Death penalty for juveniles: Should U.S. maintain or abolish this policy?

[prolesunited]

First, some background information

Court to consider ending execution of juveniles

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court said Monday it will consider whether executing young killers violates constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment, continuing the justices' substantial review of death penalty practices in this country.

The high court already has eliminated executions of the mentally retarded, insisted that juries - not judges - impose death sentences, chastised lower courts for ignoring death penalty appeals and significantly raised standards for capital defense counsel.

Now the justices will take up the case of Missouri death row inmate Christopher Simmons, who was convicted and sentenced to death in 1994. Simmons was 17 years old when he tossed Shirley Crook off a railroad trestle into a river after a botched robbery a year earlier.

The Missouri Supreme Court overturned Simmons' sentence, relying heavily on the high court's 2002 ruling in Atkins v. Virginia, which outlawed executions of the mentally retarded. The "evolving standards of decency" the high court justices cited in that case should be extended to make executing young killers unconstitutional, the Missouri court wrote.
<snip>

In 1989, the high court ruled it unconstitutional for states to put people to death for crimes they committed before they were 16, but the decision left open the possibility of executing 16- and 17-year-olds.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/7801631.htm



Since 2000, only four countries in the world are known to have executed juveniles: Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Iran, Pakistan, and the United States. Further narrowing this list,Pakistan recently abolished the death penalty for juvenile offenders and the DRC has established a moratorium on executions.

In the past five years, the United States has executed 13 juvenile offenders, 3 in the year 2002 alone. Eight of these executions took place in the state of Texas. The rest of the world combined carried out five such executions. Scott Hain was executed in Oklahoma on April 13 of this year, making the U.S. the first country to execute a juvenile offender in 2003.

Twenty-two U.S. states allow for the execution of people who were 16 or 17 at the time of the crime. As of December 2002, around 80 juvenile offenders sat on death row; this constitutes approximately 2% of the total death row population.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/juveniles.html


So, are you opposed or do you support the death penalty for juveniles? Please state the reasons/facts that support your opinion.

What should the Dem Party's platform on this issue?

Whether you support or oppose the death penalty, do you think juveniles should be locked up for life with no possibility of parole? What was your opinion on the Tate case? (boy from Florida recently released from life sentence)

[noonwitch]

1. I am opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances at all times

Even for serial killers and terrorists. It's wrong. A life sentence needs to mean no parole ever, though.

[LincolnMcGrath]

2. I`m with noonwitch

[chiburb]

3. Me too. n/t

.

[K-W]

4. It is the height of our assinine punitive approach

Our society would still rather see killers punished than stop people from killing.

[forgethell]

12. No reason why

we can't do both

[prolesunited]

13. What do you mean?

Would you answer the questions posed in the thread starter?

[forgethell]

67. Sure

If you are old enough to do an adult crime, you are old enough to suffer an adult punishment, whatever that is. Rape, Murder, armed robbery. these are not for kids.

[Pithlet]

82. They're not for adults, either.

Children and adults are not the same. It is why we don't treat them the same in our society. They just don't have the same capacity for judgment that adults do. It does not excuse them from crimes they commit, but neither does mean we treat them as adults when they are not.

We don't make them work. We don't let them drink alcohol. We don't let them vote. We don't treat them as adults in nearly every other capacity in our society. We didn't decide those things for no good reason.

[forgethell]

96. No, they are not adults

but these crimes deserve more than the juvenile system is currently dealing out. When I was 10, I didn't know what 'rape' was, but I knew not to murder, I knew not to steal. I knew this stuff when I was 8. And so do these 'children', but they do it anyway.

I would, howver, cut them considerably more slack in situations that resulted from bad judgment rather than moral turpitude.

[Pithlet]

102. How do you tell the difference?

And, what exactly is the difference between bad judgment and moral turpitude? Do you mean "we won't kill 'good' kids who happened to make a bad choice, we'll just kill the 'bad' ones, instead?

Bottom line is we don't punish kids like adults because we don't treat them like adults. We punish adults who have sex with kids. We don't force kids to work. We don't let them drink alcohol, vote, or join the armed forces. Why do we do those things? Because they aren't adults. Why change that when it comes to the justice system? Is it just to satisfy our need for vengeance?

[blondeatlast]

53. Agreed 100%. No death penalty, period.

Edit: clarity, since my post follows one that could make it confusing.

[Red State Rebel]

73. I am Personally Familiar with This Case...

Here is a link about this case: http://www.thedeathhouse.com/deathhousenewfi_127.htm

The father of the other boy involved in this case is a close personal friend of ours. I also know Christopher's step father but I wouldn't consider him a friend, he's a jerk. Our friend's son was 15 at the time and is serving life without parole.

What they did to this woman was horrific. Duct taping her head and hands, putting her in her van, taking her to a railroad bridge, walking her out and pushing her off. Just because she interrupted them burglarizing her home.

I think what really sets me off in the case of Christopher Simmons was that a third accomplice that backed out of going said Christopher bragged the week before that they could do what they wanted without fear of trouble because of their age. He spoke in detail of doing exactly what they did to this woman.

This woman's family never really recovered from this...her husband died within a year or so in his mid 40's I believe of a heart attack.

Christopher Simmons should be held accountable for what he did, knowingly and willingly, thinking he could get by with it because the courts wouldn't execute him.

[Mormegil42]

92. I understand

Most 16 and 17 year olds who are involved in a killing shouldn't be given the death penalty. Things get out of hand sometimes and young teens might not be able to control the situation. However some crimes do deserve it and this one seems like one of those. This was not so much a murder as it was an execution.

[Sapphocrat]

89. Hear, hear!

And the fact that the question of whether or not to continue executing children must even be asked is utterly appalling.

I am shamed by my country's barbarism.

[laylah]

105. I am against

the death penalty, although I must say when an elderly or child is involved, I have to struggle with myself.

That said, I have always felt that this practice is abhorrent for many reasons but my main one is the FACT that the frontal lobe of the brain which rules reasoning, among other things, is not fully developed until one is 17, and in some cases, 18. I DO believe that kids SHOULD know right from wrong but in many cases they do not.

Just my two cents.

Jenn

[pmbryant]

5. This is an issue that I am not very familiar with

So, are you opposed or do you support the death penalty for juveniles? Please state the reasons/facts that support your opinion.

What should the Dem Party's platform on this issue?

Whether you support or oppose the death penalty, do you think juveniles should be locked up for life with no possibility of parole? What was your opinion on the Tate case? (boy from Florida recently released from life sentence)

Well, as no doubt is the case with many here, I am opposed to the death penalty period. For the simple reason that in practice, it is severely discriminatory. And furthermore, I see no reason why 'life without parole' shouldn't be the ultimate sentence. I am not very familiar with this issue, but I have heard that some states (e.g., Texas) do not have 'life without parole' as a sentencing option, and that this thus inflates the number of death sentences handed out. Is this true?

Since the Supreme Court is currently reviewing this case about executing juvenile offenders, I'm not sure the Democratic Party and its members should adopt a position at the moment. After all, if the Supreme Court rules this is unconstitutional, then any position taken would be moot. But, knowing the Court's makeup, it could easily decide the opposite. If that happens, this becomes a political issue.

