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

true but if it was an accident like if the person hit ran out in front of the car than there should be a exception.

 

i dont really get what you mean by that..... example?

 

well if the person hit by the car tried to test their luck by running across the road on a street with hevy traffic then the driver should not suffer the consequence but if the driver was DUI then take away their right to drive.

by the way iv read the manual for my chair and it says don't drink any alcohol (or something like that i don't remember)

 

IF you are able to prove that (good luck in that), then naturally its not the driver's fault. Mine is only apply to reckless driver, like driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol, overworked driver (who half asleep while driving) or driver who take part in street racing and so on.

 

This example is valid & the Driver (presuming he/she is indeed 100% sober at moment the incident) should be pardoned or atleast be penalized to aid with the victim's hospitalization (or burial if the victim died). But then again here's another scenario:

Depending on what the driver does AFTER the hit & run accident he can either be penalized heavily or not.

If he immediately stops his vehicle to help out the victim, then he can be credited for that, but if does not stop & speeds off, then that's not good. Also on the victim's end of the story, IF he knowingly knows the road he was going to try to cross is a road which doesn't allow pedestrian crossing, then he has commited a road safety violation & that could be bad, but if the road was available for pedestrian crossing then that could be taken into consideration.

 

Its 'A hit and run' out of his car to help out the victim

 

Speaking of Hit & Run incidents, there were instances here involving big rigs like buses & 18 & 22-wheeler trucks whose drivers ACTUALLY mow down, as in they don't ever stop to help out the victim or worse they'd back up & really crush, a victim who knowing cross main roads or highways that aren't really meant for pedestrians to cross. Why? So they can avoid the hassle of being tried & get caught. And if they do get caught, they'd use the fact that the road was not for people to cross anyway as their defense.

 

it doesnt matter how old they, if they took someones life they dont deserve to live. in my opinion anyway

 

im not sure if this were a true story or not, a teacher of mine told a story about a kid addicted to t.v. or was it video games. anyway when the kids mom asked that he fetch the knife, the kid "out of his obsession" with t.v./videogames threw the the knife towards his mother to save time.

Question: was the kid at fault? or was it the fault of the parent for not "educating" the kid properly?

 

Assuming this debate isn't a continuation of the Death Penalty debate, and also assuming that the death penalty being legal is the status quo, then NO.
There should be very severe penalties for murder and/or manslaughter. The culpability and consciousness of a person committing those actions need to be taken in consideration, though, whatever age they may be. In my opinion, it is more feasible and accountable for the current laws to use age as a limit for punishment. Not saying that it is a perfect system; there has been numerous accounts of children who fully understand and comprehend the crimes they did and should therefore be fully accountable, but somehow "fell through the cracks", as someone else said. Until we can come up with a better way (aka a method to measure culpability and accountability) this is what we've got.

BTW, I find it disturbing when people just as easily say "KILL THEM ALL", or "die a brutal death". It's actually a serious matter -.-

 

Damn guys, your posts were something not considering the consequences of the death penalty itself.
The murderer does have a life. Considering that into matter could you easily impose death penalty to someone? Look the big picture. A murderer killed someone. As for his/her punishment, considering that he/she was aware of what he/she has done, you guys easily said that death penalty is the proper punishment. There could be so many excuses why the murder was committed. Even if it was intentional you can't just impose a death penalty. There are many consideration in a court. Even when a death penalty was the verdict, the murderer could bring his/her case into the supreme court and the death penalty could be canceled. Even, a murder and a mutilated murder considered differently.

Even with a kid logic, when he/she though that someone have annoyed him/her then killed the annoying person, you can't say that the kid was aware of what he/she had done. And thus the kid can't easily punished by a death penalty. I believe every single country take age into consideration in a different way.

People usually judge cases by emotion, and therefore they easily say: "Just give him/her a death penalty". They just know that the murderer had committed a murder or even mutilated the person he/she killed.

Guys my point is: a death penalty is a severe and a serious punishment. It takes so many things into consideration. Again, you cannot easily impose a death penalty into a person.

 

i think that the death penalty should be carried out to a person of any age.. simply because since they commit the crime it shows that they are a potential harm to society. when sumone does something, whether a kid or not, they are aware of the consequences weather good or bad, therefore it mean that they were prepared to face it because if they didn't want to be punished they wont have don't that. besides. which 1o year old child would kill there parents, kill any one.. this show that this is a monster that society is grooming if the are to let that child be spared.. i would not go kill sum1 just because i don't like them or i am jealous of them or that dun me something wrong because know that there are serious consequences to this action.. and child who does that should face the death penalty... if society doesn't put him to death and the spare him it shows that they are willing to harbor an ill act and shows that the are taking the risk of themselves gettin hurt

 

What if the person did not have a choice?? out of fright?
and Who are you to judge or choose whether someone should life or die?

 

who said that they wont have a choice, every one has a chocie........ i am not juding, since the child is a potential murder or a murder since he killed sum one it show taht he isa total and complete menace to society.. gaving hime the death penalty is just a ways of protecting your self and othe person that care 4.. or u prefere to spare this wicked act \, cover up under the cold blanket, and put your loved ones at risk

 

What about just putting him behind bars?? why choosing to kill him? why play "God"??? and how did you know he had a choice? were you there? did you live his life?

 

putiting him behind bars is jus as being dead, especiall if he has to be in a prison in guyana... all about what i have hear about this local prison i would prefere death than life in prision

 

Well this is not about your country this is about the whole general discussion of it.... and he should not be put to death..!!

 

would you allow in to serve his time, come out of jail and commit other crimes, there is a high possiblitly of him doin that because he would think that the world hastes him and sometime people would take advantage of him in jail so when he comes out he would want to get bac at all humans.. who knows, h migh go on a killing rampage or killing spree.. might come at your door.. watch out!!!!!!!!!!!

 

most likely he would get a life in prison sentence....