Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Punishment for children who murder?

johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 1:34:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
How should a child under the age of 17 be punished for murder with intent to kill?

Should the punishment be the same for a child as it is for an adult?
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 2:39:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Depends on the age and the way it was committed.

I would rather a seventeen year old who tortured and then killed a child be tried as an adult, but would not want a twelve year old who shot their sexually abusive father to be tried the same way.
kfc
ishallannoyyo
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 2:57:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 1:34:23 PM, johnlubba wrote:
How should a child under the age of 17 be punished for murder with intent to kill?

Completely depends on the circumstances, attitude of the offender, and seriousness of the crime.


Should the punishment be the same for a child as it is for an adult?

Depends.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 2:38:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 1:34:23 PM, johnlubba wrote:
How should a child under the age of 17 be punished for murder with intent to kill?
Depends on the child and their culpubility. For example, generally, a 17-year-old knows it's wrong and should know better to hit someone intentionally with a brick because they are mad at them. Does a seven-yr-old understand the consequences of his rash behavior?

Should the punishment be the same for a child as it is for an adult?
If culpubility is equal, then yes.
For example, a really mature 16 year old is more deserving of a sentence than a retarded adult.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 2:40:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 2:39:04 PM, Koopin wrote:
Depends on the age and the way it was committed.

I would rather a seventeen year old who tortured and then killed a child be tried as an adult, but would not want a twelve year old who shot their sexually abusive father to be tried the same way.

The question is: should a 17-year-old and a 12-year-old be treated the same if they totured then killed a child? Does age solely mitigate the punishment?
My work here is, finally, done.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 2:51:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 2:40:34 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/2/2013 2:39:04 PM, Koopin wrote:
Depends on the age and the way it was committed.

I would rather a seventeen year old who tortured and then killed a child be tried as an adult, but would not want a twelve year old who shot their sexually abusive father to be tried the same way.

The question is: should a 17-year-old and a 12-year-old be treated the same if they totured then killed a child? Does age solely mitigate the punishment?

Unless there is mental issues, no.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 3:03:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 2:51:49 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/3/2013 2:40:34 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/2/2013 2:39:04 PM, Koopin wrote:
Depends on the age and the way it was committed.

I would rather a seventeen year old who tortured and then killed a child be tried as an adult, but would not want a twelve year old who shot their sexually abusive father to be tried the same way.

The question is: should a 17-year-old and a 12-year-old be treated the same if they totured then killed a child? Does age solely mitigate the punishment?

Unless there is mental issues, no.

Does mental cognition (not sure if this is the right term) meet this criteria?
Obviously, a 17-year-old should be more smart, knowledgeable, intelligent, worldly, compassionate, understanding, etc. than a 12-year-old.

It sounds like your answer is they should be treated as equal, as long as they are both "aware" of what they were doing. Obviously, the lower in age, the lower in "awareness", but age alone is not the factor. I would agree.
My work here is, finally, done.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 8:43:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 2:39:04 PM, Koopin wrote:
Depends on the age and the way it was committed.

I would rather a seventeen year old who tortured and then killed a child be tried as an adult, but would not want a twelve year old who shot their sexually abusive father to be tried the same way.

http://www.thesun.co.uk...
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 11:07:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 9:15:50 AM, CarefulNow wrote:
None.

I mean, eliminate that part of taxation destined for specifically harming the offender, whether purely for its own sake or backed by a dubious deterrence rationalization, and replace it with compensation of victims and their families, communities, etc., payed for partly by the offender and partly by taxation of the known contributors to the offense. Some of the compensation should be spent on preventive measures, and that may include prison or even death. But the extant houses of punishment breed criminality and accustom criminals to the very institutions meant to deter them. Lethal injection is worse still, as its expensive excess of pain clearly fails as a deterrent (just look at prisoners' opposition to recent initiatives to commute death sentences to life) and succeeds only in eliminating the possibility of useful exoneration.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 12:51:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 10:52:25 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/3/2013 9:15:50 AM, CarefulNow wrote:
None.

Stupid fking troll

Sorry I had an outburst.
SmittyISaGODirl
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 7:42:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If they are not taught the value of life by their Parents, then I think the parents of said child should be prosecuted. 99% of children committing murder under the age of 17 don't have good parents. If you choose to bring a child into this world, you are solely responsible for teaching them right from wrong. Bad parenting results in these instances.
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 10:05:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 1:34:23 PM, johnlubba wrote:
How should a child under the age of 17 be punished for murder with intent to kill?

I'm guessing what you really want to know is "how should a child who, in their commission of a murder, formed an intent to kill, be punished?"


Should the punishment be the same for a child as it is for an adult?

Society delineates childhood and adulthood in what functions as a pretty arbitrary metric. Usually, it's 18.

As a society we try to develop rules, laws for ordering human behavior. Adherence to those rules is the foundation of civil society and the indication of the functioning of the rule of law. That said, with the question of a 17 year old violating those rules, we ask a question of wether or not those rules should uniformly apply in this case as in all cases? To put it more clearly, is there something unique about adolescence that ought to exclude it from the scope of and/or the full force of the law? I would argue that there is.