I'm not familiar with the Tate case. And I don't have a strong opinion on whether juvenile offenders should be given 'life without parole'. I can imagine some cases where that might be an appropriate sentence, so it should probably be an option. If anyone wants to explain the Tate case, or provide a helpful link to more information, I would be appreciative.

--Peter

[prolesunited]

7. Wish I had more time today for this thread.

I can fill in some of the holes later this evening.

Here's the Google link for stories about the Supreme Court weighing the death penalty for juveniles.
http://news.google.com/news?num=30&hl=en&edition=us&q=cluster:www%2eglobeandmail%2ecom%2fservlet%2fstory%2fRTGAM%2e20040126%2ewscotus0126%2fBNStory%2fInternational%2f


Here's more on the Tate case
Tate freed from prison
FORT LAUDERDALE -- Lionel Tate, the youngest American sentenced to life in prison without parole, got a taste of freedom and his mother's home cooking Monday, after spending three years behind bars for the beating death of his 6-year-old playmate.

Tate, 16, was released without bond by Broward Circuit Judge Joel Lazarus, almost two months after an appeals court overturned Tate's conviction. On Thursday, the teen is expected to plead guilty to second-degree murder and be sentenced to time served, with house arrest, probation and community service.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/auto/epaper/editions/tuesday/news_04512f2031cb804500d9.html


http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&edition=us&num=30&newsclusterurl=http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/auto/epaper/editions/tuesday/news_04512f2031cb804500d9.html


I am against the death penalty in all cases as well. But I know that some here support it. I really was curious to hear from those people as to how they feel about executing juveniles.

I really have to run now, though. Sorry. :-(

[pmbryant]

9. Thanks for the info on the Tate case

It looks like justice has been served in that case with the appeals court ruling. The 'life without parole' sentence just seemed completely wrong in that case, where a 12-yr old killed (accidentally?) a younger child.

--Peter

[blondeatlast]

54. I literally broke down in tears when the sentence was announced.

[TexasMexican]

84. Nothing to do with the Death Penalty.

Tate didnt deserve the death penalty, and he didnt get it.

I dont think he deserved life in prison either, its good to see that a better justice was finally served to him.

IMO there are two types of murders, the ones that are able to be rehabilitated, and those that are not. The death penalty should be for the latter and not the former.

[iverglas]

6. yes, and no

As in: yes, I oppose the death penalty for juveniles. But then, as others have said, I oppose the death penalty in all cases everywhere all the time. Nonetheless, there are arguments for precluding it in the case of juveniles even if it is applied to adults.

And no, I do not support "life without parole" -- again, I don't support it for anyone, but particularly for juveniles, in a crunch.

In Canada, "life without parole" would be regarded as cruel and unusual punishment, a denial of fundamental justice (which includes due process), and so on, and therefore unconstitutional. (Mandatory minimum terms are mostly regarded as unconstitutional as well, with a few exceptions where the Supreme Court has deferred to Parliament's judgment in what it regards as legitimately a matter of policy, e.g. the mandatory minimum before parole for first degree murder, twenty-five years, and the mandatory minimum before parole for second degree murder, ten or more years -- which the Court upheld in the case of a man who had killed his severely and painfully disabled daughter, despite the jury's objections to the sentence itself.)

The closest we get is that a minimum term before parole eligibility may be imposed -- and even then, the law has the "faint hope" clause, under which someone convicted of first-degree murder, say, which means 25 years before parole eligibility, can apply for judicial review of the parole ineligibility after 15 years. The former Saskatchewan premier who had his wife beaten and shot to death some years ago has just failed in such an effort.


There is a reason that we have "juvenile justice" -- children are not adults. This is a relevant consideration in terms of both their capacity to be "criminal", and thus how we should deal with them when they offend, and their capacity to be rehabilitated, and thus how we should treat them once convicted. Besides being obviously cruel and unusual, and a denial of due process, "life without parole" disregards the fact that we cannot predict perfectly who a child may become as an adult.

And no, the fact that a child has committed some heinous crime does not mean that s/he is not a child. Children simply are not adults, no matter how nasty they are. It may well be that a child who commits a heinous crime is not ever going to be rehabilitated, but that's something we can predict even less well than we can in the case of adults, simply because children are, by definition, still in a developmental process that adults are no longer in.

It's always worth reading, and reading about, the Convention on the Rights of the Child:
http://www.unicef.org/crc/crc.htm
http://www.unicef.org/crc/fulltext.htm

Article 37

States Parties shall ensure that:

(a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age;

(b) No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time;

(c) Every child deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person and in a manner which takes into account the needs of persons of his or her age. In particular, every child deprived of liberty shall be separated from adults unless it is considered in the child's best interest not to do so and shall have the right to maintain contact with his or her family through correspondence and visits, save in exceptional circumstances;

(d) Every child deprived of his or her liberty shall have the right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance, as well as the right to challenge the legality of the deprivation of his or her liberty before a court or other competent, independent and impartial authority and to a prompt decision on any such action.

But then, the US has never ratified the Convention ...

.

[iverglas]

19. I actually had a point

and I figured I should make it clearer.

The US is, like it or not, a member of the community of nations.

The US likes to fancy itself a leader among those nations when it comes to things like freedom and democracy.

In point of fact, this is one example of how far behind much of the rest of the world the US actually is in a variety of respects, and how it has isolated itself from the rest of that world, and flipped off the rest of the world and its opinions and concerns about things like human rights.

If the US wants to have credibility when it speaks on some of its pet topics, it really needs to give some indication that it listens when others' opinions and concerns are expressed, and intends to engage with the rest of us in the big freedom, democracy and human rights projects of the day -- and not just tell everybody else how things oughta be done.

Legitimate, widespread international opinion is that children have certain rights and those rights should be respected and protected.

A country that executes people for crimes committed before they were adults, and imprisons people for life for crimes committed before they were adults, in direct opposition to that legitimate, widespread international opinion, is telling the rest of the world that they and their opinions can go to hell, and can reasonably expect the rest of the world to tell it the same thing when it voices its own opinions about their internal practices.

Of course, the US can always just invade 'em if they don't listen.

.

[Muddleoftheroad]

21. American justice

Is for American law. Sorry, but I think adjusting our laws or punishments to make the rest of the world happy is just silly.

This is not Canada and not England or Ireland or Switzerland. Our laws and our circumstances are different.

Should we simultaneously LOWER the age of sexual consent like Spain? Lower the age that people can drive like other nations? Perhaps lower the age that they can serve in the military like the UK?

No, no and no.

[prolesunited]

22. Would you care to answer the actual question

posed in this thread? Do you believe the U.S. should maintain the death penalty for juveniles?

[Muddleoftheroad]

23. Depends on the case

So, yes. I also believe we should work hard at creating a federal board to oversee executions so that a fair review is applied in all cases by experts who check evidence and court proceedings.

Then when all that is done, appeals should also be expedited.

[pmbryant]

27. What does expediting appeals actually imply?

Shouldn't these defendants have the same appeals rights as anyone else?

:shrug:

(BTW, I agree with your post above that American justice is up to Americans to institute. As individuals, we can certainly take advice from others around the world and pressure our government accordingly. But we are also free to ignore their advice. Just as the rest of the world is free to ignore ours. Well, ideally. :-( )

--Peter

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. It means

That the death penalty is unlike all penalties. We should work hard to ensure it is fairly delivered and then we should execute the penalty not wait 10 years to do so.

