The problem is if you want to say those under 18 can decide and understand what they are doing when it comes to murder and other such things, then by default aren't you saying they know what is best for themselves and those around them? As in, living with their parents, going to school, who to be able to vote for, etc.

 

If we say those under 18 y/os fully understand their actions and their place in life, then don't we have to treat them like we would treat someone over the age of 18? If you want to punish them like someone who is suppose to fully understand their actions and place in life, shouldn't they be treated like that outside of punishment?

 

I am not sure how I feel about this case, I forget most of the particulars of the case and never refreshed myself, reffering to the Malvo case.

 

However, I don't think it would be right to only consider minors adults only when we want to punish them. If you want to always be able to punish minors as adults then I think they should always be treated as adults. And obviously I don't want to be treating minors as adults, and I am sure many people agree with that, so I don't think we should be able to punish minors as adults.

700313[/snapback]

 

 

Nowadays minors do many 'adult' things such as drinking, smoking, having children, and murdering people. Being 16 or 17 doesnt cut it. in many states the age of consent for sex is 16. how can comeone who is mature enough to have sex and children not be mature enough to kill someone?

700441[/snapback]

 

So doing illegal things based upon you age group makes you an adult? Or makes it an "adult" thing? So if a pack of smokes found its way into a 11 y/os hands and he smoked them would that mean he is doing an adult thing, or just something stupid? Would you want to consider him an adult then?

 

If an 11 y/o murdered his parents, walked in with a gun and shot them both in the back of the head, would you be okay if the kid was sentenced to death? How about a 14 or 15 year old?

 

You guys make it seem 16 is the magical age in which you know what it all clicks in, you have morals, you make sense of the world and that is it. From here on out you are your own person, just not legally. Well then, why not make 16 the new 18? Would you be okay with giving 16 year olds the right to vote? To go to war? I mean you say they are mature enough to have sex, and they already drink and smoke and have families, well then why are we repressing them and keeping them down in your opinion?

 

Like I said, minors should not be able to have a greater understanding of their place in the world, not be able to have a global look of the world. If you think 16 year olds can do this, then why not make 16 the age between minor-hood and adult-hood? 18 is just an arbitrary number anyway.

 

Like I said, I don't think it is fair to judge minors as adults if they are given rights as minors. Its a double standard to treat a group of people one way but then when it comes to punishment treat them like another group.

700458[/snapback]

 

 

By our society you have to be '18' to be an adult. Anything that a person under 18 does thats 'illegal' is a status offense, its only illegal b/c we have decided that it is. You cant drink when your 18 but you can vote. You can have sex when your 16 but you cant smoke. In the rare instances when a 15,16, or 17 year old committs first degree murder they should be brought up before a jury to decide if they are executed. Its not that common, its not a change in the entire juvenile system. Its a small blip on the screen that will affect less than 1% of our population. By your LOGIC 18 year old should be allowed to dirnk since its unfair to treat them as adults for somethings but not for others. People have decided that 18 is too young to drink, but people should not decide that 16 is to young to murder. To conclude, none of this should apply to youths who are mentally retarded or the such, meaning same rules as it is for adults. Being 16 as opposed to 16 is not a major variation in knowledge of right from wrong whne murdering someone in a premeditated way.

Well it is the states who have decided 18 year olds, or anyone below the age of 21 are too young to drink. Not really the "people". I am not sure if you polled all the "people" in the nation that the majority would say 18 y/os shouldn't drink. Not that it matters since its what the people in charge in the state think, and Washington.

 

And I do think 18 year olds should be allowed to drink. But that is besides the point.

 

Like you said these sort of cases are a blip on the radar. So why cover these small blips in bloodshed? 15,16,17 year olds are young enough that they can address the issues they have in jail and come out as better people and still make positive contributions to society.

 

I study psychology so I can tell you that 15,16,17 year olds' minds are not set in stone, they are still developing. So they can be rehabilitated, there is hope for them.

