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

Why did they do that by the way?

 

I seem to remember reading somewhere at the time that one of them said they "did it because they were bored" or something like that. I think it was in the Independent.

 

because they were bored?? that just stupid... they must have been influenced by something... a tv show or something? maybe someone? i mean not even me would do something like that...

 

No, don't pin the blame on television or anything.

The thing is, is that kids are reckless. Especially boys, I know a lot of the little boys I knew had behavior that they liked to break things and experiment to break things.

Like teens in Edmonton trespassed in someone's house and put the owner's cat in the microwave and killed it. Also there are cases of teens beating up bus drivers and a bunch of others.

It's a generalization though don't get me wrong, in no way I'm saying that all kids are reckless. Just some kids are more aggressive and reckless than others.

 

The blame probably rests at the door of the people responsible for their upbringing (parents, teachers, priests, etc.). Television cannot be blamed as it is not capable of independent thought, you might as well blame the stones they used to do the deed...

 

i still do think they had some sort of a problem..... must have been emotional or something...

 

NOO!!!
maybe the parents should be penalised with death if the kid poses serious crimes

 

Why?

 

no they shouldnt, although the parents should be blamed for not raising them properly... they should no be the one being peanlised

 

The question here is:
Was the person aware of their actions at the time of the muder?

 

in the case of jimmy, they said that the two kids were aware of what they were doing and they chose to do that.... even thought tha tmight be true, the death peantly should not still be given to them... but rather alife imprisonment sentence

 

That makes sense

 

err......yes, i agree. If you killed someone you should be put to death....it is the law of equivilent exchange.

 

that is not equivalent exchange.....

 

Even though a person killed, they still deserve to live unless that person is actually a large problem to public.

What if that person is at a young age...let's say 6.
Would that child be killed even though he/she doesn't know what he/she's doing?

 

in some cases like the one with jimmy they knew what they were doing, or atleast what i read.... said so.... but even still they do not deserve to die... since i strongly think its a prob that led them to do that

 

They should be put in a deathrow
or at least until theyre "decent"

 

I strongly believe that no one under the age of 20 should be put to death if they have taken a life or comitted a bad crime.
Unless they have killed a LARGE number of people, or raped a large number of people intentionally.

I believe that people do have the capability to change, especially if they are young because I believe that everyone has a conscience.
What gives us the right to take away a life, even if someone else has taken a life???

If they re-commit murder or another bad crime, then they should be put to a life sentence or prison for a really long time.
But I think that if they stay in jail long enough, they will be able to reflect upon their actions and themselves and they will begin to understand that what they did was wrong.

Of course this may not be the case and there are many flaws in my argument,
But is it really right for us to decide who should live and who should die?
It is a human life after all that we would end.

But if a person killed like 5 people and above intentionally, then yes I agree with the death penalty.

I agree with this guy

This person is on the right track too