[pmbryant]

35. That doesn't really clear up the issue for me

Isn't the appeals process the legally accepted method of 'working hard' to ensure justice is done?

Why short circuit that process for the most irreversible penalty of them all? That makes absolutely no sense to me. Even years back when I had no strong opinion on the death penalty in general, this made no sense to me.

--Peter

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. The current appeals process is scattershot

And largely dependent on your lawyers. For the absolute punishment, such a process should be automatic and it should encompass a review of all evidence and proceedings.

Then, when all this is done, it would also serve to expedite the sentence.

That addresses both the review and the speed and cost of the process.

[pmbryant]

39. I hope the defendant still gets a lawyer in your system

The defendant needs a strong advocate for his case, whatever system you propose. So necessarily any appeal will be dependent upon the competency of this lawyer.

If the defendant can't afford a good lawyer, the government should appoint one (and not at bargain basement prices). Of course, there is still the potential conflict of interest here that the defendant's lawyer is being paid by the government that is trying to execute him. I'm not sure how to get around that.

(Well the obvious way around it is not to have the death penalty. Yet another reason to oppose the death penalty!)

How does it work now, for capital punishment defendants who can't afford lawyers?

:shrug:

--Peter

[Muddleoftheroad]

41. Gets more than that

My idea would ensure that there is a PROPER review of all evidence and legal procedures no matter who the client is -- rich or poor. And it would go to trained experts, not just random judges.

Since this is America, in my opinion, having a lawyer is an assumed reality.

[pmbryant]

44. Thanks for clarifying (n/t)

[prolesunited]

34. What purpose does it serve for the state

to take another life? How does the death penalty serve society? What do you gain by executing someone that you could not achieve by simply locking them up?

Did you look at the Amnesty International report:
Only countries executing juveniles are: Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Iran, Pakistan, and the United States. Further narrowing this list,Pakistan recently abolished the death penalty for juvenile offenders and the DRC has established a moratorium on executions.

So, look, isn't that nice? It's only the U.S. and Iran left and yet many on the Right would not hesitate to denounce Iran as an uncivilized society. What does this say about the U.S.?

You say that U.S. policy shouldn't be determined by other countries, but if the entire WORLD is doing something different, would it not serve us well to consider the possibility that we may actually be wrong on this issue?

[Karenina]

26. Maybe the Muddle

just needs to see a demographic breakdown of exactly WHO receives the penalty and at long last is put to death.

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. I KNOW who receives it

Hence my above comments.

[iverglas]

32. well hot damn

And oddly enough, I didn't say that the US was Canada or England or Ireland or Switzerland.

Nonetheless, I'd be fascinated to hear what "different" "circumstances" might have to be considered in deciding whether it is justifiable to execute people for crimes they committed before they were adults, and might make this justifiable in the US but not in Canada or England or Ireland or Switzerland.

And even more oddly, I didn't suggest "adjusting <y>our laws or punishments to make the rest of the world happy". If you actually think that this is what I said, perhaps you could cut and paste the offending bit of what I wrote so that I can explain to you what it actually meant.

Muddled, muddled, muddled. Or ...?


Should we simultaneously LOWER the age of sexual consent like Spain? Lower the age that people can drive like other nations? Perhaps lower the age that they can serve in the military like the UK?
No, no and no.

I dunno -- who you talking to?

What I would say is that any country that chooses not to consider the reasons why another country does anything, in deciding what to do itself, is possibly destined to end up as a great big backwater of inbred navel-gazing dullards living under antiquated laws that don't serve their interests.

If cavedweller # 2 had never asked cavedweller # 1 what his favourite food was, and why s/he carried that flint around ... or just observed what cavedweller # 1 ate and did with that flint ... well, we might still be dwelling in caves. And fighting over whose taste in food should prevail.

The idea that learning and considering new things is a bad thing -- if that's an idea you hold, which of course I can't tell since you completely failed to address my assertion that it is a good thing, that having been my actual point -- well, it's one that has always just been beyond me.

And the idea that others should listen to and even follow one's own prescriptions for how they should act, when one is not willing even to listen to and consider their ideas about how one should act one's self -- well, that's an enterprise that seems doomed to failure, if you ask me.

Unless, of course, as I said, one is just the cavedweller with the biggest stick.

.

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. America is a different culture

We have different crimes, different attitudes, etc.

We also range heavily in what age we consider appropriate for trying younger people as adults.

Clearly also, the concept of adapting our laws to international conventions was lost on you. If we do it for this, why not other cases? You are advocating that position, not I.

I think, given that America is part of the world and, even more, a land of immigrants, we CONSTANTLY consider the ways things are done elsewhere. Thankfully, we don't always emulate them.

Just because things are done elsewhere does NOT make them better. It does make them different, that's all.

[iverglas]

42. keep on trying

Clearly also, the concept of adapting our laws to international conventions was lost on you. If we do it for this, why not other cases? You are advocating that position, not I.

Forgive me for being so dense ... but I seem to have missed the "international convention" relating to the age of consent, the legal driving age, and whatever other compost you dragged into this discussion.

As far as I know, no such "international conventions" exist.

On the other hand, there IS an international Convention on the Rights of the Child that expresses the consensus, in the community of nations (I'll let you guess which of those nations has *not* ratified that Convention), that people should not be executed, or imprisoned for life, for crimes committed before they were adults.

Are you perchance getting this point?

You also seem to be confused about what I am advocating ... or for some reason to have decided to continue to misrepresent what I am advocating.

Again I will ask: will you kindly cut and paste, and QUOTE, the bit I wrote that conveyed the idea to you that I was advocating that the US "adapt <its> laws to international conventions"? I will then attempt to understand and explain where you went astray.

Canada has not executed anyone in several decades, and I couldn't even guess when, or whether, we executed someone for a crime committed as a juvenile. The death penalty was abolished here long before the Convention on the Rights of the Child existed.

Has Canada "adapt<ed its> laws to international conventions"? Hmm. Not unless we were engaged in some time travelling.

Pop quiz. Name an international convention other than this one that you think the US should not adapt its laws to. Hell, name an international convention.


Just because things are done elsewhere does NOT make them better.

Once again: who in the world are you talking to? Did someone here say that the fact that things were done elsewhere DID make them better? Why do you say such pointless things?

Intelligent and well-intentioned people, nonetheless, will almost always consider how things are done elsewhere in deciding how they will do them, and if they find that they are done differently VIRTUALLY EVERYWHERE ELSE, they might pause an instant to consider WHY that might be.

And if they find that THEY do not have good reasons for doing things differently from how they are done virtually everywhere else, they might CONSIDER the idea that how they are done everywhere else MIGHT BE better.

In point of fact, you have yet to offer ANY reason why the US *does* execute people and imprison them for life (let alone why it *should* execute them and imprison them for life) for crimes committed before they were adults.

Surely the fact that things are done differently IN THE U.S. doesn't make the way the US does them better either, would you not agree?

So exactly WHAT might it be that DOES make the way the US does them better? Even better for the US (and what are the circumstances that make that so)?

A mind is sure a terrible thing to close.


I think, given that America is part of the world and, even more, a land of immigrants, we CONSTANTLY consider the ways things are done elsewhere.

Ah, the mythology. It's grand.

It's unfortunately not quite as accurate.

