Juvenile death Penalty

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-10-13 06:57pm

http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/simmons.html

In the above link you can read the long piece about this case. The basics are simple, kid under 17 kills a woman, hides her body but then later on shows remorse and shows the cops where the body is hidden. He is sentenced to death in Missouri. The sentence is upheld by the Missouri Supreme court. Now its before the SCOTUS with the simple question: Is it right to execute juveniles.

The defense has argued that we would be the only democracy in the Western world that executes juveniles.

Justice Scalia's response: "The US does not have to yield to the opinion of other nations."

Okkkaayyy.

So we WANT to be the only so called civilized nation that kills juveniles out of some twisted go it alone sense of pride? I expecetd a much more well reasoned and rational response from what is supposed to be one of the most brilliant legal minds in the US.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-10-13 06:59pm

So just because the kid is 17 he shouldn't be executed? He was fully capable of knowing what he was doing. Unless there's some issue with diminished mental capacity, fry the fucker.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-10-13 07:03pm

StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:So just because the kid is 17 he shouldn't be executed? He was fully capable of knowing what he was doing. Unless there's some issue with diminished mental capacity, fry the fucker.

So you don't have a problem with the fact that as a society we are saying that people under 18 are not ready to vote, not ready to drink, not ready to serve our country's military but IS responsible enough to die??

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-10-13 07:09pm

Stravo wrote:
StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:So just because the kid is 17 he shouldn't be executed? He was fully capable of knowing what he was doing. Unless there's some issue with diminished mental capacity, fry the fucker.
So you don't have a problem with the fact that as a society we are saying that people under 18 are not ready to vote, not ready to drink, not ready to serve our country's military but IS responsible enough to die??

Yes. Yes I do. And you CAN join the military when you're 17. I did it. I think it's rediculous for 17 year olds to shuffle off their responsibility by saying "Oh no! I'm too young to know what the hell I'm doing!" Hell, I think it should be 16. If you can't figure out the consequences of your actions by then, you have serious problems. If you're responsible enouh to be put behind the wheel of a 1800lb missle 'o death and let go, then we sure as hell sould be able to fry you if you decide that it's alright to go ahead and kill someone.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2004-10-13 07:10pm

So you executing a 17 year old is wrong? To me it's a stupid-ass technicality, he's fucking 17, he knew what the fuck he was doing and all that abusive childhood crap is just BS. So for instance, if the Columbine school killers didn't off themselves but surrendered to police, we'd have to let them live too? Wonderful. Personally I wouldn't mind having some gulags where we can work those scumbags to death, but since that's even more wrong I'll settle for a nice electric chair.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-10-13 07:11pm

Stravo wrote:
So you don't have a problem with the fact that as a society we are saying that people under 18 are not ready to vote, not ready to drink, not ready to serve our country's military but IS responsible enough to die??

Actually you can serve in the US military at 17, though you can't be sent into a combat zone. Its only 16 for the British Army though, and the UN defines 'child soldiers' as those younger then 16.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-10-13 07:20pm

what is the purpose of executing anyojne? Is it cost-effective? Does it serve as a deterrant? If not, why do it? Revenge isn't that logical. I could see if it were somehow rehabilitative, cost effecitve, but from what I have heard, it isn't, and it doesn't serve as a deterrance, since murders still occure and criminals generally don't care.

Now, if they could somehow make money or rehab them, then the punishment, to me, would seem better. I don't see anything utilitarian about capital punishment. The entire process of appeals also makes capital punishment, in many states, horribly long in duration.

i know of some cases where the more people you kill, the more appeals you get...at least that's what was said at the corrections convention.

Raven · Post by **Raven** » 2004-10-13 07:21pm

As it pertains to this case:

He knew full well what he was doing. There may a fuzzy imaginary ambiguous age before which you aren't expected to fully know right from wrong, but it sure as hell isn't 18.

There's a difference between "legal adult" and "responsible for your actions".

In general:

Stravo wrote:Justice Scalia's response: "The US does not have to yield to the opinion of other nations."

Right on.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2004-10-13 07:22pm

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:what is the purpose of executing anyojne? Is it cost-effective? Does it serve as a deterrant? If not, why do it?

It's 100% effective in preventing repeat offences.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-10-13 07:23pm

Stravo wrote:The defense has argued that we would be the only democracy in the Western world that executes juveniles.

Justice Scalia's response: "The US does not have to yield to the opinion of other nations."

Okkkaayyy.

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

Since we're pretty well the only country in the Western world that executes anyone at all, I don't buy into the defense's argument. Sorry, but I think Scalia has a point. The US is not obligated to follow another country's laws.

