March 03, 2005
Proportionality is the Point
Thanks to Justice Anthony Kennedy for his role in bending the arc of the moral universe toward justice.
… and the Court’s own determination in the exercise of its independent judgment, demonstrate that the death penalty is a disproportionate punishment for juveniles.
Significantly, Kennedy was chosen to write for the majority in the recent 5-4 Supreme Court decision which had the immediate effect of removing 72 individuals from death row who were convicted of crimes they committed when they were 16 or 17 years old. Kennedy had cast a deciding vote for the opposite position 16 years ago, which resulted in a 5-4 decision to retain executions of that same class of juvenile offenders.
While a lot of focus has been on the international trend away from allowing the death penalty in general, and for younger offenders even more broadly, the point of changing this isn't that times have changed, but that it's the right thing to do.
Drew Eldredge-Martin posts additional evidence that Kennedy's personal moral arc is swinging toward compassion, as has been a pattern for at least forty and possibly more years on the court if one follows individual careers. It makes sense to me that individuals, who persistently confront as part of their life work so many heady issues of great moral significance, would naturally as they gain wisdom and insight in that process move toward less doctrinal and more humane stances. It may be too much to hope for such a transition in the future of Justices Scalia or Thomas, but one can never know for sure.
By all means we should also thank Justice Stevens who voted for the moral position in both decisions, as well as Justices Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer of the current court and the now deceased Justices Blackmun, Marshall, and Brennan of the 1989 court.
This court ruling, hereafter known as Roper v Simmons 2005, had three pieces to it: the first a constitutional one relating its relevancy to the Eighth Amendment; the third related to the movement of international opinion; but the meat of the decision for me is the second part of the ruling:
Rejection of the imposition of the death penalty on juvenile offenders under 18 is required by the Eighth Amendment. Capital punishment must be limited to those offenders who commit "a narrow category of the most serious crimes" and whose extreme culpability makes them "the most deserving of execution." (Atkins, 536 U. S. at 319). Three general differences between juveniles under 18 and adults demonstrate that juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be classified among the worst offenders. Juveniles' susceptibility to immature and irresponsible behavior means "their irresponsible conduct is not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult." (Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U. S. 815, 835). Their own vulnerability and comparative lack of control over their immediate surroundings mean juveniles have a greater claim than adults to be forgiven for failing to escape negative influences in their whole environment. (See Stanford, supra, at 395). The reality that juveniles still struggle to define their identity means it is less supportable to conclude that even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile is evidence of irretrievably depraved character. The Thompson plurality recognized the import of these characteristics with respect to juveniles under 16. (487 U. S., at 833-838). The same reasoning applies to all juvenile offenders under 18. Once juveniles' diminished culpability is recognized, it is evident that neither of the two penological justifications for the death penalty--retribution and deterrence of capital crimes by prospective offenders, (e.g., Atkins, 536 U. S., at 319)--provides adequate justification for imposing that penalty on juveniles. Although the Court cannot deny or overlook the brutal crimes too many juvenile offenders have committed, it disagrees with petitioner's contention that, given the Court's own insistence on individualized consideration in capital sentencing, it is arbitrary and unnecessary to adopt a categorical rule barring imposition of the death penalty on an offender under 18. An unacceptable likelihood exists that the brutality or cold-blooded nature of any particular crime would overpower mitigating arguments based on youth as a matter of course, even where the juvenile offender's objective immaturity, vulnerability, and lack of true depravity should require a sentence less severe than death. When a juvenile commits a heinous crime, the State can exact forfeiture of some of the most basic liberties, but the State cannot extinguish his life and his potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity. While drawing the line at 18 is subject to the objections always raised against categorical rules, that is the point where society draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood and the age at which the line for death eligibility ought to rest.Proportionality is the point! Posted by Walker Willingham at March 3, 2005 03:49 PM
Walker,
I couldn’t disagree with you more. There are crimes that are so heinous that the death penalty cannot be taken off the table.
It obviously should be used sparingly, and I don’t know at what age the cutoff point should be, but to drop the death penalty alltogether is unconscionable.
Posted by: Rocky at March 3, 2005 05:09 PMI would like to debate David on this one. I understand the concern behind executing juveniles but hell, some of them should be dragged by their balls. I am a Populist Leaning liberal but I support the death penalty for obvious reasons. I was against executing juveniles under 18 until I read some on their crimes in the paper. In North Carolina, someone went to the neighbors house, two men bound and gaged a female in a hog tied position, tortured her for days, and then took her to a bridge and dumped her in the river ALIVE where she drowned. Imagine if someone did that to my mom, or Walker’s mom, or Rocky’s mom, or Dawn, or David’s daughter or whatever. It is absurd. Not to mention the fact that two guys did it to a female like a bunch of cowards. I don’t give a damn if that person was 16 at the time of the crime. Kids aren’t stupid. They knew it was wrong and that crime carries no conscience. It drives me up the wall. This is my proposal and I was governor. Tie them to a truck with a rope wrapped around their balls, drag them down a rocky road, put a noose around their neck and fish them off a bridge so while they are hanging and choking by the second; a bunch of crocodiles are in the river chomping away at their legs as I could charge 19.95 on Pay Per View. That is a crazy proposal but that is what their life is worth. Not a freaking penny. We can tolerate but what about principles. As far as the death penalty being thrown at them…here:
- The family of the victim must first agree on allowing the death penalty.
- The jurors vote for it.
- It must be done not by a reasonable doubt but by without a doubt. It should also be considered in terms of the crimes brutality, the victim’s suffering, and the IQ of the criminal.
- The prosecutor has the option the push for it.
- The judge twirls a pencil in his hand, breaks it, and makes the call.
- The person is executed in the most inhumane manner.
It would send a lesson to people who want to do the same kind of crap. We must be tolerant but we must have principles also, as Jack put it so well once before. Execute them. If you are 16, you know what you are doing. Take it from a 16 year old. I know.
Posted by: Leon S. Blythe at March 3, 2005 06:17 PMApplying the image of those we love to the crimes committed is not a good way to make a rational decision. Of course when I read something like that, and place my girlfriend in that womans place, I completely agree with you. No punishment could be too bad.
Where I come to though in my more lucid moments though is this: how many innocent people am I willing to have executed? Because we’re human, we’re flawed. Unless there is photo evidence of a crime being committed, there is no such thing as without a doubt. There is always doubt. We ARE always going to convict people who are innocent. Add to this the statistical fact that the death penalty is shown to not be a deterrent to violent crime and its hard for me support juvenile executions. In the way that I imagine how I would feel if this crime happened to someone I loved, I ask how I would feel if my brother was executed for something he didn’t do.
I totally get where you’re coming from, just tossing out another way to look at it.
This isn’t about the heinousness of the crime, but the youth of the perpetrator. While it is frightening when such young people can behave like hardened criminals, the notion that their callousness makes them “mature” enough to have adult responsibility for them, stretches any sense of what “mature” means to me. I weep for our nation when we justify executing our youth, rather than working toward redemption. Even where redemption is not possible, I’m not willing to make that judgment and sentence a young offender to death, nor to trust our legal system with the enormity and finality of such a decision. I weep with joy today for the courage of a conservative justice to reverse himself and stand for reason, thus removing this stain from America’s legal system.
I’m similarly appalled by the willingness of so many in our country to think that it’s acceptable to try younger and younger defendants as adults. Of course youth must face consequences and serious consequences when they commit serious and brutal crimes, but they are not adults, and should not be going to adult prisons. What must go through the heads of prosecutors who petition to try 13 and 14-year-olds as adults?
Posted by: Walker Willingham at March 3, 2005 06:33 PMI don’t believe either though that trying anyone under 18 as an adult. The notion is ridiculous and so easily flawed that a 6 year old can combat that in a debate. I do have a problem with not executing a 16 year old who does such a heinous crime. Look, liberals (as I am one) often have cognitive dissonance when speaking about Islam for example. Islam is completely against everything that liberals believe in. Islam and the Religious Right belong in the right wing as they are conservative in idealogy. For that same thing, what makes someone believe that a 16 year old can be rehabilitated. Do you realize that someone who commits a murder like that are completely psychotic and should be institutionalized? I just don’t understand it. They are insane and thus can’t be rehabilitated. Of course there are acceptions, but we must take everything in a general sense or else conclusions can never be reached.
Justin,
I see what your saying too. It is hard but without a doubt in a 95% chance can be proven for the most part. Innocent people will go on death row but the police need strict regulations with how they do their jobs. They make up theories as they go along to fit whatever they feel like. I am not saying they are liars but that is how they are conditioned to think. The detectives seriously need to reconsider who they are attacking. It is not hard for someone to get a guilty verdict. Innocent people behind death row though are probably 1/10 and that is not a statistic I am willing to ignore. Juveniles, in my opinion, should still be executed if common sense prevails for that punishment. That 1/10, in my estimation, should go with anyone who is on death row, life, 10 years, 5 years, probation, community service or anything. The innocent should not go to jail period and stricter regulations have to be in place if that is waht this society needs to advance. Of course though, the solution to that is never easy.
Do you realize that someone who commits a murder like that are completely psychotic and should be institutionalized? I just don’t understand it. They are insane and thus can’t be rehabilitated. Of course there are acceptions, but we must take everything in a general sense or else conclusions can never be reached.
Are you kidding me? You’ve WAY overgeneralized the situation. What is your psychological background to make such an assessment, or where is your evidence to assert that everyone commiting a heinous crime is irreconcilably insane? Do you deny that some of these underage criminals are raised in extremely tumuluous conditions, surrounded by violence? Is it impossible that the culture of extreme hatred and abuse these kids grow up in affects their immature perspective? You call for generalization as a means for progress, but by overdoing it, we have conclusions that would be better having not been made.
