Should juvenile murderers be sentenced to life in prison?

yubba · 09-25-12, 04:50 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/22/ny...ted=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 · 09-25-12, 04:56 PM

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 · 09-25-12, 05:18 PM

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 · 09-25-12, 05:36 PM

Quote:

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

Anyone remember that movie quote?

AVGWarhawk · 09-26-12, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yubba

,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.

09-26-12, 01:41 PM

Quote:

and Tribesman says....

...it depends on the offender and the program

Jimbuna · 09-26-12, 04:11 PM

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.

09-25-12, 04:56 PM	#2
eddie Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,023 Downloads: 99 Uploads: 0	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? __________________ Don't mistake my kindness for weakness. I'm kind to everyone, but when someone is unkind to me, weak is not what you are going to remember about me. Al Capone Last edited by eddie; 09-25-12 at 05:10 PM.

09-25-12, 05:18 PM	#3
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,816 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

09-26-12, 04:11 PM	#7
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 191,468 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	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. __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

09-25-12, 04:50 PM	#1
yubba Admiral Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: in a neighborhood near you Posts: 2,478 Downloads: 293 Uploads: 2	http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/22/ny...ted=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...