Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The benefit is insuring a person who killed an innocent man already never kills another innocent person.
So why not execute them? You would support that? For a 10 year old or 13 year old?
If the objective is to ensure no repeat offences, why do you feel that a young child can't be reformed? Despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary?
So why not execute them? You would support that? For a 10 year old or 13 year old?
If the objective is to ensure no repeat offences, why do you feel that a young child can't be reformed? Despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary?
I would support the state's rules regarding executions.
I feel one who kills at any age we must err on the side of no risk. Caging such animals mitigates the risk to civilized people. We have no obligation to reform anyone who snuffed out another person's life. (Exception should be allowed if the victim rises from the dead.)
So why not execute them? You would support that? For a 10 year old or 13 year old?
If the objective is to ensure no repeat offences, why do you feel that a young child can't be reformed? Despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary?
I agree and I was about to ask that.
~~~~
One of John Grisham’s latest books, “A Time for Mercy”, deals with the intricacies of this question.
I would support the state's rules regarding executions.
I feel one who kills at any age we must err on the side of no risk. Caging such animals mitigates the risk to civilized people. We have no obligation to reform anyone who snuffed out another person's life. (Exception should be allowed if the victim rises from the dead.)
Well you've certainly made your point clear!
I've got to say that it is fortunate that vast majority of the US and the rest of developed world disagrees. It would be a shame to see more archaic practices such as this.
The idea of locking people up for the sole purpose of punishment is a sickening and barbaric thing to do. If someone who was underdeveloped has committed a crime, but has changed and poses no threat to society anymore as their brain matured, then it is time to let them back into society (with obvious precautions). Long sentences in prison should only be for public safety, not for punishing others.
Legislatures do this stuff simply to pander to voters, not for any criminal justice purpose. Life without parole is an extreme sentence and the offense would be plea bargained to a lower crime in many or most cases.
It will cost taxpayers about $3 million per LWOP kid if they live to 80. That age or cost is not unlikely with three hots and a cot, free medical care, education, security, special isolated housing until they reach a certain age, and isolation from infection from direct public contact. There will be fiscal impact notes on file in a legislative research office for every piece of legislation and every version of the bill. That is probably public information but almost never published.
Prison rape is common for younger inmates. There will be costly failure to protect lawsuits beyond the $3 million already assumed.
The courts will probably intervene, possibly overturning the law or requiring major changes. A state governor will have the option of commuting or pardoning the youthful convict.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.