Some judges, especially in the American south, have no problem sending even a 13 year old to prison for the rest of their lives who commit first degree murder because they believe that a child of that age is capable of understanding the wrongness of their actions. Accountability, then, if used as a metric, is indicated by the subject's recognition of the difference between right and wrong. I would argue that's absurd, because the gravity of life and death to an adolescent (anyone who is under the age of about 21 or so) is not at all similar to what it would be to a 40 year old. That said, the counterargument is to propose that there is a threshold of moral understanding that, when reached, makes a person accountable for their actions. This is an implicit tradition in English common law and a tradition that draws its roots in western society, actually, to the bible. While yes, it is appropriate that a threshold be recognized, the questions I ask are (1) how likely is it that the kid will kill again -especially after therapy and (2) even before that, why did the kid kill to begin with. Essentially, what were the circumstances which led to this most undesirable outcome?

If the youth committed murder in the first degree, I would take into consideration if it was a crime of passion, if there was a 'good' reason, etc. My final appeal though would take into consideration the fact that a kid has, at least in theory, their whole life ahead of them where they either might be able to adjust to society if given the opportunity, or they would remain in prison and detract from society if kept in prison. The idea, however, of capital punishment for a kid, no matter how bad their offense, is something that I would never even consider. That said, there are others in the legal field who disagree with me.
Tsar of DDO
thett3
Posts: 14,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 10:18:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 1:34:23 PM, johnlubba wrote:
How should a child under the age of 17 be punished for murder with intent to kill?


Should the punishment be the same for a child as it is for an adult?

If it's clear that they knew the consequences of the action (aka they are competent) then death. Of course in most cases of actual children (not teenagers) murdering there are probably extenuating circumstances
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 10:25:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 8:58:27 AM, drafterman wrote:
Grounded for a week with NO TV.

haha

YWV's post is interesting. However, I think they should be tried like everyone else. Most people who murder don't actually get life in Canada, and a life sentence is something like 20 years (I think). Like any other trial, you would consider the circumstances and whether it was self-defense (like battered wife syndrome) or whatnot.

If we're going with the notion that their brains aren't fully developed, then why be tried as an adult at 18 and not 25?
yang.
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 10:50:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 10:25:20 PM, tulle wrote:
At 1/3/2013 8:58:27 AM, drafterman wrote:
Grounded for a week with NO TV.

haha

YWV's post is interesting. However, I think they should be tried like everyone else. Most people who murder don't actually get life in Canada, and a life sentence is something like 20 years (I think). Like any other trial, you would consider the circumstances and whether it was self-defense (like battered wife syndrome) or whatnot.

I agree.

If we're going with the notion that their brains aren't fully developed, then why be tried as an adult at 18 and not 25?

I don't think I can give you a really good answer there. It's an arbitrary metric at best.
Tsar of DDO
RationalMadman
Posts: 354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 11:00:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It should not be the same punishment if the parents' irresponsibility is the cause of gaining the weaponry.

If the child used their own resources and tactics of murder totally unpreventable by parental control, the child should be given a merciful death by injection.
The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

We didn't fight our way to the top of the food chain to be f***ng vegetarians.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 11:17:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 8:58:27 AM, drafterman wrote:
Grounded for a week with NO TV.

Good lord man! Why don't we just bring back the guillotine while we're at it!
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 11:28:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
@YYW---lol I got your username so wrong :/

Oh okay, I thought your conclusion was that they shouldn't be tried as an adult but I guess that was a misread on my part.
yang.
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 11:32:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 11:28:36 PM, tulle wrote:
@YYW---lol I got your username so wrong :/

Oh okay, I thought your conclusion was that they shouldn't be tried as an adult but I guess that was a misread on my part.

Actually, I realize my wording---"tried like everyone else"---was ambiguous. I meant tried like an adult, being a child not a circumstance to be taken into consideration, if that clears that up.
yang.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2013 11:32:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 1:34:23 PM, johnlubba wrote:
How should a child under the age of 17 be punished for murder with intent to kill?


Should the punishment be the same for a child as it is for an adult?

I think there should be a set age. Maturity is the most important factor and there is an age where you just can't let a child take balme. A 17 year old I would say, if he is shown to be mature enough, should be tried as an adult. The age I would cut it off at is, 12. But once again, maturity level is key.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2013 3:37:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/4/2013 11:32:01 AM, Df0512 wrote:
I think there should be a set age. Maturity is the most important factor and there is an age where you just can't let a child take balme. A 17 year old I would say, if he is shown to be mature enough, should be tried as an adult. The age I would cut it off at is, 12. But once again, maturity level is key.

But every 17-year-old was once a 12-year-old. If environmental factors are less to blame in the case of the 17-year-old, it's only because the 17-year-old's behavior is in part caused by his own 12-to-16-year-old behavior, and then we're back where we started. What did Einstein say about the definition of insanity? As long as the US insists on treating crime legally, moralistically, punitively, it will be dealing with an excess of it.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2013 4:47:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 7:42:16 PM, SmittyISaGODirl wrote:
If they are not taught the value of life by their Parents, then I think the parents of said child should be prosecuted. 99% of children committing murder under the age of 17 don't have good parents.

How about adults committing murder? They did have good parents? Don't be nervous; take your pointless, vengeance-based approach to its logical conclusion.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2013 10:12:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
But every 17-year-old was once a 12-year-old. If environmental factors are less to blame in the case of the 17-year-old, it's only because the 17-year-old's behavior is in part caused by his own 12-to-16-year-old behavior, and then we're back where we started. What did Einstein say about the definition of insanity? As long as the US insists on treating crime legally, moralistically, punitively, it will be dealing with an excess of it.

Well I did say maturity is key. Psychological factors included. I wouldn't charge a 13 year old with murder if I didn't think he/she was mature enough to understand what they did. If we want to let environmental factors come in to play, that argumentation can b made for any criminal. We are all products of our environmental. I would say 13 is a good age where kids should have some type of understanding of there actions.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2013 3:45:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 10:05:39 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/2/2013 1:34:23 PM, johnlubba wrote:
How should a child under the age of 17 be punished for murder with intent to kill?

I'm guessing what you really want to know is "how should a child who, in their commission of a murder, formed an intent to kill, be punished?"


Should the punishment be the same for a child as it is for an adult?

Society delineates childhood and adulthood in what functions as a pretty arbitrary metric. Usually, it's 18.

As a society we try to develop rules, laws for ordering human behavior. Adherence to those rules is the foundation of civil society and the indication of the functioning of the rule of law. That said, with the question of a 17 year old violating those rules, we ask a question of weather or not those rules should uniformly apply in this case as in all cases? To put it more clearly, is there something unique about adolescence that ought to exclude it from the scope of and/or the full force of the law? I would argue that there is.

Some judges, especially in the American south, have no problem sending even a 13 year old to prison for the rest of their lives who commit first degree murder because they believe that a child of that age is capable of understanding the wrongness of their actions. Accountability, then, if used as a metric, is indicated by the subject's recognition of the difference between right and wrong. I would argue that's absurd, because the gravity of life and death to an adolescent (anyone who is under the age of about 21 or so) is not at all similar to what it would be to a 40 year old. That said, the counterargument is to propose that there is a threshold of moral understanding that, when reached, makes a person accountable for their actions. This is an implicit tradition in English common law and a tradition that draws its roots in western society, actually, to the bible. While yes, it is appropriate that a threshold be recognized, the questions I ask are (1) how likely is it that the kid will kill again -especially after therapy and (2) even before that, why did the kid kill to begin with. Essentially, what were the circumstances which led to this most undesirable outcome?

If the youth committed murder in the first degree, I would take into consideration if it was a crime of passion, if there was a 'good' reason, etc. My final appeal though would take into consideration the fact that a kid has, at least in theory, their whole life ahead of them where they either might be able to adjust to society if given the opportunity, or they would remain in prison and detract from society if kept in prison. The idea, however, of capital punishment for a kid, no matter how bad their offense, is something that I would never even consider. That said, there are others in the legal field who disagree with me.

Excellent response, Thank you.
jake5493
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2013 4:09:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 1:34:23 PM, johnlubba wrote:
How should a child under the age of 17 be punished for murder with intent to kill?


Should the punishment be the same for a child as it is for an adult?

17? definitely. they are freaking adults. mature? no. competent of right and wrong? most assuredly. very young children should go through psych evaluations to establish their moral aptitude, then depending on results, either the looney bin or complete pardon of the crime. after all, no one in their right mind can possibly blame an infant for killing another infant, should that ever happen.
if he cared about good and evil he'd pick a side and not let the colors blend. :/
jake5493
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2013 4:12:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 2:57:11 PM, ishallannoyyo wrote:
At 1/2/2013 1:34:23 PM, johnlubba wrote:
How should a child under the age of 17 be punished for murder with intent to kill?

Completely depends on the circumstances, attitude of the offender, and seriousness of the crime.


Should the punishment be the same for a child as it is for an adult?

Depends.

can you clarify on how there is a variability of seriousness for murder cases?????? last i checked, morally, murder is murder. shame on you for being weird.
if he cared about good and evil he'd pick a side and not let the colors blend. :/
jake5493
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2013 4:16:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 2:38:41 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/2/2013 1:34:23 PM, johnlubba wrote:
How should a child under the age of 17 be punished for murder with intent to kill?
Depends on the child and their culpubility. For example, generally, a 17-year-old knows it's wrong and should know better to hit someone intentionally with a brick because they are mad at them. Does a seven-yr-old understand the consequences of his rash behavior?

Should the punishment be the same for a child as it is for an adult?
If culpubility is equal, then yes.
For example, a really mature 16 year old is more deserving of a sentence than a retarded adult.

mentally handicapped please. and whats with the strange wizard-looking avatar?
if he cared about good and evil he'd pick a side and not let the colors blend. :/