Death or Life Sentences For Juveniles?

[Zephyr]

Okay, so this just popped into my head randomly...

In my Sophomore Honors Government class, there was a huge debate over whether juveniles aged 13-17 should be tried and sentenced as adults... meaning the possibility of a life or death sentence.

On the other hand, should they be rehabilitated instead?

Example: should a teenager who commits a school shooting be tried and punished like an adult, or rehabilitated?

-------------------------------------

[Atonement]

I believe in severe punishments and being held accountable for actions, but teen years are the easiest times to rehablitate in my opinion but I have never been a HUGe fan of the death penalty.

[Sapphire]

Trying and punishing them as an adult is too harsh. They are regarded as minors and treated as such in every other aspect of the law, why should this one be any different?

[Whisper]

A teenager should not be tried as an adult because they physiologically cannot fully grasp the concept of their actions or the reprocutions
I know this being a teen site you're all gonna be piiiised
But the fact is the frontal cortex controls allot of the no that would be a bad idea area of the brain in children and teens its in an extremely juvenile state literally not fully formed yet

they should be tried like they are children, teens at best

[theOperaGhost]

Kodie is correct (because he knows what he's talking about). Although I'm a bit mixed on this. Technically, I don't think you can be diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder as a minor, but I'm not sure. For people with antisocial personality disorder, rehabilitation is very unlikely to work, no matter what age they are. If there is a history of symptoms of this disorder, I don't think an adult sentence is out of order, but that is a rare case.

Take Jeffrey Dahmer for example. He started torturing animals when he was like 8. That is one of the main indications of antisocial personality. He was an alcoholic loner by the time he was 12.

It does end up that he may be a strange case though. He seems to have rehabilitated in prison. He became a born-again Christian. I highly doubt that he wouldn't have committed a crime after release though (not that he had a chance for release anyway). He was killed by an inmate in prison.

[Sapphire]

The thing with personality disorders is that they are only very, very rarely diagnosed in people younger than 18/19 years old.
If a young offender shows signs of an anti-social personality disorder, then they should be as eligible for rehabilitation as anyone else. The fact that they are young (below 18 years old) means that they are very unlikely to have fully developed the disorder and should be allowed the therapies which could prevent them getting worse.

[Zephyr]

Dude, I love you guys = ]

My thoughts exactly, I used most of these same arguments.

When I tried explaining my point to the class of why they shouldn't,
All they could say was,
"They did what they did. By this part in their life they should know right from wrong.".
Failing to see that psychological reasons are usually a big part in why it happens.

Needless to say, my Bill stating that they should be rehabilitated was shot down in our mack congress :/

[Jean Poutine]

I knew what right and wrong was at 13.

Teens committing violent crimes with obvious premeditation should be charged like adults. Period.

[Falk 'Ace' Flyer]

Any kid older than ten (and that's being generous) knows that if you kill somebody, it's not a good thing. I don't understand why if a teen shoots up ten people and an adult does it, the teen's killings are somehow less serious. There are still ten bodies leaving the scene, regardless of who did it.

Yes, younger folk are much more susceptible to mood swings are it is more difficult for them to control their emotions. Big whoop. They knew they were taking a gun, they knew they were aiming it at people, and they knew they were pulling the trigger. trat them as if they're a killer- oh that's right, they are.

[theOperaGhost]

I don't think the dispute is about whether they knew they were wrong or not, I think it's more about if there is a better chance of rehabilitation when they are younger or not. I agree with Travis in that they are killers and I think they should be sentenced as adults. They took another person's life; their life should be taken as well. Maybe not with capital punishment, but certainly with life incarceration.

[Sapphire]

Minors are less able than adults to fully comprehend the implications of things. This is why a minor can't have a credit card, buy a house, rent a flat etc. Adults (over 18s) are able to do these things because they do fully comprehend all that is involved.

Yes, killing is wrong. But, it is wrong to try a minor as an adult for murder. If the crime were a civil matter, like breaking a contract for a flat, they would be regarded and treated as a minor. The law should be consistent through and through, not changing its mind because the crime in question is murder rather than something less emotionally charged or serious.

[Raynes]

It depends on what they do, school shooting for a random reason? Yes
Killing random people for no reason? Yes
Slicing open my mother for not giving him a dollar? Yes

You really have to look at the reasons. IMO, if you think a teenager should get away with brutal murder, you must not be thinking about your family being involved.

[Sapphire]

Being tried as an adolescent doesn't mean that they won't be punished and just allowed to get away with it. They still get punished, just not as heavily as an adult who is fully developed.