Posted by: AParker at March 3, 2005 08:58 PMHow many crimes each day are comitted by ‘children’ under 18 because they know they won’t get the harsh penalty an adult would?
Whoever said ‘kids aren’t stupid’ was right.
Most of them know exactly what they are doing when they do it.
I would have set the age at no more than 16.
Maybe the age in which, in their state, they are allowed a permit to operate a motor vehicle or obtain a hunting license?
My 4 year old understands what it means to be DEAD.
AParker,
I don’t need a psychological background to know what I am talking about. It is no secret that the psychological world is filled with people on the far left like Noam Chomsky. I have studied general psychology and independent study on psychological illnesses, personality traits, behavior, ect. In put, I know what classifies as insane. If the DSM-IV can go out and spin illnesses like Bi-Polar in order to apply to almost any on the planet, I don’t see why it is so hard to determine who is insane.
This is why I stress the balance between tolerance and enforcement. I have no sympathy for a murderer contrary to you.
“Do you deny that some of these underage criminals are raised in extremely tumuluous conditions, surrounded by violence? Is it impossible that the culture of extreme hatred and abuse these kids grow up in affects their immature perspective?”
I don’t give a damn where or how they were raised. Does that constitute the right to committ murder like one of the DC snipers? Who gives a crap right, as long as you are not the one getting whacked with the bullet. I grew up in a poor home, I have a friend who was adopted and was molested a few times by foster parents, I know more than few who have had a violent upbringing and didn’t go around shooting people. Put a sock in it and quit giving these criminals an accuse for extremely violent and insane people. Did you know according to the Human Rights Watch that more than 50% of the rapes occur in prison? And they should not be institutionalized? I would prefer hard labor like a slave over the death penalty but giving excuses for them is not the solution nor should be looked at. Do you give excuses for terrorists who want to destroy the US because the US has stupid foreign policy in which they suck up to Israel? Call it cognitive dissonance. It is sad. But I guess you are too short sighted to see the reprecussions of this Supreme Court ruling.
I guess you don’t realize this ruling will create a demand for underage kids involved in gang warfare and contract killings. Gangs will now be sure to send 17 year olds on hits when dueling with rival gangs. Criminals should be punished, not coddled. This recent Supreme Court ruling is simply moronic. Now we have it ensconced, ironclad, that a 17 year old is too young to know what he’s doing. Expect a surge in 16-17 year old contract killers as I have already pointed out. Shame on the Supreme Court for treating juveniles as too incompetant for punishment while competant enough to torture, brutalize, and take a human life. I guess it is okay that John Lee Malvo gets off with just a life sentence in your estimation. This is rhetorical, but it serves a point as the other victims who were shot won’t be coming back. It is disgusting. I am in the 10th grade and this kid felt compelled to kick a lady in the stomach when she was pregnant. Boo hoo. He just had a bad upbringing. That is a sad mentality. It costs 30 thousand a year to keep someone in prison. If we cut off the cable tv, made them work hard labor, and legalized marijuana (which would cut the costs drastically and force the juvenile offenders to work rather than sell an ounce for a 100 bucks a day) a lot of changes for the good would be made. Unfortunately, a lot of prison guards do not do their job either.
Dawn,
Good one and I guess a Populist Leaning Liberal like myself will be able to get a Republican vote on an issue.
I support the death penalty, although I think it should be applied rarely and in the case of underage killers not at all. Young people can do truly horrendous things. But before the age of majority, young people’s brains and emotions just are not developed. That is why they do so many stupid things in so many different situations. They do know the difference between right and wrong, but they still don’t understand the repercussions of their actions.
I have three reasons for supporting the death penalty.
1. It deters crime
2. It is the moral and just punishment for some criminals
3. Revenge or retribution makes society or victims families feel vindicated
None of these things apply to underage violators. I don’t believe their understanding is developed enough to permit deterrence. We can’t believe it is moral and just to punish a child, even an evil one and seeking revenge on a person so young vindicates nobody.
We have to consider the effects on us as well as those we punish. Desire for vindication might lead us to execute a young person, but it will leave us diminished. We need to set some limits to our own actions. I think the Supreme Court made the right decision.
While drawing the line at 18 is subject to the objections always raised against categorical rules…
…they’re going to do it anyways. That’s interesting. Why set a standard minimum age for maturity? Seems like that varies from child to child.
This is also why I have a big problem with Republicans, and Ashcroft in particular, proposing mandatory sentences for certain crimes. If the judge is trusted enough to be elected or appointed, then let the judge judge.
Posted by: American Pundit at March 3, 2005 10:15 PMJack,
There is no evidence, atleast none that I have ever heard, that death penalty decreases crime. Making prisoners work like slaves and have little or no rewards would solve a lot of the crime problem. There would not be any desire to go to jail. Jack, I don’t understand this crap. I know that teenagers like myself don’t have brains fully developed but that is way too abstract to apply to every situation (especially considering that it can’t necessarily be tested.) I know damn well, as others, that if I kill someone I will go to prison for life or get executed. A lot of other people know that too. They just don’t give a damn what happens to them. I bet if they were going out and picking cotton on a farm or having forced volunteering throughout the communities to make it better and save tax payers money; they wouldn’t do something so heinous and go to prison over it. I don’t buy that crap. I am sorry but society is not going to contribute any more from a rehabilitated murderer (that probably won’t happen to begin with) than a kid starving whom never hurt a fly. I say kill the idiot or give them harsh labor for years in prison. I don’t care what happens to them. They should suffer, work, and do something decent for society rather than taking away the innocence that society in the greatest nation on the planet has to offer. Slave labor or killing them, juvenile or not, would serve our crime rate way lower. I would argue to execute pedophiles too by the way.
Leon -
Your entire response is offtopic. You respond to things I never said.
I don’t give a damn where or how they were raised. Does that constitute the right to committ murder like one of the DC snipers?
No one is arguing that murder = bad, mmmmkay? I’m not saying that their background excuses their actions, that’d be asinine. You could address the real points I’ve raised, instead of tossing out softballs for yourself. Background does not excuse the behaviour, but the malleability of youth should preclude individuals from being executed for their crimes.
In put, I know what classifies as insane.
This is your assertion that you are an expert on classification of criminal motives and behaviour? Your claim regarding the “spin” of the DSM-IV illustrates your complete lack of seriousness regarding mental illness, which compounds your difficulty in assessing who is insane.
I guess you don’t realize this ruling will create a demand for underage kids involved in gang warfare and contract killings.
I guess you don’t realize that organized crime doesn’t care if any of their petty henchmen get life without parole or the death penalty. There is an endless supply of low-income anger-filled youth in America which they can twist to their own purposes.
Shame on the Supreme Court for treating juveniles as too incompetant for punishment…
Are you so blind as to believe that this is what the Supreme Court has ruled? That minors will have no punishment for their actions?!? Your statement falls on its face.
It is sad that you cannot see life imprisonment as a real punishment. It is sad that you demand blood for blood, and in that demand you sink to the level of the killers themselves. As someone much greater than myself once said, ‘let him who is without sin cast the first stone.’
Posted by: AParker at March 3, 2005 10:41 PMLeon
How does the death penalty deter crime? Not directly. The option of the death penalty gives police and prosecutors another negotiating ploy. Especially in the case of accomplices, it is possible to break their solidarity by implying that one of them will take the big fall for the other. The other case where it is a deterrent is within prison. A person already in the slammer for life doesn’t have much incentive not to kill someone else.
Congratulations on being so smart when you are still so young, but recent science in the structure of the brain indicates that your brain will be even better and more completely developed within a few years. The development will come in your ability to exercise judgment. This does not mean that your judgment is not currently better than that of many adults; it just means it will get better.
Another reason not to execute young people is simply age. I don’t believe anyone should be executed on a first offense. Execution should be reversed for murderers with a career criminal record. A young person doesn’t have the time to amass such a record.
Jack,
Here is how the death penalty deters crime.
The perpetrator will never do it again.
Posted by: Rocky at March 4, 2005 07:55 AMHere is how the death penalty deters crime.The perpetrator will never do it again.
But doesn’t life in prison have the same effect?
I did a lot of stupid things when I was 16. Did I know what I was doing? YES. But I’m 29 now, and have learned from my stupid mistakes. I don’t do those things anymore (I make different stupid mistakes now). The question is not whether a 16 year old knows what he’s doing. The question is whether a 16 year old can “grow out of” the behavior.
For this reason, I agree with Walter that the death penalty shouldn’t apply to child offenders.
Where I disagree, however, is on whether the Supreme Court had the power to make the decision. I don’t consider this a violation of the Eighth Amendment, and so don’t consider it within their jurisdiction. The change should be made by state legislators, not by federal judges.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at March 4, 2005 08:17 AMRob,
The “child” in the case which came before the Supreme Court, killed a woman with maliss and forethought.
This young man was interupted in a burglary of a woman’s home. He kidnapped the woman, bound and gagged her, drove her to a river bridge and threw her off still bound and gagged.
Please tell me how a young man like this will “grow out of this behaviour”.
Posted by: Rocky at March 4, 2005 08:27 AMRob wrote:
Where I disagree, however, is on whether the Supreme Court had the power to make the decision. I don’t consider this a violation of the Eighth Amendment, and so don’t consider it within their jurisdiction. The change should be made by state legislators, not by federal judges.
You are lining up with Justice O’Connor’s separate dissent in this case. But if it’s the right thing to do, and constitutional justification (8th Amendment) can be found for it, then certainly it is way less expensive for the SCOTUS to rule once and be done with it.
