Children on death row.

As soon as i saw it was 25 minutes long i just skipped to certain parts in the middle and turned it off.

my personal opinion...children + death row = Not plausible.
 
So 2010 happens and now we claim first in threads? I know it happened when an orange or red name posted something but why this?

interesting video though. Haven't gotten all the way through it.
 
[/end thread]

Video is from Jan 1 2005. Juvenille capital punishment was deemed unconstitutional under the 8th amendment by SCOTUS in a 5-4 decision in Roper v. Simmons.
 


Video is from Jan 1 2005. Juvenille capital punishment was deemed

unconstitutional under the 8th amendment by SCOTUS in a 5-4 decision in

Roper v. Simmons (on March 1 2005)
 
this is true, but children still can be sentenced to life in prison without parole in america, which is the only country to do so
 
Yeah it is very sad. I for one don't support capital punishment in anyway, unless perhaps ESPECIALLY egregious crimes, like giving the Soviets nuclear techonology and accelerating the Cold War, or flying airplanes into buildings kiling 3000 civilians. Other than that, I don't believe any state has the right to take someone's life away. Government didn't grant you life, and thus it has no power to take it.

BUT

reading the comments like "you american pigs sicken me" angers me.

Great, a shitty law, enacted by the majority of the people nonetheless, can be such a pinnacle of wrongdoing.

Yet our actions, nay our ability itself, to correct misguided laws are burried under the 3rd page of Google.

A testament to the intelligence of people.
 
only for homicide now (as of October i think, Graham v Florida (Powell)) which I don't see anything wrong with.

It takes a lot to get that sentence, and if that sentence is deemed appropriate by a jury of his peers (a luxury not afforded in many countries), and the crime clearly warrants it (like killing 5 people in a robbery attempt, or shooting up your high school) then whats the problem with that?

And to the rest of the USA haters, why would you hate on the Penal system in the USA of all things? We have the most liberal, criminal-friendly, penal system in the world...

 
i myself, do support capital punishment, but not for minors.

it really isn't fair to judge america on one or two things and assume all americans conform to certain stereotypes
 
Sorry we live in a democracy. If the people of Texas wanted to kill kids for murder, thats their call.

Its also extremely unfair for you to categorize Texas with USA. The USA is a very large and diversely interested country. You cant extrapolate any states' preferences and apply it to the USA. The Federal Government has never had juvenille capital punishment...

Very rare does the federal system stomp on the states' own courts anyway. In this case, the rest of the country had long since done away with child killing, and it was time for Texas to liberalize.

The Court system is open to everyone. Previous children should have sued under the federal government.

Eitherway, we agree on the basic issue, I just think its not only unfair, but naive and straight up stupid, for you to turn this into another lets bash america thread.
 
no definitely not for just homicide, youths are sentenced to life without parole for armed robbery, rape, and other crimes that are not murder and while those things are wrong the fact that children are so impressionable makes it retarded to sentence one to life without parole
 
yes I agree, thank you. Especially when the law is a State law, its especially unfair for all those foreign nationals to say "You sick american pigs ending a kids life you sickin me"

But anyway, I agree with the ability for law enforcement to kill you in the act of enforcing a law. Thats just basic government legitimacy of force. That's a pure act to ensure security.

But once you're in government custody, why kill you? Does the notion of state-instituted death defer capital criminals anymore than an entire lifetime spent in a dangerous maximum security prison? I guess maybe if prison is glorified in hip hop culture, but thats for another time.
 
But either way, i know jail sucks, but 99% of the time the people in there deserve their time.

I mean, even in this case Graham v. Florida where Graham is arguing under the 8th amendment it is illegal to imprison a child, its still a copout.

The suspects in this case brutally beat and gangbanged a 15 year old girl, repeatedly, then robbed her. Think about what that 15 year old girl must feel if the kids didn't get anything less.
 
Eye for eye. that's the way it goes. if people are fucked up enough to take an innocent person's life, they deserve it. they know the consequences before hand. the murderer's brain is most definitely developed enough to AT LEAST be able to tell right from wrong. it's sad to see kids doing this, but i don't have any sympathy for them. they're virtually animals for committing such a crime. they deserve it.

 
whilst i dont support capital punishment, i dont think it really matters if the people being sentenced are over or under the age of 18... i mean, if the kid is 16 or something and raped some girl and killed her, i wouldnt see anything wrong with treating him like an adult... however, if the kid is obviously not mentally as mature as an adult (lets say up to age 14), then a life sentence definitely should not be in order... and the death sentence even less so.
 
PLEASE FUCKING STOP THIS!

Goddamn, I started this sorta with the damn Tropic Thunder pic and others were there too... it isn't that funny this far removed from when it happened. Goddamnit.
 
Kids getting the death sentance for murder, yet 4 year olds cross dressing, getting drunk, breaking and entering, and stealing christmas presents don't even get charged!

What is this world coming too
 
not trying to pick a fight with you but im saying this cuz you never just hate your intelligent and i like having an intelligent discussion without pricks on here throwing around words.

But first you do not believe if someone takes the life of a man or woman than he to has given up their own right to live?
And it would be cheaper to kill them, sounds terrible. but i don't like i have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to feed and house a murder. Especially like in the case of Simmons v Roper when the defendent broke into his teachers house duct taped her entire body to a chair and threw her off a low bridge breaking bones on impact and eventually dying alone at night at the bottom of some river. Keep him in jail until he is 18 then kill him.
 
that they are on death row? yes, i do. they both knew exactly what they were doing and what the consequences were when they killed some one. i dont believe in capital punishment, but i dont disbelieve in it enough to care about those fuck ups lives
 
I am probably the most left wing death penalty proponent ever, but it should really be reserved for cases where there is no reasonably forseeable possibility of rehabilitation. Kids haven't fully developed and there is, I would think, always a decent chance that they can mature into at least somewhat useful adults. The same rationale would apply to life without parole, though honestly, if you're going to stick them in jail for the rest of their lives, you might as well kill them.
 
Classifications for being able to use the death penalty as a form of a penalty.

First: you have to be CONVICTED of Aggravated 1st Degree Murder. To get AGGRAVATED 1st you have to have either killed a shit load of people, tortured your victims, killed multiple cops, raped your victim first or raped the corpse, or done some combination of them.

Second: you need to be tried in a bicameral trail process which means the first portion is a conviction phase. The second part is the penalty phase and the 2 penalties allowed for Aggravated 1st is Life with NO chance of parole or the death penalty (if said state has the death penalty)

Third: there has to be a form of proportionality meaning ones penalty must be equivalent to their crime. Places like WA state have a huge problem because in WA state we have the Green River Killer (killed over 40 women) and he cracked a deal that if he gave up where the bodies were he would not get the death penalty. See how proportionality can cause a problem in WA state now if one wants to convict someone of the death penalty?

And don't accuse me of copy and pasting... I had to write a report on this last quarter and just re-wrote all my notes basically. SO, sorta copy paste but I had to look it all up. I may have forgotten one or two things though and if I did please don't flip at me.
 
I am absolutely against corporal punishment. Unless she has a hot ass and really wants it!

And I am never for executing children. But if they fly into a building killing 3000 people I am all for it ;-)
 
The death penalty was removed in a court case and allowed to come back later as long as it meant those three requirements... I just can't remember the court cases names right now.
 
Pretty much just as bad. Maybe worse. I would have a hard time picking life in prison over death. Plus, it doesn't cost anything to kill people, except for the absolutely ludicrous trial costs, which is a problem with the system, not the notion of the death penalty. I just cannot get over the idea of feeding, housing and guarding for life people who have committed atrocities to the point where there is no hope that they will ever be worthwhile human beings.
 
age doesnt matter, they deserve it and the only shame is that we have to pay taxes to support them for 15 years before they are executed. shoot em behind the court house immediately after the sentencing and save the government some money
 
That is the cost of punishment. Government incurs costs other institutions can't. That's why we have it.

I know you might have a hard time picking, but this isn't a cost-benefit analysis. We're talking about a virtuous state, supposedly self-governing, taking the life of a human being as punishment for a rule it created. Granted, the rule extends further than a mere artificial human creation, but where does government derive its power to kill?

I think, and this is just my opinion, government can kill only in the act of enforcing a law in action. That is, police can kill people, because that is simply the hallmark of government- the legititmate use of force.

But who gives them the right to take the life of one of its own citizens after he or she has been contained and is in police custody?

Government grants you security, freedom (indirectly through securing sovereign borders in combination with its own freedom principles), and provides you amenities otherwise unobtainable. To those effects, then, government has the right to retract those things, and place you in jail where you do not have security, freedom, or normal government-provided amenities (though you do receive others).

But government does not grant you life. They might protect it, they might facilitate it, they might help provide the environment in which it is created, but government did not grant you life. Thus it has no right to take it. Life is precious. It can only be taken in the immediate instance in which your existence will directly harm others, like if youre standing there with agun pointed at someone else. But in all other circumstances, the government has no right to execute you.

It is a barbaric practice that ought to be outlawed by the 8th amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top