should teenager like 16 or 17 get the death penality?

[RandyS]

Send them to the Phantom Zone!

Forget everything I said. I like this one.

 

[iguana_tonante]

There was that incident recently where those 15 year old kids doused another 15 year old with rubbing alcohol and set him on fire. This was not a mistake or harmless horseplay. These "children" were perpetrating a crime of such sickening brutality that most adults couldn't conceive of. What's the next step for them? Perhaps they might grow & change in prison. But it seems rare that prison ever has a positive effect on its inmates. They emerge more brutal than they were when they went in.

Then, instead of executing people, change prisons.

And if they are never released from prison, what's the point of keeping them alive at all.

Because, mmh, murder is wrong?

If the death penalty isn't a deterrent, maybe that's just because it's not public enough. Life in prison or dignified execution behind closed doors may be too abstract for murdering children to comprehend. But I suspect that, if they can see kids their own age hanging from the gallows on Youtube, they might actually think twice before committing the next sociopathic act of violence against another child.

It didn't worked in the past, when executions were public and much more gruesome than today. The death penalty as a deterrent does not work. Simple as that.

Children are supposed to be innocents who are gradually corrupted by the world once they reach adulthood.

That's patently wrong. Children are vicious little animals that would get away with anything if they could. That's why they need to be taught and educated by adults.

The reason we don't judge kids the same with adults it's that often they can't understand the consequences of their actions, not because they are cute and fluffy.

I don't even know the victim, yet I still feel indescribable outrage. I believe society deserves a public outlet for that outrage. He has forfeited his life when he chose to take someone else's.

So the reason behind the death penalty is the thirst for vengeance of the mobs. Good to know we agree on that.

 

[cultcross]

And if they are never released from prison, what's the point of keeping them alive at all.

How about because we don't have the right to be arbiters of life and death, that to saying 'killing is wrong' then punish them by... killing is hypocritical and barbaric

It's not hypocritical if you only believe in killing bad people.

So as long as the person being killed is "bad", that's fine? Ridiculous, and the mentality that leads to vigilante justice and honour killings.

Nonsense, hangings used to be public in Britain, still didn't work as a deterrent. Harsher punishment doesn't work as a deterrent for a fairly simple reason: criminals don't intent to get caught.

Then why punish criminals at all?

Justice. It's not about (or at least not primarily about) deterrent, it's about consequences and restitution, upholding the standards of the society that we have built. And one of those standards is 'killing is wrong'.

Also, we don't execute people to demonstrate that "killing is wrong." Like other posters & I have said, the wrongness of murder is so self-evident that no further statement is necessary. I think the message intended by executions is that there are some crimes that are unforgivable, some deeds so despicable that society cannot & will not tolerate the continued survival of the perpetrators, and that some crimes are so heinous that society's need to punish them supercedes your otherwise inalienable right to life.

Society's bloodthirstiness and desire for vengeance supersede their right to life, nothing else.

Also, define 'bad'.

"Bad" people are people who deserve to die. A more specific definition would be too subjective.

When it comes to the death penalty, I think we need to ask 3 questions:
#1.) Do some people deserve to die?
#2.) Are we qualified to determine which people deserve to die?
#3.) Are we justified in taking overt action to execute those people that we have determined deserve to die?

My answers:
#1.) Yes. Obviously.
#2.) No, but someone has to do it and no one else is available. Humans are such flawed creatures. There is much that we don't know. We are not God, and therefore will sometimes come to erroneous conclusions of fact, motives, and/or mitigating circumstances. We aren't even qualified to determine who should go to jail. However, since we need to govern our society, that requires us imperfect beings to make the most reasonable, accurate judgements that we can.
#3.) Again, it's one of those unsavory decisions that we must make in order to effectively govern our society.

Mine would be:
1) No.
2) Absolutely not, even if 1) were 'yes'. Our justice system is imperfect, and certain things need to be in place to take account of that. One of which is not having a punishment so absolute, so complete, as death.
3) No, no state should have the authority to kill its own people in cold blood.

 

[JuanBolio]

Why not? The State kills people of other nations in cold blood.

 

[John Picard]

The older I get, the more I become very uncomfortable with the Death Penalty. I used to be pro-capital punishment for years, but that has changed.

I worked with someone whose cousin spend 15 years in prison for a rape he did not commit. Perhaps you are familiar with the Joyce Gilcrist fiasco in Oklahoma? Recently, Texas exonerated men in prison for false conviction. It saddens me to know that a DA will *do anything* for a conviction because the Public "demands justice", only for it to turn out that the wrong person went to jail. Couple that with the Death Penalty, and a tragic injustice has been committed.

 

[cultcross]

Why not? The State kills people of other nations in cold blood.

I'm not wildly fond of that, either.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Answer to the topic:

Only if they are male. You can't put a pretty girl to death.

Is there no way t type out that I'm being facetious?

 

[iguana_tonante]

Why not? The State kills people of other nations in cold blood.

I'm not wildly fond of that, either.

You are against the death penalty and war!?! What the hell are you thinking, man!

 

[cultcross]

Answer to the topic:

Only if they are male. You can't put a pretty girl to death.

That's a very good point.

 

[Middle Earther]

The Iguana with flamey things
That's patently wrong. Children are vicious little animals that would get away with anything if they could. That's why they need to be taught and educated by adults.

The reason we don't judge kids the same with adults it's that often they can't understand the consequences of their actions, not because they are cute and fluffy.

QFT. As an elementary school teacher, I have to agree.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

No, simply bad people don't deserve to die. Evil people do (Saddam Hussein, Hitler, et al). There is a difference.

That is why I specifically defined "bad" as "deserves to die" in this context.

Setting someone on fire seems pretty clearly "evil" as well.

There was that incident recently where those 15 year old kids doused another 15 year old with rubbing alcohol and set him on fire. This was not a mistake or harmless horseplay. These "children" were perpetrating a crime of such sickening brutality that most adults couldn't conceive of. What's the next step for them? Perhaps they might grow & change in prison. But it seems rare that prison ever has a positive effect on its inmates. They emerge more brutal than they were when they went in.

Then, instead of executing people, change prisons.

Change them to what?

Children are supposed to be innocents who are gradually corrupted by the world once they reach adulthood.

That's patently wrong. Children are vicious little animals that would get away with anything if they could. That's why they need to be taught and educated by adults.

The reason we don't judge kids the same with adults it's that often they can't understand the consequences of their actions, not because they are cute and fluffy.

I would agree that, when it comes to property crimes like stealing & vandalism, these are crimes that are committed because they are too young and inexperienced to understand the consequences of their actions. When your parents provide for you, it is difficult to recognize the damage done by stealing or vandalizing someone else's property.

With violent crimes such as assault, rape, & murder, the consequences are immediately apparent and were clearly the intentions of the perpetrator in the first place. You can't teach them that it's wrong when that is already self-evident. They knew the severe consequences that would befall the victim. That's why they did it. All we can do now is make sure that the consequences that befall them for their brutality are appropriately severe.

I think you can make a general anti-death penalty argument that it's far too final a punishment in cases where there is some doubt as to guilt.