Should the death penalty be applied to murderers of all ages?

Say if a 10 year old killed his parents because he could not play his video game should the death penalty be applied to him? Or for anyone any age that has taken someones life. Especially kids under 15

I honestly believe if any aged person kills another person they should be put to death. "unless out of self defense for their life and only if they had to kill them"

Murder is not acceptable no matter what age you are or who you are. You have no right to stay living on this earth if you take a life of another I really don't care if its a child people say they don't understand the consequence of murder or what they have done. I see that as no excuse to allow someone to get away with murder.

So what do you think should the death penalty be applied to murderers of all ages?

 

Murder, I actually have to say yes. Manslaughter.... no... There should be a defined difference, too.

And perhaps not the death penalty, but there should be very strict penalitys. It will be a sad day when my country is caught killing children.

 

Theres a difference, if a 15year old accidentally hits some one with a car then he'll be charged, and will no doubt regret the incident for the rest of his life, death penalty would be too harsh in such a case.

However if a 15 year old stabs his friend to death just for kicks then shit give him the chair. Having said that it should be 100% sure that he is guilty, it wouldnt be the first time an innocent has been hung.

 

I would have to agree with Almo.
Sometimes like hitting someone with a car, accidental discharge of a firearm, work related accident, things of that nature is not something that you intended to do.
Now if it's something that was pre-meditated or deliberate, then HEAVY laws should be slammed down no matter the age.

 

I think murder on purpose (with motif and all) should give a painful and torturing death penalty and be broadcast live on television to set an example for the rest.

murder by accident (indirectly) should be punish accordingly, example if someone drive a car and accidentally murder a side walker, that driver should be ban from driving a motorized vehicle of any form for the rest of his\her life.

 

No. I will be the first to disagree with this. If a 15 year old murders somebody, they will be tried fairly in a court of law because they are old enough to appreciate the consequences of their actions. Provided of course that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that he is sane, not under the influence bla bla bla (elements of a crime).

But if a 8 or even 10 year murders his parents for not letting him play video games, he cannot be sentenced to death. The kid does not understand the consequences of his actions. He is too young to realise the effect it will have on him and for that reason it is not allowed in law to sentence someone like that to death. Sure, they will probably be sent to juvenile institution and some sort of psychological rehabilitation, but it's stupid to want them to die for something they do not understand. A judge will then eventually have to decide whether they are fit to reenter society once they are of age.

But like I said, if you're 15 and you dissect your friends face in his sleep, then yeah, you should probably die a brutal death.

 

I said that, more or less. Manslaughter = unintentional killing, right?

 

"Manslaughter is a legal term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder.

The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind. This is particularly true within the law of homicide, where murder requires either the intent to kill—a state of mind called malice—or malice aforethought, which may involve an unintentional killing, but with a willful disregard for life.

Manslaughter is usually broken down into two distinct categories: voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter."

 

I think we should first determine the person to be blamed. I find it too biased to judge children because their actions are just representations of parenting. However if they are old enough to think for themselves, I say KILL THEM ALL!

 

It's a tough question.

Society functions when there is law, like it or not. Through acquiescing to societal laws, we then are allowed to function and contribute within that society. However, as history as shown us (yes, weasel words, but do you really want me to source material that is self-evident in a forum debate?), societal values change over time and with those changing values there is a reevaluation of the laws that govern that society.

To quote Schopenhauer:

I think that there should be a reevaluation of how we not only enforce law, but whether minors under the current legal system(s) of a nation are in fact culpable for their actions, instead of defaulting to the stock line that "they are minors and therefore can not be held responsible for their actions". I believe that it's a gross logical fallacy to assume that persons under a certain age are considered incapable of weighing the gravity of a crime they commit, due merely to age.

Give them psych tests & if they are found to be aware & culpable, they should be sentenced like adults with sufficient leniency given (because of the fact that they are young & may well have made one or several grave errors of judgement). Capital punishment is an option that should be reserved for true monsters (for example, Ted Bundy), but not used wholesale as it is in some parts of the world. Prison sure as hell isn't true rehabilitation; it is a punishment. But it doesn't need to be a place of torture, either. Many people that are sent to prison can become useful members of a society, given the tools.