About 10% of the US population was born outside the US. About twice as high a proportion -- nearly 1 in 5 -- of the Canadian population was born outside Canada.

In any event, it's one very easy thing to SAY that the US "constantly" considers the ways things are done elsewhere ... but it really is a very different thing to demonstrate the accuracy of that assertion.

In point of fact, most USAmericans don't have a bleeding clue about how just about anything is done elsewhere, if you'll excuse my frank observation.

Imagine if you will that you are on a road trip around Canada, and you pick up a hitchhiker. A polite young man, who genuinely wants to know more about you. "What's it like down there in the States?" he asks. "Are you free to go wherever you want?"

Well, that's damned unlikely to happen. But it's exactly what happened to me in Tennessee one day. (I explained that well, it was pretty much like what it was there, except that we had health care for everybody. He nodded thoughtfully ... being, as he was, on the way to visit his sick and poor mother ...)

Ya have to actually know what the alternatives are before you can agree or disagree with them, and assess the wisdom of your own choices, just for starters.

.

[prolesunited]

43. Excellent response!

Thank you for really drawing out these points, but don't expect to get anywhere.

[LincolnMcGrath]

47. Excellent post iverglas !

:toast: SKOL :toast:

[Muddleoftheroad]

51. Conventions

Ah, so much to discuss.

First off, while there is no agreed upon age for the age of consent, it is typically 16 in America and younger in most of the rest of the world. That is exactly the concept you are discussing. If pretty much everybody else does something, shouldn't we? (My momma would have made a comment about jumping off a bridge as well.)

While there "general" opposition to death penalty for youthful offenders, there is also opposition to the death penalty otherwise around the world. Here in America, we still support the sentence. Perhaps the worldwide opposition to the penalty colors their judgment in this case.

You clearly are asking us to adapt our laws to those elsewhere. The whole context of your responses makes that clear. And since you seem to think the worldwide strategy here is better, that reaffirms my point that you think things are done better elsewhere.

America has considered that things are done differently elsewhere and, frankly, I don't think we much care.

The death penalty, properly handled, works. It eliminates the long-term risk to society. Murderers continue to be a threat doing what they do -- murder others -- even when they go to prison. They are a threat to guards, staff, visitors and even other prisoners. And, should they get out, they are a threat to the rest of us.

Maybe if you met some of these lovely "youthful" offenders you would feel differently. You might not want to give THEM the death penalty, but they sure might want to give it to you if you had something they wanted -- like a few bucks for crack. Or maybe you just witnessed a crime. Trust me, they'd kill you in a heartbeat.

My mind is not closed. It is open on this subject. I have seen the damage these underage thugs can cause. They continue to commit crime with impunity, knowing they are safe. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't indicate a closed mind. It merely indicates that I believe your position to be the wrong one.

For a scond, let's even stick with your stats about population. Suppose 10% of the U.S. population is an accurate number, that is easily enough to influence legislation. The total number of Hispanics or African-Americans isn't much higher than that and both groups influence law. (As an aside, I doubt that your stats include illegal immigration which would increase the percentage to almost the exact same as with my community or Hispanics.)

My favorite part of your post is the anecdote. Yes, I too could go around the world and pick up a hitchhiker who thinks our streets are paved with gold or that Americans all wear cowboy hats. Ignorance is worldwide and one anecdote is meaningless.

[prolesunited]

52. I would concede part of the problem is

that many of the people who posted in this thread do not support the death penalty at all, for juveniles or adults.

I love your use of fear in your rhetoric as in, "You better kill them before they kill you."

Just how many murders are committed in prison by murderers? How many escape? I would like to see some statistics on that to better assess the risks they pose to society if we simply refuse to kill them.

Just as you argue that the death penalty, properly handled, works. I would say the prison system, properly handled, works. Properly administered, prisoners would not kill within those walls nor would they escape. How would these arguments differ?

What truly troubles me is the number of people who have been improperly convicted and are released MANY years later after they have been found innocent. You say the death penalty should be administered swiftly. What happens when we then find out they are innocent. They are dead. There is no reversing that decision.

Perhaps you would argue that is the price we pay. May you never be the innocent person who is put to death.

The other issue I have is the way in which it is unfairly administered. Clearly, there is discrimination involved along both racial and class lines. You argue that properly administered, it would be fair.

However, we have NOT made any of those changes, but you think it is just to simply continue supporting state-sanctioned killing while hoping the system catches up.

What about a moratorium until you can fix the problems within the system? You admit there are weaknesses, so why not fix them before administering your brand of justice?

[Muddleoftheroad]

55. Innocents die either way

My point is not, as you quaintly put it, "You better kill them before they kill you." My point is this, innocents will die either way. A lot of them die if you choose to prevent the death penalty.

As you can probably guess, prison deaths are both underreported and often misreported as "accidental deaths." However, I was able to find a few relavent statistics for you:

* According to a study, 67.5% of all prisoners released in 1994 were rearrested within three years. That's one hell of a recidivism rate for THREE YEARS.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf

* Of that number, there were 18,268 cases of prisoners in jail for homicide. Within three years of release, there were 3,051 new charges of homicide. That's just 16.7% in only three years. Yes, that's just the charged offenses. God knows how many others there are. Again, that's just THREE YEARS.

* "Inter-prisoner violence, extortion, harassment, and other abuse is even more common. Indeed, it has been estimated that as many as 70 percent of inmates are assaulted by other inmates each year.(59) In 1998, the most recent year for which national statistics are available, seventy-nine inmates were killed and many thousands more were injured so severely that they required medical attention.(60) In 1997, 10 percent of state inmates and 3 percent of federal inmates reported being injured in a fight since entering prison.(61) Recognizing the problem, a recent study of New York state prisons focusing on criminal conduct by inmates spoke of the "extraordinary amount of crime committed in state prisons annually," and concluded that rather than preventing crime, in many cases incarceration "merely shifts the locus of criminal activity away from neighborhoods to correctional facilities."(62)"

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/report2.html#_1_12

If you really think the total is 79, you are grossly underestimating the problem.

I would argue the prison system does NOT work. It warehouses people, nothing more. But nothing you or I can do will eliminate the risk of escape. Prisoners have 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to contemplate escape. Every weakness in your prison will be exposed for smuggling, crime and possible escape.

As for reversed convictions, thankfully they are much related to improvements in both our judicial system and our criminal technology. That is why I strongly propose we have a review board for all death penalty cases.

Yes, innocents will die -- either way. In my way, we as a society get to try them, have appeals and even reassess both the evidence and the trial. In your way, innocents die randomly and consistently.

I would gladly embrace a moratorium if it was used to fix problems and improve the process. However, we both know, it would be used as another delaying tactic by death penalty opponents and nothing more.

[Solon]

56. A question Muddle...

OK, I oppose the death penalty, more on cynical grounds than any thing else. What I mean is that I do not believe humans are perfect, and that any system we make observing the death penalty will have flaws and make mistakes. The question is, is your system perfect? And if not, given the stakes, is it worth the life of one innocent? Or do you believe that to make an omelet you must break a few eggs?

[Muddleoftheroad]

58. Innocents will die under either system

No, I do not claim my system is perfect.

I do believe that those who oppose the death penalty are simply washing their hands of the inevitable killing that results from their actions. Murderers murder. It is what they do. Put them in prison for life with no parole and they have no motivation to do otherwise. In fact, doing so can make their life in prison better. It gives them more power, makes them feared.