Jack, you’ve hit the salient points squarely on the head, as did Justice Kennedy in the ruling. I recommend to anyone reading these comments who hasn’t done so, scroll back up and read the long blockquote from the ruling in its entirety. It’s a bit dense, but it addresses the most reasonable objections to this directly.
Posted by: Walker Willingham at March 4, 2005 10:00 AMWalker,
I am not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV. I have read the blocked statement three times and the pain behind my eyes only seems to get greater.
It seems to be the lawyer equivalent of baloney.
There are some folks that will not be or refuse to be rehabilitated.
No where in the definition of heinous does age play a part. These “children” do not live under rocks. Life is not a video game where the criminal gets away every time.
There will come a time when the courts will be handing out life sentences like speeding tickets.
You don’t have to touch the iron to know if it’s on it’s hot.
Posted by: Rocky at March 4, 2005 10:39 AMThese “children” are not competent enough to know murder is wrong?
But yet, they ARE competent enough to drive, work, decide to have an abortion and be given condoms to have sex, all VERY mature acts.
I guarantee these justices have a much different definition of the words mature and competent when dealing with these issues.
Good call Rocky!
Posted by: kctim at March 4, 2005 11:02 AMI think, well, I know, there’s an aspect this that has nothing to do with ones actual ability to reason and everything to do with what we as a society say their ability is.
We have said that before you’re 18, you don’t have the mental capacity to vote, you don’t that the capacity to drink or buy cigarettes, you cant decide who you want to have sex with, and you cant decide that you want to join the military. We have stated that you cant even reason enough to sign up for a cell phone, or sign a waiver to go to a rock climbing gym. I don’t see how, given all this, one could say, legally, that someone under 18 has the capacity to understand the full breadth of committing an act of murder. I’m not addressing what may or may not be common sense, we act according to law in this country, not Dawns or Rockys or my understanding of common sense.
I think there’s a problem here, and I’m no lawyer, with saying that a group of people in this country has all the responsibility of an adult, but none of the rights.
The whole system is screwed up. It no longer seeks the truth but the best way to get people off from crimes they commit.
The criminal seems to have more rights than the victim. This should never have happened.
Why don’t we just make everyone see a therapist, put them on mind altering drugs, set them up on disability and put them in an apartment complex with a swimming pool and cable TV.
After all we must make sure the worst of us have the best of everything.
It’s funny how people are aginst the death penalty until someone they love is a victim.
Then it dosn’t matter what the age of the perpetrator is, then it’s KILL THE SOB.
If you want the “child” to be able to understand the severenese and consenquence of their actions my 6 year-old granddaughter understands if she does wrong she will be punished according to the servereness of the offence.
Bug -
I don’t think any one is trying to get murderers sent to an apartment complex with a swimming pool. Hyperbole isn’t going to get this any where. My point was that, although I personally am against the death penalty for everyone, I think at the very least, in this case, it’s important to address the rift between what we typically view as being an adult in our society and what were viewing as an adult in these cases. We are among only a handful of countries that will execute juveniles; I think we should have a pretty good reason, legally, for doing so.
“We are among only a handful of countries that will execute juveniles”
Do we really execute juveniles? or do we execute ADULTS who committed crimes, worthy of the death penalty, when they were younger?
Posted by: kctim at March 4, 2005 12:20 PMThe argument here (in my view) is not that the children in question are going to reform and become productive members of society. These children are going to jail forever. (although death row inmates can and have reformed, like stanley williams) The argument is that children do not have the capacity to value human life like adults. Many have argued that the children know it’s wrong to kill people. No one has ever argued against that. Everyone knows that they are responsible for their actions, otherwise they would be found insane and sent to a mental hospital.
The question is whether children can understand the value of life highly enough to justify the death penalty. For example, say my 4-year old is drawing on the walls, and in his efforts scribbles in marker all over the original picasso I have hanging on the wall (in my dream world). He knows it was bad to scribble on the walls, he has been told often. He knows that daddy loves his picture. He is responsible for his own actions. However, he doesn’t have the capacity to understand the overwhelming value of the picasso. Should I turn him in to the police for vandalism? Should I throw him out of the house until he pays me back? The effect of being a child is not on the act-the picasso is still ruined-but on the ability to understand its significance.
Posted by: brian at March 4, 2005 12:25 PMOpen for debate philosophically I guess, but legally:
We are among only a handful of countries that will execute juveniles.
For all its faults, I still feel the US legal system is among, if not THE, best in the world. I also recognize that my feelings about things like capitol punishment may not be in the majority right now in this country. I’m okay with that. But what I’m not okay with is a system that would have, before this ruling, appeared to hold contradicting laws. How can a person be a child in some instances and not in others? Again, I’m not a lawyer, so maybe this is off base, but this seems to violate equal protection.
At any rate, what I’m looking for out of those of you who support this is some sort of legal reasoning. Maybe I should just go read the dissenting opinion.
How about killing your grandparents, setting the house on fire, taking the car, and claiming you were abducted all because you were being punished for problems on the school bus?
Here’s a kid who thought he could justify anything bad that he did by blaming it on someone or something else.
This boy’s lawyer should have his license revolked for trying to get him off by blaming his anti-depressant.
How do you rehabilitate someone like that?
‘The whole system is screwed up. It no longer seeks the truth but the best way to get people off from crimes they commit.’
That is the point I was trying to make.
Maybe we have the death penalty backwards.
Putting someone to death is an ‘easier’ punishment (unless you count eternity in hell * if it exists) because they no longer have to sit and think about why they are in jail. If they feel bad and wish they hadn’t done what they did. BUT, can we really put someone to death who is truely sorry?
The really horrible ones don’t feel bad, and they just wish they hadn’t been caught. These people should sit in a tiny jail cell for life.
Maybe a group of people who have actually experienced a loved one being murdered should make the decision of what to do with each murderer on a case by case basis.
Posted by: bugcrazy at March 4, 2005 12:43 PMBrian,
The Picasso may or may not be ruined. The fact that your child doesn’t listen to you is another matter altogether.
Sorry, a 4 year old is NOT responsable for his actions, you are.
And I am not advocating putting a 4 year old to death. You may want to kill him, but the state shouldn’t want to, given the evidence.
Death is final. For many of the “children” we are talking about there have been many criminal incedents that have proceeded the crime in question. Teenagers don’t usually start out with murder being the first crime they commit.
Some where the line has to be drawn, and our young perpatrators need to know that the consequences are final.
I would hope that a modern teenager would have learned and retained, more than your 4 year old about life.
Posted by: Rocky at March 4, 2005 12:45 PMso - then, can I assume that no one here who is in favor of juvenile execution has any problem with the bending and warping of laws? I just want to make sure I understand this correctly.
We can post up horrible crimes that have been committed all day long. I haven’t seen one person on this board who claims that the crimes aren’t serious or horrible. I also will be the first to admit that if this happened to someone I loved; I’d want to flip the switch myself. Ultimately, this is all neither here nor there. We don’t run our legal system as some sort of Thunder Dome of retribution.
As far as I can tell, the entire argument on the side of child execution is: ‘oh, they know what they’re doing!’
Drawing that logic to its logical conclusion can I also assume that you’re in favor of lowering the age of consent for everything? Maybe at 14 you’re an adult?
Brian
Big difference between being 4 and being a teen.
How could you tell the scribbling from the Picasso?
The thing that I find most ironic about this Roper decision is that in reciting the facts of the case, Justice Kennedy writes that the killer, Simmons, assured his two co-conspirators that they will get away with the murder because they are minors. Well, thanks to Justice Kennedy, they got away with it.
Justice Kennedy was most likely chosen to write the majority opinion as a means of locking in his support; it is a common occurrence in judical opinion writing. The thinking goes like this: if he is a bit shaky on his position, then getting him to write the majority opinion will bolster his conviction to that position.
I must say that his opinion is horrible from a legal perspective; it is just bad on so many different levels. Since when did interpreting the United States’ Consitution require looking at what other countries do? Justice Kennedy simply picked and chose the factors which supported his position. He ignored those which did not support him. Justice Scalia’s dissent is absolutely correct on so many points.
“Justice Scalia’s dissent is absolutely correct on so many points.”
Care to elaborate at all?
Seriously guys, Im asking you to change my mind. Give me some leagal reasoning here, something more than ‘bad guys’.
In terms of them ‘getting away with it’, none of you have made a very strong point that any one has gotten away with anything. They havent been killed for it, but theres a long way from there to getting away.
Rocky wrote:
Please tell me how a young man like this will “grow out of this behaviour”.
People get rehabilitated every day. I shoplifted baseball cards when I was a kid. Our current president drank and drove. The one before that tried marijuana. I’m sure you did things in your youth that you’re not proud of. PEOPLE CHANGE!
Bugcrazy wrote:
The whole system is screwed up. It no longer seeks the truth but the best way to get people off from crimes they commit.
We’re not talking about getting people off. We’re talking about not killing them. Locking someone in prison for the rest of their lives isn’t letting them off.
Leon wrote:
It costs 30 thousand a year to keep someone in prison. If we cut off the cable tv, made them work hard labor, and legalized marijuana (which would cut the costs drastically and force the juvenile offenders to work rather than sell an ounce for a 100 bucks a day) a lot of changes for the good would be made.
Several studies have shown that, after mandatory appeals, death row confinements, etc., that death penalty sentences usually cost MORE than life without parole sentences.
I agree wholeheartedly that we shouldn’t give them free luxuries. We should give them a bed, a place to shower, and meals. Then we should give them work opportunities. If they want a TV, they have to pay for it. If they want cable, they have to pay for it. If they want cigaretets, they have to pay for them.
