• 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!

Should these teens be tried as adults

Should the 15 and 16 year old also be tried as adults

  • yes and throw away the key

    Votes: 72 87.8%
  • no, they deserve a second chance

    Votes: 10 12.2%

  • Total voters
    82
I agree with that. However, I'll also point out that there are plenty of people who could be rehabilitated if given an honest chance at it.

For example, recent statistics have shown that close to half of all prisoners in the US exhibit some type of mental health problems. Treating those could go a long way towards rehabilitating those people.

Others are kids who weren't raised right and never really learned right from wrong. They might be able to be rehabilitated too.

With a recidivism rate of 60% in the US, I think we need to try something different.

The recidivism rate reflects the "societal" structure of any prison system. It's not like you have the opportunity to change your location to escape a bad neighborhood. That is one change that could be implemented to correct that particular problem...
 
Sometimes they don't realize the consequences of their actions.

I don't care if they do or not.

They killed a man for no reason.

They need to be kept away from civilized people for a long time.
 
No teenager knows fully what they are doing. We can't even get adults to that stage. That's the problem.

You are saying teenagers are not capable of knowing the difference between right and wrong?

Is that what you are trying to get us to believe?
 
I think kids under 17 are worth trying to rehabilitate. Whether or not it works is another thing entirely but it's totally worth the effort when it comes to such a young life IMO. I don't know all the details to this specific case, so I don't really feel comfortable going into any detailed kind of plan for these particular kids.

So the 17 year old should be tried as a juvenile and then pot him in a juvenile facitility for a couple of months then let him out?

Maybe of he turns 18 during the process, they just send him home.

Would that be right?
 
I believe as of right now, it is illegal to execute anyone under the age of 18 as cruel and unusual punishment (as of 2005 I believe, but I could be wrong), but we have certainly executed minors in the past. The youngest person on record executed was 14 years old.

George Stinney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States: A World Leader In Executing Juveniles, Human Rights Watch Report, March 1995

Is execution by being shot in the back unsuspectingly cruel and unusual punishment?
 
Hate crime now?

One of three teens charged in the 'thill kill' of an Australian college student in Oklahoma last week has previously posted racist tweets on his Twitter account, according to a report.

The Daily Caller reported that the tweets belonged to James Francis Edwards, 15. One tweet from his account reads, "90% of white ppl are nasty. #HATE THEM." Another post read, "Ayeee I knocced out 5 woods since Zimmerman court!:)"

The Daily Caller's report noted that 'woods' is used as a derogatory term for white people.

Read more: Teen charged in
 
That is for the judge to decide, A young offenders institute until 18 then transferred to an adult prison. but the main point is that they should be tried as minors due to their age. Under law, everyone under the age of 18 is a minor, that doesn't change regardless of their actions.

Stealing is wrong, but if a 4 year old stole a chocolate bar from a shop, I wouldn't expect them to be tried as an adult.

If the end result is the same, a long prison sentence, why do you quibble over whether they are tried ad juveniles or adults?

Even if they were tried as adults, they would be in a juvenile facility until they were 18, so what is the difference?
 
I'm always skeptical of putting a fifteen or sixteen year old into a cage for the rest of their lives even if they committed an atrocious crime. Other than slaking a completely understandable desire for vengeance and potentially (though unlikely in the long run) soothing a victims family what is the purpose? It seems plausible that they could be rehabilitated and eventually reintroduced into society as productive citizens. This would in my view do more for society than holding them for life.

Whose life do you want to put in danger to test that theory?
 
Yes, incarceration where they won't be a threat to society anymore, AND we don't have to kill anyone either. It's a win-win situation. :mrgreen:

I have less problems with the family of the victim killing the killer than when the government does

but for a 16 year old-50 years in prison (the life span of lifers is about 15 years lower than free citizens) is far worse than being "put to sleep" like an unwanted dog
 
I'm always skeptical of putting a fifteen or sixteen year old into a cage for the rest of their lives even if they committed an atrocious crime. Other than slaking a completely understandable desire for vengeance and potentially (though unlikely in the long run) soothing a victims family what is the purpose? It seems plausible that they could be rehabilitated and eventually reintroduced into society as productive citizens. This would in my view do more for society than holding them for life.

Unless, of course, those that make the decision to realease them are not held accountable for that action in any way. The problem with that lofty goal is the recidivism rate. We are faced with the choice of saving money or saving lives.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Recidivism
 
How is releasing someone after they've been rehabilitated and are no longer a danger to society a license to kill? Isn't that better than just releasing them after some arbitrary length of time?

When a gang wants to do a murder they will send out the 15 year olds telling them, don't worry. you'll be out in a few years and we will throw you a great party.
 
How is releasing someone after they've been rehabilitated and are no longer a danger to society a license to kill? Isn't that better than just releasing them after some arbitrary length of time?

Who is making that decision and what are the consequences of an error in that judgement?

I propose this solution: lock up folks until they deemed "safe" to release, as you desire, but with one big catch, if they repeat offend (at an equal or greater severity than their initial crime) then those, on the parole board, that deemed them "rehabilitated" will then serve time with them until the initial offender is deemed trustworthy for release again by a new parole board. ;)
 
When a gang wants to do a murder they will send out the 15 year olds telling them, don't worry. you'll be out in a few years and we will throw you a great party.

