Juvenile Death Penalty
 

Boy, 11, Told Police He Kicked Crying Baby (02/14/04)

An 11-year-old boy who was in a Prince George's County house last week when a baby was killed has told police that he repeatedly kicked the crying child out of frustration, law enforcement sources familiar with the case said yesterday.

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

Grays Ferry boy charged with raping stepsister, 2 (02/16/04)

A 13-year-old boy was charged with raping his 2-year-old stepsister in the Grays Ferry section of Southwest Philadelphia, police said yesterday. Police were called to a South Philadelphia home about 9 a.m. by a family member who reported witnessing the alleged attack, Sgt. Roland Lee said.



These are just two examples of the kinds of crimes that juveniles are committing nowadays. I say that by the time you're five, you know whether something is wrong or not. You know hitting hurts, for instance, and that you're not supposed to do it.

It wouldn't be a big deal for me, really, if these kids were confined for a particular number of years, (not just until age 21--three years for murder or rape doesn't make a big impression on an 18-year-old), and if their records weren't sealed, because if they commit murder or rape as an adult, their previous crimes (read "propensities") aren't taken into consideration during sentencing.

The question is, do you think that there are some crimes for which juveniles should be tried as adults? At what point is a "child" considered to be beyond rehabilitation? At what point is a child to be made to take responsibility for his actions?

The victim of a child is just as dead as the victim of an adult. If a child intends to commit murder or rape or some such crime, and makes an effort to evade the law afterwards, then how can one make an issue of maturity? Are we talking criminal sophistication or age-wise? I know thirty-five year olds who are about as mature as a toddler...

Children should never be tried as adults, even when it would make the victim's family feel really good. That said, I would support a maximum number of years, perhaps the same as the age of the child, up to 21, rather than always releasing them at 21.

I don't think it's a point of making the victim's family feel good. It's a point of enforcing the laws, regardless of age. If it can be proven that the individual knew that what s/he was doing was wrong, then why should age be a factor?

I have a genetic predisposition to play devil's advocate. It's not my fault...;)

Oh, and as an aside, should I have put this in the politics forum?

Isn't there something about being able to participate/assist in one's own defense?

Yes. That has to do with making sure you're competent to stand trial.

that's a really good question. i don't think capital punishment should ever be used on a child, but they should be held in prison past age 21, their record should not be cleared, and they should have numerous psychological evaluations before they are ever released. maybe they should be on manditory medication, too?

That one's a toughie. On the one hand, if you're talking about a six-year-old who runs amok in a china store, yes, I think the parents should be held responsible. However, when it comes to things like murder and rape, criminal acts that a "child" does deliberately, then no, I don't think the parents should be held accountable unless they instigated the action.

(I'm using the term "child" to mean little people 10 and up but under 21. I believe that in some cases, younger children commit crimes, but in those cases, I believe, not that they may not know what they're doing is wrong, but that they're still young enough to be rehabilitated)

If the government would chill out about what is considered abuse and what is considered discipline, and if first-time offenses were punished more severely, I don't think this problem would have gone so far. Leaving bruises/scars/breaking bones/skin is abuse. Slapping a hand, withholding a privilege, or taking the kid who deserves it out to the woodshed isn't.

My grandparents got disciplined when they did something wrong, and none of them have lasting psychological scars. They're proud that their parents cared enough about them to let them know the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior, and none of them have ever been in trouble with the law. Coddling our kids too much is what warps their little personalities, not smacking them on the bottom when they need it.

If you don't let the parents discipline their kids, then you can't hold them responsible when the lil heathens do something wrong.

Unfortunately, you can't force someone to take medication. Even in most mental hospitals, you can't force the patients to take meds if they don't want to.

I think kids' capital cases need to be heard by a grand jury first, which determines, based on the merits of the particular case, and any supporting evidence about the perp's own background (abused? neglected? psychologically unstable from an early age? mentally defective?) whether or not the case is tried in the adult system or the juvie system.

These cases are not always terribly clear cut, as demonstrated by the recent release of the Florida kid who killed his playmate doing wrestling moves on her. He was initially sentenced to life.

Because they aren't adults..

This is less and less true the older they get, which is why I'd support changing the "out at 21" rule to a maximum sentence, but a child is not fully responsible for their actions. That is why they are not permitted to drink, drive, smoke, vote, have sex, watch certain movies, live alone, work full time, and countless other actions. The reason? They are not fully aware of the connection between actions and consequences. Here I am talking about the real consequences, not just punishment - the life they have destroyed, the lives of the family of the victim, and the lives of their own family. I've looked back on things I did as a child, and realized that it was very hurtful, while at the time it barely registered.

I think it depends on the crime , if a kid gets cought stealing some candy(misdomeener) and the store owner is an ass and presses charges , well kids are young and learn from their mistakes . But if there is a string of roberys then some body needs to step in .
Now if its something like rape , muder , etc.... (fellony) then i think their record should not be sealed .
I wounder just how many BAD folks have goten away with stuff just cause they knew they would get out of jail in just a few years and their records would be sealed .
As to the death penalty for minors , well that is a tough one , case by case I say . But then again i don't see any thing wrong with "putting down" a person that is mentaly defecent that is dangerous . Why lock them up for the rest of their lifes , put them and society out of their missory after a suffecent ammount of time and evaluation . If there is NO hope of fixing them then get rid of them . Just my ramblings , be pissed off if you want ,but deep down you probley agree.

ok. here's my take. like it or not. let's take a look at the "utopians" and see just what they are allowing now for "kids". "kids" nowadays feel that they have the same rights as adults. i.e. the public school system. when i was 6 i got paddled a few times in the 1st grade for losing my place in a read along in class. a little extreme? maybe. but later on, say when i was in the 8th on up grade, i watched my behavior because not only would i get the paddle at school, but i'd have to answer to my mother and father when i got home through discussions. (my parents NEVER hit me, abused me or anything like that except for one time, see parenting for that) anyway, back on track. now the school system can't paddle, and the kids know that they can get away with a bunch more with less punishment. c'mon, remember when (if) you got suspended? it was a free vacation! kids today do not respect their elders. yes, some do and yes a lot has to do with upbringing BUT environment plays a key role in the matter of personality development with their peers. these kids KNOW right from wrong. they were taught/learned at an early age, be it from their parents or school. so YES they should be held accountable and if the death penalty is available in their state for a murder that they commited, then pull the trigger, throw the switch or pump them full of lethal chemicals. one deterrent could be to pay-per-view/public square the death penalty on the adults so deserving.

p.s. - i've been a juror on a capital murder case and have seen autopsy pictures of a brutally murdered 18 month old baby boy and had to decide the fate of this putrid excuse of a human being.

this is how i developed my views on the death penalty. i am "the other male juror"

here's the story