[Unknown Target]

Originally posted by karajorma


So what you're saying is that someone is old enough to know the consequences of his actions at the age of 15 if it relates to killing people but only old enough to know them when it regards sex at 18 and only old enough to know them regarding alcohol at 21?

Seems pretty stupid to me. If you're going to say that a 15 year old is responsible for his actions at that age then you have to lower the age of majority across the board.

I will fight to the end of time against the "he's fifteen so he's too dumb to know that pulling that trigger will kill someone". These kids know what they're doing, they know that they are killing people, and they know that most people consider it a horrible thing to do. Yes, they should be punished, but I do not believe that they should have the death penalty. For that matter, I do not think anyone should be subject to the death penalty. If killing is morally wrong, and has been since the beginning of time, why is it suddenly ok? It's just revenge, pure and simple. The person on that table is not threatening you, not attacking you, and his only other option is to be locked up in a cell for life. There is no way he would threaten you, or is threatening you, so you can't claim self defense.
So what is your justification? Oh, well, he killed someone so we get to kill him too, right?

I agree some people deserve to die, but that's not your choice to make. His or her time will come when it is supposed to come, and it should not be the state's right to decide whether or not to kill someone.
Laci Peterson's killer deserves to die, and I want him to die. But I am against the judge's death sentence, simply because the government should not decide that someone is fit to die.


And on a last note: what if you're wrong? What if the person really didn't do it? There have been quite a few cases recently of people who have been on death row for 30 years, and just been released due to new medical evidence. What happens when you kill someone, and take him away from a family that he or she may have? What're you going to do then?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Unknown Target



I will fight to the end of time against the "he's fifteen so he's too dumb to know that pulling that trigger will kill someone". These kids know what they're doing, they know that they are killing people, and they know that most people consider it a horrible thing to do. Yes, they should be punished, but I do not believe that they should have the death penalty.  

Firstly, no-one has said children should not be punished for crimes; just that they should not be punished in the same way as adults.  A child may know that stealing is wrong, but often not why....or indeed have the same set of complex decision making processes that adults have (making decisions to suit themselves primarily).

The other thing is that neuroscientists have presented research indicating that the areas of the brain responsible for rational decision making - i.e. the decisions that lead to full accountability - simply aren't accessible or fully developed until age 18; http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-10/uopm-dow102104.php (for an example)

EDIT; in which case it's entirely appropriate for an alternate track of punishment / rehabilitation, in the same way as applies to the mentally ill.

[karajorma]

Aldo's basically made my argument for me. Of course a 15 year old knows that he shouldn't kill. But does he understand the reason why as well as a 25 year old? Has he thought through all the consequences?

[Bobboau]

ok...
the point of the "juvenile execution" thing is extention of the general extending penalties normaly reserved for adults to younger people. the idea being that at 15 you probly know better than to commit some henous atrocity, something like shoplifting, yeah, that might be you being a stupid kid, but gunning down a group of bystanders, game over, you loose. unless someone is too young/stupid to understand the concept of death they have the mental capacity to be held responsable if they cause it, and I see no reason why there should be some majical instant in time were they will be allowed to get off free before and dead in retrobution after, if there is a 12 year old homocidal murderer who spends his every wakeing moment trying to kill people, why not kill the basturd?
I think the argument is more based around the general death penalty argument wich it'self is a derivitive of the debate on the role of prison. in the US prison is consitered by most to be: a)punishment, and b)removeing dangerous people, rehabilitation is posable with some, but not all, and if someone has commited a great enough crime they simply need to be removed permanently.

[aldo_14]

Because a child isn't mentally competent to understand the consequences; and quite probably isn't biologically competent to do so.  

On the specific issue of a 'henious atrocity', how many adults commit that sort of crime are there that are considered legally sane?  AFAIK most tend to be found to have a history of mental disorders such as depression, schizophrenia, and soforth - i.e. they're not mentally competent to undestand the consequences.

