Should juveniles receive the death penalty? Why or why not?

Answer 1

No. Most children who take horrid actions as murder are victims of reactive attachment disorder. A disorder caused by a lack of bonding with the mother as an infant. They do not developed a sense of empathy while their personalities are being developed in the 1st 3 years of life. I'm a former corrections officer and there was a 12 year old boy and 14 year old sister that stabbed their step mother over 30 times dragged her bloody body throughout the house and finally to a drainage ditch behind the house in an effort to hide her body. They showed no remorse yet played and laughed as normal children might. So very very sad to see. It is nearly impossible to teach a human being empathy past these vital years of emotional growth. There only hope at this point is behavior modification which entails cause and effect. i.e. If I do this then such will be the result. There behavior is then directed by only a means of self-preservation and avoidance of consequences. Yes the adult population that rapes and murders often are victims of this disorder. Personally I'd rather be executed than live in prison for the rest of my life.

Answer 2

Yes, they should. I knew right from wrong when I was in elementary school, so there is no excuse for anybody over 12 years old for killing someone else, then trying to say they didn't know better.

Since the death penalty is for 1st degree murder, it means that the juvenile premeditated and pursued this crime. In the US, almost all the children have watched enough TV to know that murder is wrong.

There is no defense. Anybody with that little regard for human life as a young adult will not have any more regard for it as an adult. There's no point in letting them out to kill again, and no point in letting them live in prison for 50, 60, 70 years. They've earned themselves a quick turnaround to their next incarnation.

Answer 3

Nobody should recieve the death penalty. Prisons should be made tougher in some instances. The only problem with the death penalty is that there is no way of knowing if you are executing an innocent person and the real perpertator may get away with it.

Answer 4

of course not. the reasons why adults recieve harsher punishments is the same as why they have more special priveledges, cuz theyre old enough to stand on their own 2 feet and make their own decisions. kids however, no matter what they say, still have no achieved that sence of responsibility, as some adults at the age of 21 and above are still struggling too. however, by sayaing that a child of maybe 15 who commited a murder should be allowed to be sentanced to the death penalty, then its like saying an 8 year old is mature enough to have sex or a 13 year old can have child or a 15 yearold can set up his/her own business!

Answer 5

nicely, i'm for it, in maximum circumstances. i imagine its to arbitrary to position a particular age (no legally they could be 18) on it because really, how do you differentiate between a 17 year. previous and an 18 year. previous? Is there really that huge of a duty, adulthood, duty, etc. huge difference between both? i do not in my opinion imagine so. I also sense that a 14 3 hundred and sixty 5 days previous who murders someone in chilly blood is largely screwed up. In some options i imagine juveniles who commit heinous murders are more effective deserving of the shortcoming of existence penalty. the clarification being because in the adventure that they are that chilly, heartless, and morally bankrupt at that youthful of an age, what lies ahead? Juveniles have had such little existence adventure (any such quick span of time to change into so "indignant") and they have even a lot less excuse for that chilly-blooded mentality. Darkstar above me said putting a13 3 hundred and sixty 5 days previous to lack of existence for killing someone that had molesting them for years. besides the shown actuality that I understand her element, the actuality is this kind of homicide isn't one which could many times even get the shortcoming of existence penalty if the fellow replaced into 18. that is distinct than putting to lack of existence a juvenile who stabbed his instructor to lack of existence because he were given a foul math grade and then began stabbing different scholars (only a loopy get at the same time). If the crime could get the shortcoming of existence penalty for an adult (which in reality, homicide must be particularly undesirable now-a-days to get that) then it truly is going to be utilized to juveniles as well.

Answer 6

No. Because while some juveniles may know right from wrong, they have no understanding of how precious life is. They haven't lived long enough. Most juveniles think they're immortal.

Answer 7

No, no one, regardless of age, should receive the death penalty until we figure out a fair and impartial way of meting it out. And that will never happen.

Answer 8

i'm a correctional officer and i always say and eye for an eye but sometimes when i see some of these kids and talk to them they think it was a game not to hurt someone but it goes too far. Then when it's over and they had time to think about it all i hear is them crying for there mom but mom can't hear them. The law is the law u play u pay.

Answer 9

Yes. Too many people under 18 commit the crime knowing they can't be punished for it. At the very least they should receive life imprisonment.

Answer 10

No - no one should be given the death penalty - we're supposed to be a civilised society!!!