Should the death penalty include murderous minors?

When a child of at least the age of ten is convicted of murder, and was proven to have killed maliciously, do you think they too should face the death penalty?

On one hand that sounds like a horrible idea, but is it really? If you have a brutal murderer at 10 do we REALLY think they'll suddenly become productive members of society when they hit 18? And if they're to NEVER be let out of prison because they can't be trusted, what point in keeping them alive at the expense of our taxes?

No.

No


Fucking


Way

Like all cases, I don't think it should be a regular occurrence but I don't really feel it shouldn't ever be on the table.

I can't really see the point except for some reason it makes people feel better if the murderer is older, but I suppose in such cases the best idea would be keep them in prison until they're 17 or 18 and then execute them, they had their chance to grow up but its their own fault it's being done behind bars.

Supernova wrote:I can't really see the point except for some reason it makes people feel better if the murderer is older, but I suppose in such cases the best idea would be keep them in prison until they're 17 or 18 and then execute them, they had their chance to grow up but its their own fault it's being done behind bars.

It takes so long for the average execution sentence to actually be carried out that they'd most likely be adults by the time it happened anyway.

I don't agree with the death penalty period. Too many people are proven NOT GUILTY due to evidence that was withheld, new technological advances (DNA for one), etc.

I had a 14yr old friend who stabbed my 12yr old friend 96 times in '87. He is still in jail, and last i heard was up for parole. I don't know if he is the same person, but often children with so much rage are trapped in environments from which they cannot get out.

wants2laugh wrote:I don't agree with the death penalty period. Too many people are proven NOT GUILTY due to evidence that was withheld, new technological advances (DNA for one), etc.

I had a 14yr old friend who stabbed my 12yr old friend 96 times in '87. He is still in jail, and last i heard was up for parole. I don't know if he is the same person, but often children with so much rage are trapped in environments from which they cannot get out.

That's horrible. I don't know what else to say.

Forgiveness Man wrote:It takes so long for the average execution sentence to actually be carried out that they'd most likely be adults by the time it happened anyway.

That's true, too often it's easy to forget that the death penalty generally comes with a 30 year waiting period anyway, so it wouldn't really make much difference if 10 year olds got it because they'd be 40 when they finally died.

Supernova wrote:

That's true, too often it's easy to forget that the death penalty generally comes with a 30 year waiting period anyway, so it wouldn't really make much difference if 10 year olds got it because they'd be 40 when they finally died.

Indeed. In the rare cases where I do feel the death penalty necessary, I don't feel age is much of a factor one way or another.

Forgiveness Man wrote:Indeed. In the rare cases where I do feel the death penalty necessary, I don't feel age is much of a factor one way or another.

What really pisses me off is these cases where 16 or 17 year olds brutally murder people and everybody says 'oh try him as a minor, he's just a kid, don't give him the death penalty', why? Because he's 20 years younger than the parents he murdered, he deserves to live when they didn't have that privilege? Homicide, matricide, patricide, these are not stupid mistakes little kids make, it's adult thinking with premeditation and intention, good if they get the needle, we don't need them back out in society just becuase 'oh they're grown up now and they deserve a second chance', sure, just as soon as their victims get a second chance at living.

wants2laugh wrote:I don't agree with the death penalty period. Too many people are proven NOT GUILTY due to evidence that was withheld, new technological advances (DNA for one), etc..

wants2laugh wrote:I don't agree with the death penalty period. Too many people are proven NOT GUILTY due to evidence that was withheld, new technological advances (DNA for one), etc..

Opa Shale wrote:

I don't agree with the death penalty period, but if we have to have it, then it should be reserved for the conviction of people whose mental capabilities and ability to judge have peaked and that usually happens in early 20's. If someone underage murders, then they should just be remanded to prison for however long.

Rainmaker wrote:I don't agree with the death penalty period, but if we have to have it, then it should be reserved for the conviction of people whose mental capabilities and ability to judge have peaked and that usually happens in early 20's. If someone underage murders, then they should just be remanded to prison for however long.

See, this is what I don't get, are we really saying 10 or 12 or 14 year olds have NO idea that murder is wrong? I knew that when I was 3, I also knew by that time that if you killed somebody, first you went to jail, and then you went to hell, and I was not the brightest kid so if I could figure it out that early, there is no excuse for a 12 year old who blew his parents' brains out while they slept or stabbed someone because somebody made him mad, no excuse. Being 18 or even 20 doesn't SUDDENLY make a light bulb go off in your head for 'huh, murder's wrong, better not do that then'.

Do I really need to demonstrate why it is morally indefensible to execute 10 year olds or to warehouse them until they reach the minimum age of 16 before we can strap them to a gurney a stick a needle in their arm?

Alright, then make it 18, legally adults, legally old enough to know what's right and wrong, either way I don't think the sort like Jamie Bulger's murderers deserve a second chance in society, they got a walk on cold blooded murder and we're supposed to be okay with that just because now they're a few years older? When we put 50 year old murderers in prison we don't say 'oh maybe when he's 60 he'll know it's wrong to kill'.

Supernova wrote:Alright, then make it 18, legally adults, legally old enough to know what's right and wrong, either way I don't think the sort like Jamie Bulger's murderers deserve a second chance in society, they got a walk on cold blooded murder and we're supposed to be okay with that just because now they're a few years older? When we put 50 year old murderers in prison we don't say 'oh maybe when he's 60 he'll know it's wrong to kill'.

This is not, I repeat not an issue of knowing right from wrong. 10 year old children (and younger) know the difference between right and wrong but there is more than just anecdotal evidence that the part of their brains that control the urge to act on a murderous impulse is not developed enough to keep them from doing it. It's bad enough that we can execute 16 year olds. YOU DON'T EXECUTE CHILDREN. Period. End of debate.

A lot of kids get mad, they don't kill people because of it, most DO know how to restrain themselves from murdering somebody just because they're angry.

I don't think anyone is saying that we should let them get away with it or go easy on them because of their age. But we just can't become a society that executes kids. It's tragic that we even have kids committing these crimes. There aren't any easy answers. But execution can never be one of them.

Absolutely not, can't support the idea of executing a child...but I have no problem with giving a kid an extended life sentence.

CeCe wrote:I don't think anyone is saying that we should let them get away with it or go easy on them because of their age. But we just can't become a society that executes kids. It's tragic that we even have kids committing these crimes. There aren't any easy answers. But execution can never be one of them.

Bullseye

Whenever I hear about a heinous murder, I always think they should give the murderer the death penalty, but I just don't know. I wouldn't be good on any jury. Killing a 10 year old murderer. I can't behind that.

But the thing is just because they'd get the death sentence doesn't mean right away; on average death row inmates sit on the row for 27 years getting appeal after appeal after appeal, and 10 year olds wouldn't be any different, if anything their attorneys would probably fight harder for them. But most likely they would be 40 years old by the time they actually got executed so with that in mind, I don't see what the problem is.