At this stage of age, they are able to judge what is right and what is wrong. Indeed, they have formed their own personality and are hardly influenced by education, especially the mischievous ones. Therefore, punitive punishments should be imposed on any citizens above 16 as a warning for anyone who has an intention of committing a crime.
There's hardly any major distinction between 16, 17 and 18 years of age. There were two Supreme Court cases from the 1980s that examined this; Thompson v. Oklahoma(1988) and Stanford v. Kentucky(1989). In both of those cases, the Court ruled that imposing capital punishment on offenders 16 or older did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Capital punishment for juvenile offenders should be reserved for the worst of the worst.
Why is it that we will restrict the choices of sixteen-year-olds with usage of alcohol and cigarettes, but we will gladly enforce death on them at the same time for stepping out of line? Absurd... To think you should kill a child. Is that punishment? Or is that erasing a problem? Discipline, or putting them out of sight and out of mind? These are children. People still learning... Instead of trying to change them, just eradicate them and move on? How inhumane...
16 is a child. If they did something horrific, they should be punished in a way that is effective, anything that will change them, killing them is wrong, the age is too young.
I myself have changed within two years. Two years is a major difference.
Give them a chance at change.
There is a big difference, actually, between being 16 and 18 years old. When you are 1, your parents still are your legal guardians, but when you are an adult, aka when you are 18 or older, you are no longer in the custody of your parents and can be executed.