No death penalty for juveniles

im with u one that bro. suposing sum 14 yr old whips out a mac10 and blows away his entire skool save for a few ppl who saw it all and escaped with only a few minor injuries. they all agree on the same story, this kid just killed 100+ people and they dont put him to death? bad decision in my opinion

in an extreme case like that i doubt the normal rules

and as someone said in another thread like this,serial killers and something else i cant pronounce have a mental illness that cant be fixed and therefore the only safe way to deal with them is to ensure that they can never be let into society again,so you have to kill them basically because they could escape or somehow get parole or something

IMO, as it stands, the sheriff is right.  Now I fully support the death penalty, but the extreme circumstances that it take to get there as well as the twenty years of appeals that criminals go through to get there is ridiculous.

To be an active deterrant punishments need to be severe, common, and swift.  For theft, petty or whatever flog them, if they are a juvenile, flog the parents too, teach them some responsibility.  For rape, premeditated murder, let the buggers have one appeal, then let them hang.  Once the penalties become enforced people will think about their actions before they commit them. 

10 hours of community service is not a deterant to theft, and 10 years in jail is not a deterant to murder.

Mack wrote: Dune wrote: I definitely understand, especially from previous posts. The death penalty takes forever for a reason, but it still doesn't make it right. It's not a deterrent, has killed and imprisoned innocent people, and is just plain murder of a society's citizens. The death penalty is "not a deterrent"....hmmm..... I've heard of criminals on probation committing more crimes I've heard of criminals who have received parole committing more crimes I've even heard of criminals who "paid their debt to society" committing more crimes I've never heard of anyone who was executed for their crimes going out and committing more crimes.

You obviously don't know the term "generalized deterrent" which does not apply to the criminal. Also, as to sherrif saying it is rarely used,  you have to understand the circumstances in which one can be put to death. In that case, those committing capital offenses are more often put on death row.

Hades. I understand your middle of the road ideals. I was once very pro-death penalty until I started studying and actually witnessed an execution. My ideals have changed the closer I get to what it's like on both ends of the law.

Dune wrote: Mack wrote: Dune wrote: I definitely understand, especially from previous posts. The death penalty takes forever for a reason, but it still doesn't make it right. It's not a deterrent, has killed and imprisoned innocent people, and is just plain murder of a society's citizens. The death penalty is "not a deterrent"....hmmm..... I've heard of criminals on probation committing more crimes I've heard of criminals who have received parole committing more crimes I've even heard of criminals who "paid their debt to society" committing more crimes I've never heard of anyone who was executed for their crimes going out and committing more crimes. You obviously don't know the term "generalized deterrent" which does not apply to the criminal. Also, as to sherrif saying it is rarely used,  you have to understand the circumstances in which one can be put to death. In that case, those committing capital offenses are more often put on death row. Hades. I understand your middle of the road ideals. I was once very pro-death penalty until I started studying and actually witnessed an execution. My ideals have changed the closer I get to what it's like on both ends of the law.

Actually, I have.  I just don't care about a generalized deterrent.  What I care about is having threats to society permanently removed.  The death penalty is so weakened by excessive numbers of appeals, and in some cases appeals that are so ridiculous that it will never be a deterrent unless the system changes.  It can still be effective in removing those whose own actions indicate they can never be a productive member of society, but are actually quite the opposite.  A few random thoughts:

• Criminal convictions have been overturned because of evidence being excluded for reasons as petty as a misspelling on a search warrant.  The theory behind this is that overturning the conviction will protect the rights of our citizens from over zealous law enforcement by punishing the police for mistakes.  I see this liberal viewpoint as essentially saying it is okay for murderers/rapists/thieves to go free, but it is not okay for the police to make a mistake.  In other words individual freedoms take precident over the safety/security of society as a whole.
• A mainstay of the entire liberal agenda is a lack of personal responsibility.  Thieves do not steal, they just have a different view of personal property rights.  Mass murderers are not evil, they were just raised wrong.  Push this agenda far enough and no one will be safe because everyone will be able to do as they want with no worry of being held responsible. 
• I wonder how the anti-death-penalty-no-matter-what folks would feel if by some miracle all of the Sept 11 planners ended up in US custody.  I can see it now; "We can't punish them, they were just practicing their religious freedoms.  Any way it's our own fault, we asked for it.  Ward Churchill was right, all the victims were little Eichmans."
• This probably isn't politically correct to say, but it needs to be said.  Wake up people, their is evil in the world.  Denying it, renaming it, or excusing it will not make it go away.  It needs to be removed.  Yes, putting those convicted of heinious crimes in jail does remove the threat to society, but their is always the risk of escape or parole.  Furthermore, I do not see why they should be supported for the rest of their lives by the very civilized society that they chose not to be members of through their own actions.  I can think of better things for my tax dollars to go to.

conserative Supreme court....pff hahah that should get "the most retarted comment of 2005 award." The supreme court is so liberal its not funny. They take no morals into consideration only the "onstutional right" that why there's still abortion.

I have civil criminal law 2nd hour and that was a big discussion. I believe that it depends on the type of murder if kids should get death penalty

^Yes you are.