With regards to individual murders, you're talking a question of motive - usually related to self-interest.  And under-18s are specifically less able to make a rational decision - i.e. more likely to skew any decision they do make into the one that best suits their own self-interest, without adequate regards for the consequences.  They are simply unable to fully comprehend the consequences of taking a life ahead of what their own benefit is.

Again, no-one is advocating a lack of punishment for juvenile offenders of any kind - just that any punishment should reflect their mental capacity for comprehending the consequences of their actions.

Oh, and my specific position on the death penalty is simple; justice is not infallible, and the life of 1 innocent person is worth far, far more than the cost of incarcerating thousands of guilty people.  My view is that the death penalty is state-sponsored murder, a case of 'he did it, so can I' legitimised by a desire for revenge.  I also believe life imprisonment is a more effective punishment anyways; it's effectively the death penalty with a long waiting time.

[karajorma]

But why does the death penalty get an extension and nothing else does?

 How can you say that at 15 some guy was responsible enough to know murder was completely wrong and yet wasn't responsible enough to drink a beer or smoke a cigarette?

Why should their be some magical instant when you're considered old enough to have sex?

Seems to me that if you're saying that you decide whether someone should be tried as an adult on a case by case basis you might as well through out most of the age of majority rules and let people smoke, drink and screw when their parent feel that they are mature enough to do so regardless of their chronological age.

[Bobboau]

do you think a average 15 year old is too stupid to understand murder is wrong?

if they aren't, and they have killed someone ignorant of all consequences,  do you think it's a good idea to let them walk the streets?

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Bobboau
do you think a average 15 year old is too stupid to understand murder is wrong?

Of course I don't. I think both myself and Aldo have stated that 3 or 4 times. I do think they're too stupid to understand all of the ramifications. That's why we don't let 15 year olds make legal contracts for instance. That's why they have legal guardians at that age.

[NGTM-1R]

It's a question of degree. Do you deny murder is a considerably more serious crime and one is taught almost literally from day one that it is wrong?

How many times have you seen news stories on murder trials? How many times have you seen stories on statutory rape or drinking violations besides drunk driving? How deeply is "murder is wrong" embedded into the human pysche, compared to almost any other form of criminal activity? Are you EVER allowed to commit murder? Is it considered morally debateable or unquestionably wrong?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by ngtm1r
It's a question of degree. Do you deny murder is a considerably more serious crime and one is taught almost literally from day one that it is wrong?

How many times have you seen news stories on murder trials? How many times have you seen stories on statutory rape or drinking violations besides drunk driving? How deeply is "murder is wrong" embedded into the human pysche, compared to almost any other form of criminal activity? Are you EVER allowed to commit murder? Is it considered morally debateable or unquestionably wrong?

For the 3rd (and hopefully final time) time, no-one has said under-18s should not be punished for murder or any criminal offence.  All that has been said, is that their punishment should take into account their lesser ability to understand the consequences of the crime; this could indeed be considered as somewhat akin to the 'diminished responsibility' clause of offenses which can be applied to adults.

Especially if there is medical evidence that under-18s are less able to make rational decisions simply due to biological / developmental reasons (brain development), as has been suggested by research.

[Unknown Target]

If you have EVER seen a movie in today's society, you should know all the ramifications of killing someone. But once again, I would not call for them to be killed, and the same goes for an adult.

The interesting thing is, I actually want these people to die, but I know that it just isn't right for someone to be put to death in the grand scheme of things, so I forget what I want and do what is right.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Unknown Target
If you have EVER seen a movie in today's society, you should know all the ramifications of killing someone. But once again, I would not call for them to be killed, and the same goes for an adult.
 

But you haven't; almost every action movie you can name, has the hero killing tens or even hundreds of bad guys without consequence.  You see people get shock and get up as if it's a graze..... if you want to see the ramifications of violence and death,  the last place you'll find it is the media.