 

I am not against the death penalty, I am against using the death penalty against minors. If society does not believe it is acceptable for minors to care for themselves then I have to assume that is because they don't believe minors are fully developed and have a full understanding of life and their place in the world. So why punish them like they do?

 

If 16 year olds were treated as adults I would have no problem with it what so ever because then society is telling me they believe 16 year olds are complete, clear thinking individuals. But for now, that is not the case.

Tony shh... rational minded people are having a conversation.

 

If you had a bad day, take your own advice and go brutalize a dog, not that I would codone it, but you do.

once again there just has to be a magical # ... it does get set at some point, but isn't necessarily applicable to the whole

 

allowing 16 year olds to face adult punishment by the adult standard (note how this only takes away the death penalty as an option, not the fact that they can still be tried as adults and punished for life) should be an option

 

it is for the courts to decide if they were mature enough to understand their actions ... while not all 16&17 year olds can make a real life distinction, many can and they shouldn't be eliminated just because of an age loophole

 

most states have a higher standard of the nature of crime to be death penalty eligible ... the people who create such a devastating crime aren't exactly the type of people who will generally magically reform in a 2 year span and be ready to go back into population

 

My main point with all this isn't to debate the death penalty. It is a matter of whether or not 16 & 17 yr olds can be charged as adults. If so they should be open to the same punishment options as adults, be it death penalty or otherwise. The use of such and whether to try to individual as an adult should be decided by the courts.

 

I can't see them justifying trying someone as an adult and then giving a lesser standard of punishment.

however, I don't think the decision of murdering someone takes that much thought

 

 

Actually for a murder to be considered for death penalty it has to be a 1st degree murder, a pre-meditated murder...so it should be taking a good amount of thought by who decides to follow through with it.

premedited doesn't mean precise

 

i can think I want to rape and kill someone ... i can understand that it is probably the wrong thing to do, so I should probably keep it private.

 

I could see someone going home, follow them, see that they are alone, force my way into their house, rape them and slice their throat

 

I would be death penalty eligible in many states

 

sure some thought went into the act, but not a whole lot of it was complex

 

see girl, break into house, rape and kill

 

much simpler than figuring out a full amortization table

Well it is the states who have decided 18 year olds, or anyone below the age of 21 are too young to drink. Not really the "people". I am not sure if you polled all the "people" in the nation that the majority would say 18 y/os shouldn't drink. Not that it matters since its what the people in charge in the state think, and Washington.

 

And I do think 18 year olds should be allowed to drink. But that is besides the point.

 

Like you said these sort of cases are a blip on the radar. So why cover these small blips in bloodshed? 15,16,17 year olds are young enough that they can address the issues they have in jail and come out as better people and still make positive contributions to society.

 

I study psychology so I can tell you that 15,16,17 year olds' minds are not set in stone, they are still developing. So they can be rehabilitated, there is hope for them.

 

I am not against the death penalty, I am against using the death penalty against minors. If society does not believe it is acceptable for minors to care for themselves then I have to assume that is because they don't believe minors are fully developed and have a full understanding of life and their place in the world. So why punish them like they do?

 

If 16 year olds were treated as adults I would have no problem with it what so ever because then society is telling me they believe 16 year olds are complete, clear thinking individuals. But for now, that is not the case.

700480[/snapback]

 

I guess I can live with that. however, I think life with no possibility of parole should also be on the table. I dont think just b/c a person is 15 or 16 that they CAN be rehabilitated. Case by case basis.

I think it's gotta be based on the crime and the situation. Of course an 11-year-old who shoots his parents in the back of the head shouldn't get the death penalty. Should a 15-year-old who does the same thing? I think you've gotta look at other circumstances. If the 15-year-old was just angered with his parents and found a gun, probably not, just juvenile detention/correction. If the kid's had a history of violence, and told people he was gonna kill his parents? You might have to look at it a different way.

 

Someone like John Lee Malvo traveled around with another man taking part in this killings. He was 17. I think it's punishable by death.

 

I think there should be no law for murder under 18, but rather, the fate of the defendant should be based on the situation.