And you are right that drug laws need to be revisited. When over half of all prison inmates in this country are in for NON-VIOLENT substance abuse charges, maybe it’s time to change tactics in the ‘war on drugs’.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at March 4, 2005 01:56 PMWell, speaking from the death penalty capital of the world…
I think that people in their teens should be tried as juveniles under all but the most extraordinary circumstance. We can always talk about what a teenager is supposed to know, intellectually, but the reality is that your average young adult is awash in strong feelings that they don’t necessarily deal with all that well. We can speak intellectually about surpressing those impulses, but it’s easier said and done for people at that age.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 4, 2005 01:59 PMThe Picasso may or may not be ruined. The fact that your child doesn’t listen to you is another matter altogether. Sorry, a 4 year old is NOT responsable for his actions, you are. And I am not advocating putting a 4 year old to death.I would hope that a modern teenager would have learned and retained, more than your 4 year old about life.
Big difference between being 4 and being a teen
People it was an analogy. Just as a 4 year old cannot understand the value of material things, a teenager cannot fully understand the value of human life. By the way, my son listens very well, and does not draw on the walls:).
Jack,
How could you tell the scribbling from the Picasso?
I was thinking of Guernica—my favorite. Posted by: brian at March 4, 2005 02:19 PM
kctim- (and Rocky)
Big difference between being 4 and being a teen.Big difference between a Picasso and human life too, that’s why its an analogy. Obviously someone older can appreciate the value of the Picasso, and thats how we see “their [the younger’s] irresponsible conduct is not as morally reprehensible” as they lack the complete grasp of the value of what they’ve destroyed. It’s not exact, its an analogy and it fits.
Troy:
Justice Kennedy writes that the killer, Simmons, assured his two co-conspirators that they will get away with the murder because they are minors. Well, thanks to Justice Kennedy, they got away with it.Life in prison is getting away with the crime? Reality trumps your dramatic interpretation.
Since when did interpreting the United States’ Consitution require looking at what other countries do?Will you point out to me exactly where in the majority opinion they have stated their decision rested in any part upon the standards of other countries? Posted by: AParker at March 4, 2005 02:27 PM
“And you are right that drug laws need to be revisited. When over half of all prison inmates in this country are in for NON-VIOLENT substance abuse charges, maybe it’s time to change tactics in the ‘war on drugs’”
This is true. The generations that will actually do something about this are just now moving into positions where something will be done.
As long as we have an older generation that is in charge(that speaks of the evils of marijauna) and a media that trashes anyone who has taken a hit in their lives, we will continue to have this overkill of locking away people for non-violent crimes related to marijuana.
Then we will have plenty of room in our prisons for violent criminals and a lot of laid-off guards.
The death penalty can be taken away (not that it is there for lack of space) and they can rot in jail.
We won’t need prozac * everyone can smoke pot.
Rob,
We’re not talking stealing baseball cards.
We’re not talking smoking pot, or stealing cars or robbing banks or tagging a billboard.
We’re not even talking about drunk driving or even vehicular homicide.
If these were the problems we wouldn’t be talking about the death penalty.
We are talking about MURDER, DEATH, THE BIG SLEEP, PUSHING PEOPLE FROM THIS MORTAL COIL, ENDING ANOTHER PERSON’S LIFE.
I don’t know how I can make myself more clear.
We’re not talking about toddlers here.
We are talking about thugs, gang bangers, etc., teenagers capable of making decisions that effect other people’s lives in the worst way
Yes I did things I’m not proud of when I was a teenager, but I never took another person’s life.
Posted by: Rocky at March 4, 2005 02:39 PMRocky,
The fact that you are able to differentiate in your argument between vehicular manslaughter and murder concedes that the act “MURDER, DEATH, THE BIG SLEEP, PUSHING PEOPLE FROM THIS MORTAL COIL, ENDING ANOTHER PERSON’S LIFE” is not the determining factor in justice. If it was, every perpetrator of accidental death would be executed. Accident victims can suffer immense pain, and are equally dead, as those killed intentionally. Instead, things such as intent are taken into account.
The supreme court has already ruled that the mentally handicapped cannot be put to death, regardless of what they did, for the simple reason that it is unlikely that they can form the intent that justifies the death penalty. It is the same way for children. Because of the lack of mental and emotional development, it is unlikely that a child could form intent that would justify the death penalty.
this article (about driving, but still relevant) describes a study where the brains of teenagers are shown to be immature in areas of decision making and impulse control. A teenager, with actual physical mental differences than an adult in regions which deal with motivations, impulses, and intentions, exactly what we are talking about here, should not be held to the same standard as an adult.
Posted by: brian at March 4, 2005 04:04 PMWe are talking about MURDER, DEATH, THE BIG SLEEP, PUSHING PEOPLE FROM THIS MORTAL COIL, ENDING ANOTHER PERSON’S LIFE.
Yes, and (debatably) except for the word “MURDER”, that’s exactly what you’re talking about doing to kids, Rocky.
These kids presumably have no moral conscience. Hopefully, we do.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at March 4, 2005 04:04 PMAParker and Brian
I know it was an analogy.
Do you know that a teenager is NOT a child? A teenager knows that murder is permanent and wrong.
It is not society or a lack of knowledge that is too blame either.
I ask again: If teenagers are smart enough to drive, get abortions, get condoms for sex etc… Then why are they not smart enough to know about murder and its consequences?
Justin
“As far as I can tell, the entire argument on the side of child execution is: ‘oh, they know what they’re doing!”
This has me very curious and I need to know for sure about it.
What CHILD has ever been executed by the govt?
I really want to know as this may be info that could change my mind. Thank you.
kctim -
Since the death penalty was re-instated, 22 of those executed were juveniles at the time of their crime.
I suppose if were going to split moral hairs, you win. The solution is to sentence children to death, and then have them wait until their 18th birthday to be put down.
So, now it’s my turn. I’m very curious about what age you feel we should lower the age of consent too?
KCTim,
A teenager is not a child, but also not an adult. I’m certainly not advocating letting them get away with anything, unless not being killed is getting away with it. I am completely for life imprisonment without possibiity of parole for these offenders. They are mature enough to be punished for the rest of their lives.
They are smart enough to know about murder, and smart enough to know about its consequences, but not empathetic, developed, or wise enough to understand the pain they cause to the family of those they hurt, for example, or to completely realize that other’s lives are just as valuable as their own.
I think you’re right, that we haven’t executed actual children (anybody know better than me?). The principle is the same, though. Imagine being punished without mercy for something you did while under the involuntary influence of some judgement-impairing drug.
I guess I don’t see what benefit the death penalty is in these cases, while the risk of executing someone who did a horrible thing, but who did not fully understand the gravity of their actions is pretty high. Let them grow up in prison.
Posted by: brian at March 4, 2005 04:50 PMBrian, Rob,
You guys need to run for public office.
But first you need to re-read the whole thread. I don’t feel the need to re-write everything I have written in this thread.
I have been talking about heinous crimes, those prepetrated with forethought, those that are planned, 1st Degree Murder.
These guys know how to buy and load a Mac 9 but are too immature to know that bullets kill people.
I swear that teenagers get less mature every day.
That has got to be the only reason to baby them.
Give me a break.
I received my drivers licence at age 16 in 1969. I had no accident until I was 18 when I rear-ended someone in bumper to bumper traffic at about 3 mph.
Give me enough time and money and I’ll fund a study that will tell you anything you want to hear.
You want a survey and want a conservative slant, take it in Orange County California.
You want a survey that sides with gun owners take it in rural Montana. You want a survey of people that approve of the war and George Bush take it in Oceanside, California.
There are hundreds of towns where you can get the direct opposite answer. Please don’t give me studies from the USA Today
You guys can slant this any way you want. Teens over the age 16 need to be held responsible for their actions. The victim is just as dead and I don’t want to have to pay to keep these guys alive for the rest of my life.
Rocky,
It’s easier to get into public office if you just say we should kill ‘em all. Look at who is currently president.
Skip down to the bottom of that article. The study was originally reported in the seattle times, but what I was talking about was the NIH-conducted MRI studies of adolescent and adult brains showing physiological immaturity in the areas relating to judgement, decision-making, and impulse control. I don’t know what your rant about surveys has to do with anything.
How is sentencing people to life in prison babying them?
I know that I can’t change your mind. I guess when you want revenge, you just want revenge. If it’s really just about paying for their jail time, it costs more to kill them than to keep them alive. Even if it did cost more to keep them alive, a few bucks shouldn’t be the determining factor in whether somebody lives or dies.
Can you really say that a 16-year old deserves to die? Do you know for sure that somewhere, along with the hate and cruelty and whatever else is in there, it isn’t partially about a kid who wasn’t thinking because he was 16? If you aren’t sure, what harm does it do to let them spend life in prison?
Posted by: brian at March 4, 2005 05:17 PMBrian,
My rant about surveys was only to make me feel better.
It’s not about revenge, it’s about justice. A 16 year old that can plan a burglary, has some cognitive skills. A 17 year old that kidnaps a woman and dumps her bound and gagged into a river is trying to cover his tracks.
The violence perpetrated on inocent people in drive-bys is done by teens who feel the need to exact revenge on anyone that gets in their way.
I don’t want to have to walk the same streets as these people. I don’t want to risk them getting out to create havoc with other innocents again. I can’t see people like this ever becoming productive members of society.
To take this tool away from the prosecuters is incomprehensible
We have a subculture of violent teens in this country.
Going to jail for them is a badge of honor.
That, my friend, is bullshit. It has to be stopped.
“They are mature enough to be punished for the rest of their lives.”
If so, then they are mature enough to accept the consequences that come with a crime worthy of the death penalty.
“I think you’re right, that we haven’t executed actual children”
That was question I have also. I really do not know for sure and also would like to know.
