before. Let me explain one to you, first for perspective.
Two brothers, living together in a double wide trailer, one night decided to go out and find a woman in my hometown. They nabbed her in a parking lot, threw her into the back their van and took her home. There, over the next six hours, they took turns raping and beating her, again and again. When she was finally too damaged, too exhausted to even struggle (the two men even took a break to watch TV and get something to eat), they put her back into the van and drove to a field. They dumped her in the field, assaulted her some more and shot her. Luckily, one could say, they were too lazy to make sure it was a fatal shot, and she was hit in the neck. The woman laid there and played dead, and that's what they left her for. If a nearby person hadn't heard the shot, no one would have come to her aid.
The two men left and drove for home. Along the way, they stopped at a country store. There, a 75-year old man who was well loved by the community was working. The two men grabbed sodas and a couple of rental videos, casually walked to the counter, pulled a gun and shot. This kind old gentleman's brains were sprayed across the back wall of his family's business.
Two days later, the pair were arrested in broad daylight in the parking lot of the local hospital while sitting in their van. Why were they arrested? Because instead of renewing their tags on the van, they had stolen a license plate off of a car. I remember the detective answering the question, "How did you know that the tag had been stolen."
"Because it was the one that had been stolen from my wife's car."
I mention the hospital parking lot arrest because it turned out to be very important. While awaiting trial, the older brother one night asked for a pen and some paper from the jailer. That night he wrote a confession letter and suicide note. He hanged himself using the bed sheets after lights out (and it was a slow, deliberate death). What he had written, though, was chilling. He admitted that he and his brother had been responsible for the abduction, repeated raping and murder of a 12 year old boy earlier that year in the county.
I remember the scene where they had found the boy's body, tucked under a low water bridge on the river. I remember sitting with the boy's mother and sharing her grief. I remember sitting with the local police chief and hearing from him, off the record, of how the boy had been raped, something that was never released to the public.
And I remember sitting through that trial, feeling such anger, such loss, such hurt at what animals had done within our community. How many lives had been savagely destroyed? And I remember how, in a moment of extreme grace and humanity, the jury returned a guilty conviction on the surviving brother and then sentenced him to life in prison.
I tell this because I want you to know how savage crimes can be without receiving the death penalty. Now, I ask you to look into those "juvenile" death row cases. I've read many of them, they put the grisly story I've told you to shame.
I do not like the death penalty. It bothers me deeply to the core of my being when someone has to be put to death, and it should. But there still, in some way, needs to be an ultimate penalty. There must be and we should feel very uneasy about using it. That unease is why there are guarantees of appeal, that is why there are so many years before an inmate is put to death. It is to give every chance to find an alternative.
Yes, that system has failed before and it will again. But we still strive to give every chance before someone is made to take the last walk. But for the worst, the very worst, we must always reserve that cold tile floor for those who are without remorse or rehabilitation.
We must have it, and we must always feel bad when we use it. But it is their actions that have warranted the ultimate penalty, it is not a siren's call of the executioner that brings it on.
But, the main point remains - killing the perpetrator does nothing to bring back to life the victims. As for wanting there to be an ultimate penalty for the most heinous of criminals, why don't we go back to sentencing to hard labor?
That would serve as a pretty horrific punishment, if you ask me.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I've worked in the crime victims' advocacy field, and Sopwith's story is important to this discussion. Why? Not as a "tear-jerker" or "horrifier" but as the reminder that any action we take, for good or for ill, affects the entire community.
Think about the mobile image Bradshaw used to show how movement in one family member caused movement in others - and apply that on a larger scale. (In a sense, this is the troubling part of President Bush using footage from 9/11. He is setting the mobile of our national community to vibrating again by playing on people's fears and feelings.)
On the other hand, I've worked with troubled youth (nowhere near as extensively as mack, but some). It's equally troubling to me that we would try an adolescent as an adult, especially when that adolescent has no ability to clearly read and write, does not understand or even know to ask about his/her rights as an accused person under our Constitution, and has clearly been unduly influenced by exposure to a wide variety of things (too much violence on the media and not enough time with caring adults that can and will direct and guide the learning and socialization of the child, for instance - we won't even start exploring the effects of poor nutrition, abuse, poverty, etc.)