[Raynes]

But, I can't see a difference that would make me think they shouldn't be tried as an adult, they did the crime, they should pay for it the same way anyone else would pay for it. If I killed someone, I wouldn't want to be treated differently simply because of my age, if I deserved it, I should get it. But, that's just my honest opinion, there may be parameters I'm too tired to take into account right now, if so I'm sorry!

[Sapphire]

Do you not believe that rehabilitation with a young person is more likely to be successful than with an adult?
Do you not agree that with hefty prison sentences a young person is more likely to re-offend because they will have spent so much time amongst and exposed to hardened criminals?

Like it or not, at the age of 14 years old, you are very different in how you think and your physiology when compared to an adult.

[theOperaGhost]

Do you not believe that rehabilitation with a young person is more likely to be successful than with an adult?
Do you not agree that with hefty prison sentences a young person is more likely to re-offend because they will have spent so much time amongst and exposed to hardened criminals?

Like it or not, at the age of 14 years old, you are very different in how you think and your physiology when compared to an adult.

Do you not feel there needs to be punishment for a crime, especially something as serious as taking another person's life?

There needs to be some kind of punishment for taking a life. If there is no punishment, people will be able to get away with whatever they want to. I feel rehabilitation works for druggies and thieves, not for murderers and rapists. I don't care how old you are, if you kill consciously, you deserve punishment. Just because juveniles are very different from adults doesn't make it right. If a person performs actions THEY KNOW are wrong, they deserve punishment.

There is an episode of Law & Order: SVU about this. I know that is a TV show, but it makes a good point. If the defense of the frontal cortex not being fully developed, all juveniles would be free from punishment. When you make the conscious decision to kill someone, no matter what age, punishment NEEDS to be strict. Rehabilitation is not punishment.

[Sapphire]

Do you not feel there needs to be punishment for a crime, especially something as serious as taking another person's life?

There needs to be some kind of punishment for taking a life. If there is no punishment, people will be able to get away with whatever they want to. I feel rehabilitation works for druggies and thieves, not for murderers and rapists. I don't care how old you are, if you kill consciously, you deserve punishment. Just because juveniles are very different from adults doesn't make it right. If a person performs actions THEY KNOW are wrong, they deserve punishment.

There is an episode of Law & Order: SVU about this. I know that is a TV show, but it makes a good point. If the defense of the frontal cortex not being fully developed, all juveniles would be free from punishment. When you make the conscious decision to kill someone, no matter what age, punishment NEEDS to be strict. Rehabilitation is not punishment.
You are misunderstanding. Minors don't "get away with it". They do get incarcerated and punished.
The difference between a minors punishment and an adults punishment is that one is less harsh than the other because of the differences between them physiologically and psychologically.

There is no good reason why these differences should be ignored simply because the main crime in question is highly charged with emotion. The differences are highlighted in every aspect of the law and this one absolutely should not be an exception.

[Camazotz]

I do not think age plays a part in punishment. Everybody understands that killing is wrong. Strict punishment should be given to any murderer regardless of age.

[Perseus]

If you go to a school with a shotgun and kill half a school you should be killed for your actions. I mean really the person killed a bunch of people, so therefore he deserves an equal type of punishment he gave to the people he killed.

[Hyper]

Minors are less able than adults to fully comprehend the implications of things. This is why a minor can't have a credit card, buy a house, rent a flat etc. Adults (over 18s) are able to do these things because they do fully comprehend all that is involved.



That made me laugh.. How many legal adults can actually call themselves mature people? The reality is that there are very few ''adults'' who could really use that word to describe themselves.

Though yes that is largely irrelevant, just had to say it.

I think they should be trialed as adolescents only up to pre-meditated/planned (however you spell it..) murder.

Because honestly anybody who plans to take someones life is mentally ill beyond repair in my eyes. Its quite black & white for me. I also think the punishments for adolescents should be harshened

It is NOT normal that someone can get off with 6 years of jail for killing 5 people or that someone gets no real jail time for causing an accident killing 3 people.

Both are real cases which have happened in here.. And I can name a few cases more from memory where 15-17 year olds here have gotten off with a few years of jail time for pre-meditated murder(s)..

And in the news just today from Russia. 7 kids who pre-metiatedly killed about what 12-17 people don't remember the exact amount but it was insane.. Because of their ethnicity.. Well most of them got off with 10 years.. These guys will be walking on the streets as fucking racist heroes when their 26-28.....

Bah ending rant. I think they should only be trialed as adolescents up to pre-meditated murder and I think the punishments for adolescents should definately be harshened, in here for sure.

[Sapphire]

That made me laugh.. How many legal adults can actually call themselves mature people? The reality is that there are very few ''adults'' who could really use that word to describe themselves. Being mature and having a good grasp on all that is entailed in legal issues are two different things. You may laugh, but that is simply out of ignorance. The legal system acknowledges the difference between the ability of minors and adults, as I have already stated at least twice. This is evident to be true if you look even briefly into the issue.

[theOperaGhost]

I don't see how immaturity justifies pre-meditated murder.

[ShatteredWings]

But the fact is the frontal cortex controls allot of the no that would be a bad idea area of the brain in children and teens its in an extremely juvenile state literally not fully formed yet

they should be tried like they are children, teens at best

I think there's a mid ground here.


Okay, i totaly agree [and admit] that most teenagers are freakin' immature and often don't get what happens

But, I think that anyone over the age of like 12 (possibly younger)[I]is completely capable of understanding that murder is wrong, and should result in punishments

Because anyone under 18 is a minor, they should not be considered an adult; if you can't get a job at a grocerie store, why should the law consiter you an adult?

But, an 8 year old and a 15 year old have totally different thoughs, and the older person does know what they are doing more than the kid

I don't see how immaturity justifies pre-meditated murder.
It doesn't. I don't think that's what was orignaly meant by 'immature'.
Maybe under-devloped would be a better term?

[Sapphire]

girl;407641']But, I think that anyone over the age of like 12 (possibly younger)is completely capable of understanding that murder is wrong, and should result in punishmentsI believe that the age here (in the UK) is 10 years old. Any older and you do get punished.

When I talk about complete understanding of legal issues, I am talking generally. It is so easy to immediately jump on the most extreme example and use that to base your argument on. I'm taking the wider implications into account and have made my opinion that way.

I don't see how immaturity justifies pre-meditated murder.
It doesn't. Nothing justifies the killing of one person by another.

[Hyper]

Being mature and having a good grasp on all that is entailed in legal issues are two different things. You may laugh, but that is simply out of ignorance. The legal system acknowledges the difference between the ability of minors and adults, as I have already stated at least twice. This is evident to be true if you look even briefly into the issue.

Bah don't go that way, you just used a crappy example.

And I do agree on wider implications. Theres just a place where we need to draw the line and for me thats murder.

Because it just doesn't work in my head that a 16 year old serial killer is free to live in society again at the age of 21. So thats why there needs to be a line call it whatever you want and make it as fancy you want legally but it just needs to be there and do its job.

Kids should be protected but only till a point where they don't loose their responsibility and grasp on reality

[Zephyr]

Not trying them like an adult isn't letting them get away with it and being underage does't justify it.

But I'd rather see these kids be rehabilitated. The fact of the matter is, the brain isn't fully developed until your early to mid twenties at the latest.

A couple years ago, this 12-year old kid brought an AK-47 to a school that I was cross-age tutoring at, threatening to shoot his teacher and classmates.

Should this kid be locked up or rehabilitated?

The reality of it is, the kid had a terrible home life living in poverty, meth-addict parents, bullied at school, was held back a couple years in school and was tested as psychologically unstable. They ended up rehabilitating the kid and now he's doing much better.

I say you have to look at the outside circumstances too. There are always variables that have to be looked at. One size doesn't always fit all.

[MisterAndrews]

I agree. When you work with children you quickly realise that they are all different, as are their families and backgrounds. This should be taken into account when you punish them.

I also think that the age range originally stated, of 13-17 is too wide. I feel that in most cases a 16 and 17 year old can be treated as adults and recieve adult punishment (with family and background checks perhaps.) However, i could not bring myself to sentence ANY 13 year old to death, because they are still children. I think that every case should be looked at individually, but life inprisonment should not be allowed until 16 years of age and capital punishment put back to 20 maybe?

[josh92]

I do not think that life sentences or death penalty should be an option. 2 years ago i started drawing out a plan to do a school shooting. I had enough guns and ammo to kill everyone. from 30 round clips to getting ready to assemble pipe grenades i was serious. I also had the back round. I started mutilating animals when i was 12. I received the help that i needed in an impatient mental facility, that i stayed at for a long time, followed by out patient followed by TONS of therapy which is still going on. Now Im 16 and graduating a year early with all A's and B's in school and have been accepted into collage. Damn i made a turn around.

[Church]

I believe the death penalty should be legal everywhere and teenagers should always be trialed as adults, if some 15 year olds killed 10 people with a shot gun or something, ya he prob. knew what he was doing and should be considered a adult, also I believe whatever you did to the person that making you get death penalty should happen to you, like if you mutilated people to death, well that's your fate, hope you enjoy scumbag

[Atonement]

This age is prime to rehabilitate. But also, they need to be held acountable for their actions. So, death does nothing. But with a growing mind and all that stuff, its prime to be able to rehabilitate. Rather than just kill them.