 I'm not one to blame TV/Movies/Games for everything that goes wrong, but that's the way it is - and that's why we have age restrictions in the first place, to try and temper it.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by ngtm1r
It's a question of degree. Do you deny murder is a considerably more serious crime and one is taught almost literally from day one that it is wrong?

How many times have you seen news stories on murder trials? How many times have you seen stories on statutory rape or drinking violations besides drunk driving? How deeply is "murder is wrong" embedded into the human pysche, compared to almost any other form of criminal activity? Are you EVER allowed to commit murder? Is it considered morally debateable or unquestionably wrong?

Okay. I'm not blaming TV or the movies but how often do you see stories where the hero blows the bad guys away? How often is revenge for a criminal action shown as justification for killing someone? For every claim you can make that murder is said to be universally wrong by our culture I can point to an example of it being deemed acceptable under certain conditions.

Now lets put that into a context. You have a 14 year old who is constantly being bullied, humilliated and generally having his life made miserable by other children in his school. How much of a stretch is it for such a kid to think that since they have assaulted him repeatedly it might be okay for him to get a gun and threaten them a little or maybe even shoot a few of them in the kneecaps?

An adult will understand that you won't get away with that but will a child? After all he's been assaulted too and nothing serious ever happened to the people who did it to him. What's lacking in a child is the understanding of cause and effect like this. The understanding that just cause you dream that you're going to bring a gun in and scare some people things might not end there.

EDIT : Okay I'm now worried that Aldo and I are twins seperated at birth

[Unknown Target]

Originally posted by aldo_14


But you haven't; almost every action movie you can name, has the hero killing tens or even hundreds of bad guys without consequence.  You see people get shock and get up as if it's a graze..... if you want to see the ramifications of violence and death,  the last place you'll find it is the media.

 I'm not one to blame TV/Movies/Games for everything that goes wrong, but that's the way it is - and that's why we have age restrictions in the first place, to try and temper it.

1) I think those age restrictions are bogus.

and
2) Just watch the news. Just watch movies like Schindler's List (we're watching that in History class right now), or Saving Private Ryan. Sure, the latter is a very "hero" movie, but people die, and they die in horrible ways.
But today's news is the best and most readily available place to see people die, and dead people. Sure, it's dumbed down - but look at it at it's current force, and it's already enough to get the point across to the smart and reasonably sane - Death is permanent, and it's greusome.

[karajorma]

Surely the kind of children who are sane but still commit a crime punishable by death are exactly the same sort of kids who'd never watch the news or Schindler's List.

[Unknown Target]

But they know what death is, and they know what happens: you kill someone, they die, you get in a lot of trouble. You learn this from the first time you squash an insect, and see it sitting dead on the ground, and your parents come out and tell you that it's a bad thing to do.
Now, granted, there are kids from homes who are not like that, but the concept of death and it's ramifications are known from when you were a little kid. Hell, I think I knew about death before I knew what sex was.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Unknown Target



1) I think those age restrictions are bogus.

and
2) Just watch the news. Just watch movies like Schindler's List (we're watching that in History class right now), or Saving Private Ryan. Sure, the latter is a very "hero" movie, but people die, and they die in horrible ways.
But today's news is the best and most readily available place to see people die, and dead people. Sure, it's dumbed down - but look at it at it's current force, and it's already enough to get the point across to the smart and reasonably sane - Death is permanent, and it's greusome.

1) they're there for a reason.... I can look at myself and understand how, with age, I've been able to contextualise stuff and understand ramifications from even your bog-standard action films.  But as a youngster, they were basically long propaganda efforts - the guy with the gun was good, it was ok to shoot people as long as they were bad, tough people can shrug of bullets, etc.