I expecetd a much more well reasoned and rational response from what is supposed to be one of the most brilliant legal minds in the US.

It doesn't sound like she worded that particularly well, but the point remains that the defense's argument isn't particularly cogent.

Realistically, a seventeen year old is mature enough to be expected to know that killing someone is wrong and that there are serious consequences that can go along with that. In this case, he clearly understood that and also knew what the potential repercussions were. He chose to disregard that. If he was younger--say, 10, then he would be able to argue that he didn't realize what was going on, but at 17 that strikes me as being an extremely weak argument.

Raven · Post by **Raven** » 2004-10-13 07:24pm

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:what is the purpose of executing anyojne? Is it cost-effective? Does it serve as a deterrant? If not, why do it? Revenge isn't that logical. I could see if it were somehow rehabilitative, cost effecitve, but from what I have heard, it isn't, and it doesn't serve as a deterrance, since murders still occure and criminals generally don't care.

Now, if they could somehow make money or rehab them, then the punishment, to me, would seem better. I don't see anything utilitarian about capital punishment. The entire process of appeals also makes capital punishment, in many states, horribly long in duration.

i know of some cases where the more people you kill, the more appeals you get...at least that's what was said at the corrections convention.

That's not the point; we're discussing the execution of this guy with respect to his age, not the merits of capital punishment itself.

I agree with you though, that our implementation of the death penalty is kludgey and not worth it.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-10-13 07:24pm

If anyone has watched Oz let me ask you, which is a worse punishment? Death or life in a living hell? I've changed my position on the death penalty partly because I realized that living in prison is far worse for these bastards than a quick and easy death. He's 17, yes it can be considered a techicality but it opens the door to even younger death penalties - I believe that the death penalty in Missouri allows for execution at 16.

And my bad on the military age, I always thought it was 18.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-10-13 07:25pm

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:what is the purpose of executing anyojne? Is it cost-effective?

It only isn't because of the court costs due to the appeals, and because 'life sentences' are only 30 or so years. If you executed them with some alacrity, and/or made life sentences actually mean life, it would be cheaper to execute them.

Does it serve as a deterrant?

No, because of how few people are actually executed. If they used it more and/or kept convicted murders in jail for the rest of their natural lives, I bet it would.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-10-13 07:25pm

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.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-10-13 07:25pm

Stravo wrote:I believe that the death penalty in Missouri allows for execution at 16.

I say 16 should be the lower limit, and that sufficient mentality should have to be established.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-10-13 07:26pm

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:what is the purpose of executing anyojne? Is it cost-effective? Does it serve as a deterrant? If not, why do it? Revenge isn't that logical. I could see if it were somehow rehabilitative, cost effecitve, but from what I have heard, it isn't, and it doesn't serve as a deterrance, since murders still occure and criminals generally don't care.

False dichotomy. A deterrant does not have to be 100% effective in order to be effective.

Now, if they could somehow make money or rehab them, then the punishment, to me, would seem better. I don't see anything utilitarian about capital punishment. The entire process of appeals also makes capital punishment, in many states, horribly long in duration.

That's true. I generally wish that it was a lot cheaper to execute someone than it is. And the appeals process is just ridiculous.

i know of some cases where the more people you kill, the more appeals you get...at least that's what was said at the corrections convention.

That's also absurd.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-10-13 07:31pm

Stravo wrote:If anyone has watched Oz let me ask you, which is a worse punishment? Death or life in a living hell? I've changed my position on the death penalty partly because I realized that living in prison is far worse for these bastards than a quick and easy death.

For some people, I'm sure it is. The thing is, it's difficult to make decisions based on what someone thinks would be worse for the criminals. Need I remind you that a significant fraction of the prisoners in the US actually committed crimes specifically so they could go back to the slammer? Prison isn't something that I'd like to go through, but it's also not bad enough to keep some people from wanting to go back.

He's 17, yes it can be considered a techicality but it opens the door to even younger death penalties - I believe that the death penalty in Missouri allows for execution at 16.

Sixteen strikes me as being reasonable, provided that the person is mentally competent at the time of the crime and has the ability to be aware of what was going on. I'm not sure if Missouri has such a rule, but provided that it does I don't think it's that out of line.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2004-10-13 07:34pm

Given the horrible situation of killing an innocent person, I would've thought the "ridiculous" appeals system would be necessary. I mean, it'd be a bit like saying "you can't kill people but we can."

False dichotomy. A deterrant does not have to be 100% effective in order to be effective.