I'm not sure what part of "they won't be allowed out unless they are deemed to no longer be dangerous" you don't understand.
 
I understand these cases occur. I was expressing a personal opinion. IMV, the courts should expedite these cases not have them standing in line with Joe's beef with his neighbor appeal to higher courts. What is a reasonable appeal time frame?

I supplied a link for you to read about why the appeals process takes so long.
 
I'm not sure what part of "they won't be allowed out unless they are deemed to no longer be dangerous" you don't understand.

They will be deemed not dangerous in short order. The thinking among people like you, (bleeding heat liberals) is they were just stupid kids that didn't really know what they were doing so when they hit 21 or so you will say they are adults now and deserve a second shot at life.
 
Who is making that decision and what are the consequences of an error in that judgement?

It would probably be psychiatrists/psychologists mostly. They would probably be best equipped to judge whether someone was safe or still dangerous.

And the consequences for making an error in judgment are that you put a criminal back on the street. But we do that all the time anyway.

Like I pointed out earlier, with a recidivism rate of 60% right now, I really don't see how trying to judge whether someone has been rehabilitated before you let them out of prison could turn out any worse than what we already do.
 
Murder is the illegal killing of a person

If its state sponsored its not illegal. If its not illegal it's not murder.

It should be, and it is if it is a juvenile according to international law.

The US Death Penalty and International Law: US Compliance with the Torture and Race Conventions | Death Penalty Information Center

Juveniles

Although the death penalty is generally tolerated under international law, the same cannot be said of the execution of juvenile offenders. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires that the death penalty only be imposed "for the most serious crimes," and never upon those who were under 18 years of age at the time of their crime.5 Virtually all the countries of the world have signed or ratified this important treaty, including most recently, China. However, the United States is the only country with an outstanding reservation to the Article forbidding the execution of juvenile offenders.

Only seven other countries in the world are known to have carried out an execution of a juvenile in the last ten years6 and the U.S. may be the most flagrant violator with 3 more juvenile offenders executed just this year. Since 1976, there have been 12 executions of those who were under 18 at the time of their crime in the U.S., with 9 of the 12 occurring in the 1990s. Seventy-two additional juveniles are on death row awaiting execution. While some states and the federal law set 18 as the minimum age of eligibility for the death penalty, the majority of death penalty states allow 16 or 17 year-olds to receive this ultimate punishment.7And some government officials have been calling for a reduction of the minimum age, even to as low as 11.8

It is because of this history and practice that the U.S. took a specific reservation to the Civil and Political Rights Covenant essentially exempting itself from the ban on juvenile executions. The U.S. has also taken a reservation to the Torture Convention, stating that we understand "international law does not prohibit the death penalty, and does not consider this convention to restrict or prohibit the United States from applying the death penalty consistent with the Fifth, Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution . . . ." In other words, what the U.S. considers to be lawful punishment under the Torture Convention is what the U.S. courts, not the world community, consider lawful.

Reservations to treaties, including human rights agreements, are generally recognized in international law. However, reservations which contradict the "object and purpose" of the treaty are not allowed. Eleven countries formally protested the U.S.'s reservation to the Civil and Political Rights Convention regarding juvenile offenders, and the U.N. Committee on Human Rights has stated that such a reservation is invalid. The U.S. Senate responded to this challenge by threatening to withhold funds from U.S. participation in the work of the U.N. Committee on Human Rights.9
 
They will be deemed not dangerous in short order. The thinking among people like you, (bleeding heat liberals) is they were just stupid kids that didn't really know what they were doing so when they hit 21 or so you will say they are adults now and deserve a second shot at life.

Completely incorrect.
 
I don't care if they do or not.

They killed a man for no reason.

They need to be kept away from civilized people for a long time.

I never claimed that they didn't.
 
It would probably be psychiatrists/psychologists mostly. They would probably be best equipped to judge whether someone was safe or still dangerous.

And the consequences for making an error in judgment are that you put a criminal back on the street. But we do that all the time anyway.

Like I pointed out earlier, with a recidivism rate of 60% right now, I really don't see how trying to judge whether someone has been rehabilitated before you let them out of prison could turn out any worse than what we already do.

If that "letting them out" is before completing their initally assigned sentence then it makes things a lot worse. As I have stated earlier, those doing the letting out early should share the consequences of any recidivism. Gambling with the safety of others is easy, but when it is your chips going into the pot, the decisions are likely to be far different.
 
So the 17 year old should be tried as a juvenile and then pot him in a juvenile facitility for a couple of months then let him out?

Maybe of he turns 18 during the process, they just send him home.

Would that be right?

Nope, I already acknowledged that to be a problem with the juvenile system and agreed with another poster about perhaps trying them as adults (when it's a murder), but making adjustments for them as juveniles. It's a complicated problem. I just think 15 years old is too young to be charged as an adult.
 
I understand recidivism just fine. That's what this is intended to prevent.

How? If sentences can only be shortened, then what is the "up side" other than morons proclaiming to have saved money?
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1062222365 said:
Is execution by being shot in the back unsuspectingly cruel and unusual punishment?

So you see the comparison then? Good. Thanks. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom