# juvenile executions

Category: Let's talk

## Post 1 by Nem (I just keep on posting!) on Wednesday, 09-Mar-2005 23:22:43

A few weeks ago, the Supreme court decided that it would no longer allow juvenile executions in the United States of America. Juveniles being 18 and under. Personally i don't think this was a smart choice. I am forced to ask my self the question why should we give the criminals a second chance when the victim didn't get a first chance. On the other hand It may not be so cut and dry. I mean when you get into the facts behind the crime it may turn out to be self defense or an accident. But to remove the disciplinary action all together lets the child know that they can commit the crime and be back on the streets at some point in their lives. The younger the offender, the sooner they are back on the streets. I think this is comparable to not allowing parents to spank their children. The child knows that they can throw that in the parents faces, then the parent is almost powerless. I am not saying you have to spank your children all the time, but sometimes it is a must. What do you all think. Should juveniles be allowed to be sent to death row for their crimes?

## Post 2 by lawlord (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Thursday, 10-Mar-2005 3:54:37

Oh dear dragonfire I don't think I've ever heard such nonsense in my life. Nobody is talking about removing disciplinary action altogether, are they? And how do you compare a smack to an execution? it's a complete non sequitur. every civilised society recognises that young people are more prone to making mistakes than those over 18. Hence, one can commit a criminal offence at the age of 6 in the UK and yet one cannot be charged with this offence, because a child under ten cannot be charged with a criminal offence. Between the ages of ten and eighteen in the UK, courts have a range of sentences to choose from, ranging from non-custodial sentences such as referral and actiona plan orders, to detention and training orders, to being detained during Her Majesty's pleasure for the most serious of crimes. what we don't do, however, is execute young people. WE don't in fact execute anyone in this country anymore due to miscarriages of justice, but shall I tell you when we stopped sending young people to the gallows? 1861! That's right, 1861! So well done America for finally, 144 years later, joining the rest of the civilised world and recognising that you can't execute a twelve-year-old! And Dragonfire, please do not appeal to us with that overused argument about the victim not getting a second chance. The fact is that a crime is a public misdemeanour. it is not a private matter between victim and offender, it is not for the victim to administer, nor to dictate the administration, of justice. Further, you might want to know that many victims actually react in a manner that surprises even themselves, and don't want their attackers disproportionately punished. so please, if you wish to discuss this, then let's have no more of this comparing death with smacking, and none of this 'you didn't give them a chance so why should we give you one?' mentality. There are good reasons for not executing minors, and thank goodness the supreme court has recognised what the Offences Against the Person act 1861 recognised in this country, finally.

## Post 3 by Senior (I've now got the bronze prolific poster award! now going for the silver award!) on Thursday, 10-Mar-2005 5:14:52

Really, the death penalty can only be justified when it's handed to murderers, terrorists, pedofiles and sicos too. Many innocent people live in poverty and die from hunger and when this fact is considdered, I don't get the justification for feeding the type of people I've described above. I think that robbers drug addicts and people who commit other minor offences can be reformed to make a valid contribution to society. I also think that if we're not going to kill murderers terrorists sicopaths and pedofiles, perhaps since they're humans we should do the type of experiments they do on animals for the benefit of humans, or reduce those people to captivated slave labour.

## Post 4 by sugarbaby (The voice of reason) on Thursday, 10-Mar-2005 8:21:11

I do not think df, that when the supreme court decided to ban juvinile exicutions it said that juviniles would not be detained for serious crimes though did it? Whilst I believe that criminals should be punished for the crimes they commit, and even in some cases that execution would be a fitting punishment for the crime, I think that to execute children makes the states that carry out these punishments no better than the offenders themselves. After all, do you think that a 12 year old who commits a murder has the same understanding of what he has done than say, a 30 year old? I think not. Because although I do think that a 12 year old does know right from wrong, and does know that to kill someone is wrong, a 12 year old does not have the same level of understanding, or maturity to take the same level of consequences for his/her actions as an adult. coming back to my argument in a previous post that children, are children, and adults are adults, and thus they should be treated as such.

