I am doing an essay on it and I am kind of for both. Can I just have your opinions? Why or why not?
2007-02-08 09:00:02 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
See back in the day, there used to be this thing called, if you're 16 or older, you can receive capital punishment. Thanks everyone who has answered.
2007-02-08 09:24:22 · update #1
Also, if you don't mind, I will probably use parts of what you wrote for a response on my paper.
2007-02-08 10:16:44 · update #2
can;t do the time don't do the crime
2007-02-08 09:12:44 · answer #1 · answered by goldfreeblue 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There is no such thing as a juvenile death penalty. There are cases when a juvenile may be tried as an adult and be sentenced to the death penalty.
My feelings on the death penalty are kind of shaky, I'm not 100% against it but almost. As for juveniles being sentenced to it, I am 100% against it. It's proven the human brain is still forming at that age. A 16 year old kid should not be sentenced to death for something, no matter how heinous. Life in prison, sure, if it fits. But death, no.
2007-02-08 09:09:33 · answer #2 · answered by Phat Kidd 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I did a paper about this in college too. I think the death penalty is a bit much. life in prison is even a bit much. I don't think there are many if any juveniles that can totally grasp the reality of a crime that would constitute the death penalty. Juveniles tend to act on impulse and not rationalization. Impulse is not an excuse but it does tell you a bit about someones level of maturity.
2007-02-08 09:10:51 · answer #3 · answered by gclev 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A juvenile cannot be put to death. They can be tried as an adult, but they cannot receive the death penalty.
If there was such a thing, I would be against it because juveniles tend to get in trouble because they have bad home lives, peer pressure, or they don't have good adult supervision. I don't think they should be put to death for it. That is insanity.
I used to work in a criminal defense law firm and I worked on juvenile cases. We dealt with juveniles who were charged with sexual assault, murder, and burglaries. Never once did I think any of them deserved the death penalty.
2007-02-08 09:15:15 · answer #4 · answered by Lisa S 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If not the death penalty for them, then life in prison with no chance of parole. Taking another life IS giving the death penalty to the victim. I am FOR keeping ruthless killers, regardless of age, out of the public.
I wouldn't protest the death penalty, if there were no other way to keep the kid off the street... I would prefer he or she got life without parole.
2007-02-08 09:07:29 · answer #5 · answered by scruffycat 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm going to get blasted - In some cases, I am for the death penalty for older juvies. There are some criminals that are so beyond any rehabilitation and beyond any feeling. Someone that brutally kills a child, just because they are there should forfeit their life.
2007-02-08 09:05:15 · answer #6 · answered by Dizney 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes, if the juvenile commits a capital offense then he/she should pay the costs.
2007-02-14 08:48:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would depend on the crime commited, evidence of brutality, and how old the juvenile is...it would definitely be a case by case basis (extenuating circumstances).
2007-02-08 10:50:27 · answer #8 · answered by War Veteran 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
for 100%
2007-02-08 09:48:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think that governement power over its citizens should be liimited in certain ways in order to preserve freedom from tyranny. One of those limits should be that the government should not have the power to kill citizens.
2007-02-08 09:03:37 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
If the kid intentionally killed someone then yes. Why should our tax money go to supporting their *** for the rest of their lives in jail?
2007-02-08 09:19:14 · answer #11 · answered by Naru 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