be tried as an adult if the crime fits. At what point should the death pently be place on the teen. What are your veiws on this. I just saw where another teen was place on death row.
2007-07-07 14:20:37 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
You wanna do crap like Columbine? Where you plan it, execute it....you KNOW what it is to end a life and you feel like doing it anyway....not only should you die, I'll flip the switch on your sorry asss for free.
2007-07-07 14:29:26 · answer #1 · answered by Atavacron 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If the crime is fitting for the death penalty, and the teenager is old enough to know right from wrong, (in my opinion, most if not all teenagers are) then the teenager should be tried for the possiblity of the death penalty. Age shouldn't be a safety net for teenagers who obviously know what is acceptable and what is not.
2007-07-07 21:30:09 · answer #2 · answered by Carly 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't think death penalty should be placed on anyone. But if you're just talking about teens, i reckon they shouldn't have death penalty, because most of the time they are pressure into doing the things they did, from their peers. I mean, what would an innocent teen do if day in day out, his friends told him he was a loser for not doing drugs? Or a teen girl's so called 'friends' said that she was a wimp for not bashing up migrants or going underage to pubs and nightclubs? So no, definitely no death penalty for them.
Unless of course, they KNEW what they did could result in death penalty. Then yes, because they knew what could happen but did it anyway.
2007-07-07 21:26:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think that if it can be shown that the teenager planned the murder and had time to think about it before action was taken, the teenager should be tried as an adult, unless it could be proven that the murder was in reaction to abuse. It would depend on the facts. But, in most cases, no a teenager should not be tried as an adult. It has been shown that a person's brain does not mature in the areas of determining right from wrong until after the teenage years. They should not drive for this same reason until they are at least 17.
2007-07-07 21:29:44 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
West Palm each, Fl., June 18th, 2007. at least ten "kids" broke into the home of a woman and her 12 year old son. They beat them, gang raped her and then forced her son to have sex with her (his mother) and when all was said and done, they poured cleaning solvents in the eyes of the 12 year old. As of yesterday, two boys, ages 14 and 16 have been arrested. I know that kids will do whatever they're going to do regardless of their up bringing. But really, what's the likelihood of rehabilitation for animals such as these? From where do they learn this sort of behavior? It used to be that the parents were held legally responsible for the actions of their children. The Bible (from which the law of our land is based) calls for death in cases less violent than this -- see Leviticus. I am the father of three. It is my responsiblity to you and my children to raise them to know the difference between right and wrong AND to be strong enough to stand up when it's appropriate. Each case should be tried on its own merrit and the parents too, should be held accountable. As for the case in West Palm Beach, the father of one of the two is claiming his son would NEVER do such a thing. Yet, the evidence is clear, he did.
I don't like the death penalty. As a deterent, it isn't working. But I believe in the Bible and as much as the liberals of this world hate me for it, this is how I've raised my kids. Perhaps if those boys had been raised believing as well, a mother and her son would not have had their lives destroyed. So much for Love thy God and Love thy neighbor. Stone them.
2007-07-07 21:47:49 · answer #5 · answered by Doc 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They should be tried as an adult if they are at least 17 in my opinion. If a teenager does such a heinous crime that it would warrant the death penalty, chances are he/she is useless to society anyway.
2007-07-07 21:37:33 · answer #6 · answered by Sheila E 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If a teenager commits a crime that warrants the death penalty then they should get the death penalty.
2007-07-07 21:25:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well although I support Death Penalty I am against executing Juveniles under the age of 16.
16 should in my opinion be the minimum age of execution.
2007-07-07 21:26:17 · answer #8 · answered by MrCool1978 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i do not know, but I think that if the crime was meticulously planed yes i think the death penalty should be given
2007-07-07 21:28:11 · answer #9 · answered by alan m 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the death penalty is unnecessary and unethical. NO ONE has the right to murder! it is also a fact that it is way less expensive to keep a prisoner under the highest security in jail compared to administering the death penalty. how can we make rules that say murder is illegal and then murder people as a punishment?
2007-07-07 21:32:10 · answer #10 · answered by catch me if u can ;) 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