2)Saving Private Ryan... isn't all that good an example.  If you look at it, the one person on the 'good' side who is reluctant to shoot an unarmed prisoner is effectively portrayed as a coward whose actions lead to a colleague being killed, and then his own cold-blooded execution of the guy he let go free.

and the news...shows little or nothing.  The occasional body, maybe the odd grieving family.  But it's designed to be minimal impact to not offend people; and how many kids actually watch and take in the news?

And, again, how will this change their brains to function in a different way when making decisions?

Originally posted by Unknown Target
But they know what death is, and they know what happens: you kill someone, they die, you get in a lot of trouble. You learn this from the first time you squash an insect, and see it sitting dead on the ground, and your parents come out and tell you that it's a bad thing to do.
Now, granted, there are kids from homes who are not like that, but the concept of death and it's ramifications are known from when you were a little kid. Hell, I think I knew about death before I knew what sex was.

Knowing what death is, and understanding it are 2 entirely different things.... and again it's not even that issue, it's that the decision making process of under-18 years olds is more likely to be self-centric - the personal benefit becomes more important than the loss of the other person.

[Mongoose]

I'm 18 myself, and I have to say that I think the whole argument that someone under 18 is unable to make "rational decisions" with regards to their actions is utter BS.  My 12-year-old brother understands just as well as I do that murder is wrong and that you can go to jail for life, or even be executed, for killing someone.  Hell, my third-grade brother probably understands that.  There's no "magical mental transformation" that occurs at the age of 18 to allow someone to think rationally; at least in my opinion, mental development in those areas happens well before that.  I have a 15-year-old brother who's more mature than many people of my own age; does his age imply that he can't rationalize the consequences of murder?  I think that some of these claims are just excuses to say, "He didn't understand what he was doing."  Bull****; kids of that age absolutely know what the consequences of murder are.  I'm not for the juvenile death penalty, but I do think that anyone over the age of 14 or so who commits murder should get the same prison sentence as an adult.

[Unknown Target]

Originally posted by aldo_14

2)Saving Private Ryan... isn't all that good an example.  If you look at it, the one person on the 'good' side who is reluctant to shoot an unarmed prisoner is effectively portrayed as a coward whose actions lead to a colleague being killed, and then his own cold-blooded execution of the guy he let go free.

That is not what I was referring to at all. I was referring to the violence of death and how it is shown.

and the news...shows little or nothing.  The occasional body, maybe the odd grieving family.  But it's designed to be minimal impact to not offend people; and how many kids actually watch and take in the news?

Far too few, I'll give you that.

And, again, how will this change their brains to function in a different way when making decisions?

Same way that video games and TV shows apparantly morph them into psychotic killers?

Knowing what death is, and understanding it are 2 entirely different things.... and again it's not even that issue, it's that the decision making process of under-18 years olds is more likely to be self-centric - the personal benefit becomes more important than the loss of the other person.

The sheer audacity that people exhibit when saying that kids are too retarded to understand that killing someone is BAD and that if you do it you will go to JAIL is appauling.  I understood what death was and it's ramifications when I was seven or so years old. Granted, there is a cutoff point at where the brainpower of a child is unable to comprehend the concept of death, but that's obscenely young.

Are you or are you not saying that every person that's below 18 does not have a proper understanding of the fact that killing someone causes them to die, and you will go to jail, or in some states, die?

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Mongoose
There's no "magical mental transformation" that occurs at the age of 18 to allow someone to think rationally

So why is there a cut off in the age at which you can smoke, drink and have sex then?

Surely every 15 year old knows that smoking gives you cancer. Hell every 12 year old knows that. Do we let 12 year olds smoke? The reason why we don't is because at the age of 12 you aren't rational enough to make decisions that will affect you for the rest of your life.

Would you let your 12 year old get a tattoo? I'd bet most people wouldn't for the simple reason that most kids don't understand that in 10 years time they may hate the tattoo no matter how much they like the idea of it now.

Do you really think that someone you've said can't understand the relatively simple ramisfications of getting a tattoo will really understand the ramifications of killing someone?