Should juvenile murderers be sentenced to life in prison?

[eddie]

Not according to the Supreme Court I guess. It is concidered cruel punishment. Seems to me if someone is 16 years old and kills an 8 year old, knowing full well it is wrong and against the law, he should do plenty of hard time!

This could open a whole Pandora's box of new problems now. A juvenile knows now he can kill someone, and get a lighter sentence. Don't see a problem with that line of thinking!:huh:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/25/13992401-for-families-of-victims-of-juvenile-murderers-ruling-reopens-traumatic-wounds?lite

[Herr-Berbunch]

What about when the perpetrators are only 10?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger - still disgusts most folk in the UK. :nope:

[CaptainHaplo]

No.

Murderers should be executed.

[Buddahaid]

I'd say no to life, or execution, however they should serve plenty of time. I can't back execution because there are just too many innocents convicted still.

[yubba]

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/22/nyregion/a-big-city-horror-in-a-small-town.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm that happened in my hometown, I went to school with the victims father, I was up there when it happened. It was pretty shocking,, If you murder you pay the price,,they killed once,,, when will they do it again...

[eddie]

A 10 year old, I would say no. But what of gang members, plenty are in their teens? Thats right yubba, how do you know the kid isn't a pyschotic killer, and you want him back on the street?

[Skybird]

State of mind.

That is the deciding criterion, and most Western penalty codes in principal recognize that. A person too young simply is in a state of mind that is not that of an adult, and cannot be as forseeing and as reflective, as that of an adult usually is. For formal reasons, an age criterion thus is used, and a separation of sentences for adults and sentences for juveniles. A fixed ager of lets say 18 is not the perfect solution, and ideally you would have a perfect and flawless assessment of the individual's mental and psychological development status, always. But the world is not perfect, and the general law system must stay functional without getting paralyzed and flooded with too much procedural details. Whether the latter indeed is successfully avoided in reality, is something different. I have not hidden in the past my deep mistrust and lacking respect for the legal system "as is", in its the present state.

Also, mentally ill, retarded or else intellectually handicapped people.

I remember that some weeks ago there was an execution in I think Texas of somebody widely seen as mentally retarded. That is unacceptable.

To claim or/and accept responsibility, your mind must be of a ripeness and your intellect of a capacity to support this. Usually, penalty law codes reflect that.

As I always argue, execution as a criminal punishment is pointless for principal reasons. It is no punishment when you are dead, and no behavioral alteration is possible when you are dead. The rate of wrong death sentences where after execution the subject was proven to be innocent, is far too high. An effect of deterrence is not widely supported by crime rates, and also does not effect situation where people fall victim to situational dynamics that can lead to excesses where people simply falling out of control - group dynamics play a role here, and here again youth effects. - Execution only should be considered where the subject living in prison would serve as katalyst for crime in his name or in his behalf going on, or the subject would remain in control of that crime outside the prison, or a serious and outstanding threat to communal interests arise from he subject in 15 or 20 years being released from prison. All this necessarily excludes all "ordinary" crime, everyday crime: murder by passion, rape, pedophilia, bank robbery, theft, usual fraud. People where it may be considered to kill them instead of imprison them, are leaders of Mafia-like organised crime, "big fishes" in girl trading and enslaving, military arms smuggling, weapon smuggling.

In other words: execution should be seen as a prevention of the worst of ongoing crime. The worst of ongoing crime, nothing less, nothing ordinary, nothing usual that makes up 99% of police work. It should be a total and rare exception.

For many I think execution is pleasing their personal blood thirst, and seeking revenge. And some of these due to this attitude may be so dangerous that we should keep them behind locked doors as well. Sometimes the mood that some report about supporters of an imminent execution catches in text and pictures, reminds of a lynching mob. Such sentiments should have no place in any civilised society. Killing maybe sometimes is a necessity. But even then it never should be the excuse for self-righteously partying.

Determination is perfectly sufficient. And just punishment, prevention and revenge are three totally different things.

[Platapus]

That kid was only 17.
The gun made him older.

Anyone remember that movie quote?

[Cybermat47]

No.

Murderers should be executed.

Naah, life imprisonment's better!
If it turns out they're innocenent, they can be released, and if they're guilty, it's really, really, boring for them!

[Onkel Neal]

Life sentence? No. 20 years of intense Algebra and Trig training, yeah! That'll teach them.

:arrgh!:

[Cybermat47]

Life sentence? No. 20 years of intense Algebra and Trig training, yeah! That'll teach them.

:arrgh!:

That'd teach the guy who shot up his algebra teacher!

On second thought, should we really be using tortures that would sicken the SS, SA, and Gestapo?

[nikimcbee]

Life sentence? No. 20 years of intense Algebra and Trig training, yeah! That'll teach them.

:arrgh!:

Minnesota has hug therapy.:har: If you must kill somebody, that's the state to do it in.

[eddie]

Throw in some calculus too for good measure!

[soopaman2]

I have to agree with some of the hardliners. But here is why.

When you incarcerate them for extended periods at a young age they are influenced by what is around them, other criminals.

They become institutionalized in worst case scenarios, and are unable to function as a normal society member once released.

They just end up back, especially after learning new things while in the can.

If you slap them on the wrist, they think it's ok and will most always end up hurting someone else.

It should also be on a case by case basis. Not some blanket rule. Dealing with children and teenagers can be delicate.

[Takeda Shingen]

Life sentence? No. 20 years of intense Algebra and Trig training, yeah! That'll teach them.

:arrgh!:

Oh hells yes.

[Tribesman]

The problem with the story and what the real issue is the nature of the sentence.
Its just plain dumb and lazy. It makes as much sense as other knee jerk reactions to law and order issues.

[JU_88]

I dont know what the solution is, but it winds me up when people give too much consideration to the human rights of violent criminals, those said people never consider the human rights of their victims, do they?
That said it depends on the circumstances of the crime.
But if some one is killed or badly hurt in an unprovoked attack, and the person(s) responsible shows no remorse, then that person(s) needs be off the street - perminantly. Lock them up or excute them, I dont care, but Im pretty sure society does not want them back.
I see no problem with capital punishment for repeat offenders, nobody gets wrongfully convicted two or three times in a row.

Oh and even 10 year olds understand that murder is wrong by societies standards. So I dont have much sympathy even for child murderers. Sorry.

[Tribesman]

That said it depends on the circumstances of the crime.

Which is why mandatory sentencing is just dumb and lazy.

[Jimbuna]

Life sentence? No. 20 years of intense Algebra and Trig training, yeah! That'll teach them.

:arrgh!:

Well that way it'll soon only be teachers that are getting murdered and I know I often felt like murdering mine during my school days :)

[AVGWarhawk]

Boot camp.

and Tribesman says....

[AVGWarhawk]

,they killed once,,, when will they do it again...

I don't believe in every case the person who has killed makes it a career.

[Tribesman]

and Tribesman says....
...it depends on the offender and the program

[Jimbuna]

Speaking from a UK stance...a crime is a crime and the age of criminal responsibilty is clearly set out.

There are statutes which a judge has to take into consideration and equally so....if you don't want to do the time then don't do the crime.