• 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

But your third point.

What if that worthless life is innocent?
You have to make a decision here. If it is morally wrong to kill someone, it is wrong to kill them whether they are innocent or guilty. You pretty much have to pick one argument or the other as they are mutually exclusive.
 
On the contrary, it achieves three very vital things:

It is justice.

No, it isn’t. Furthermore; whether or not someone ‘deserves’ to live is asking the wrong question.

It ensures that this person will never kill again.

This can be achieved by means other than state-sanctioned murder.


It saves money on the life-long incarceration of worthless lives.

Again; the financial gain, if there is any, is minimal, at best. Also, again; this is a poor justification for taking a human life.
 
You have to make a decision here. If it is morally wrong to kill someone, it is wrong to kill them whether they are innocent or guilty. You pretty much have to pick one argument or the other as they are mutually exclusive.

That's another thing to ponder.

I think if there's a possibility they're innocent they should be executed, but if there's air-tight evidence and they're admitted to it, that should be a different issue. Then again, there are cases where innocent people fabricate evidence and lie [saying they're guilty] to get attention.
 
No, it isn’t. Furthermore; whether or not someone ‘deserves’ to live is asking the wrong question.



This can be achieved by means other than state-sanctioned murder.




Again; the financial gain, if there is any, is minimal, at best. Also, again; this is a poor justification for taking a human life.
Wrong. wrong and wrong. Justice means you do not execute someone for stealing a loaf of bead. The roots of the word are in 'just', thereby equal to but no more than as in "I just sat down". I am for compassion in the life for a life equation, but there are certainly cases that go beyond whatever compassion one might feel.
 
Where was the compassion when this girl slaughtered a 9 year old for fun?

So...

Since she had no compassion for killing the girl, she should recieve no compassion? It's a tough call, because this murderer, iirc, confessed.
 
So...

Since she had no compassion for killing the girl, she should recieve no compassion? It's a tough call, because this murderer, iirc, confessed.

She confessed and had written in her diary that after she got over the "ick" she felt really good about what she did. She ended the diary entry with something along the lines of "Gotta run to church now, LOL".
 
No, it isn’t. Furthermore; whether or not someone ‘deserves’ to live is asking the wrong question.
This can be achieved by means other than state-sanctioned murder.
Again; the financial gain, if there is any, is minimal, at best. Also, again; this is a poor justification for taking a human life.
Just so we are very clear. She is guilty. She admits she is guilty. You hate her and loathe her and will not give her a seconds thought or compassion after the cell door is slammed on her for the rest of her life. But...you would join 'the cause' to keep her from being executed...because you care. Society can be 'humane' in imprisoning her for the rest of her life, but executing her...that would be 'uncivilized'.

Quick...without reviewing the thread...what's her name again? And three years from now...how often will you consider her status? 10? 15? 20? 25? 30? 35? 40? 45? 50? 55? 60? 65? 70? (thats about right...she could easily live to be 90 in todays day and age)

we 'care'...
 
Wrong. wrong and wrong. Justice means you do not execute someone for stealing a loaf of bead. The roots of the word are in 'just', thereby equal to but no more than as in "I just sat down".

It isn’t equivalent, (For starters, in order to be reciprocal, Ted Bundy would have to have been executed at least 17 times.) and it isn’t justice. By this logic we should also formally sodomize rapists, and pedophiles.

I am for compassion in the life for a life equation, but there are certainly cases that go beyond whatever compassion one might feel.

It isn’t about compassion. I’m not sad that Ted Bundy, and John Wayne Gacy are no longer with us. It’s about institutionalized murder.
 
Out of curiosity, how young would you allow them to be executed? At 12? At 6?

As a Communist and liberal-wannabee I wouldn't allow anyone to be executed, because they wouldn't be able to work in my gulag.
 
Just so we are very clear. She is guilty. She admits she is guilty.

Yes.

You hate her and loathe her and will not give her a seconds thought or compassion after the cell door is slammed on her for the rest of her life.

This is just emotional nonsense. I have no investment in this girl. What she did was, admittedly, atrocious.

