• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge gives teen killer's sentence

Enola

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2011
Messages
5,363
Reaction score
3,010
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
It is unconstitutional to execute people who were under 18 when they committed the crime. I do agree, this bitch should have gotten LWOP.
 
It is unconstitutional to execute people who were under 18 when they committed the crime. I do agree, this bitch should have gotten LWOP.

Wherein the Constitution do you come up with that nonsense?
 
Wherein the Constitution do you come up with that nonsense?

Roper v. Simmons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) was a decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under the age of 18. The 5-4 decision overruled the Court's prior ruling upholding such sentences on offenders above or at the age of 16, in Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989), overturning statutes in 25 states that had the penalty set lower.

She probably reads and understands what she's reading far better than you do. It's just a wild guess though.
 
She entered into a plea (from the article I read) specifically to avoid a life sentence. The victim's mother called her a monster...I'd have to agree.
 
5-4 decision....guess it's up to opinion as to whether or not it is unconstitutional. 4 supreme court judges apparently disagree.


No it was decided as unconstitutional. That's like saying its up to opinion whether Barack Obama won the presidency.
 
5-4 decision....guess it's up to opinion as to whether or not it is unconstitutional. 4 supreme court judges apparently disagree.

Yes, rulings are based on the opinions of judges in regards to issues, certain laws and how they apply. Hi, welcome to obvious statement is obvious.
 
Roper v. Simmons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

She probably reads and understands what she's reading far better than you do. It's just a wild guess though.

OVERRULED THE COURT'S PRIOR RULING (meaning liberals were reinterpreting again) what probably had been held constitutional for 200 years. I don't even have to read it to figure liberals were at working undoing the Constitution as they usually try to do. That filthy rag ratified by rich white slave owners. Well since I'm Communist this week, I'll support overthrowing the US Constitution this time. We communists and liberals need to continue to erode the Constitution everywhere and by any means necessary.

Malcolm_X_any_means_necessary.jpg


If the conservative side were to win, the justice would be an idiot of course.
 
Last edited:
Yes, rulings are based on the opinions of judges in regards to issues, certain laws and how they apply. Hi, welcome to obvious statement is obvious.

It it were so obvious you wouldn't be using an opinion to answer a question as to whether or not something is in the constitution. You put forth Ginsbergs interpretation of the constitution as fact because she is a SCJ. So are the other 4 who say its not. He asked you to show him where in the constitution you pulled that from, you failed to do so. nice try at a rebuttal though. Next time put some thought into it.
 
I can only imagine what would drive someone to do that.
 
I can only imagine what would drive someone to do that.

The article I read during my lunch break said that she "wanted to see how it felt to kill somebody". Apparently, she planned the murder for awhile and even dug a grave before hand.
 
OVERRULED THE COURT'S PRIOR RULING (meaning liberals were reinterpreting again) what probably had been held constitutional for 200 years. I don't even have to read it to figure liberals were at working undoing the Constitution as they usually try to do. That filthy rag ratified by rich white slave owners. Well since I'm Communist this week, I'll support overthrowing the US Constitution this time. We communists and liberals need to continue to erode the Constitution everywhere and by any means necessary.

Malcolm_X_any_means_necessary.jpg


If the conservative side were to win, the justice would be an idiot of course.

Out of curiosity, how young would you allow them to be executed? At 12? At 6?
 
That's a misuse of Malcolm X's photo, considering he was a murder victim himself.
 
It it were so obvious you wouldn't be using an opinion to answer a question as to whether or not something is in the constitution. You put forth Ginsbergs interpretation of the constitution as fact because she is a SCJ. So are the other 4 who say its not. He asked you to show him where in the constitution you pulled that from, you failed to do so. nice try at a rebuttal though. Next time put some thought into it.

There are nine Supreme Court Justices for a reason....majority wins. Dissents can be important, but are not the law.
 
The article I read during my lunch break said that she "wanted to see how it felt to kill somebody". Apparently, she planned the murder for awhile and even dug a grave before hand.

God damn.....That's......just sick...
 
OVERRULED THE COURT'S PRIOR RULING (meaning liberals were reinterpreting again) what probably had been held constitutional for 200 years. I don't even have to read it to figure liberals were at working undoing the Constitution as they usually try to do. That filthy rag ratified by rich white slave owners. Well since I'm Communist this week, I'll support overthrowing the US Constitution this time. We communists and liberals need to continue to erode the Constitution everywhere and by any means necessary.

Malcolm_X_any_means_necessary.jpg


If the conservative side were to win, the justice would be an idiot of course.

lovely. everything is political with you.
 
Out of curiosity, how young would you allow them to be executed? At 12? At 6?

For me personally?? If they (1) acted alone, (2) appear (through evidence) to have planned and thought out the crime prior to its commission, (3) caused undo trauma or suffering prior to death (i.e. slow torture), (4) mutilated/rape/otherwise disrespect the body (living or dead), and (4) can be shown to have no compelling mental handicap we should look at their age only minimally.

In the majority decision for the SCOTUS case Hatuey posted, two of the major reasons for disallowing the death penalty for minors included a general understanding that peer pressure is harder for a teen to avoid and a limited ability to avoid situations that lead to criminal behavior may make minors more likely to commit crimes they would otherwise not have committed. I think both of those facts are completely irrelevant in the case at hand (again, IMO), as this girl acted on her own, planned the crime, and committed it on her own (with the exception of tricking her sister into coaxing the victim over).

At 15, the socio-emotional skill set is well developed and she would have already reached the developmental point at which empathy springs up. She would have been perfectly capable, barring socio/psychopathy, of understanding the implications of her actions and was under no pressure to commit them.

Now, that isn't to say we should willy-nilly apply the death sentence to those who commit murder...but I think an arbitrary exemption on the basis of age should be weighed very heavily against the facts of the crime before we start weighing sentencing options.
 
Out of curiosity, how young would you allow them to be executed? At 12? At 6?

If a person is able to make a decision, plan a murder, understand what they are doing, and execute it then they are able to accept the consequences for it.

EDIT: Tessa worded it far better than I did.
 
personally, i am against the death penalty, but yours was a good post. she should not be eligible for parole, ever.
 
Out of curiosity, how young would you allow them to be executed? At 12? At 6?

When they hit the "teen". So that means thirTEEN. Try them as adult, snuff 'em as adults. They are old enough to know right from wrong. This kid...she wanted to know what it felt like. I wonder how many animals she tortured before experimenting on a kid.
 
I wonder what her reasons were for doing such a wicked thing.
 
Back
Top Bottom