“I know that I can’t change your mind. I guess when you want revenge, you just want revenge.”
It’s not a revenge thing. It is justice.
If anyone rapes, murders or tortures my daughter, I will put a bullet in their head, no matter their age. That is revenge.
The authorities catching them first and dealing with them appropriatly is justice.
“Do you know for sure that somewhere, along with the hate and cruelty and whatever else is in there, it isn’t partially about a kid who wasn’t thinking because he was 16?”
Were harris and kleibold NOT thinking because they were only 16?
Posted by: kctim at March 4, 2005 05:38 PMRocky,
I actually agree with most of what you just said. I don’t think that cognitive skills and a desire to cover your tracks translates to an understanding of the consequences of your actions on others or the value of human life. To take it back to my 4 year old, at times he tries to cover his tracks, but I don’t think he understands the inherent wrongness of some of his actions.
I don’t think that eliminating capital punishment for minors will make the violence worse. Justin said that 22 people have been executed since the reinstatement of the death penalty for juvenile crimes—this is not a major deterrent for gang-bangers or vengeful teenagers. I bet they are a lot more afraid of getting killed by rival gangs than by the state.
I certainly don’t know what the solution to violence is. I’m inclined to believe that it’s parental involvement, and that leaves me without much hope. The death penalty, however, has certainly not solved the problem.
Posted by: brian at March 4, 2005 05:49 PMBrian,
Even if the death penalty hasn’t stopped the most visable cases, who’s to say that someone else hasn’t stopped and didn’t do the crime because of the possible penalty.
Maybe if we started to put some parents to death it would get the message accross
Posted by: Rocky at March 4, 2005 06:33 PMRocky -
I’m not sure you can use the most visible cases to make your argument, and then dismiss them when you’re used against you…
just saying…
I have to say, reading over this thread, there’s a lot of legal and statistical reasoning to reverse this law, and not much more than emotional diatribes in favor of keeping it.
“I’m not sure you can use the most visible cases to make your argument, and then dismiss them when you’re used against you…”
Actually Justin, I can because this is a discussion group, a blog, and not a court of law. I am also entitled to my opinion, as are you.
Finally I don’t see the Supreme court reversing this either, but not because of statistics or studies.
Posted by: Rocky at March 4, 2005 07:21 PMRob Cottrell,
Your right, people do change.
However certian crimes call for certian penaities.
Murder calls for the death penalty under certian cercumstances. It sould be givien and carried out regardless of age, sex, age, or any other factor.
Also I don’t think you or Bush or Clinton killed anyone.
Finally I don’t see the Supreme court reversing this either, but not because of statistics or studies.
You’re right; it wouldn’t take any studies at all, as far ad I can tell this law was unconstitutional to start with and this is more or a correction than anything else. I feel a little outside my comfort zone critiquing any Justice, regardless of how they stand on this though so if any one has any info on how this law was constitutional before it was overturned, I’d be interested.
AParker & Justin,
The juveniles now get life in prison? Who says? One of Justice Kennedy’s sources in his opinion, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, expressly says that juveniles may not be given life in prison without the possibility of release. It is a simple matter of extending the instant opinion to ensure that juveniles have a chance of release. By avoiding the jury or court imposed penalty, the killers have gotten away with it. They even carried out their horrific crime safe and secure in the then false knowledge that they were safe since they were minors. Now, they are safe.
How was executing juveniles constitutional before this decision? It was constitutional because the Supreme Court said it was in Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361(1989).
Will you point out to me exactly where in the majority opinion they have stated their decision rested in any part upon the standards of other countries?
Part IV of the majority opinion (page 21) states that “the United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty.” The opinion goes on, at page 22, to say “Article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which every country in the world has ratified save for the United States and Somalia, contains an express prohibition on capital punishment for crimes committed by juveniles under 18.” The Court goes on with “Parallel prohibitions are contained in other significant international covenants. See ICCPR, Art. 6(5), 999 U.N.T.S., at 175.” The Court also refers to the American Convention on Human Rights: Pact of San Jose, Costa Rica, Art. 4(5) and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, Art. 5(3), OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/24.9/49 (1990). On pages 23 and 24, the majority trace the history of British law banning juvenile executions. The Court finally states, “It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty, resting in large part on the understanding that the instability and emotional imbalance of young people may often be a factor in the crime.” That is taken from an amicus brief filed by the Human Rights Committee of the Bar of England and Wales.
As for Justice Scalia’s dissent, you will see that he criticizes the majority for, among other things, condoning the Missouri Supreme Court ignoring the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Stanford v. Kentucky. It is not up to lower courts to overturn the Supreme Court; it is the sole duty of the Supreme Court. He also criticizes the majority for selective research to justify the decision. Additionally, the majority usurped the powers of the people, through the legislature, to determine criminal penalties. Please read it for yourselves.
Troy -
Reading the decent, I find that I actually agree with a lot of what is said. I think they do a good job in poking holes in the logic of the decision. I think it was mistake for the decision to be based on either laws of other countries or the concept that the meaning of the 8th amendment has changed. This of course assumes I’m reading the dissent correctly, which is questionable as I have no legal background.
In the end though, I still feel there is a case to made based what I believe to be the illegal practice of holding a person accountable to two different standards of law: On the one hand, we (the US) have stated that before a person turns 18 they are not mentally formed enough to make decisions regarding their own well being or the general course of their life, or to make any legally binding decision. They cannot even participate in making of the laws they are bound by. In fact, unless I’m mistaken, even after capture, and up to the point of conviction, the minor cannot make legal decisions without an adult. On the other hand, as soon as the conviction is handed down, that same person now becomes an adult. Does this mean that at this point the minor is emancipated? If the conviction is over turned, does the minor remain an adult?
I’m not bringing this hypothetically; I would really like someone’s opinions on this.
A lot of things are bad in this debate. First, a lot of bald assertions. “Murder is just wrong. You should die for it.” That is a conclusory argument with no support. If you’re going to post that, don’t bother.
Second, there is a lot of equivocation. That is to say, people using the same word, but using it to mean different things. There seems to be a lot of discussion pertaining to what a child “knows” to be “wrong” and an adult “knows” to be “wrong”. These words can mean a great many things, but I think what we should mean by “wrong”, is “immoral” in the sense of critical, rational morality. And I think many of us would question a teenager’s ability to understand critical morality. However, I think the death penalty proponents mean “wrong” in the sense of “forbidden”. Clearly, a child knows what is forbidden and what is not, as does a teenager, but it is doubtful, in my view, that either of them really understands WHY a great many things are forbidden, which is the real issue. Ultimately, understanding wrongness hinges upon the understanding of another person’s pain, which is usually the underpinning for any sort of critical morality. Hell, I certainly didn’t understand that when I was a teenager. As a teenager I thoughtlessly pursued my own pleasure, goals, plans and projects without any conception of the danger or harm it posed to other people. I would venture to say that all teenagers do exactly the same. And to do that is not to understand critical morality, or WHY something is wrong, and therefore, not to understand the “wrongness” of one’s actions.
Basically, to make it clear, since I got a little philosophical there for a minute, some people here are using “knowing an act to be wrong” in a sense of knowing the WHY of an act’s wrongness, while the others are using it to mean simply knowing THAT an act is FORBIDDEN. Big difference. I doubt that a teeenager necessarily understands the former, but admittedly understands the latter. And the law demands that, in order for you to get the worst punishment, you must understand the former.
I applaud the people here who reject the knee-jerk, eye-for-an-eye assumption that those who take lives forfeit their own. Viewing justice as a simple balancing of forfeitures breaks down on a number of levels where life is concerned. Law should be guided by our minds, not our guts.
As for the judiciary usurping the power of the people to determine legislatively the punishment of criminals, that is a tired argument of last resort of conservative justices who don’t like certain decisions. The Constitution forbids cruel or unusual punishment via the 8th Amendment, and the Supreme Court can reach this matter on those grounds. Easily answered.
And Scalia is well known to be a judicial activist when it suits him, then talk about “usurpation of legislative authority” when the law being invalidated happens to be compatible with his own views.
We, as a society, have long rejected eye-for-an-eye justice. If you do not, you are a relic. The rest of us have left you behind. Time to catch up.
Posted by: K at March 4, 2005 10:32 PMThanks K for some philosophical perspective.
Because I’m certain those who have argued for greater responsibility for youth will take exception to your assertion that a teenager does not yet understand WHY something is wrong, or have the ability to understand critical morality, I would refine your distinction. Let’s all agree that between childhood and adulthood humans develop (or should develop) that critical morality which you speak of. Leon is quite certain at age 16 for instance that he CAN empathize with others and rationally understand the moral consequences of his actions. But he is continuing to mature in that regard, and cannot know at age 16 what his moral understanding will be in his mid-twenties. I would posit, for instance, that the angry retributive language that he used to describe what should happen to the worst offenders will likely be tempered by that time. In fact such a response is indicative of the rashness of youth which was referred to in the opinion. Leon’s rashness will not manifest in barbarous acts against innocent victims because he is in fact much more mature morally and rationally (and likely the beneficiary of a much better upbringing - though I cannot know that) than the troubled youth who have committed awful crimes.
The court acknowledges in the ruling that drawing any age line is subject to arbitrariness, but 18 is the age “where society draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood and the age at which the line for death eligibility ought to rest.”
We all agree that an 8-year-old should not be put to death, and a line should be drawn somewhere. I believe that the line should be drawn nationally and not left to the whims of individual state legislatures which are subject to the political pressures of the day.
Another sentence from the ruling which was a bit difficult to parse, but which is important is:
An unacceptable likelihood exists that the brutality or cold-blooded nature of any particular crime would overpower mitigating arguments based on youth as a matter of course, even where the juvenile offender’s objective immaturity, vulnerability, and lack of true depravity should require a sentence less severe than death.
In other words the court felt that it was too likely that a jury would be too overpowered by the terrible brutality of a crime to properly account for the mitigating factors of youth. To me the discussion here proves that point.
I’m not saying these kids aren’t bad, but there is a significant difference between their rashness and meanness and that of someone who has hardened that into adulthood. The awfulness of their crime tells us nothing of their fitness to be tried as an adult and sentenced to death. If 1000 teens commit heinous crimes over a 10 year period and 50 are put to death, I have no confidence that juries will have picked the “right 50” given the sensationalism of these cases. Simply put we are better off removing the option from the table. As Jack stated long ago youthful offenders are the least likely to be deterred by what is arguably a meager threat of a death penalty.
People who do heinous things are sometimes redeemed, such as the author of the hymn Amazing Grace, and as a society it speaks ill of us if we give up on the possibility of redemption for such youthful offenders. For that reason I personally would take life imprisonment off the table as a possibility for minors, but that will have to wait a few decades before we mature as a society to understand that as well.
Posted by: Walker Willingham at March 5, 2005 12:45 AMK,
First I want to thank you for your use of generalities in your post. It makes me comfortable to know that my opinion of the younger generations coming up has not gone unfounded.
“As a teenager I thoughtlessly pursued my own pleasure, goals, plans and projects without any conception of the danger or harm it posed to other people. I would venture to say that all teenagers do exactly the same.”
Had you been raised with any sense of moral values, you wouldn’t make such an outlandishly generalized, accusatory statement such as that. I would venture to say that many teenagers, especially those that are juniors and seniors (specificly the age group we are talking about) would be embarassed to be painted with your broad brush of hedonism.
It wasn’t any easier growing up in the 50’s, 60’s and 70,s than it is now. We had the same peer pressure to try drugs, alchohol, and cigarettes that those ahead of us and those behind us have had to endure. If we found it nescessary to fight we fought but we left it there.
I attended Parochial School for grades 1-11, and the peer pressure wasn’t any different there.
If we were taught any thing it was respect for other people, to treat other people as you wanted to be treated, because it was the right thing to do.
That said, an eye for an eye is revenge. The death penalty is about getting those people of the streets that have committed the ultimate crime against humanity, and therefore should pay the ultimate price for that crime. This isn’t about revenge, this is about making sure that the criminal is never able to committ that crime again.
“Clearly, a child knows what is forbidden and what is not, as does a teenager, but it is doubtful, in my view, that either of them really understands WHY a great many things are forbidden, which is the real issue.”
A great many teenagers in this country have been taught by their parents to hunt. They have been taught to be safe with firearms. I would venture a guess that these teens know that firing that gun and the killing of wildlife willy-nilly is “morally” wrong. They know that what comes out the business end of that firearm can be brutaly final, and I would also venture a guess that they know why.
I don’t think that you give our teenagers enough credit for their cognitive skills. I think that you underestimate their ability to understand what is right and what is wrong.
You can dance around with you’re semantics all you like. A teenager knows why you don’t murder people.
Sign me proud to be a relic.
Posted by: Rocky at March 5, 2005 01:12 AM
What majic happens to someone 17yrs-11 mo. when they turn 18?
Many have said their mind isn’t developed untill mid 20’s.
Perhaps we should move the voting age back to 21?
My best friend joined the Marines when he was 17, he never lived to 18.
I’m quite sure anyone 16 yrs of age can go to court and declare themselves an adult without their parents permission.
In most states you can get married at 16, some as young as 14.
If justice Kennedy wants eurpoean rules to apply to 16-18 yr old deranged murderers, fine, we’ll send them to europe with a “no visa” clause, and let them deal with them FOREVER.
Just to make it fair, we’ll send Kennedy over with them to run that program.
I’ll vote for sending them all to France.
Posted by: Beagle at March 5, 2005 10:28 AMTroy:
The juveniles now get life in prison? Who says?You seem to be saying they will certainly not be spending life in prison, when the reality is that they may OR may not depending on whether they can be rehabilitated. I’m saying that if they remain the same depraved person who committed the crime, then yes, they will spend their life in prison and they deserve it. But if they change/evolve/mature, I believe that society ought to give them a chance. We’re talking about a PERSON here, and if they later become someone who has something to contribute to society, they should be given a second chance due to the lack of foresight and impressionability of youth.
By avoiding the jury or court imposed penalty, the killers have gotten away with it.This is the point. If, later in their life, it is determined that these former juvenile criminals have changed to where they can be law-abiding members of society then the system has done its job. If they are released, they haven’t gotten away, they’ve been punished to the point where they have realized the severity of their crimes, and this has brought them to a state of being that has been recognized by whomever decides these things that this person is capable of living and contributing to society. The possiblity of rehabilitating the youth vanishes when we put them to death, and that is a waste of human potential.
Youth is moldable and we have a chance to still affect these criminals and shape them into decent human beings. We should not be so quick to decide that a person is wholly without value, for who are we to elevate ourselves to such levels of moral purity and foreknowledge that we may deem someone else’s existence completely devoid of ever having any future redeeming qualities.
Posted by: AParker at March 5, 2005 01:27 PMWalker,
Of course I accept that distinction. My example had rather stark lines simply for the sake of illustrating a broad point about the language people were using in a rather imprecise manner, but I would never assert that the ability for moral discernment had not progressed at all from age 8 to 17. You are absolutely right.
As for Rocky, have you not been paying attention? All the questions in this argument are drawn in terms of generalities. What types of people should die? Why should one group die while another shouldn’t? These questions necessarily call for generalized assumptions about age groups.
As for your assertion that teenagers do know right from wrong (gasp! a generality!), I find your one anecdotal account of your teenage years unpersuasive. The mere fact that you managed to defy peer pressure means remarkably little. The fact remains that a great many do not, and I don’t think that there is any serious debate about that. If you debate it, perhaps there are reasons for that. Perhaps you weren’t exposed as much to peer pressure if you didn’t have certain kinds of friends, or maybe you didn’t go out on weekends. I won’t speculate.
Nor is there any serious debate about the fact that young people as young as highschool age and as old as college age, are constantly experimenting with things they’ve been told not to do (drinking, drugs, and sex are the most common examples). Why could this be? Hmm, maybe it’s because, for the first time, they are being asked to make autonomous decisions and need to come to understand firsthand not only that society forbids these things, but WHY it forbids them. That is why experimentatation occurs, or at least one reason. Most people aren’t dull enough to mutely accept the edicts of past generations without so much as a question. You’ve taught me that some are, however. Maybe YOU have some way of accounting for why young people experiment, since you are so ready to criticize mine?
Now, I’m NOT taking the obviously ridiculous position that this recogniation that teenagers experiment extends into some kind of license to murder. I don’t think that teenagers have some right to “experiment” with that, I’m only saying that children under the age of 18 have a tendency to experiment because they don’t understand the notion of cost in a moral sense yet. Thus, if they don’t understand the cost of getting drunk just by being told it’s wrong, they learn by doing it. Experimentation is an indication of moral understanding that is not yet fully formed. All this illustrates is the lack of capacity or maybe opportunity of teenagers to understand the nature of the actions they take, and the consequences it can have. Not all of use were born omniscient like Rocky.
Moreover, in Rocky’s example of children who hunt, I would say that that is a type of experience that might teach the value of life and the cost of killing. If anything it is an illustration of MY point, not yours. That is another way to come to understand the value of life. Children who hunt probably might have learned the gravity of killing from that experience. But I REALLY don’t think all that many children have hunted in their lifetime. I haven’t. I don’t know very many people who have, and I’m from MISSOURI, for god’s sake.
And if you call this semantics, you really don’t understand the law, and probably should bow out of this conversation. Semantics is a dangerous game there, and words count. Unfortunately, if people like you have their way, choice of words can cost you your life in a court of law. Especially if there are people like you on the jury who don’t understand them.
You’re right when you say that teenagers know right from wrong, and if you really read my post, you would understand that I never challenged that. They know that they have been told not to kill and not to harm and so forth. But that doesn’t equate to moral understanding. Many people have to experience pain or regret to understand not to do things. Additionally, there is the scientific evidence that physiologically, teenagers lack the level of brain development that adults have. And no matter how much you shout your anecdotal evidence or bald assertions that “They know better!”, you really haven’t stated anything cogent or even persuasive. I mean, really, how much of the medical community has to disagree wih you before you listen to reason?
“That said, an eye for an eye is revenge. The death penalty is about getting those people of the streets that have committed the ultimate crime against humanity, and therefore should pay the ultimate price for that crime. This isn’t about revenge, this is about making sure that the criminal is never able to committ that crime again.”
Again, how many times do we have to tell you? Life imprisonment has the same effect: they can’t kill again. These stories of inmates killing other inmates represent statistically a rather negligible number.
And, hell, why is death the ultimate price? If “the ultimate price” is only thing to satisfy the more bloodthirsty among you, why not torture them, too? Death alone isn’t the worst — surely we could kill them by evisceration or hanging up their entrails or some such?
The point is this: society forbids cold-blooded killing. At law, there is NO JUSTIFICATION, not even self-defense, for cold-blooded killing (i.e. with premeditation and deliberation, or laying in wait, etc.). Why is the state not subject to the same restrictions as an individual? I can think of no reason that has not been thoroughly debunked.
Gee, K,
Why do you think they call it medical “practice”.
I am now 53, I tried pot for the first time at 14, that would 1966, I lost my virginity at 16 after I ran away from home and had been living on the streets of Hollywood, California for 6 months in 1969. At age 18 I gave mouth to mouth to an overdosing junkie, saving his life for another day.