I do not excuse the behavior - at all - and I believe it should be decisively dealt with. I don't know that the death penalty is necessarily the way to go. I don't know that many victims of crimes think so, either. I've heard feedback relating to being present at the execution and not feeling the sense of closure or relief that was expected.
posted
Belle, honestly, hard labor should be a part of most prison sentences. There is a rehabilitative and punitive effect with hard labor that has been weeded out of the system. Since then, the rate of repeat offenders has swollen. For so many who end up there today, prison isn't that much worse than the lives they had lived prior to incarceration.
All prisoners should be required to perform labor, receive counseling and be required to pass a literacy and math test before they leave. That, I believe, would help to rehabilitate some, but not all.
Labor shouldn't be an imposed penalty, but part of a penalty.
Yes, the death penalty does not return any of the victims to life. Nothing in this world can. It does not provide solace to the families of the victims. It does not scare people into not commiting grisly murders.
What does it do? It prevents that person from ever, ever commiting such acts again. Escapes by convicted murderers are rare, but they do happen. Murderers in the prison system do at times commit more murders in the violent bowels of our prison system. They also do now and then inspire those who have committed lesser crimes but have been incarcerated with them. They are also more of a danger to the personnel of the prisons, from the guards to the doctors, as well as their fellow inmates. But no one ever pays attention to those statistics, those murdered and brutalized within the prison system are often forgotten to the outside world.
And lastly, in these extreme cases where the death penalty is warranted, perhaps it is the humane thing to do for the murderer themself. It is not humane to lock them away in a silent hole to spend decade upon decade, stewing in their own evil actions, festering in the madness that provoked the actions that turned them from citizen to murderer.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What does it do? It prevents that person from ever, ever commiting such acts again. Escapes by convicted murderers are rare, but they do happen. Murderers in the prison system do at times commit more murders in the violent bowels of our prison system. They also do now and then inspire those who have committed lesser crimes but have been incarcerated with them. They are also more of a danger to the personnel of the prisons, from the guards to the doctors, as well as their fellow inmates. But no one ever pays attention to those statistics, those murdered and brutalized within the prison system are often forgotten to the outside world.
So you're saying that the reason we have to kill people is because our prison's aren't competent enough to absolutely ensure they don't commit criminal acts again? If this is the case, isn't just keeping a tighter watch a far simpler option that would achieve the same effect?
More importantly, though, why is it worth killing one person for sure just to avoid the one in a million chance that that person might escape from prison AND decide to kill again AND succeed in doing so before being caught? When's the last time that ever happened?
quote:And lastly, in these extreme cases where the death penalty is warranted, perhaps it is the humane thing to do for the murderer themself.
And if this is true, why not just ask the convicted person themselves if they would rather die or be put in jail?
If these are the only two reasons for the death penalty, I think we are killing people for very little reason.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are generally four reasons for criminal punishment:
Rehabilitation: Treating the underlying pathology that caused the crime. Some theorists hold that all crime results from such a pathology, some are much more pragmatic and limit the concept to drug addiction, theft resulting from lack of job skills, etc.
Incapacitation: Preventing a specific person from committing another crime. A child molester cannot molest children if he’s locked up away from children.
Deterrence: Discouraging people from committing crimes in the future. There is general deterrence, which is the crime-reducing effect that punishing criminals has on the populace at large, and specific deterrence, which is the crime-reducing effect punishment has on those who are punished.
Retribution: based on a normative argument that some crimes deserve punishment. This concept also generates the proportionality limitations on the other four reasons. For example, life sentences would incapacitate jaywalkers, but we do not consider such a sentence proportional to the crime.
Every theory of punishment acknowledges a place for all four of these reasons. Theories that concentrate on the first three over the fourth are considered utilitarian. Theories that stress the retributive aspects are considered deontological.
Very rational justifications for the death penalty can be found in all these reasons except rehabilitation. My thought is that a duly instituted government has the moral authority to put criminals to death, but practically I’m not sure it’s the best policy.
