The likelihood that a minor convicted of murder would be executed as a child is an absurd notion. They'd be spending years on death row before it actually happened. So if we're going to be against this, we'll probably have to find a better excuse than being against executing children (which I don't buy as an excuse anyway).

Most kids wouldn't even get the death penalty. We live in a society that coddles excuses so the kids would probably be out by the time they are 18, wreaking havoc again.

Since everyone here is already against execution anyway, I think asking about executing minors is a pointless question. I think there's a better angle to come at it from that really pushes boundaries a lot more.

So when they are 10 yrs old they commit the crime, not totally understanding all of the ramifications involved.... so leave them on death row and torture them mentally until they are mature enough to suffer in anguish over the regret they feel and the pain they have caused. That sounds like a great idea.

I believe in the law, and think they should either be upheld or changed. For example, the manson murders. Charles Manson's crew committed the murders and he and the rest were given the death penalty. Manson was NOT there--- he shouldnt have been given death in my opinion. THEN, the law changed and the death penalty was abolished in california. however, although they were sentenced to death, the sentences were reverted to life in prison. In my opinion THEY should have received the death penalty--except manson cause he wasnt even there because they had already been sentenced to death before the law had been changed.

They were teens/young adults and committed some of the bloodiest and gruesome murders of the 20th century. There was no doubt about their guilt. If they were 10yrs old, I seriously doubt that I would feel as strongly about that as I do.

Manson was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder under "the joint-responsibility rule, which makes each member of a conspiracy guilty of crimes his fellow conspirators commit in furtherance of the conspiracy's object." Vincent Bugliosi has been shrugging his shoulders and chuckling for years that Manson can't get that through his evil skull. Do you really believe that his victims would still have died if Watson, Atkins, Kasabian, and Krenwinkel had acted on their own?

Alan Smithee wrote:

Manson was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder under "the joint-responsibility rule, which makes each member of a conspiracy guilty of crimes his fellow conspirators commit in furtherance of the conspiracy's object." Vincent Bugliosi has been shrugging his shoulders and chuckling for years that Manson can't get that through his evil skull. Do you really believe that his victims would still have died if Watson, Atkins, Kasabian, and Krenwinkel had acted on their own?

Those kids were on so much drugs, and manson told them "do something witchy". He didnt say "go slaughter the whole house and stab a pregnant woman in the belly, slice them up and make it look like a slaughter house. Manson told Tex Watson privately what he wanted. Manson never told the girls. Just because someone tells u to commit a crime doesnt mean u have to... and i know they were so screwed in the heads they thought he was jesus christ and the devil wrapped in one.

IMO that conspiracy law is one that needs to be changed. Each of the killers were responsible for their own actions and decisions, not manson. I could see giving him some sort of gun charges or something since he gave tex the gun. But tex could have held up a liquor store with that instead of killing someone.