Please don’t patronize me, I have had plenty of life experience. If anything you seem to be the one that has lived a cloistered life.
You also appear to think that teens live under rocks, that they have no contact with the outside world, except for other teens.
“I would venture to say that “ALL” teenagers do exactly the same.”
My quotes and caps, your words. Nowhere in my posts on this thread have I made such a sweeping generality, and no thinking person would.
You seem eager to accept on face value “ALL” teenage Americans have no clue about life and death, and are incapable of making value judgements on their own. This a sad indictment of the youth of America, not to mention their parents and teachers.
“Life imprisonment has the same effect: they can’t kill again. These stories of inmates killing other inmates represent statistically a rather negligible number.”
Life imprisonment does not have the same effect.
Those that have committed first degree murder, are still alive, those they have killed are still quite dead.
There are, as of now, just over 20 states that impose life imprisonment without the possibillity of parole. That means that, in 30 states, a teenager that kills someone in cold blood will be out of prison in 10, maybe 20, years.
Let’s hope that you aren’t the first person he meets.
Rocky:
There are, as of now, just over 20 states that impose life imprisonment without the possibillity of parole. That means that, in 30 states, a teenager that kills someone in cold blood will be out of prison in 10, maybe 20, years.
Let’s hope that you aren’t the first person he meets.
I am utterly unmoved by this argument. Aside from the fact that those states where life without parole does not exist tend to be those where the death penalty already was not available for minors, largely invalidating the point, the notion that the first person to encounter a just released inmate now in his thirties, who committed an awful crime as a teenager is at some huge risk is so absurd as to be laughable. I’m not saying that there haven’t been instances where career criminals immediately reoffend upon being released, but it stretches credulity to believe that it is likely with teenage prisoners who have been judged fit for early release after having spent half of their lives behind bars. The more sensational their crime, the higher the likelihood that the screening for an early release is all the more stringent.
Sure mistakes have been made in deciding who to release early. We hear a lot about those cases where people reoffend, but rarely do we know about those cases where truly reformed individuals who could be contributing to society again are kept in prison at great expense due to a paranoid public and rigid justice system.
I think it’s high time we get more creative with the penal system - especially for juveniles. I bet a tough four-year program for serious offenders that mixes hard work and exposure to the tough realities faced by victims, combined with counseling and close monitoring of the inmates could produce far safer releases of those deemed to be fit at a much lower cost than we are likely to get when juveniles are thrown in to adult prison for decades. But the mentality that wants some kind of mythic just equivalence between the suffering of the victim and the suffering of the perpetrator prevents society from doing what is best for us as a whole. Violent crime is tragic and we can’t undo it. We ought to move forward in the most constructive way possible given the circumstances we have. Justice is the very sober act of protecting society from the most dangerous, helping the most dangerous to become less so, and providing a disincentive for potential offenders to ever offend in the first place. Serious offenses should carry serious penalties, but it should not be about vengeance.
Posted by: Walker Willingham at March 5, 2005 10:12 PM“Sure mistakes have been made in deciding who to release early. We hear a lot about those cases where people reoffend, but rarely do we know about those cases where truly reformed individuals who could be contributing to society again are kept in prison at great expense due to a paranoid public and rigid justice system.”
Walker,
Look I don’t dispute the sincerity of you and those that think like you. I have some questions however.
Do you feel comfortable, hearing about even one mistaken release of a violent felon?
Do you feel that the public has no right to feel paranoid?
You guys have made me out to be for trying, convicting and hanging every senior of every graduating class this year.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
I qualified my position in the very first post of this thread.
I used the word heinous, here is the definition acording to Merriam Webster Online:
Main Entry: hei·nous
Pronunciation: ‘hA-n&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French haineus, from haine hate, from hair to hate, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German haz hate —
: hatefully or shockingly evil :
What part of this word don’t you understand? I am talking about the worst of the worst, and I have been throughout this whole thread.
I guess that you don’t get it. There has to be a line drawn somewhere, you seem incapable of drawning it.
There are going to some people that will not be rehabilitated, they will serve their lawfull sentence and will be released into the general public.
We will pat them on the ass and say “go brother and sin no more”, and of course according to you and K they will become leaders of the community and be changed for eternity.
Please tell me that you aren’t that naive.
“These stories of inmates killing other inmates represent statistically a rather negligible number.”
K,
Why does there have to be even one?
I belive it was Mark Twain that said, “There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics”
Actually, it was Benjamin Disraeli who said that. And the quote doesn’t mean quite what you think it does — it’s just a funny way of saying that statistics can serve any master. Much like logic can. It doesn’t mean that statistics are wrong. Especailly when one side has them, and another doesn’t.
Sorry to preempt Walker, but I will answer your questions.
1) Yes. There is no guarantee that a convicted felon will kill again, whereas the death penalty is, well, the death penalty, and is pretty much 100% fatal when performed.
2) No, the public has no right to feel paranoid about much of anything. Paranoia is a strangely unique American phenomenon that leads us to do all kinds of stupid things: believe we need guns; have the death penalty; put a large proportion of poor, disadvantaged minority folks in jail for the mere fact of being poor, disadvantaged, and minorities; start wars in the middle east, etc. Beyond anecdotal evidence, there is little to indicate that recidivist murderers represent any sort of statistically relevant threat to just about anybody.
Plus, does that mean you admit that you’re paranoid?
Your definition of heinous is awfully handy, but most of us know what it means. However, it’s a term without a legal definition which will probably create more problems than it solves. What constitutes a “heinous” crime?
Why wouldn’t a person who was released after serving their sentence go on and lead a relatively normal life? Why is your assumption that they will go on a killing spree INSTANTLY more rational than a supposition that they might not, especially in light of the fact that there is little data to suggest that they would?
And I’ll answer your question to me with another question (an admittedly annoying tactic): Why do there have to be innocent deaths via the death penalty just so we can continue to have a form of punishment that doesn’t achieve most of its purported goals?
Posted by: K at March 6, 2005 12:30 AMOops, missed the earlier posts.
I actually laughed out loud when I saw Rocky’s “medical practice” remark. So you are taking on the entire field of medicine, now? Wow, that does wonders for your credibility. Good move.
Oh, man, does Rocky every love it that I used the words “all teenagers”. That has got to be the weakest argumentative tactic I have ever heard! Rather than get at the meat of my argument, pick on the fact that I said “all” instead of “most” or “a great many”. OK, you got me, Rocky. Not ALL teenagers are like that. In reality, they’re still going to Sunday school. The majoirty is not out having sex and drinking and doing drugs in record numbers. My bad.
Your points, as I understand them are these:
1) The death penalty is better because it puts a killer out of commission for good.
2) It’s unjust to let a person live who killed another.
3) The merest possibility of recidivism makes release too scary for you.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
Here are the rejoinders, which you have, as yet, not meaningfully challenged. I’ll try to avoid using the word “ALL” here so that you don’t dodge the point.
1 is invalidated by life imprisonment. No more killing the public. No more worries about recidivism. You have only to worry about crimes against fellow inmates, but if you were really worried about their lives, I doubt you’d advocate the death penalty in the first place. AND, among murderers, which is already a small number, the amount who kill again in prison is even smaller. As I said before, negligible.
2. We have addressed this one time and again: retributive justice doesn’t realize its ostensible goals. There are few psychiatrists or psychologists in the world who would aver that it provides any closure to the family of the victim, nor is there any indication that it provides any serious deterrent to future crimes. How then does society benefit from the death penalty? How is it just, if there is no benefit? Is the cosmos happier or something? Why do we choose it when we could try to rehabilitate? This is especially true in the case of juveniles, who literally have the best chance of changing.
3. I haven’t heard any persuasive data to indicate that recidivism for murder is any kind of significant source of death in this country. First of all, despite your contention to the contrary, relatively few murderers get paroled. And your suggestion that a teenager would get out after ten years is laughable. Go tell a Public Defender that — they would laugh in your face. If a murderer is released, it’s often been decades since they committed a crime. Any crime. Is that really who you’re worried about?
Walker, you are a laudable human being for your patience. I agree wholeheartedly that getting rid of the death penalty for minors, or for anyone, is not a good enough solution in and of itself. There needs to be an overhaul of the entire justice system so that rehabilitation becomes a more realistic goal. The penal system, such as it is, admittedly does not have a fighting chance to rehabilitate people. But it ought to get one.
Posted by: K at March 6, 2005 01:01 AMK,
Lots of good points, but I’d quibble with the concept of paranoia being particularly American. I suspect it’s pretty evenly spread worldwide. Perhaps it’s just that we Americans have some institutions (including much of our current government) which are particularly prone to fan the flames of paranoia to serve their ends.
Rocky,
I understand full well that you would constrain the death penalty to the most heinous cases. I further acknowledge that it is extraordinarily unlikely that many of these troubled youth will turn themselves around dramatically. Ironically though, I think it may be more plausible that someone who is caught early for something truly heinous, may have a more dramatic turnaround than the youth whose initial offenses are less severe but grows into a hardened life of crime more slowly.
More important than heinousness though is depravity. Heinousness is a terrible yardstick with which to measure depravity, especially for younger offenders. I don’t doubt that some of these kids will prove to be long-term sociopaths. For that reason it is very important that we have well qualified mental health professionals in the penal system to assure that prisoners are not paroled too early if they continue to be a danger. But especially in the most brutal cases, juries are impacted by their sympathy for the victim, and are ill-equipped to judge any mitigating factors of youth. Remember, I’m not saying we should take away severe punishment here, only the possibility of the death penalty.
Now it’s true that I would go a step further and remove the possibility of that additional clause “without the possibility of parole” for juvenile offenders, but I would allow for life sentences, recognizing that if after years in prison the inmate continues to exhibit sociopathic behavior, the penal system should be able to continue to protect society from them.
