Amazon.com Widgets

Should juveniles who commit homicide receive the death penalty?

Asked by: ladiesman
  • The death penalty isn't even effective.

    Most people would rather die than sit and think about what they did for the rest of their lives.

    I think that, instead of death, prisoners should be put to laborious work and scientific testing, so they do something useful.

    There are many punishments worse than death.

    And teenage criminals often don't really know what they are doing.

  • I suppose so

    According to the Supreme Court case Roper v. Simmons (2005), murderers who were under 18 years of age when the crime was committed cannot be executed. The Court decided that people under 18 are not mature enough to feel the gravity of their actions. I don't agree with that; this country has seen 15, 16 and 17-year-olds commit homicide. How do we know an 18-year-old is more mature than a 16 or 17-year-old? If a juvenile made the decision to commit murder and carried it all the way through, then he/she was definitely capable of understanding the consequences.

  • To a certain extent...

    I believe that juveniles that are 16 or 17 should get the death penalty like any other adult because they are at the age that they do actually understand more than people think. I don't think that condemning a child that is 9 or 10 is right because they still have so much more developing to do. The older teenagers know enough to be able to figure out what their actions will do and what consequences will happen.

  • How is execution different to murder?

    You call it execution, but all it is, is murder of someone who's done something bad. I do not think humans ever have the right to kill other humans, no matter what.
    I do think they should be held responsible for their actions, but not with death. Execution does not give them the option to ever show remorse, or to improve. Condemning a 15, 16, 17 year old to death, or even life in jail is cruel. People do dumb things when they're teenagers, things they regret, but should not have to pay with their lives.
    Yes, the understand the consequences (most of the time) and yes they should, for want of a better expression, know better, but killing them is inhumane.
    Not only should no one be killed, but no one should be held permanently accountable for something done as a teenager.

  • They should be tortured.

    Anyone who takes the life of another person whether they're juvenile or not should be tortured without mercy. The only thing death penalty does is let people escape the guilt they feel as well as a more severe punishment. I don't know about you but I would laugh while I watch the murderer getting tortured

  • Not as extreme.

    At that age we make mistakes, we all have and the future generations will continue to. However, i realise homicide is a crime that is unforgivable. But at the same time i do not believe the death penalty is sufficient. Now this does not mean i prefer a lenient sentence. Personally i think a sentence for the offender and also for the offenders parent/parents would be better.

  • The death penalty isn't even effective.

    Most people would rather die than sit and think about what they did for the rest of their lives.

    I think that, instead of death, prisoners should be put to laborious work and scientific testing, so they do something useful.

    There are many punishments worse than death.

    And teenage criminals often don't really know what they are doing.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.