An attempt at a serious debate. To make it more interesting, I would like to suggest those who can try to take the viewpoint opposite their own.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
Heck no. Or is it heck yes, due to your stipulation?
How much lower than 17 are we talking about? How long until someone wants to lower it even more?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Should we lower the death sentence age below 17
Depends. How old are you?
...
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
I'll argue the position opposite mine, though.
Yes.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
(if arguing position opposite mine) I think all people should be placed on death row at age 11 and if they can acquire a useful profession in the next 7 years, they get out on parole. If they don't have their act together by 21, we execute them.
(That is to say, I don't believe in the death penalty.)
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
The only thing that would make me pause and think about this is the fact that a life sentence is freaking LONG if you're sixteen years old.
But even after thinking that, I'm like holy crap, no. I don't see ANY benefit, besides emotional catharsis for the families of the victims, for expanding our use of the death penalty, in any direction. And that one benefit doesn't outweigh the value, to me, of even a wasted human life.
And I actually think this. I don't really enjoy arguing against myself. Recognizing the benefits of an opposition proposition? Certainly. Actively arguing for a position I don't believe in? Not nearly as interesting.
[ January 26, 2005, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
What he said.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
My mind keeps jumping to that kid from Florida who recieved either a life sentence or the death penalty when he was 13 or something for preforming a wrestling move that inadvertantly killed a girl who was his neighbor.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:And I actually think this. I don't really enjoy arguing against myself. Recognizing the benefits of an opposition proposition? Certainly. Actively arguing for a position I don't believe in? Not nearly as interesting.
So, now I'm confused. Are you posting this as the opposite of your true opinion?
This game makes my brain hurt.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm not arguing the position opposite my own.
The death penalty as currently practiced in this country is racist, classist, results in the regular death of men who did not commit the crime they were sentenced for, and must be stopped until such time as the system has undergone a severe and dramatic revision. Any politician who expresses confidence in the way the current death penalty system operates either doesn't care or is a sadistic SOB.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:What he said.
So, you disagree...
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:The death penalty as currently practiced in this country is racist, classist, results in the regular death of men who did not commit the crime they were sentenced for, and must be stopped until such time as the system has undergone a severe and dramatic revision. Any politician who expresses confidence in the way the current death penalty system operates either doesn't care or is a sadistic SOB.
Well, that's an excellent way to win support for your opinion Demonize the opposition, and deny any possibility of a good person disagreeing with you.
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
To go off on a related side issue: If someone is declared by several psychologists to be a sociopath, are they put in mental institutions or are they treated like any other individual? I'm honestly curious about this; does anyone have any knowledge about this?
And I'd like to take a slightly modified position. I think that in today's world, teenagers are not given enough responsibility, and too easily fall prey to being influenced by terrible examples, to be put to death for their crimes. In earlier societies, where teenagers were often married, working, and overall were much more serious and responsible about life, my opinion would be different. (Note that I also think the death penalty should only be applied when there are actual witnesses to the crime.) Also, I think that a teenager sentenced to a life in prison, or anyone sentenced to life in prison, really, should be required to gain skills and work in some sort of capacity in order to pay for his/her keep, with all privaleges except necessary food and a basic cot taken away to ensure their compliance, unless it's truly impossible for them to work for medical reasons.
How old must a person be to be sentenced to life in prison?
Edited to add: This is my own position.
Also ETA:
quote:My mind keeps jumping to that kid from Florida who recieved either a life sentence or the death penalty when he was 13 or something for preforming a wrestling move that inadvertantly killed a girl who was his neighbor.
The death penalty can be given for a negligent but unintentional act!!??!!
[ January 26, 2005, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: reader ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Sometimes its true. Have you ever looked at the death penalty statistics? The hugely greater rates at which we execute minority and poor people for the same crimes, and the frequency with which innocent people are discovered on death row are unconscionable.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
It depends on the crime, and it depends on other things.
For instance, husband just did a report on a juvenile detention facility for dangerous sexual predators. (What is scary is that most of these kids look like 'good kids') Anyway, these kids are there allegedly to be rehabilitated. If they don't go through the program successfully, they will be transfered to a regular prison when they are 21. I'm not sure how long their sentence is.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I should point out that my post does not say anything about people who support the death penalty in the abstract, or who support the death penalty in specific instances, or even about people in general who support the death penalty as practiced in this country. Just about politicians who support the death penalty (considered as an institution) as practiced in this country.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and also I think that most politicans fall into the "don't care" category -- often the rational being "they must have done something" or similar. There (luckily) don't seem to be too many sadistic SOBs in politics, as a percentage.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
I thought this would be difficult. I am a hypocrite: myself, I cannot argue well for lowering it. I was interested as to what points some Jatraqueros could brainstorm.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
But let's consider the case where we suppose an institution of capital punishment that isn't deeply flawed. What if the death penalty was applied in a relatively unbiased manner and, because of increased scrutiny, was used on the innocent in only a vanishingly small number of cases. Would it be ok to lower the age limit then?
I don't see why not. Age ain't nothing but a number. Ok, that's not really true, but for the purposes of the discussion, how do we really determine whether someone fits the criteria for the death penalty. I don't think that a more or less arbitralily determined age is a good metric for this. We trust the system to make that determination as to whether someone should be executed for their crimes. Isn't the determination of whether they were sufficiently "adult" a much lesser responsibility? If we can't trust people to make that lesser determination and we have to tie their hands with something as artificial as an age limit, I don't see how we can in good faith allow anyone to be executed.
