Juvenile death Penalty

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2004-10-13 08:08pm

Stravo wrote:
CelesKnight wrote: IMHO, the proper place to determine this is in the legislature and/or Constitutional amendment, not the courts.
It is the proper place of the courts if one state has a death penalty that allows execution of 16 yo's. The Federal question of whether this constitues cruel and unusual punishment is firmly a SCOTUS matter.

I know that. However, the question that if we should do this despite the fact that other countries don't approve should be a question for the legislature.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-10-13 08:13pm

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:Well, I don't know how many deaths it takes to say it'snot used enough, but even if it were increased, can you imagine the cost? It would be even more expensive and it probably still wouldn't deter people who are criminally minded.

well, I would like to see these societies agree that it's a deterrant before I can support it as being such.

Have you read anything I've said? It's only more expensive because 1.) 'Life sentences' are only 30 or 40 years, and 2.) Court costs for YEARS, if not decades of appeals.

And it's not a deterrent because criminals have nothing to fear, really. The amount of executed criminals is negligable against the one's that aren't.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2004-10-13 08:15pm

StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:All he's done is shown 2 trends in the same area. There's nothing showing causation. You could argue that the more crime turns into more executions (the more likely case). And of couse it's not effect RIGHT NOW. They hardly happen. There are very few criminals that actually have to fear the chair. It's not used enough to be a deterrant.

Actually it's not that, the main reason is criminals don't believe they'll get caught in the first place. Pretty much every criminal thinks he's going to get away with what he's doing, and so they go ahead and steal, rape, and kill, and do all those other criminal things. Your serial rapist is not thinking "well if I kidnap that drunk chick on the street I'll get busted and go to jail", he's going "let's see, streets are empty, there's no cops in sight, and there's a drunk chick walking down the street, time for me to kidnap & fuck her then I'll dump her body in the woods somewhere".

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-10-13 08:16pm

aerius wrote:
StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:All he's done is shown 2 trends in the same area. There's nothing showing causation. You could argue that the more crime turns into more executions (the more likely case). And of couse it's not effect RIGHT NOW. They hardly happen. There are very few criminals that actually have to fear the chair. It's not used enough to be a deterrant.
Actually it's not that, the main reason is criminals don't believe they'll get caught in the first place. Pretty much every criminal thinks he's going to get away with what he's doing, and so they go ahead and steal, rape, and kill, and do all those other criminal things. Your serial rapist is not thinking "well if I kidnap that drunk chick on the street I'll get busted and go to jail", he's going "let's see, streets are empty, there's no cops in sight, and there's a drunk chick walking down the street, time for me to kidnap & fuck her then I'll dump her body in the woods somewhere".

Point. However, graphic executions do tend to stick in your head for a good while. And more 'casual' criminals may be dissuaded.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-10-13 08:27pm

Have you read anything I've said? It's only more expensive because 1.) 'Life sentences' are only 30 or 40 years, and 2.) Court costs for YEARS, if not decades of appeals.

And it's not a deterrent because criminals have nothing to fear, really. The amount of executed criminals is negligable against the one's that aren't.

Yes. I read what you said, however, it's more utiltiarian to just increase the length of a life sentence, since it costs less to keep them in prison for 70 years than it does to execute one criminal. It's highly unlikely they are going to amend the appeals process, and they shouldn't since it would be grossly unfair to those who have been wrongfully commited to death. There have been examples of that, so why waste more money and take the chance that you will be killing an innocent person? Appeals are needed, sadly, because the system of law isn't perfect.

It's a lot more difficult than just cutting down the number and timeframe for appeals. It will stay the same, and no one can realistically see it changing for the better. It will stay more expensive by several hundred thousand dollars. It would also be better if they just kept them in prison anyway and got rid of the system of parole for those type of criminals, so they don't get out and do it again.

the cost of keeping a 25-year-old inmate for 50 years at present amounts to $805,000. Assuming 75 years as an average life span, the $805,000 figure would be the cost of life in prison. So roughly it's costing us $2 million more to execute someone than it would cost to keep them in jail for life.

Stated earlier. I know what you said, but apparently, major sources don't agree with you for some reason. I am sure they would have thought of the same thing.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-10-13 08:28pm

Edit: error on my part. not 70 years. 50-55.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-10-13 08:29pm

It would be very interesting to see where that near - $3mil is going. Because a bullet and burial can't cost that much.

And don't even try to tell me it's inhumane. A .50 to the temple will snuff out your life faster than anything we have now.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-10-13 08:30pm

StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:It would be very interesting to see where that near - $3mil is going. Because a bullet and burial can't cost that much.

And don't even try to tell me it's inhumane. A .50 to the temple will snuff out your life faster than anything we have now.

Including itself? That's not possible.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-10-13 08:30pm

CelesKnight wrote:
Stravo wrote:
CelesKnight wrote: IMHO, the proper place to determine this is in the legislature and/or Constitutional amendment, not the courts.
It is the proper place of the courts if one state has a death penalty that allows execution of 16 yo's. The Federal question of whether this constitues cruel and unusual punishment is firmly a SCOTUS matter.
I know that. However, the question that if we should do this despite the fact that other countries don't approve should be a question for the legislature.

Other countries' laws are allowed to be used in a legal argument if it is on point with your argument. It is not given anywhere near the same weight as US legal precedent but it is officially considered persuasive evidence.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-10-13 08:33pm

It's not inhumane according to my believe no. I believe it's unnecessar and an economic squandery in its current form, and I think unless they can find some magic way to eliminate appeals and their cost, yet keep it fair and balanced, it will never change, and the cost will be so ungodly high.

SInce you can keep them in prison and it does the same for deterrant, roughly, you should just take away their mindless chances at getting out and doing it again by forbidding parole. The object would be to keep them from the rest of society unless you are able to rehabilitate them, which I doubt you can do with hardended criminals.

Maybe they should work on a way to make prisons economically productive, and that would make them even better choices.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2004-10-13 08:33pm

That's all fine & dandy, but what about the criminals who are frequently paroled or otherwise let out of jail only to reoffend and end up back in jail, and they do it over & over again. Should I mention that some of these criminals are rapists and murderers? And of course there's also the people who escape from jail to commit further crimes, some of those are rapists & murderers as well. Would you say that it's worth it to have innocent lives be ruined or taken by convicted criminals just so that we don't have to kill them?

Post by **Beowulf** » 2004-10-13 08:39pm

StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:It would be very interesting to see where that near - $3mil is going. Because a bullet and burial can't cost that much.

I think most of it is legal costs, and housing the condemned until they get justice.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-10-13 08:39pm

That's all fine & dandy, but what about the criminals who are frequently paroled or otherwise let out of jail only to reoffend and end up back in jail, and they do it over & over again. Should I mention that some of these criminals are rapists and murderers? And of course there's also the people who escape from jail to commit further crimes, some of those are rapists & murderers as well. Would you say that it's worth it to have innocent lives be ruined or taken by convicted criminals just so that we don't have to kill them?

It would be way cheapter than to execute them all. The law system is flawed if they deliberetly let murderors out. THey shouldn't unless evidence of their innocence is provided. Something has to be done, but I think prison is the cheapest. Not temp prison, but LWOP. If we executed all of the murderors and rapists the cost would be unfathomable.

I don't think it's right that they get out no. I think the system should be fixed so that you don't have to kill them, yet they stay in prison, which is also cheaper. IF htey are in prison, the cost-benefit is fairly good compared to the alternative.

If they let them out they they are fucking stupid.

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2004-10-13 09:30pm

Stravo wrote:Other countries' laws are allowed to be used in a legal argument if it is on point with your argument. It is not given anywhere near the same weight as US legal precedent but it is officially considered persuasive evidence.

Again, I know that. We're talking past each other--your stating what is, and I'm stating what should be. You're stating the fact that other countries' laws are taken into account. I know that and I do not dispute that. My point is that, IMO, it should not be taken into account--it's for the legislature, not the courts to update our laws to match those of other countries.

Going back to the first post, "So we WANT to be the only so called civilized nation that kills juveniles out of some twisted go it alone sense of pride?"

Whether we want to or not is, IMO, the area of the legislature, not the courts.

You're a lawyer, correct? If you want, feel free to educate me if there are good reasons for taking the laws of other countries into account on this case, because I would honestly like to know if there are. I can see why they would if there is no US law or precident on some issue, but isn't there already US precident to allow the execution of minors?

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-10-13 09:38pm

CelesKnight wrote: Going back to the first post, "So we WANT to be the only so called civilized nation that kills juveniles out of some twisted go it alone sense of pride?"

Whether we want to or not is, IMO, the area of the legislature, not the courts.

You're a lawyer, correct? If you want, feel free to educate me if there are good reasons for taking the laws of other countries into account on this case, because I would honestly like to know if there are. I can see why they would if there is no US law or precident on some issue, but isn't there already US precident to allow the execution of minors?

You have England whose common law is the foundation of our own who do not execute minors. The EU I believe has also outright abolished the death penalty. The place of other nations' laws in this argument is a simple one. We would be the sole western democracy that executes minors. That says something. Whether you want to use it in making your decision it is not wrong to bring it up. In fact it is imperative that the defense bring up any argument that can help their own. It is up to the judges to decide how they weigh this fact - hence the term persuasive evidence. (Obviously Scalia will give it no weight at all)

Actual US legal precedent is not persuasive. Stare Decicis demands that they be given great weight in making that decision. Our entire legal system is based on the power of precedent.

When the SCOTUS decided on the issue of Stare Decisis it looked to English Common Law. It is not unknown for foreign laws to be introduced in these sort of fundamental arguments.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-10-14 12:50am

frigidmagi wrote:It cost less than sticking them in a max security prison and feeding them for the rest of their lives.

I say shoot them, but it's a waste of bullets.

Incorrect. The death penalty is more expensive then life in prison. The reason why this is so is because of the expense when you factor in the legal system and safety nets setup for the specific purpose of justice and preventing innocent people from dying. The only way to make capital punishment cheaper then life in prison is to remove the safety features currently keeping innocent peopel from dying.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-10-14 12:53am

StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:And don't even try to tell me it's inhumane. A .50 to the temple will snuff out your life faster than anything we have now.

NTM the fact that it will also go towards saving other lives, since the organs can then be harvested.