## Post 5 by lawlord (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Thursday, 10-Mar-2005 11:20:31

Exactly Sugarbaby. wainderful wangel, your post wouldn't look out of place if it had been handed across the desk as a report to Adolf Hitler in the reichstag. Experimentation indeed! I should make my position clear in that I do believe that the death penalty is appropriate in exceptional cases, but very exceptional cases. I would not say that murder should automatically be punished by death, nor paedophilia or rape. death is such an extreme sencence that it cannot ever be a mandatory sentence for a crime, even if it is reintroduced and the prospects for that are very small indeed. As for experimentation and the like, and starving these people to death, Wainderful wangel we have never done that in this country. The romans didn't do it, nor did we do it during the middle-ages or Victorian times. I find it difficult to express with the appropriate degree of moderation my disgust at the idea that some people can ever think it acceptable to execute children, or advocate experimentation or slave labour. It's shocking, it really is.

## Post 6 by Goblin (I have proven to myself and the world that I need mental help) on Thursday, 10-Mar-2005 11:54:29

hmm America has more murders committed by teenagers than any other country..though Scotland is catching up alramingly..the threat of execution did little to prevent disturbed teenagers from killing their terrified classmates, in high school shootings ect,
...and I would add that by taking their lives you are losing a valuable opportunity to learn from these children,and hopefully prevent the next massacre,
..furthermore how can a country call itself civillised when it executes children who are clearly emotionally and psychologically disturbed they need help not a lethal injection!

## Post 7 by lawlord (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Thursday, 10-Mar-2005 12:10:49

America dramatically overuses the death penalty in general, which is incredible really.

## Post 8 by Goblin (I have proven to myself and the world that I need mental help) on Thursday, 10-Mar-2005 12:12:57

Iwonder how many of those were innocent, or unable to grasp the enormity of what was going on, due to their chaotic mental state...its cold blooded murder!..

## Post 9 by lawlord (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Thursday, 10-Mar-2005 13:04:43

I do hope that Dragonfire will come back to this topic and tell us whether her original position is in any way defensible. I doubt it.

## Post 10 by Nem (I just keep on posting!) on Thursday, 10-Mar-2005 13:23:46

Before we begin, let me say I don't know where I stand on the issue. Now let me roll up my sleeves and dive in. Law lord we must remember that the crimes where the death penalty would be handed down leave no victim. How do I compare a smack to an execution? These two are the harshest forms of punishment the system currently has. I must point out that there isn't a reformation system currently in place. This means that most times the criminal becomes part of a flawed system. Often that person goes on to commit crimes because they feel they have no other way of living.Something else I must point out is that while a six year old may not understand the magnitude of his or her offence, if one can prove that the attack was premeditated does that not show that the 12 year old or the 14, year old or even the 17 year old knows what he or she is about?Experimentation and studying someone for the betterment of others? It doesn't sound nearly as bad when we say we're just studying them now does it. As far as what happened in the past, I am not a history buff but to say that starvation was not a methad of punishment I know is wrong.

## Post 11 by Nem (I just keep on posting!) on Thursday, 10-Mar-2005 13:25:44

Second of all I am not a her? Although, they might be the fairer sex.

## Post 12 by lawlord (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Thursday, 10-Mar-2005 14:08:59

Well I apologise for getting your gender wrong, but I'm afraid Dragonfire, as others have learnt to their cost, if you're going to criticise me you must do so with precision. You will notice that I didn't say that starvation was never used as a form of punishment. nay, I said it was never used as a form of punishment in this country, and in that I am absolutely right. but that's just a quibble. what most certainly is not a quibble is your astounding proposition that by rechristening an idea with a euphamism one can somehow make it substantively more acceptable. You are obviously not familiar with the Kantian doctrine that one should never use people as means to an end. Goebbels, Goering, Hitler and Himmler said they were exterminating the Jews because Germany was for the German nation, they said they were doing what was for the common good, they even prayed in aid the Aristottelian and Finnisian tradition of the common good to justify what they were doing. Furthermore, the regime also sterilised disabled people because, as they claimed, it would be for the betterment of the human race, i.e. the betterment of others. Do you see where this is going yet? Let me take this a little further: freezing experiments were carried out on human beings during the war by the Nazis because they claimed it would help not only their own fighter pilots, but also those RAF pilots who came down in the North Sea to survive. In other words, they said that this mistreatment was all well and good because it was study for the betterment of others. To put it bluntly, the argument amounts to the assertion that however ghastly the means, the ends justify them. Dragonfire this argument is ridiculous, and for you to hide behind the facade of a euphamism, for that is what you are doing, would be laughable if it were not the oldest trick in the book for totalitarian regimes. Unfortunately for you, it's a trick that the Lawlord is wise to. Now turning to your point about smacking and the death penalty, and I'm afraid this comparison is once again laughable. When a child is smacked, he is still alive! So if he has been wrongly smacked then his parents may make amends later on. That's quite different from death of course, although you probably see death as self-sacrifice for the benefit and betterment of others. Relating to young criminals and the idea of premeditation, the problem is that with young people whose maturity is recognised, even in the US, to be impaired, the concept of premeditation is not nearly as helpful as it is deemed to be with older persons. Young people under 18 can't even bring a law suit in their own right, and six-year-olds that you use for an example wouldn't even be able to give evidence at their own trials! You might want to read about the case of derek Bentley when you have time, Dragonfire, perhaps it would open your eyes.

## Post 13 by lawlord (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Thursday, 10-Mar-2005 14:15:08

And two further points, dragonfire: firstly I was under the impression that you were very clearly in disagreement with the supreme court, but if you have retreated from this position I am glad. Secondly, let me tell you a story: I was honoured to be at a speech given by Geoffrey Nice QC, the chief prosecutor of president Millosovic at the International criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. In it he described the witnesses he'd called: a baker's boy who had shot hundreds of villagers because Millosovic's army coerced him into joining, a schoolteacher who was indoctrinated, and many more. he concluded by saying that we should not be complacent, we all have the potential to be involved in criminality, sometimes through no fault of our own. We might even be innocently entrapped. How right he was. If you ever have the misfortune to be wrongly accused and convicted, Dragonfire, perhaps you will go back on your foolish words.

## Post 14 by shea (number one pulse checking chicky) on Thursday, 10-Mar-2005 15:16:40

hmmm, Why does all the boards have to end up in critisism of everyone's opinions. We don't all see eye to eye on all matters. But what makes what one believes more better than the other? Why does it always have to come to this? Say your point of belief and leave it that. I think it's rediculous how people react. I can understand debating what the other says, but to say they are ignorant because of there opinion is rediculous! smile- angel

## Post 15 by shea (number one pulse checking chicky) on Thursday, 10-Mar-2005 15:18:17

hmmm, Why does all the boards have to end up in critisism of everyone's opinions. We don't all see eye to eye on all matters. But what makes what one believes more better than the other? Why does it always have to come to this? Say your point of belief and leave it that. I think it's rediculous how people react. I can understand debating what the other says, but to say they are ignorant because of there opinion is rediculous! smile- angel

## Post 16 by shea (number one pulse checking chicky) on Thursday, 10-Mar-2005 15:19:03

hmmm, Why does all the boards have to end up in critisism of everyone's opinions. We don't all see eye to eye on all matters. But what makes what one believes more better than the other? Why does it always have to come to this? Say your point of belief and leave it that. I think it's rediculous how people react. I can understand debating what the other says, but to say they are ignorant because of there opinion is rediculous! smile- angel

## Post 17 by lawlord (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Thursday, 10-Mar-2005 15:37:26

No Angel that won't do at all I'm afraid. If I were to say that we should shoot people when they reached a certain age, for instance, I would be rightly criticised and deemed ignorant. In this case, the quangle wangle is saying that we should allow criminals to be broken down as if they were beakers of sodium hydroxide in some science lab, and that this if the right thing to do because one day we may find out how to cure the common cold because of it. well I'm sorry but I find that rather worrying as a point of view, not least because this was the logic that justified the aforementioned freezing experiments on human beings during the war.

## Post 18 by sugarbaby (The voice of reason) on Thursday, 10-Mar-2005 15:39:27

Firstly WW, to suggest that murderers and pedifiles should ether be put to death or subjected to experimentation is nothing short of barbaric. However, let me put a scenario to you. One night you go out to a club, you meet a girl, you get on really well, this girl, who tells you she is 18, goes home with you for the night, you have sex, and the next day she goes home. Then you find out she is actually only 15. The police come knocking at your door, you are arrested, and charged with having sex with a minor, and you are placed on the sex offenders register. In the eyes of the law, technically, you are a pedifile. Maybe not to the extent of someone who abducts a young child and rapes it, but none the less, you have committed a sexual offence against a child. So ww, in your view, you should be put to death! Or subjected to experimentation or slave labour. Secondly, DF to compare smacking to the death penalty is almost laughable. We’re talking smacking here, not beating, a tap, on the legs, hand, or bottom, this does not have the same effect on a child as death. Death is irreverseable. Once it has happened, there’s no going back. If you wrongly execute a child, or anyone else for that matter, you can’t go back and put it right. Angel as for your post about people always criticising other peoples’ views, the fact remains that to suggest punishments suh as slavery or experimentation is at best barbaric, and at worst, shows a very disturbed view of the world we live in. If you remember rightly, America and Britain have recently taken Sdam Hussain from power because he perpetrated such crimes against people who had wronged his regime, Milosovicz is currently in the hague on war crimes for his ethnic cleansing strategies, the world is currently up in arms about Robert Mugabi’s land reform projects … need I go on? We do not condone such acts in other countries, and we therefore fore should not condone them in our own.

## Post 19 by lawlord (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Thursday, 10-Mar-2005 15:45:35

An excellent rebuttal, Sugarbaby, excellent. Dragonfire and Waidnerful what's-it you really should think again.

## Post 20 by shea (number one pulse checking chicky) on Thursday, 10-Mar-2005 15:46:17

my point exactly ll! No need for name calling. It's and opinion and that is all. If we all had the same opinion what a boaring place this would be. And sugar baby, I don't care if you agree with the other views or not. What I am saying is no need to make it personal by name calling and all that immature crap! And ll, I'm not attacking you by any means but I went back and read df's first post and he did say he is stuck in the middle on this one. He is trying to decide where to draw the line. smile- angel

## Post 21 by lawlord (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Thursday, 10-Mar-2005 15:58:56

There has been no name-calling Angel, so I don't appreciate the lecture on maturity. The nearest there has been to name-calling is when I said that it was worthy of the fascist regimes of yore. That was not personal, rather it was a comment on the facts as I see them. I do not consider that name-calling and nor, I'm sure, would the majority of people.

## Post 22 by sugarbaby (The voice of reason) on Thursday, 10-Mar-2005 16:07:01

there has been no name calling angel, no one has made this topic personal, people have opinions, and other people will disagree with those opinions, that's why we have public message forums.

## Post 23 by lawlord (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Thursday, 10-Mar-2005 16:08:26

Public message fora.

## Post 24 by lawlord (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Thursday, 10-Mar-2005 16:08:47

But that's just a quibble.

## Post 25 by Nem (I just keep on posting!) on Thursday, 10-Mar-2005 16:26:29

Lets realize a few things. I never said that I was compairing a smanking to death I said they were the harshest forms of punishment the system has to offer. Secondly, it was dear goblin that said we should learn from these criminals. To what means do we use to quote learn, only the folks trying to learn know. quangle wangle, what's that? And sugar baby said 12, what about 14, or 16 or ecven 17 cannot think and act? For that matter any children have the ability to thaink and act. This agrument sounds to me that you and others are saying children have no minds to think and act. If the chaild acts with malace that results in anothers death then that child should sit in the jail for a predetermined amount. When that time is over we are suppose to believe that that child harbors no ideas of killing? ludacris.

## Post 26 by lawlord (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Thursday, 10-Mar-2005 17:39:01

But dragonfire you fail to appreciate that your arguments are based on non sequiturs, if indeed you know what a non sequitur is and I'm not convinced that you are. I notice you now have modified your post considreably and are no longer advocating experimentation, and we can be thankful for that at least. Dragonfire you are obviously not familiar with the sentencing provisions in your own country. therefore, allow me to inform you that as the age increases, the custody threshold also lowers, and the range of custodial sentences permissible also increases. In britain, for instance, someone who is under 12 will rarely be subjected to a detention and training order, but for someone aged 16 or over, detention in a young offender's institution is far more likely. As to your assumption that children who kill willl no longer harbour ideas of killing after a long sentence, that simply is not the case in many situations. Now, the supreme court's ruling is very sensible in that it recognises that younger people ought, whatever their crimes, not to be executed. I repeat, Dragonfire, we abolished execution of youngsters in 1861, 144 years ago. Oh and I almost forgot: how on earth is smacking the most harsh punishment the system has to offer? I wish I'd known! well instead of wasting money sentencing someone to 25 years in prison, let's give them 25 lashes instead and they won't do it again! Utter claptrap, Dragonfire, utter claptrap. And why don't you know what a quangle wangle is? I thought everyone knew that.

## Post 27 by sugarbaby (The voice of reason) on Thursday, 10-Mar-2005 17:42:46

No DF I did not say that all children are incapable of thinking and acting for themselves, what I said was, that the way children think about things differs from the way that adults do. If we think back to when we were younger, we all did things as children, and yes, even young adults, that we, now that we are older, wouldn’t dream of doing. Common sense comes with experience, and as we mature, we gain that experience, and therefore the common sense that goes with it, well in most instances anyway. I do believe that people should be punished according to the crimes they commit, however I feel that the death penalty is not the answer in the majority of cases. I believe there are cases where the death penalty would be appropriate, i.e. in the case of Harold shipman, Fred West and myra Hindly. However, you can not put all murderers into the same category – while I know that a murderer is a murderer, the severity of the crimes can differ – do you for example think, that someone who kills one person, say in a random fight outside a bar should be put to death in the same way as someone who pre-meditatedly lures 30 women to his house, tortures, and then kills them, buries them in various parts of the country, and is not discovered for 25 years? One other thing, how can it be possible, that in a country such as America, you have to be 21 to drink, but you can be put to death at 18? There is no logic to that.

## Post 28 by lawlord (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Friday, 11-Mar-2005 4:24:46

Quite right Sugarbaby. But I'll stick to my original line based on your arguments and say that under no circumstances, that's right, under no circumstances should a minor be put to death for crimes committed during his minority. That is non-negotiable as far as I'm concerned.

## Post 29 by sugarbaby (The voice of reason) on Friday, 11-Mar-2005 9:57:40

LL I agree with yu 100%, however, this is where the arguments would need to begin for/against the death penalty ... if a person murders someone on the day before his 18th birthday .. no lets be more specific, say .. 30 minutes before midnight and therefore 30 minutes before the day of his 18th birthday, he would be considered a minor and the death penalty should therefore not apply to him. however, if he committed that same murder at 12:30, and therefore on the day of his 18th birthday, he would no longer be considered minor, and would therefore be put to death. is that not slightly argueable in favour of not having the death penalty in the first place?

## Post 30 by lawlord (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Friday, 11-Mar-2005 10:27:01

No. Because that would be a borderline case and the death penalty would probably not apply to that particular person. Besides, Sugarbaby, we already have that system in place. If a juvenile commits a crime shortly before his 16th birthday, the custody thresholds that apply to him are different to he who does so shortly after.