Is anyone actually in favor of executing juvenile offenders?

[bryanthompson]

I'm trying to do some research for a paper, and can't find any articles where they take the angle that juvenile offenders should be executed. Most every article I've found takes a somewhat objective point of view, listing the points of each side, or they are against it.

Does anyone know of an article or what I should look for to find this opposing point of view??

This is going to sound ridiculous, but... well... it's me. I personally think that at the age of 16 and 17, people know what they are doing enough to be held accountable. I think the reason I think this is becuase when I was 16 and 17 I was much more mature than the other people I was around, and I think I was much more reasonable... I'm inherently biased.

Anyway, the angle I'm taking with this paper is, "Executing juvenile offenders violates the eighth amendment and should be outlawed in the United States, based on scientific research alone." In my past writing I've had problems with not focusing on one part of an issue and It ended up being random and unfinished... I think by focusing on the scientific aspect of this, my paper will be much better. Oh yeah, the angle I'm using goes against my own bias. This will be a strange exercise in proving myslef wrong, heh...

Actually, i think the reason I'm in favor, in principle, of executing juvenile offenders, is that I can't connect with these ridiculous arguments like the people who say we're the only country that still does it, or that "international law" prohibits it. Screw that, those standards are all changeable and what the hell is "international law" anyway. Sounds like something some liberal invented to make himself sound credible. I'm taking this angle, becuase scientific evience alone is enough to prove the point.

anyway... if anyone has opposing viewpoints or knows of articles that would be great!

[widebody911]

I don't know about execution, but I think 16 and 17 year olds should be tried as adults, maybe even 15 year-olds.

[flyenby]

All the young gang members know that they can get away with adult acts,because they are underage..the potential should exist, and be done on a case by case basis...........

[mikester]

well - Personally I think the parents should be held reponsible as well. If the kid does an act that could get him on trial as an adult - the parent or legal guardian should be on trial as well as an accesory.

[stomachmonkey]

Well then 16/17 year olds should have the right to drink, smoke, vote, get a full blown drivers license (not learners permit) etc...

Personally I don't think as a rule they are mature enough. Yes there will always be the exception but that's not what we are talking about.

When I was 15 I did a lot of stupid stuff because I knew if I got caught it would only amount to a slap on the wrist. That is not the thought process of a mature adult.

Mature adults do the right thing regardless of whether or not they think they can get away with it.

Those adults that think they can get away with it are just stupid criminals and deserve to be caught and dealt with accordingly.

I am not in favor of capital punishment for murder. Murder is usually a crime of passion or is not premeditated. "They meant to rob the place but killing the clerk was not part of the plan."

I am in favor of capital punishment for drug dealers and purse snatchers.

Public executions every day on the prime time news oughta get the message across.

BTW, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm 100% serious.

Scott

[Aurel]

Originally posted by stomachmonkey
Public executions every day on the prime time news oughta get the message across.

BTW, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm 100% serious.

Scott [/B]

Maybe you ought to live in Saudi Arabia, Sudan or Niger. They still do that over there. Not any more in civilized countries though

Aurel

[turbo6bar]

Will public executions really deter crime when the participants are "stupid?" I used to favor the death penalty, but now believe it does not prevent crime. Also, it costs the taxpayer lots of money to jail and prosecute these individuals. I can't imagine the money spent to convict Scott Peterson. I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished.

[turbocarrera]

Executions for juveniles - well that's just great. You could have a popcorn stand outside the chamber, make DVD's of the barbarism and sell 'em to neocon whackos, etc..

Scientific evidence? WTF?? Let's see this "evidence"..

[CamB]

I don't think anyone should be executed (I believe a **genuine** life sentence sucks enough?).

And killing off people because it is costly to lock them up for their entire life is IMHO, inhuman.

[turbo6bar]

Originally posted by CamB
And killing off people because it is costly to lock them up for their entire life is IMHO, inhuman.

More money is spent to prosecute cases where the death penalty is on the line. Couple prosecution costs with the added expense of time on death row (10+ years), and it's not worth the money to practice capital punishment. I would argue it costs MORE to execute a criminal than lock him up for life.

[Halm]

Originally posted by stomachmonkey
Murder is usually a crime of passion or is not premeditated.

Interesting. I have not heard that. Do you know of a legitimate study that shows that? Not being a wise guy. Just want to know.

As capital puunishment, I tend to favor true life sentences, but always hold open the option of execution if the crime warrants it for 16 year old's and up. In other words, case by case.

[Yargk]

It's a very odd situation we have. We tell juveniles that they are not mature enough to deal with alcohol or firearms at the age of 17, yet often we will try them as adults. Are we saying to them that you can't use these things because you probably aren't that mature, but when punishing them we say you should have been just as mature in your decisions as an adult. This makes no sense.