I would hope that we're employing capital punishment in defense of society. It's both the ultimate deterrent and the most sure way of dealing with repeat offenses. Let's face it, our current penal system isn't all that much of a deterrent, especially to many teenagers. In many urban sub-cultures, there's grown up almost a perverse pride in being locked up. It's become almost something that people laugh about, at least when they are considering it. Culturally, unless it's seen as a big deal, being put in jail and being fed three square meals a day with cable and exercise priviledges and all isn't going to serve to weigh into the decision to commit crimes.
The punishments we employ need to make an impression in order to be effective as preventative measures. The potential for death as a punishment may actually make a teenager stop and think about the path they're setting themselves on. In so many cases, we hear teenage criminals talk about how they didn't think before they committed their crimes. Maybe this would be a way of getting them to do that.
Given that, who would we actually end up executing. Exactly the people that the death penalty is set up. Those who are so callous and malicious that there isn't a chance of us reaching them or stopping them through threats of punishment or rehabilitation.
They're broken. There's no two ways about it. I feel bad for them, but there's nothing that I'm going to be able to do about it. They can't be fixed. It's the kids in similar situations who aren't yet broken, who haven't yet commited themselves to a life filled with atrocities that really need our help. If we're going to be spending money on the "crime problem", it should be going into helping out these kids, not in trying to fix the unfixable.
The best we can do is stop the broken ones from hurting other people; in many cases, it's these other at-risk kids that suffer from the actions and the example of their older counterparts. Much like the cycle of abuse, those who were terrorized when they were weak grow up to be terrorizers when they're strong.
---
Yeah, my argument's full of holes. What did you expect, it took me 5 mintues and you gave me "Let's kill kids." as my topic?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Unless they lower the drinking age to 18. Raise the entering armed service age to 21... And even then, it would still be wrong. Fugu13 is right about the death penalty. Lower income people are more likely to be executed. Ever read Dead Man Walking? It's a great book.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:results in the regular death of men who did not commit the crime they were sentenced for,
This isn't even close to being proved, if you define "as currently practiced" since SCOTUS re-allowed the death penalty in the 70s.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
When you have a list this long of people getting freed, and the system pretty much stops examining the evidence after a person is killed (coincidentally making the likelihood that it ever will be proved in a legal sense low), it is not unreasonable to assume that we have executed a good number of innocent people.
In fact, I think there would be a very interesting probability chart one could construct for various numbers of innocent people killed based on amount of time required to get an inmate freed (calculated from some reasonable starting place), ratio of people who have that process started who have it succeed compared to those who have it fail and stop trying, and percentage of people on death row who have that process started but get killed before it ceases.
edit: minor clarifications
[ January 26, 2005, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:it is not unreasonable to assume that we have executed a good number of innocent people.
It might actually be unreasonable to make that assumption. I'm not saying no innocents have been executed. But a "good number" counts on a lot of assumptions that aren't even close to being demonstrated statistically or directly.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I amend my statement to insert a "likely" before that statement (I blame sleep).
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
no...but since I don't like the death penalty at any age, its not surprising I don't want the government to kill teens
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:An attempt at a serious debate. To make it more interesting, I would like to suggest those who can try to take the viewpoint opposite their own.
I think that in the spirit of the thread, the best way to make it more interesting is kill the people who lose the debate.
Hobbes Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
For the purposes of this debate, I am 16 years old, and am immune.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
I don't believe in the death penalty at all.
And that is my true feeling, not the opposite of what I really believe.
I also agree with fugu's statements about the death penalty - statistically, minority races and the poor are more likely to be convicted, and in recent years we have found that many of these convictions were wrong.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote: Should we lower the death sentence age below 17?
Try getting rid of it instead.
Edit: Oh, and that's my opinion. I can usually argue for an opinion opposite to mine, but not on this topic.
[ January 27, 2005, 05:52 AM: Message edited by: Corwin ]
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
If any innocent is to be or has been killed, then the death penalty is an error. The number does not matter. Actually I believe this is an error anyway because life is sacred to me and I allow no one to take it from anyone, but the fact that innocents are killed is one more reason to refuse the death penalty.
Posted by babager (Member # 6700) on :
On a sidenote.. I think the kid that got life for killing the girl in a wrestling move got released. btw.. it wasn't a wrestling move.. she was laying on the stairs and he jumped and landed on top of her and he was scared and told everyone they were wrestling. The girls mom was one of the main advocates for getting him released.
Anyway I'll post my opinion on the topic at hand when I have more time.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I don't have a problem with the death penalty if there is absolutely no possible room for doubt of the person's guilt AND if he/she has exhibited no remorse and has made no effort toward restitution in a real and compelling way AND if the crime committed is so heinous that they are and always will be a public hazard if allowed free.
I think under 17 is too young to determine all of the above criteria about a person.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: Should we lower the death sentence age below 17?
No.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
You know. I’m all for the death penalty, but anymore with countless appeals it’s almost a waste and I’m not sure how much of a deterrent. I bet more of a deterrent would be if you went to more of a chain gang theme. Anymore it seems like people will do anything to avoid a hard days work. Think of the stress and anxiety of being put away to work! They’d be rehabilitated because they wouldn’t want to be forced to work that hard again. You could have different levels for how much you can trust the imamate. Think of the benefits. No need to have adopt a highway since the prisoners do it. Farmer Bob could rent out a gang to help bail the hay. Wouldn’t have so much problems with lack of prison space because you wouldn’t need a gym and all the other luxuries that someone in prison shouldn’t have. Oh well. Just a pipe dream. The ACLU would never even let it get considered.
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
I don't beleive in the death penalty at all, so no, I would not want to see the age lowered. (Real opinion).
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Demonize the opposition, and deny any possibility of a good person disagreeing with you.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)