Thread: chidren and the death penalty

Originally Posted by For3v3r_Lost

I'm just saying that parents should be more responsible for their children because if they did anything that's "adult crime", it's their fault.

The parents can only be held responsible to a point. If the parent taught them that it was wrong and they understood that and did it anyway then the child is the one responsible. Legally as well I believe. The parent is only responsible in criminal matters if you can show negligence.

Originally Posted by Arrianna

The parents can only be held responsible to a point. If the parent taught them that it was wrong and they understood that and did it anyway then the child is the one responsible. Legally as well I believe. The parent is only responsible in criminal matters if you can show negligence.

You do have a point there. That's a good way to explain it. I'm bad at explaining when it comes to things like this. ^_^'

Well, I personally am completly against the death penalty. But thats different from the topic. It is true that the typical age of a teenager has dropped to the age of around 10-12, but someone of that age has definatly not lived life long enough to know the difference from what's right and wrong. Like Arrianna said, the parents are somewhat responsible, but then again, what kind of parent would talk about rape and murder to their 10 year old kid? At worst, the kid should be sent to rehab or juvy at worst.

If an adult committed a violent crime, but had the mental capacity of a 10-year-old, he'd be considered retarded and therefore ineligible for the death penalty. But a 10-year-old with the mental capacity of a 10-year-old is considered normal, and frankly, if a kid is knowingly and willfully committing violent sadistic crimes at such a young age, what kind of adult do you think they'll grow up to be?

Death penalty for a ten year old because they commit horrible crimes?that is fair in a way but not all young people will be like that for the rest of their lives because they can change.What is best is to restrict them freedom and simply incarcerate them and force them to do something that will make them an asset to society.

Absoltely not. Anyone under the age of 18 should not be given the death penalty regardless of the crime. It is not until that age that cognitive development really comes to a close (in terms of development, not learning of course) and so many of one's abilities to think and deal with changing situations as well as your overall personality have not yet solidified. Someone who at the age of 15 killed a family in cold blood could very well be a normal functioning (and remorseful) individual at the age of 20. They are in essence an entirely different person between those two periods. Children should be incarcerated in special institutions which stress rehabilitation, learning, as well as nurturing for these individuals. At the age of 21 they should then be evaluated and it should be determined whether or not they are ready to be reintegrated into society. Also of importance, their evaluators should have absolutly no knowleged of the crimes the child committed, which would surely bias their findings.

And for the record, it is my firm belief that nobody should be given the death penalty, regardless of age. After all aren't we one of the last modernized countries to get around to getting rid of it? Many of us still think it's a grand idea.

...Reminds me of the American view of slavery a few generations ago. I'm sure in a few generations nearly all Americans will look back upon this time with a bit of disgust towards our demenor in the area of criminal justice, just as we do to our ancestors who engaged in slavery and lynching.

i dont think they get the death penalty by rape or anything else, one thing i do know about the death penalty is cars, drunks driving and it takes them to gure out of what they hit and realized they hit a child who was chasing their ball on the street, *sighs* kids days