I think by trying a juvenile as an adult we are making the statement that the juvenile was old enough to make decisions as well as an adult however it's hard to draw the line because many adults aren't very mature so you really shouldn't let off an immature peer of this mature juvenile if they are of the same age. This would lead me to believe that a set age should be put in place, maybe 15 or 16, and NO ONE under that age should be able to be charged as an adult.

[azasadny]

If they commit an "adult act", they should be tried as adults, in my opinion...

[Yargk]

Originally posted by azasadny
If they commit an "adult act", they should be tried as adults, in my opinion...

What about toddlers that kill their siblings? It happens. I just believe that the act has nothing to do with it, it's the level of development of the mind that made the decision to make that act. I think the age should be lower than 18. You're responsible for you actions before that age, but lowering the age only in certain situations because the act was more heinous is backward to me because how horrible the act is could just demonstrate further how immature the perpetrator was.

[pwd72s]

So, if a 14 year old breaks in a house, murders all inside, and then takes only the booty from the booze cabinet, he should be treated differently than the 18 year old who kills all inside, then empties the house by loading all the booty into a semi driven by a fellow gang member? You don't coddle vermin, you dispose of them. As quickly and humanely as possible. Regardless of age, IMHO...

[campbellcj]

It's very tough to generalize, but oftentimes here in SoCal we hear about truly heinous crimes comitted by "kids". Just the other day I heard about a ~34 year-old father gunned down in the parking lot of a store while getting food/milk for his toddler daughter. The shooters were purportedly 13, 16 and 18 year old gangbangers IIRC.

We also hear about tragic cop-shootings a couple times a year.

And yet, small businesses and private individuals are hamstrung by local legislation as to their ability to protect themselves with reasonable force and the right to bear arms. But I digresss...

Now, I'll never forget that I got into some rather serious trouble several times as a teenager, and in many cases these incidents cannot and should not be compared to adult transgressions. However, clearly by the time you're 16-17 years old, you damn well know what cold-blooded murder is.

Unfortunately, our capital punishment system is so diluted by legal maneuvers, media gun-avoidance, and multi-decade delays that it seems worthless as a deterrant. Maybe we should go back to public torture and hanging?

[stomachmonkey]

Murder is usually a crime of passion or is not premeditated.

I've heard that one several times. I'll see if I can dig up the valid reference.

Public executions every day on the prime time news oughta get the message across.

Yes I was serious but it's not really a realistic approach. It's my gut feeling, which is in direct contrast to my logical rational view.

I feel that way because drug dealers have got to know how much collateral damage their actions cause and they just don't give a rats a55. No conscience or morals. They just piss me off.

Personally I don't believe in the death penalty. WAY to many people sentenced to death who were later found to be innocent. I prefer life in prison. That way if you've truley got the wrong guy you can still let him out. I think as little as one person wrongly executed is to much.

Some interesting info. Apparently there are states in our Union that will execute as young as 16.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/

Scott

[campbellcj]

"Life in Prison" without parole is an interesting concept. Of course what you are really saying is that the offender will live for anything up to 70+ years off of our society as a tax burden, with no chance whatsoever of being rehabilitated or reintroduced to society.

In some ways, a truly punishing long-term sentence definitely sounds more appealing as a deterrant; however, at what -- $50K/year (I'm not sure of the exact figure) -- per inmate, and no proven evidence that incarceration has ANY impact on crime, what is the point?

[RickM]

Originally posted by stomachmonkey
Well then 16/17 year olds should have the right to drink, smoke, vote, get a full blown drivers license (not learners permit) etc...

Why? It's one thing to have an age limit on regulated activities and another to allow juveniles to get away with something that's illegal and against the norms of society.

Murder is usually a crime of passion or is not premeditated.

????????????? Did you make this up?

What about drive-by gang bangers? Their intent is nothing but to commit murder.

As said before, old enough to do the crime then old enough to pay for it. I believe a punishment equal to the crime is fair.

[legion]

When I think back to how I was as a teenage, I was stupid. Some of the pranks I and my friends pulled could have easily accidentally killed someone (usually one of us setting up the prank). I think that those under 18 should at least be given the opportunity to see through their mistakes.

I'm all for the death penalty, but not for anyone under 18. For anyone under 18, I think that they should be given 20-30 years in prison at the least--and then only released if they understand what they have done, are sorry for it, and pose no risk of doing it again. Even the age of 18 is a compromise for me--as I maintain that I was stupid until I was 20.

My opinion comes from seeing a few over-zealous prosecutors (Jim Ryan, Joe Birkett) try for the death penalty with juveniles to make their careers, not because of anything in the case. I guess they figure if they can put a few kids on death row, it shows they are extra-super-duper tough on crime.

BTW, bryanthompson, maybe you can find an opinion from one of the above mentioned prosecutors for your paper.