But...you would join 'the cause' to keep her from being executed...because you care. Society can be 'humane' in imprisoning her for the rest of her life, but executing her...that would be 'uncivilized'.

I’m opposed to capital punishment. Period.

Behind the sensationalism, that’s mostly accurate. This girl is, clearly a menace to society. She needs to be punished for her crime, just as society needs to be protected from individuals like her. Someday, neuroscience could very conceivably develop to the point where individuals such as this can be identified, or even cured, before they harm anyone. Today, however, that is impossible. Today this best alternative is to place her in a facility, where she can pay for her crime, and where society can be protected from her predations. I don’t feel any emotional attachment to this individual. I am simply opposed to state-sanctioned murder.

Quick...without reviewing the thread...what's her name again? And three years from now...how often will you consider her status? 10? 15? 20? 25? 30? 35? 40? 45? 50? 55? 60? 65? 70? (thats about right...she could easily live to be 90 in todays day and age)

we 'care'...

I can’t find any specifics as to the verdict. However; from the sound of it, she won’t be eligible for parole for quite some time. Most likely, she’ll be an elderly woman when she gets paroled, presuming she’s ever paroled. I played no part in this verdict. If it were up to me; I’d impose a life sentence. It isn’t.

Again; this is a red herring. It isn’t about caring.
 
She confessed and had written in her diary that after she got over the "ick" she felt really good about what she did. She ended the diary entry with something along the lines of "Gotta run to church now, LOL".

Sick + guilty = extra crispy.

I wish.
 
It isn’t equivalent, (For starters, in order to be reciprocal, Ted Bundy would have to have been executed at least 17 times.) and it isn’t justice. By this logic we should also formally sodomize rapists, and pedophiles.

Agreed! Eye for an eye.
 
It isn’t about caring.
Indeed. Truer words were never spoken. Caged...out of sight, out of mind...and you feel all 'civilized.'
 
Indeed. Truer words were never spoken. Caged...out of sight, out of mind...and you feel all 'civilized.'

Well, I don't know about anyone else but I don't feel anything at all except relief this nutbar is behind bars and will stay there for a long time. I'd prefer her poked with a needle and to cease breathing. Actually, I'd prefer her to to hang. She wants to know what it feels like to kill? I'd love for her to know what it feels like to die.
 
I read about this yesterday. Truly an appalling crime, seemingly done for NO REASON other than the "thrill" of killing.... girl is a sociopath and needs to never be out in society again.
 
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.

If they other justices are similar to Ginsburg then I seriously doubt they even bothered to look at the constitution.
Justice Ginsburg: Supreme Court Considers Foreign Laws, Not Just Constitution
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Friday that as a justice she considers foreign laws – not just U.S. laws and its Constitution - in forming her legal opinions.
 
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.

I sorta think all these arguments were made in 2005. They were losers. What would you like to debate next?

BTW, the Supremes have also ruled we cannot execute the mentally retarded or mentally ill. I'm guessing that frustrates your bloodlust as well?
 
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.

So executing someone who was 6 when the crime was committed is all good with you? How about 4?

On a different tack, I'd like to see the parents investigated and possibly charged with accessory before the fact. Hard to believe they had no idea this kid was so dangerous.
 
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.

Again, this is why I think the parents should have criminal liability.
 
This kind of case just pretty much affirms my thoughts on people that oppose the death penalty. Terrible...bad...she should rot in prison for the rest of her life and we should never give her a seconds thought...but...hey...lets not execute her...because...after all...we 'care'...

I don't "care". I just think the Supreme Court decided this issue correctly.
 
A 6 year old or a 4 year old are not fully "cooked" yet when it comes to knowing right from wrong. A teen is.
 
I'm leery of using "conscience" since it's subjective. Regarding intellect, that reminds me of that excellent show, Dexter.

The psychopathic serial killer's mind is something that merits more research.

There's a pyschiatrist who has made cottage industry out of claiming a serial killer is "made" via brain trauma and childhood abuse. I personally think she's full of ****. There are sociopaths and psychopaths among us. Not all of them kill, but those that do are incurable, subhuman, and I have no compassion for them.
 
Back
Top Bottom