Finally, one case where I feel that they should have been in prison for far longer than what transpired was the Bolger case in the UK (link to the Wikipedia article here). 8 years, then paroled under new identities. IMO, they seemed very culpable, and the fact that they were allowed to re-enter society after such acts sends a chill up my spine and sends out the wrong message to the public, but that's just my view.

Cheers, thanks for reading.

 

Depends on the situation, that said if there is any leeway then people who actualy kill people for fun will somehow try and slide into that gap.

It's a tough call, if people did get killed i wouldn't make it something secret and secluded like an electric chair i do a beheading in the centre of town. That way people see it and think "Holy shit" hopefully in turn crime will go down and there will be less idiots roming the streets.

So in answer to your question there should be a MINOR amount of leeway to those who "accidentaly" killed someone but yeah bring the death penatly back to the UK.

 

At first glance my opinion may sound stupid, but think about it.

If a person (child/minor/whatever) is capable of killing another person, then he should carry the consequences despite his age. I mean, if you're able to stab someone to death, then you are responsible for your actions and should be judged most harshly.

But sending people to prison is more of a gift then punishment to them. It's like this in my country: You murder someone, you get sent to prison. Prisons have more luxury, than homes of some poor people. You can study ANYTHING in prison, get a degree and all for FREE( taxpayer's money).
Plus you are fed a warm meal three times a day, you get clothes and everything for free.

A normal person has to pay for food, clothes, entertainment, education etc... while these bastards get the stuff for for free.

And there have been cases of convicts getting out of prison early, due to good behaviour, and then they killed again.

It would be very economical to just kill off these "vermin" aswell.

About public executions: I'm not sure if they would make an impact in the present time (although if we had an Ivan the Impaler guy ruling our country). But i think it would limit the criminality to some extent.

 

I dont think thats justifiable.

When we get bitten by a dog, do we blame the dog or the owner?
When a baby cries out loud in the middle of the night, do we scold it or comfort it?

Kids are dumb when it comes to morals, so its difficult to blame them for their actions. Its probably one of the reasons why they send them to juvy instead of jail.

 

@Grim: Are you really sure just because an 8 year old killed his parents because he wasn't allowed to play his videogame didn't envolved any form of logical thinking by the child?

The motive is there:

"I'll kill you because you won't let me play my game" - that's pretty much meditated though it might not be "good" enough for an adult. You must not look down on a child with your own perspective as an adult, you must look at it in his point of view. Sure he "might" not be thinking of the repercussions at the time of the incident, but tell me, does every adult criminal ever do as they do the crime? No, most of the time they're savoring how they got one up on their victim & only think of the repercussions after, either after being caught or having their guilt creep up on them some time later, if they still have a conscience & haven't been caught, yet.

The only age group you can really say that "might" not have the capacity to meditate on something are from the ages 2 to 5, or the toddler years, but as soon as a kid gets to second or third grade you can expect them to really start thinking about things.

 

In my opinion I don't think death penalty is a harsh punishment. So you scare the idiot for a while but one flick of the switch and hes gone. He doesn't learn anything. Sure,you may use him as an example to a few others but then most criminals for instance those on drugs rather risk death than not getting a "fix".

 

Criminals only reflect on their crimes when they get behind bars, but if they finally served their sentence & were released there is a slim chance they might do the same thing. I know it's harsh, but putting them down might be the only way to end their actions, of course this should only apply to the worst ones.

 

I know they might still pose a threat to society. I was thinking maybe life sentence or something.

 

Life sentence is actually a pretty good alternative to death penalty, but the problem resides with how large your country/Area's penitentiary facility is, if you have a big enough facility why not, but for some who already has an overcrowded facility it might not work, sample enough are my country's correctional facilities which are way over crowded, under staffed & those few staff that remain, some of them are corrupt & can be bought so some convicts can easily get lose.

 

ok now if it was an accident and the driver was paralyzed and needs an electric wheel chair then it wont be fair, because im disabled and need to use a wheel chair for the rest of my life and i really hate it when i cannot get around places, now just think if you were able to get around using an electric wheel chair but instead you had someone push you everywhere it would be horrible.

 

well people should think of that before they drive recklessly, you might loss the ability to walk for the rest of your life, on the other hand, that guy you just hit loss his life, what if that guy is a single parent, who would take care of his child? they way i see it, its fair.