[Callwaiting]

I believe the death penalty should be legal everywhere and teenagers should always be trialed as adults, if some 15 year olds killed 10 people with a shot gun or something, ya he prob. knew what he was doing and should be considered a adult, also I believe whatever you did to the person that making you get death penalty should happen to you, like if you mutilated people to death, well that's your fate, hope you enjoy scumbag


The death penalty is not effective, EVER. If someone is crazy enough to shoot up a school do you think they'd be scared of death?
It doesn't benefit society like rehabilitation does, it's not justice, it's revenge, an eye for an eye.
The death penalty does nothing but cause more hurt. With rehab or prison time the offender has the chance to make amends and have a shot at a normal life.

Also, there's a difference between knowing what you're doing and UNDERSTANDING the implications of what you're doing, the pain you're causing. This sets minors apart from adults, this is why there's a legal driving age, why kids can't own guns in the first place.

[Oblivion]

In any case involving school shootings, I believe that mental/psychological help is the only way to go.
Im against the death penalty in general, and letting kids rot away in jail forever, when they are obviously mentally unstable, is not alright to me.
In fact, regardless of age, I think most murderers/mass murders should be in mental institutions, getting help. Not in prison cells.

[Church]

Even if they are rehabilitated they will never be a functioning member of society, every where they go, every job they try to get, when they are trying to get a spouse or something they have to tell them "Ya I'm a murderer"

[Sapphire]

Even if they are rehabilitated they will never be a functioning member of society, every where they go, every job they try to get, when they are trying to get a spouse or something they have to tell them "Ya I'm a murderer"
In reality, an ex-convict is more likely to get a job than someone who has been sectioned under the Mental Health Act.

[Church]

There still a convict, and that will always follow them

[Whisper]

There still a convict, and that will always follow them

How so?
i know someone who used to be a drug dealer and street race, paid the bills

She's now high up in and makes close to 100grand a yr at a legit job with a legit education

You seem to have a tendency to judge people
That could prove to be a fatal flaw throughout life

Every individual is different
Every situation is different
and believe me
Our system is far from perfect

[MisterAndrews]

There still a convict, and that will always follow them

Actually, I don't know about america but in England convictions can be taken off your criminal record after a number of years, dependant on the actions that were taken after your conviction and the seriousness of the crime.

[INFERNO]

This depends on what the crimes were, how many were affected (i.e. how many murdered, raped, etc...), the severity of the acts and the reason(s) for them. For example, there's the Dnipropetrovsk Maniacs from Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine, where 3 19-year old boys killed 21 people (and not sure how many animals) and filmed some of their killings. They did all of this during 1 month, and had reasons of hoping to get 40 snuff films (films of actual killings, tortures) to give to some foreigner in hopes of getting rich. Another reason was it was a hobby.

Should they get the death sentence? The trial is meant to be in March or May 2009 but would re-habilitation work?

For me, it'd depend exactly on what the crimes were. If the juvenille killed a person, it'd depend on how they did, how many, etc... . If they simple shot them and that was it, look at the reasons. If they tortured for numerous days, then that's a bit different.

There's no clear-cut line. It depends on many factors.

Personally, I don't believe in the current death sentence. Hanging? No. Chair? No. Injection? No. To me, they're too soft. Example: You rape various women and torture them and in return get the chair or whatever. I see a few possibilities: 1) Rape the man and torture him for as long as the women were plus a bit more as a reminder not to. 2) You give him only a bit but make him watch his loved ones and family get raped/tortured. The person who would do these acts would not get any punishment. The families affected could choose to inflict the damage or allow someone else to do so. After that, the person is killed. If they killed via gun shot after torture/rape, same thing to them except for same amount of gun shots per victim. So, 5 victims, 2 gun shots, then he gets all the torture, same methods of torture, for as long as each victim was then the 10 gunshots to the proper locations. If he killed them via gunshots but he wasn't dead after a few minutes from the gunshots, then either 1 to the head or sharp, quick knife to decapitate painlessly (perhaps use painkillers). Then it is fair. The person doing punishment shall get absolutely no punishment UNLESS they inflict a lot more. So, if the person say tortured focusing on legs, and they got tortured in the same way but then the torturerer began to do a good amount of arms and chest, the person doing the torture gets the extra bit they did onto themselves.

[ManyPearTree]

All men are created equal and should be treated equally. So if ur a killer u should be treated as a killer. Btw inferno "1)" rofl.