No I don’t believe I’m naive. I am glad that we can protect our communities from these dangerous youth by locking them up. The fact that I further believe we should do our best to rehabilitate even the worst offenders once they are locked up, does not mean that I think we will usually succeed. But sometimes we will. If a 16-year-old commits a terrible crime, spends 8 years behind bars, has a transformation, truly feels remorse, and is ready to contribute to society, what does it serve us even to keep him behind bars for the rest of his life. It doesn’t bring the victim back. Such a person may be in a unique position to make a real difference in preventing another youth from making a similar mistake. Such stories of redemption are rare, but they can be very empowering, and by being so quick to mete out the death penalty we prevent even their possibility.
Far more often, the offender will not be redeemed and will live out their prison life, but behind bars where they are not a threat. Why is it so important to retain the possibility of killing them?
Posted by: Walker Willingham at March 6, 2005 01:48 AM“Actually, it was Benjamin Disraeli who said that.”
K,
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.” (When Twain mentioned this pithy saying in his autobiography, he credited it to Benjamin Disraeli.)
He meant that statistics can be manipulated to mean anything you want them to.
“There are few psychiatrists or psychologists in the world who would aver that it provides any closure to the family of the victim, nor is there any indication that it provides any serious deterrent to future crimes.”
If you had ever lost a loved one, violently or otherwise, you would have realized that there is no such thing as closure. So it really doesn’t matter what any psychologist said.
Have a life.
“Why is it so important to retain the possibility of killing them?”
Walker,
Thank you for the more civilized response.
I think that to take this option off the table ties the hands of judges and juries with the most (I’ll use your word here) depraved sociopaths. Those that would have to be separated from the general prison population anyway.
I personaly think that solitary confinement is cruel and unusual punnishment.
As far as youthful criminals go I belive it would be improbable but possible that in a state with no life sentence for juveniles, that a sociopath could get out after a sentence, fairly early in life, without having served much time at all, especialy if they were prosecuted in juvenile court.
Posted by: Rocky at March 6, 2005 02:46 AMWalker,
BTW, who is to say that a teenager couldn’t get even worse behind bars?
Posted by: Rocky at March 6, 2005 02:53 AMJustin
“So, now it’s my turn. I’m very curious about what age you feel we should lower the age of consent too?”
Sorry it took so long Justin.
You know, I’m not real sure on what the age of consent should be. Part of me thinks it should be 21, lol, but then I see the real world and most of these brats already know about it at age 13 or so.
I would have no problem with lowering the age of consent, as long as its mutual and no evidence of coersion, its really no one else business is it?
I think the greatest reason for the “death penalty” is that it is more satisfying to our imagination and our sense of justice to know that people who commit heinous crimes are dead, dead, dead, dead, dead. That no soft-hearted idiot is going to take pity on them and release them into society. They’re DEAD. They’re GONE. There’s a finality to it that is wonderfully satisfying, at least in the abstract. It’s final, and nothing and no-one on this planet can reverse it.
If anyone, no matter if they’re a toddler or ludicously insane, commits a heinous crime against those I love, he or she had better pray that the police find them before I do, because I will most certainly, most finally, most methodically kill them for it. And I don’t care if that itself is classified as murder and I get sent to prison for life or even executed. Whoever commits that sort of crime against someone I love will die.
Posted by: Daniel at March 7, 2005 08:06 PMWell that was a very insightful comment. Thanks for sharing.
Posted by: justin at March 7, 2005 08:08 PMThe previous post spoke from my gut. Now that I’ve expressed my visceral reaction, I can proceed to talk more intelligently about the issue.
First off, I would like to point out that it seems to me that those of you who are against the death penalty do not hate the crime with as much passion as I do. It seems to me that you get on a moral high horse, and I suspect that if one of your close loved ones were a victim, you would join me.
Second, I admit that the previous post was vengeful. It is a human reaction. It is a righteous reaction. As I said in the previous paragraph, it seems that my opponents on this issue do not have that reaction, and their lack of a reaction angers me.
Third, I admit that vengeance is not an answer, and that I hope that I would remember to have mercy and forgive before I actually carried out the murders I would desire to commit. Part of me wants to say “Don’t you (meaning my opponents) at least desire to execute the guilty?” If you do, then I am much more disposed to listen to your objections to the death penalty.
These two posts are emotional posts; I am not here trying to post a rational argument. It seems to me that my opponents on this issue are fervently trying to protect the guilty from my righteous wrath. I wish, instead, they were trying to protect the guilty from their own righteous wrath, because then we could be on the same side, trying to figure out what is right in this extreme case.
Posted by: Daniel at March 7, 2005 08:24 PMDaniel,
Of course it is viscerially satisfying on some level to think that murderers will die for thier crimes. However, the justice system is not set up to “satisfy the imagination”,
It seems to me that you get on a moral high horse, and I suspect that if one of your close loved ones were a victim, you would join me.
As far as a moral high horse, I’ve never heard of an immoral high horse, but I think that supporting killing children out of a sense of “righteous vengeance” qualifies. I suspect that no one you know has been unjustly killed by the state. 118 death-row inmates have been proven innocent and released since 1987. I wonder how many we missed. Moral high horses go both ways, but in my case, if we make a mistake and don’t kill someone who should die, they’re still in jail, or at the very worst, are released multiple decades after committing their crime.
One-half of the court system and rule of law is designed exactly to protect against your type of visceral response. We are not a nation of vigilantes, and it is not the job of the person who is criminally wronged to punish the offender. That is the job of the government. The benefits of a judicial system include protection of the innocent against hasty conclusion of guilt, and protection from the extreme penalty of death for those who are not capable of comprehending the full scope of their actions.
These two posts are emotional posts; I am not here trying to post a rational argument.
I find it telling that you admit your posts are not rational. You seem to revel in it. If we aren’t rational, what standard can we have for anything?
It seems to me that my opponents on this issue are fervently trying to protect the guilty from my righteous wrath. I wish, instead, they were trying to protect the guilty from their own righteous wrath
I don’t know what you mean by “protecting the guilty from their own righteous wrath”. Maybe an explanation? If they are guilty, do they have wrath? Is it righteous? When you say righteous are you talking about Christian principles? If so, I defy you to show one place in the New Testament where vengeance or wrath by the followers of Christ is promoted or acceptable.
You demonstrate with these posts the necessity for the ban on juvenile offenders. The opinion stated that the acts can be so offensive as to prevent the jury from thinking rationally, and coming to a conclusion that includes the real differences between children and adults. Again, if we aren’t rational, we might as well go back to living in caves.
Posted by: brian at March 7, 2005 10:53 PMBrian -
Thanks for responding to my posts and critiquing me. In my quotation “I wish, instead, they were trying to protect the guilty from their own righteous wrath,” my pronouns are badly used, making the statement ambiguous. I’m apologize; I should have been more careful. I meant that I wish that those of you who oppose the death penalty were trying to protect the guilty from your own wrath. I wish you were angry enough to kill them, but wise enough to think. You seem to be wise enough (or distanced enough) to think, but not angry enough to kill.
I did not mean to convey that I was reveling in irrationality. Of course we can’t give way to our irrational emotions. I was simply saying “this is how I feel.” How I feel is reprehensible, to some degree. It is certainly ungodly to take vengeance into your own hands, but it seems to me to be inhuman not to wish to. Wishing is not doing, and I would not actually exact the vengeance I swore. I would wish to - that’s what my post was about.
It seems to me that if you do not feel righteous anger, your mercy is rather uncommendable.
Posted by: Daniel at March 8, 2005 12:23 AMOh, and as a warning, granted, we are not a nation of vigilantes and shouldn’t be. However, I think that if the current situation gets much worse, we will become one. Many people feel today that the guilty get nothing worse than a slap on the wrist. If I happened to capture someone guilty of a heinous crime, and I was sure they’d committed it, I would be severly tempted to mete out what I considered justice then and there, because I don’t trust our system to deal out justice and vengeance. We gave “the sword” to the government, but they’d doggone well better use it or we’ll be wanting it back.
Posted by: Daniel at March 8, 2005 12:26 AM‘But this is terrible!’ cried Frodo. ‘Far worse than the worst that I imagined from your hints and warnings. O Gandalf, best of friends, what am I to do? For now I am really afraid. What am I to do? What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature, when he had a chance!’Posted by: Daniel at March 8, 2005 12:45 AM‘Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity.’
‘I am sorry,’ said Frodo. ‘But I am frightened; and I do not feel any pity for Gollum.’
‘You have not seen him,’ Gandalf broke in.
‘No, and I don’t want to,’ said Frodo. ‘I can’t understand you. Do you mean to say that you, and the Elves, have let him live on after all those horrible deeds? Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death.’
‘Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be so quick to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many - yours not least … ’
JRR Talkien, The Ring Sets Out: The Lord of the Rings, p. 78-79.
K,
So far I have seen no evidence that empiricly proves that a teenager is incapable of knowing the consequences of their actions. You and the others have supplied nothing but anecdotal speculation and insults to prove your side of the argument on this thread.
Where are the studies that you say prove your case?
In lieu of your lack of evidence, I will maintain that my belief, as emotional and barbaric as it may seem to you, is correct.
Posted by: Rocky at March 10, 2005 10:14 AMWhat I object to is the Supreme Court categorically saying that no person should be executed for crimes committed while they were under 18. As we have repeatedly said in this column, maturity levels vary. Some teenagers aren’t mature enough to appreciate the value of another person’s life. I don’t know any of them, but I’ll grant their hypothetical existence for the moment. I imagine some adults are the same. However, most teenagers (I think) are mature enough. I would like for local juries to have