You and many others are making what you believe to be a moral choice. However, I think it a wildly immoral one. You end up believing that your actions save lives, when in fact the reverse is the case. You just don't want blood on your hands. But it's there, you just refuse to see it.

[Solon]

59. Systematic Killing and Random Killing...

are two different things in my opinion. Our prisons are cesspools for violence and drugs, as well as other offenses, I do not deny that. However, if you want to address that then its another issue entirely. The prison system itself is at fault for that, and we need to address it. Think about it, the prisons breed murderers, even though many in the system are non-violent offenders. That system needs to be addressed as well. It has nothing to do with death penalty per se, only in the entire criminal justice system that breeds such corruption into inmates and guards alike. Separating the populations, between non-violant and violant, putting the most violant offenders in maximum security, etc. can all be used to alleviate that problem. How would your system solve it?

[Muddleoftheroad]

62. Prisons

The prison system is not so much at fault. It is an expression of our will as a society. If we want to fix it, we need to change the laws that send people there first of all.

* End the crusade against petty drug users. Sure, lock up those who distribute, but mandate treatment for those who use.
* I agree we need to separate out the criminals. Sometimes that is hard to do. What people do and what they are convicted of are often far different. I think we should analyze their history and create prisons for those without any violent charges OR convictions. Even then, violent offenders will be in both places.
* We need to stop prison violence and prison rape. It is such a huge problem that it is a national joke. Sorry, I can think of few crimes where the punishment should be rape. To stop it, we need to change the prison culture. Even then, rape is both sexual and dominant. In an all male environment, it is impossible to change it completely.
* We need to try and rehab people, not just from drugs, but from the street. That is also hard to do. Who wants to hire an ex-con? Personally, I don't.

[prolesunited]

60. And what support do you have for this contention?

"In fact, doing so can make their life in prison better. It gives them more power, makes them feared."

Also, the death penalty is NOT a deterrent. It's not as if people say, "Oooh, I could get the death penalty for doing this and they stop."

You argue that murderers murder. Then how are we better than that if we condone the state taking lives.

Also, you say innocents die under either system HOWEVER the death penalty does not prevent such deaths, it just adds to that number.

Your recidivism rates take into account the entire prison population so I don't see how you can validly use it to support your argument.

[Muddleoftheroad]

61. Deterrence

The death penalty deters those who receive it. There are no cases of such criminals killing again.

Murderers murder. The state has not only a right, but an obligation to protect itself and its citizens. A state killing someone in self defense is not murder.

Yes, the recidivism rate takes into account the entire prison population because the stats don't differentiate. However, I also excluded the MASSIVE number of other crimes. That should more than even out.

[prolesunited]

63. Whatever

:eyes:

We will never convince each other anyway and I have to go to work.

Interesting to note that I have seen NO ONE here rushing to your defense or support your argument. As with most of the arguments you make on a variety of issues here, perhaps you would find more agreement from Republicans.

Can you remind me again why you define yourself as a Democrat?

[Muddleoftheroad]

65. About 1,000 reasons to be a Dem, none to be otherwise

If I spent all day agreeing and saying me too on issues, you would realize better how much we agree, but I would be bored as hell.

We all have different perspectives on life. The ability to NOT march in lockstep is one of the best at being Democrats.

[LincolnMcGrath]

64. Life w/o parole deters those who receive it.

There are no cases of such criminals killing again. :shrug:

[Muddleoftheroad]

66. Prison records

I doubt the prison records for ALL crimes that occur within prison. You should as well. There is an institutionalized policy of underreporting crime and many incidents go uncharged.

[LincolnMcGrath]

68. ?

"I doubt the prison records for ALL crimes that occur within prison. You should as well." ???


People on life w/o parole kill no one outside of prison walls.

We can discus prison "safety" in another thread.

[Muddleoftheroad]

70. Prison safety is an issue

Prisoners who are not given the death penalty deserve the right to live as well.

Murderers remain a threat.

[LincolnMcGrath]

71. We can discus prison "safety" in another thread.

Many murders inside the wall are first time murderers too! So do we just kill em all? They might kill if cornered in prison!!

[Solomon]

76. I was reading about the inquisition in the 1500's and this guy

Gouirdano Bruno who was burned at the stake for saying that the universe is infinite. What struck me was the inquisitor continually bragged with gusto that he would rather kill one hundred innocents than let one guilty get away. The exact opposite of what our supreme court has said over and over again, i.e. that it would be better to let one hundred guilty go free than to convict an innocent man.

Your posts remind me of the inquisitor. You seem to want to execute all criminals because they might kill somebody, and even if they don't, well, their other crimes even the balance.

[prolesunited]

81. I agree

Striking similarities. Kinda like the kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out policies in place in Iraq.

[Muddleoftheroad]

97. Exactly the opposite

I want to execute 100 murderers to protect the lives of others.

[iverglas]

80. risk

I would argue the prison system does NOT work. It warehouses people, nothing more. But nothing you or I can do will eliminate the risk of escape. Prisoners have 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to contemplate escape. Every weakness in your prison will be exposed for smuggling, crime and possible escape.

The risk of escape, and the risk of recidivism, and any other risks that the death penalty allegedly eliminates.

Do we take this approach to any other risk? Do we say that there is a risk that a driver will cause a fatal accident, and therefore ban all cars? Or kill all drivers?

The risk of being killed in a car crash is quite simply enormously higher than the risk of being killed by a paroled killer. And yet we do not even take some of the most obvious risk-reduction measures that are available for reducing that risk -- measures that do not involve any risk at all of, say, killing innocent people.

Yes, the risk in question, being killed by a convicted killer, is something very undesirable and that people very much want to avoid. But it is an infinitesimal risk, and certainly hugely lower than the risk of being killed in many other ways that we do precious little to prevent. Hell, universal health care would save a zillion times more lives than the death penalty ever has.

In addition to your apparent choice to focus on people who are killed by convicted killers rather than people who are killed in car crashes or by cancer, you're a very long way from actually proving that claim that a lot of <innocents> die if you choose to prevent the death penalty. Not only have you not established that there are in fact "a lot" of such people, but you have not established that they die as a result of the death penalty not being applied.

There is strong reason to believe that the death penalty does NOT work as a general deterrent -- does not deter people contemplating committing capital offences from committing them.

There is the simple fact that homicide rates in death penalty jurisdictions are not lower than in non-death penalty jurisdictions, over history and geography. (Although, indeed, given widely varying circumstances, no cause-and-effect relationship can be established to *prove* that the death penalty did not deter some potential killers). And there is the knowledge that homicide is most commonly an impulsive act in which people simply do not stop to consider consequences, and is very frequently committed by people whose judgment is impaired by alcohol or drugs or who simply have personality defects that make them very un-amenable to threats of consequences.

So advocating the death penalty amounts to:

(a) insisting on eliminating what is in fact a statistically extremely small risk to the public (the risk of being killed by a convicted killer) -- the specific deterrence aspect -- while ignoring all sorts of other ways of reducing the much higher risks of similar harms that people run every day;

(b) advocating an utterly ineffective way of reducing the risk of being killed by someone who has not been previously convicted of killing -- the general deterrence aspect.

Homicide is simply not a crime that is effectively reduced, let alone eliminated, by applying general deterrence measures. People who kill seldom think for an instant of what the consequences might be.

Using the death penalty for general deterrence is simply irrational.

There *are* other measures to achieve specific deterrence -- to prevent convicted killers from killing again -- if we are willing to invest in making them work.

Using the death penalty as specific deterrence creates a host of other risks at the same time as it eliminates the one very small risk: the risk of innocent people being killed by the state, the risk of accused killers fleeing to jurisdictions from which they will not be deported because those jurisdictions regard the death penalty as a violation of fundamental human rights, the risk of people with nothing to lose escaping or offending while in prison (which applies to "life without parole" as well) and the risk of juries not convicting killers whom they do not find deserving of death, for example.

.

[iverglas]

74. "you think things are done better elsewhere"

You clearly are asking us to adapt our laws to those elsewhere. The whole context of your responses makes that clear. And since you seem to think the worldwide strategy here is better, that reaffirms my point that you think things are done better elsewhere.

The logic is so flawed one barely knows where to begin.

Yes indeed, I do think things are done better elsewhere in this respect. I don't think that because that's how they are done elsewhere, or because of how many "elsewheres" do them that way. I have compared the various ways of doing things, and concluded that the way they are done in the US in this respect is not the best.

No, I am not "clearly ... asking <you> to adapt <your> laws to those elsewhere". The fact that things are done differently elsewhere is simply not the reason why I would advocate that the way they are done in the US be changed.

There is no question of "adapting" anything "to" anything else.

The question is one of considering whether a different approach is better, and if it is, adopting it. This could indeed mean doing things quite differently from how they are done elsewhere -- as in fact the US does in matters other than the one we are discussing, and as I would support.

For instance: although I *would* suggest that the US (and Canada) have things to learn from considering the legal and judicial systems in the rest of the Americas, given the relevant experience those countries may have had, I *would not* suggest that the US (or Canada) outlaw abortion based on the fact that is outlawed in most of those countries. In fact, I have grave qualms about Canada ratifying the American Convention on Human Rights ("American" referring to the hemisphere) because there have been attempts to interpret it as conferring fundamental rights before birth.

There is simply no question of "adapting". The issue is one of considering alternatives, considering the reasons why others have adopted those alternatives, giving the appropriate weight to the decisions made by those others, stating the reasons for not adopting those alternatives, and weighing the various, and different kinds of, pros and cons involved.

I happen to be in the position of knowing quite a bit whereof I speak. My first real job was as a researcher in the sentencing of criminals. I practised law for many years. My present occupation puts me in constant contact with research and basic documents and thought, both domestic and international, relating to the law, the legal system and human rights.

So it's hard for me to respond to what you offer as reasons for "doing things differently" in the US, since what you offer is little more than emotive, knee-jerk responses to problems, and solutions that have never been demonstrated to be effective.

So when you say:

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't indicate a closed mind. It merely indicates that I believe your position to be the wrong one.

... the problem is that you are still simply stating a "belief", and not offering persuasive reasons for holding that belief, or making any argument for putting that belief into practice, other than the essentially irrelevant point that the death penalty ensures that the individuals subject to it do not reoffend.

As an aside, this point also demonstrates some of the unrealistic and simplistic notions that I find underlie much support for the death penalty -- for instance, the notion that risk can, and should, be completely eliminated, regardless of the cost. It is very easy for demagogues to play on such unrealistic expectations and simplistic approaches to problems, and scapegoat those most easily pointed to as being the cause of the risk.


...Suppose 10% of the U.S. population is an accurate number, that is easily enough to influence legislation. The total number of Hispanics or African-Americans isn't much higher than that and both groups influence law. ...

We seem to be straying rather far from your original point, which was that as a "nation of immigrants" the US is open to ideas from outside its border.

My point is actually that whatever the statistics, they do not support your argument. Few immigrants have much of an idea about the fine points of the legal histories of their countries of origin -- and perhaps more importantly, in the dominant US model of the "melting pot", input is not sought from immigrants concerning "how things are done" in the US; they are expected to do things the way things are being done: to adapt themselves, and not seek to adapt the society they have entered.

Obviously, I am not talking about adapting one's legal system or other institutions and values to accommodate individuals from abroad. I am talking about paying attention to the ideas and ideals expressed in and by the community of the inhabitants of the earth, in things like the Convention on the Rights of the Child as one small instance. (Another example of how far the US is out of step with its counterparts in that community would be the International Criminal Court, in respect of which the US has chosen to place its own interests, as defined by its current government and explicated to the public by the media in such a way as to guarantee public support, ahead of all the interests that its counterparts in the world have chosen to promote and about which the US public remains essentially ignorant and uncaring.)

My favorite part of your post is the anecdote. Yes, I too could go around the world and pick up a hitchhiker who thinks our streets are paved with gold or that Americans all wear cowboy hats. Ignorance is worldwide and one anecdote is meaningless.

Yes ... but my point was actually that I don't think you would ever pick up a hitchhiker who thought that his/her country was the only one in which people were free to go wherever they wanted. I wouldn't have much difficulty replicating that anecdote if I were to pick up hitchhikers in the US, or approach people in upscale bars, and ask them much of anything about the world outside their borders, like whether people in Europe have freedom of speech, or whether the Queen makes the laws in Canada. (Perhaps you have seen Rick Mercer's television show Talking to Americans, or Michael Moore's segments comparing USAmerican and Canadian person-on-the-street knowledge about the neighbours.)

My point was that as long as the USAmerican people live in this inculcated ignorance of the quite possibly good things that other people in the world have and do, they simply have no rational basis for "preferring" the way things are done in the US.

The simple fact is that in places where the death penalty is not imposed on young offenders (ditto for adults), there is no epidemic of murders committed by young people (or anyone else) ... and in fact the murder rates in the US's counterparts in the world are far lower than in the US. Given the various quite good arguments *against* the use of the death penalty, and the fact that other people really do get along very well without using it, a rational person considering the situation in good faith would want to see some better argument *for* using the death penalty in the US than I've ever seen.

.

[Solomon]

75. Hey Muddle. How ya doing?

Please explain to us, since we DO have a death penalty, why all the recidivism and murders keep happening. Your arguments actually cut against the death penalty. Have you ever considered that the death penalty causes more deaths since it makes it imperative that witnesses be killed to avoid conviction?

[Muddleoftheroad]

98. We barely use it

The death penalty is the biggest joke in our "justice system." It is poorly operated and poorly used.

[prolesunited]

101. You're absolutely right!

We need to do some more killin'! You must have been proud of Bush's record in Texas!

You still haven't answered many of the questions on this thread, just talked around them, nor have you directly addressed the issues others have raised.

You admit the system is flawed but you think we should persist with state-sanctioned killing anyway. Does it NOT bother you in the least that innocent people are killed by the state for crimes they did not commit?

[Muddleoftheroad]

106. One way or the other

Innocents die. If we let murderers live, they will kill again. If we do not, some innocents may die. I am advocating improving the system of ridding us of the monsters who kill for fun or profit.

[Jose Diablo]

8. No, there has been enough killing

The hate and fear must end. Abolishing capital punishment is a good first good step.

"Eye for an eye and we would all be blind" to quote Ghandi.

[Terwilliger]

10. More hypocrisy from our government

a 13 year old can't make a decision with his money, can't buy a cigarrette, can't buy a drink, cant have sex, can't do anything not allowed to children...

but when that child kills, then he's available to be put to death

What's wrong with this picture? Kids can be judged harshly for decision-making the adults already won't acknowledge?

I think the parents should have to suffer if a person underage kills someone. After all, that's pretty messed-up parenting.

OnEdit: spelling and grammar

[prolesunited]

14. How should the parents be made to suffer?

Would you oppose jail terms on them? What would you propose doing with the juveniles who murder? Do you see life without parole as an option for juveniles?

[Terwilliger]

15. life without parole? they cant make the decisions! why should they...

get life?

I think parents should be responsible for their children...whatever punishment that entails.

Juveniles who murder? So, you think they're able to make decisions that would make their actions murderous? Does that mean we should lift all age-discrimination laws? Let kids drink when they're 10?

[prolesunited]

16. I'm not debating your points

I actually agree with you. :-)

I am a little concerned, though, about how to hold parents responsible. How would that work?

[Terwilliger]

17. I don't know

I'm not really proposing that as much as I think its a valid counter-argument.

But I still don't see how kids can have no rights UNTIL they kill someone, then they might as well be Rhodes scholars...it makes no sense.

[Solomon]

77. Right on T!

:yourock: (except for the make parents responsible part)

[pmbryant]

18. Correction

a 13 year old can't make a decision with his money, can't buy a cigarrette, can't buy a drink, cant have sex, can't do anything not allowed to children...

but when that child kills, then he's available to be put to death

According to the news article in the original post, it is already unconsitutional in the U.S. to execute anyone for offenses committed before they were 16.

So the decision before the Supreme Court now is whether it is also unconstitutional to execute someone for crimes committed when they were 16 or 17.

--Peter

[youngred]

11. I'm opposed in all circumstances

and ESPECIALLY in the case of juvenilles.

[newyawker99]

20. NO DEATH PENALTY......NO EXCEPTIONS!! n/t

[Selwynn]

24. *Punches you in the nutsack for even having to ask* (nt)

[prolesunited]

33. Are you talking to me?

Umm... I don't have a nutsack and how would that resolve the debate anyway?

[durutti]

25. Absolutely not!

Capital punishment for juveniles is one of the most disgusting practices going on in the world today.

Minors don't have all the rights of adults. Why should they have all the responsibilities?

[Devlzown]

28. I'm against the death penalty,

but if they won't make it illegal I hope they'll at least stop executing juveniles and the retarded.

[mulethree]

29. Rehabilitation? Retribution?

Many people believe justice is "an eye for an eye". If someone intentionally kills one of their loved ones, they want justice and that means death to the killer. Some will read it to you from the bible, skipping over the sections about love, forgiving, not killing and such. Do you think it matters, in this reasoning, if the killer is a minor? Vengeance.

And why a different sentencing for "attempted" crimes? They wanted to do it, tried to do it, but get a different sentence because they failed? Time off for incompetence?

If you desire rehabilitation, repentance, to instill a respect for human life that will prevent a killer from killing again; what better way than some intensive community service? Surround them with life-respecting people in a "good" pursuit? Or can you rehabilitate them by locking them up surrounded by criminals and prison guards and fill them with hate, fear and obedience instead of respect and consideration?

A life sentence without parole takes a life away as surely as a death sentence does. It's a sentence of slow-miserable-painful-death, hell-on-earth, and ought to be considered as worse than a death sentence. Its enormously expensive to carry out, and offers no benefits to anyone. Instead of a life sentence without hope or love, why not a life sentence without water? Is there a difference besides the length of suffering and the $$$cost?

How many years in prison does it take for someone to develop enough fear-of-going-back-there that they will avoid breaking laws in the future? What point is there in keeping them beyond that point? And why release them before that point?

So we have 3 classes -

1. Those we believe can be reformed thru contrition, education, therapy, developing consideration. Can be made into "good" people who have consideration for others and don't need extraordinary self-restraint to avoid hurting others.

2. Those we believe cannot be reformed to be "good" people, but whom we believe could be made into "law-abiding" people by giving them more fear of the consequences. These go to prison until they have sufficient fear of the consequences (going back to prison); However long that takes.

3. Those we believe cannot be made into law-abiding people. Those who could never develop consideration for others. Even if we we gave them huge incentives to control themselves, they could not due to some defect that prevents them from understanding whats "wrong" or even whats "illegal"; or a defect which prevents them from associating past years-of-misery with future years-of-misery that will result.

Those in category #3 should logically be executed. They are very dangerous to others. Unfortunately they are by definition "mentally handicapped" or "insane".

Of course the big problem is that annoying "we believe". We make mistakes, history and the present world are full of people who "believed" but were/are clearly wrong. The applicable "science" is psychology and thats just as unreliable and faulty as "believe".

[Solomon]

78. One thing you didn't get right.

It actually costs more to execute a person than lock them up for life.

[mulethree]

91. Boggle

Thanks Solomon

Here's a link that tells it pretty well

http://www.fguide.org/Bulletin/cappun.htm

A trial where the death penalty is possible costs 3X as much as a trial where only life is possible. Increased cost due to much more careful preparation - a superior level of service in your justice.

We have to be much more certain before we kill you outright as opposed to taking it slowly over a life sentence.

I expect that we require an even lower level of care and certainty before we take just 10 years of your life instead.

And even with that improved, more careful level of justice we still convict innocent people. Some of them will be exonerated by future science (e.g. DNA tests that prove they couldn't have done it) More innocent convicts died before their guilt was disproved, more don't have evidence.

[LeahMira]

37. I oppose the death penalty for anyone.

Whether you support or oppose the death penalty, do you think juveniles should be locked up for life with no possibility of parole?

Certainly not. No one should be locked up for life with no possibility of parole. The only exception might be people who are criminally insane, and they should be kept in a maximum security facility but otherwise treated as humanely as possible given the circumstances of their mental illness.

Maybe one day we will even find out what causes mental illness and get a pill to cure it. Until then, we have to protect these people from themselves though.

[La Resistance]

40. Only have to ask one question to arrive at the answer

"Does the death penalty serve as a deterrent to violent crime?"

If you can't prove statistically that it is, (I think it would be impossible) then you must abolish it. The rest of the industriaized world arrived at this answer and deemed it cruel and uncivilized. There is nothing out there that shows that the fear of the death penalty (fear of being caught, yes) in any way deters capital crimes.

[LincolnMcGrath]

45. NO DEATH PERIOD

December 2003, In just 30 years 112 inmates have been found innocent and released from death row. More than half of these have been released in the last 10 years. That means one person has been exonerated for every eight people executed.

Well over a dozen were released completely from jail here in IL. Not sprung by experts or panels or by quick appeal processes. They were freed by the work of STUDENTS. No person can ever be trusted to remain completely impartial or all knowing, or given the power of someone else's life in their hands.

[MrSlayer]

46. Maintain.

I don't care how old you are (well 12 and older), if you do an adult crime you should get the adult sentence. You think that 13 and 14 year old gang bangers don't know what they're doing? That kid they just let go in Florida after heinously murdering a little girl should have been riding the lightning. There was just a case here in Philly where a teenaged girl lured another kid to a secluded area on the pretense of sex only to have three other dudes come out and beat him to death with a hammer. All of them should get the Death Penalty.

[prolesunited]

48. Did you realize that girl's mother

did NOT want the the death penalty for him. She didn't even want him locked up for life. Did his race play a role? Interesting how you only cite minorities in your post as well?

How do you square the fact that we don't allow them to make adult decisions with holding them accountable for adult actions?

Do you think the death penalty serves as a deterrent to prevent murders or just that some people deserve to die?

Does it not bother you that if we maintain this policy that Iran and the U.S. would be the ONLY countries that execute juveniles?

[foreigncorrespondent]

49. This law should be abolished.

I never realized that you guys had the death penatly for kids, and when I read this I just about fell backwards off my chair.

That is just disgusting! Kids have a chance of being released back into the general community a changed person from a stay in prison. What chance have they got if they are put to death?

[FDRrocks]

50. Abolish the death penalty alltogether...

Our justice system is far from perfect. Death row statistics show an overwhelming majority of minorities, probably due to the institutional rascism that drives minorities to crime due to lack of good work.

The state has no right to take a life, in any matter. Thats blood on everyone's hands.

[buddhamama]

57. i oppose the death penalty

in all cases but most definitely with juveniles.

there are too many 'factors' involved to say definitively why a young person might commit a heinous crime; however, it is my belief that change is possible and even a life behind bars is a life worth living.

[OneTwentyoNine]

69. Abolish the DP period,with our "Janklow" justice system its beyond unfair.

Proven with O.J.,Janklow,Limbaugh,Fastow's whoever....if you have buckets of cash or in a position of high power you walk or do very little time.

The DP needs to vanish and just be a spot in history...

David

[RainDog]

72. Why stop at juveniles?

why not beat to death a child who disobeys his or her parents?

--that's "biblical" after all.

(snark)

how is killing a child once he or she is out of the utero any more moral than at any other time? That's what I would like "right to lifers" who support any death penalty to explain.

of course, hypocrisy is a republican value, so nevermind.

[Mormegil42]

93. Where does the bible say

its OK murder a child who disobeys his or her parents. You stated that this was biblical and I'd like to know what you base this statement on.

[slackmaster]

79. I also oppose the DP completely

While it may seem (at least to some people) to be a morally justifiable punishment for the most heinous killers, I do not consider people to be good enough judges of fact to be absolutely certain that they are not executing the wrong person. How many condemned prisoners have been proved innocent by DNA evidence in the last few years? As long as the rate at which that happens is anything other than zero, we're not wise enough to apply the death penalty.

[TexasMexican]

83. I think it depends on the Juvenile.

I support the Death Penalty and wouldnt have any problems with executing someone like Lee Malvo.

I wouldnt have any problems with the death penalty for a teen who murdered someone in an especially cruel and ruthless manner, or for someone who murdered multiple people.

For someone like say 12 years or younger I probably would be less inclined to support the death penalty, but it all depends on the case.

Better to have the option and not need, than to need the option and not have.

[prolesunited]

85. Yes

There is this huge NEED to kill juveniles? :eyes:

And you think it's just great that the only company we keep in this matter is Iran?

Tell me some of the reasons why you support the death penalty in the first place?

[TexasMexican]

87. ...

I never said how large the need is, but the need is there, as there are some pretty cruel and ruthless teenagers in our society.

No, I dont think its great, I think a large part of the world is pretty backwards in this regard.

However I understand that for many countries its that they dont trust the government not that they dont support the death penalty.

Mexico for example, many people there do support the death penalty, however they dont trust thier government to use it fairly, the US is the same way except we still sort of trust our government.

What are the reasons that I support the death penalty, its simple, there are some people that through thier actions cause them to not deserve to live.

So you may ask, who decides who lives or dies. Simple, people like me, people like you.

[Pithlet]

88. This:

"So you may ask, who decides who lives or dies. Simple, people like me, people like you." is one of the main reasons why I'm against the death penalty. Peope like you and me make mistakes.

[iverglas]

90. it's an amazement

Mexico for example, many people there do support the death penalty, however they dont trust thier government to use it fairly, the US is the same way except we still sort of trust our government.

Will I wait in vain for someone to tell me that the citizenry must be armed because one can never trust the government -- either to protect one, or not to persecute one?

However I understand that for many countries its that they dont trust the government not that they dont support the death penalty.

Abject nonsense. The overwhelmingly most common reason for abolishing the death penalty is the firm belief that it is barbaric.

What are the reasons that I support the death penalty, its simple, there are some people that through thier actions cause them to not deserve to live.

Whew.

If I thought that -- "there are some people that through thier actions cause them to not deserve to live" -- and if I thought that it was appropriate for the state to take 'em out, I sure as hell wouldn't be looking only, or even first, at people found guilty of murder.

When can we start rounding 'em up, please?

So you may ask, who decides who lives or dies. Simple, people like me, people like you.

You pick convicted murderers. I'll let you know whom I've decided on.

[TexasMexican]

94. well since you asked.

"Will I wait in vain for someone to tell me that the citizenry must be armed because one can never trust the government -- either to protect one, or not to persecute one?"

I think citizens should be well armed for thier own benefit, but it is thier right if they choose not to. I trust the US government to a degree.

I have no reason to believe that the US Government is out to get me, however I like most of us "little people" the government generally ignores us and does little to help us.

As for the local government the police are useless, they take too long to save anyone who isnt willing to save themselves. I wouldnt necessarily say its thier fault though, it is impossible to be everywhere all the times.

As for the death penalty, maybe in your White Upper-Middle Class part of the world the death penalty is "barbaric" but where I live it is justice.

Why should murderers, rapists, and child molestors have a roof over thier head and 3 square meals for the rest of thier life, when others who have commited no such crimes do not.

[Mormegil42]

95. If I may

I'd like to answer this. There is no huge need to put to death juveniles. I don't believe in the state execution of children who have made a mistake. Things happen and situations get out of hand. A young mind might not respond to these situations logically. On the other hand an execution murder by a 17 year old that was thought out and planned is something entirely different. The execution of that person does not deter other murderers but it does keep that person from killing again.

Hey my friend, for the record I am of two minds when it comes to capital punishment. First of all I think that it is wrong because it seems to be dealt out to easily by judges and juries and is unfair in a lot of cases. On the other hand some people earn death as a reward.

I think of a quote from the "Lord of the Rings" that sums up my inner turmoil. Frodo says that Bilbo should have killed Gollum and Gandalf replies with "Many who deserve to die live and many who are dead deserve life... can you give it to them?"

[Muddleoftheroad]

99. Yes

There are indeed people out there who not just deserve to die, but remain an ongoing threat to the rest of us. And yes, given that option, I would indeed give it to them.

[Solomon]

103. Why don't we just do like that Escape from NY movie, only use an

island, way out some where,and put all the murderers there and let them fend for themselves? Just keep a watch on the island to make sure nobody escapes. You know, drop some of them yellow things we were dropping on the Iraqis so they will have food.

Oh, I forgot, you can't make money that way.

[prolesunited]

104. Don't give him any more ideas

I likely think he would favor that plan.

[Muddleoftheroad]

107. Nah, I like NY

Besides, last time I checked, the word "Escape" figured prominently in that movie.

[bread_and_roses]

86. Abolish

the death penalty altogheter. It is a barbaric remnant. And for juviniles and the developmentaly disabled, even a degree below barbarism, if that is possible.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

100. Good Lord NO! barbaric ABOLISH IT NOW!