My main reason for leaning slightly away from support of the death penalty is that it deprives criminals of the chance to repent before they die. Hopefully, that’s a religious reason acceptable to the secularists for having a political opinion.
posted
Actually, Xap, if you look at both escape rates and in-prison murder rates, the chances are much more than one in a million that a convicted murderer will murder again.
Increased vigilance in our prison systems would be good, but currently our system is pretty much at the breaking point. Overcrowding, recitivism, open gangs and gang warfare, mixing of violent and non-violent criminals.
Sadly, our prison system, as it currently is, is not providing the measure of safety necessary for both the public at large and the in-prison population itself. Somewhere, along the line, we've had a failing of idea and effort. I don't know precisely what it is, or how to correct it. That discussion, however, does cloud the issue of the death penalty being right or wrong, although it is a factor in some way.
It still comes down to both an ultimate punishment and a final protection for society versus the offender.
Personally, I am in no hurry to condemn anyone to die. I don't want to see it happen, I hate that it is a necessity. I hate that sometimes it is a person bordering on the physical definition of juvenile whose life hangs in the balance. But somewhere, somehow, an ultimate penalty must await those who have commited the most horrific or heinous crimes.
quote:What of the fact that more blacks are executed than whites for the same crime?
Well, at least it means that blacks and whites are working together for some common goal!
But seriously, in theory the death penalty may have some value, but in practice (and that's all we have), it's got gaping flaws. Namely: wrongful convictions, and racial disparity.
Now, do we want to discuss the death penalty in theory or in practice.
posted
Big supporter of capital punishment. Especially in Rape cases and extremely whacked murders. I support keeping them off the streets in any way possible. Especially away from my family. Has anyone ever thought of how they would possibly react if a member of the family was raped or murdered. frankly, it scares the living heck out of me. and give the police some credit. These people put their lives on the line to protect us on the domestic field. And they do this being underpaid in my opinion.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Icarus, trying my best to be as level headed as possible about a very difficult subject.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Personally, I am in no hurry to condemn anyone to die. I don't want to see it happen, I hate that it is a necessity. I hate that sometimes it is a person bordering on the physical definition of juvenile whose life hangs in the balance. But somewhere, somehow, an ultimate penalty must await those who have commited the most horrific or heinous crimes.
Is life in prison not ultimate?
You say "necessity" as if we have no choice but to kill these people. Yet the worst (in the utilitarian sense) that would come from not killing them is an extremely slight chance that they could kill again. There is no evidence of the death penalty deterring crime any more than other penalties, and there is certainly no rehabilitation that comes from it. Some people might think a criminal's life is not worth even the slightest and most remote chance that they could ever murder again, but it is a far far stretch to call it 'necessary' to kill them. Being adequately safe from criminals is a necessity. But reducing the threat they pose to absolute zero is a luxury. The death penalty is a luxury.
The only solid argument for the death penalty is retribution. But, again, I see no reason why death penalty makes a better "ultimate" penalty than life in prison.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why should we be forced to pay to keep them alive and locked up when we could execute them? What good does it do to keep someone in prison for life when they have recieve death as their penalty? What benefit does society receive from allowing them to live? Did they not bring this upon themselve through their own actions?
(note: I'm not suggesting that all those with life sentences be killed.)
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why should we pay to kill the man when we can just lock him up? What benefit does society get from killing them?
I don't think there's much benefit, for the reasons I argued above. But I can tell you a huge benefit society gets in keeping him alive - one less killing to bloody our hands.
And I don't think we should ever shift away the responsibility for our own choices by saying "they brought it on themselves."
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll take up the Devil's Advocate position. When someone becomes a "menace to society", that means he or she is dangerous to people. Serial killers? What is the point of keeping them locked up, wasting our valuable resources on them? Hardened criminals are unlikely to reform, and they are a burden to the rest of society. Resources that could be used to help kids get a better start in life are instead diverted to keep a "bad guy" alive and caged for the rest of his natural life. Would it not be better for society to do what it can to try to head off crime by improving life for its law-abiding citizens rather than keeping habitual law-breakers behind bars?
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
) and and adults need a less severe form of punishment.![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