So is it effective? More/less people doing death sentenceable crimes in states without the death penalty [allowing for proportions and the like]?

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-10-13 07:37pm

Rye wrote:Given the horrible situation of killing an innocent person, I would've thought the "ridiculous" appeals system would be necessary. I mean, it'd be a bit like saying "you can't kill people but we can."

False dichotomy. A deterrant does not have to be 100% effective in order to be effective.
So is it effective? More/less people doing death sentenceable crimes in states without the death penalty [allowing for proportions and the like]?

It's not effective because of the low number of executions. Unless your crime is 'excessive', you probably won't only not be executed, but you'll probably be paroled in 30 years or so.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-10-13 07:50pm

That's true. I generally wish that it was a lot cheaper to execute someone than it is. And the appeals process is just ridiculous.

Quote:
i know of some cases where the more people you kill, the more appeals you get...at least that's what was said at the corrections convention.

That's also absurd.

The entire system is stupid as shit, isn't it? THey should find a way to make money off of them so that it's profitable to kill them, or find a way to make it cost less than holding them.

False dichotomy. A deterrant does not have to be 100% effective in order to be effective.

As it stands most sources will disagree that it's effective.

Does capital punishment strike fear into offenders, saving innocent lives by deterring would-be killers? We cannot prove capital punishment prevents murder, so we cannot reasonably base a policy on the assumption it does. if capital punishment reliably prevented murder, countries with capital punishment should generally have a lower murder rate then countries without. That this does not occur; indeed, the United States, with a highly developed and prosperous society, a factor which generally reduces murder rates, still has a murder rate about three times as high as most other Western industrialized nation.

tarting with the simplest of statistics, if capital punishment reliably prevented murder, countries with capital punishment should generally have a lower murder rate then countries without. That this does not occur; indeed, the United States, with a highly developed and prosperous society, a factor which generally reduces murder rates, still has a murder rate about three times as high as most other Western industrialized nation. Within the United States, use of the capital punishment by an individual state does not predict the murder rate.

The evidence is overwhelming that capital punishment is no more effective in deterring murder than is life imprisonment. The millions of dollars squandered on executing prisoners do nothing to keep our streets safe, and are an affront to every underfunded measure that can actually make a difference, such as community policing, drug rehabilitation programs, longer sentences, and after school programs. Police chiefs across the country ranked the death penalty as least effective among ways to prevent violent crime, in a 1995 national poll. As the death row population continues to increase, so does the overall cost of capital punishment.

(both economics and prevention info)

http://www.fguide.org/Bulletin/cappun.htm++

A new study conducted by Professor Richard Berk of the UCLA Department of Statistics has identified significant statistical problems with the data analysis used to support recent studies claiming to show that executions deter crime in the United States.

Research reported in Homicide Studies, Vol. 1, No.2, May 1997, indicates that executions may actually increase the number of murders, rather than deter murders. Prof. Ernie Thomson at Arizona State University reported a brutalizing effect from an execution in Arizona, consistent with the results of a similar study in Oklahoma.

According to statistics from the latest FBI Uniform Crime Report, regions of the country that use the death penalty the least are the safest for police officers. Police are most in danger in the south, which accounts for 80% of all executions

A survey of experts from the American Society of Criminology, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and the Law and Society Association showed that the overwhelming majority did not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide. Over 80% believe the existing research fails to support a deterrence justification for the death penalty.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article ... 67#STUDIES++

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~spragge/capital.html++

Basically, it doesn't prevent murder, and in many studies, areas with it increased in murder rate, and the people who wouldn't commit murder in the first place don't count into the preventition process. The crimals who will do the act aren't being proven deterred. Quite the opposite. I am not saying it's not 100% effecitve; I am saying it's not very effecitve based on rresearch, studies, and expert opinions in criminology.

Jean Paul · Post by **Jean Paul** » 2004-10-13 07:54pm

This guy is almost thirty years old in fact.

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2004-10-13 07:56pm

There are four issues here.

1) Should we execute people.
2) Assuming the answer to #1 is yes, then should we execute minors.
3) Even if the above is yes, do we still want to do it despite the fact that the foreigners don't approve.
4) Why the flying fark are the courts determining 3.

IMHO, the proper place to determine this is in the legislature and/or Constitutional amendment, not the courts.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-10-13 07:57pm

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.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-10-13 08:01pm

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:<snip>

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.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-10-13 08:07pm

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.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Juvenile death Penalty

Juvenile death Penalty

Re: Juvenile death Penalty

Re: Juvenile death Penalty