How about if an 11 year old killed someone--would you say the same thing?
No, because he's just a kid, he can't think like an adult and understand what he did. No one wants to execute 11 year olds.
So, where do we draw the line? It seems like people want to draw the line below 18. Maybe 14? Well, tough. 18 as an age of consent is enshrined in our laws. If a 15 year old girl has sex with her 30 year old gym teacher, she's a child victim and the man is headed for jail, but if she commits a crime, she's an adult, equivalent to the 30 year old. It seems like there's a disparity here and we need to err on the side of caution before the age of consent is lowered to 14.
And let's not get started on what "14 year olds are really adults and should pay the price for their crimes" would mean to parental notification laws for killing babies.
If they get married first, no crime is committed. See the logic?
This is a question that should be debated and decided in state legislatures, not short-circuited by five life-tenured liberals in the Supreme Court.
No state is likely to approve capital punishment for 11 year old killers. But such issues are best resolved at the state level by the elected representatives of the people. Or should be.
We have judges and juries and state legislatures to handle that.
NRO's Corner has an excerpt of Scalia's dissent that discusses parental notification laws in this context...although to make the opposite arguement that you are making...
If he killed brutally and premeditatedly, he should be killed. Then his parents should be either killed or imprisoned as accesories to the murder. They failed in their duty to raise a child and not an animal.
No, because he's just a kid, he can't think like an adult and understand what he did. No one wants to execute 11 year olds.
I've met plenty of 11 year olds who were adult enough in their thinking to do evil. They are no longer 'just a kid'