Replies

So is everyone else. But there are plenty of protections, the judge, jury, appellate judges and gov and POTUS that can all stop an execution. Only the truly heinous teens will die. I think the Washington sniper is one case where the teen should die. His defense is arguing that the older guy had undue influence but hunting people like geese on multiple occasions and over an extended period of time and bragging about it is too far over the line. Juries and judges are pretty fair. Let them look at the evidence and decide.

Ok, here's what troubles me about this. If society deems minors as incapable of executing sufficient judgement to drink, serve in the military, drive alone, vote, etc. Then how can we accept that they should be capable of sufficient judgement in instances that can get them executed?

If we want to protect them from themselves with regard to the activities that I listed, then how do we then say that they should be subject to execution? If they lack the maturity to do everything I list, then how do they have the maturity to understand the impact of their crimes?

Seems to me that our society needs to be consistent here.

There is nothing in the Constitution about age being a requirement for being found guilty of murder and of being put to death. The Virginia sniper is now off the hook, he will play ball, read books, watch television, listen to radio, study and make a life for himself in prison waiting for some left-wing goodie two shoes to finally let him out. The Alabama pig who killed his father, his father’s girlfriend and her two little girls age 7 (by cutting her throat) and 9 (by repeated stabbings) is now free to live his life at the expense of the working people in this country. If they go bad they need to be eliminated from using our oxygen.

If society deems minors as incapable of executing sufficient judgement to drink, serve in the military, drive alone, vote, etc. Then how can we accept that they should be capable of sufficient judgement in instances that can get them executed?

There are lots of teens capable of driving, serving in the miltary, etc. We just do not want to spend the time and money to figure out who is capable and who is not. In the case of the death penalty, we spend the necessary resources to decide who is ellibible and who is not.

If we needed a trial by jury for every kid who wanted to drink, drive or serve in the miltary, we would be bankrupt. But for the occasional, heinous teen killer, we can spend the money, and time to do the job right.

If we want to protect them from themselves with regard to the activities that I listed, then how do we then say that they should be subject to execution?

In general, it's not a question of protecting them from themselves, but rather one of protecting society from their irresponsibility.