2007-05-03 04:40:14 · 15 answers · asked by Elisa O 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I disagree if a child is like 13 14 and commits some horrid murders then yes they should be put to death
2007-05-03 04:58:19 · answer #1 · answered by Big Daddy R 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the maximum sentence for a child committing a crime is Life.
2007-05-03 11:48:23 · answer #2 · answered by Infinite Resistance Ω 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
At what age do they stop being a child? I agree that at a certain age they shouldn't receive the death penalty but once they get into the upper teens then they are able to understand the consequences better and are therefore more responsible.
2007-05-03 11:46:36 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course not. A child's brain does not have the capability to completely understand the consequences of their actions, proven fact.
I don't believe in the death penalty for adults either, but I do advocate them living a miserable life in prison with absolutely no privileges whatsoever until death.
2007-05-03 11:48:47 · answer #4 · answered by leslie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In my view, this would depend on the individual circumstance (ie, the age of the child, what they did & how heinous it was, mitigating circumstances, etc).
If a 15 year old with no abuse or medical issues murdered his mom, father, 2 year old sister, 10 year old brother and 13 year old sister with a gun & knife and had planned it out would this be heinous enough? I would say yes.
On the other hand, if a 13 year old that had been abused for years accidentally killed his/her abuser during a confrontation would this be enough? I would say no.
2007-05-03 11:54:16 · answer #5 · answered by InReality01 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I disagree.........depending on the crime!!!!
Killing regardless of how young you were then............should not be let go as a small crime because other people will kill knowing they won't die and have a chance to do it again in the future.................
Criminals do not learn because the consequences they receive in this country are not as bad as the ones other criminals get in other countries!!
Criminals here do what they please and the only though thing they have is dealing with other criminals in the system other than that the system is too easy............thank god for all the gangs and psycho that also get caught and live in jail!!!!!
2007-05-03 11:47:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on how you define child.
If you define child as a person under the age of 12, I can agree.
However some folks stretch the definition of child to include gangbangers in their early 20's. Those children I have no problem seeing them get the needle.
2007-05-03 11:46:28 · answer #7 · answered by Doc Hudson 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Someone facing the death penalty for the death of another.... so who switches the switch or pulls the leaver..... surely they as just as guilty of murder.
I do not agree with the death penalty. Its a barbaric method.
Life imprisonment.......... the memory is long, and freedom is a dream without four walls. In prison, you cannot escape your conscience.
2007-05-03 11:55:20 · answer #8 · answered by essex_reject77 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on your deffinition of child. A minor is anyone under the age of 18. So if a 17 year old ties his parents up and lights them on fire, I would say that kid is beyond help. It depends on the age of the child.
2007-05-03 11:47:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bravo.... So what the heck is your question?????
As Jeff Spicoli said in "Fast Times at Ridgemont High", "People on Ludes should not Drive!"......
Weren't the Columbine dudes minors???
Wouldn't mind seeing them fry...................
2007-05-03 11:46:22 · answer #10 · answered by Ken C 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