• 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
ChrisL said:
Yes, and there are plenty of posts here advocating for the killing of these kids, which makes us better how? The only difference is the purpose of the killing. It's still killing helpless human beings, and in this instance immature human beings. To me that is disgusting.
Click to expand...

I see. Well, I think the topic of the OP was whether the perps should be tried as adults, not whether they should receive the death penalty. Again, no state I am aware of allows minors to receive the death penalty.

Perhaps the specific issue of the death penalty is better left to another thread.
 
Gotta get back to work now! See ya! :2wave:
 
ChrisL said:
This is explaining the way their brains function and to demonstrate that it is a bit different when a minor does this type of act than when a fully grown adult does it. It is not excusing their actions. Why can't you understand and acknowledge that? I've already stated MULTIPLE times that this is not excusing their actions but explaining the differences between minors and adults.
Click to expand...

and I'm saying that unless you are a complete retard or you are under the age of 10, you should know that the intentional killing of another person is wrong. shooting someone in the back cannot be attributed to poor judgement, risk taking or irresponsible behavior. These guys were not children. they are old enough to know that if you shoot someone there is a very good possibility that the person will die.

like I said earlier, it's not like these were a bunch of 7-8 y/o's that found daddy's gun and were playing cops and robbers with it. it's not like they were out joy riding and throwing bottles at street signs and accidentally hit someone in the head.

this was a planned and deliberate murder and, if the latest reports are correct, it was part of a gang initiation.
 
OscarB63 said:
It's also possible, given new information that has come out, that they gave the "being bored" excuse because they did not want to admit that the killing was part of gang related activity (which would, in many states, confer additional sentencing penalites under "special circumstances")
Click to expand...

I can accept that.
 
TurtleDude said:
they would be hard to salvage and probably not worth the effort. and the guy is dead. That's what people tend to forget. a price has to be paid.
Click to expand...

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:
 
ChrisL said:
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:
Click to expand...

I believe SCOTUS already decided in 2005 that juveniles could not receive the death penalty, so that issue is off the table...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
I believe SCOTUS already decided in 2005 that juveniles could not receive the death penalty, so that issue is off the table...
Click to expand...

Yes, they did, but it hasn't stopped some members for saying they want the death penalty to be imposed on teenagers. That's what I'm arguing against.

I don't know about anyone else, but to me executing a 15-year-old is a horrible act.
 
ChrisL said:
Yes, they did, but it hasn't stopped some members for saying they want the death penalty to be imposed on teenagers. That's what I'm arguing against.

I don't know about anyone else, but to me executing a 15-year-old is a horrible act.
Click to expand...

How about a 22 year old? Yes, posters get emotional, but when you know the punishment is off the table, it doesn't make sense to argue about it...
 
OscarB63 said:
and I'm saying that unless you are a complete retard or you are under the age of 10, you should know that the intentional killing of another person is wrong. shooting someone in the back cannot be attributed to poor judgement, risk taking or irresponsible behavior. These guys were not children. they are old enough to know that if you shoot someone there is a very good possibility that the person will die.

like I said earlier, it's not like these were a bunch of 7-8 y/o's that found daddy's gun and were playing cops and robbers with it. it's not like they were out joy riding and throwing bottles at street signs and accidentally hit someone in the head.

this was a planned and deliberate murder and, if the latest reports are correct, it was part of a gang initiation.
Click to expand...

You are misunderstanding the data and the correlation I am making. The data states that because of those things, children and teens don't "process" their actions the same way that an adult does. A lot of times they act first and think about it later. These things and limitations are most definitely considered, as they should be, when sentencing a juvenile. They are NOT adults, and there are brain images that confirm this. Therefore, they are not capable of critical-thinking skills. They aren't retarded, but they don't have all the mental faculties that an adult has, so it is completely unfair to prosecute and sentence them as if they were adults.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
How about a 22 year old? Yes, posters get emotional, but when you know the punishment is off the table, it doesn't make sense to argue about it...
Click to expand...

Yes, I am going to argue against the death penalty, especially when its urged to be brought upon teens, and it is topical since the question is should 15 and 16-year-olds be treated as adults.
 
ChrisL said:
Yes, I am going to argue against the death penalty, especially when its urged to be brought upon teens, and it is topical since the question is should 15 and 16-year-olds be treated as adults.
Click to expand...

I agree with the decision made by SCOTUS regarding juveniles, but in other cases it is warranted. The only problem I have with those is the time it takes before the execution...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
How about a 22 year old? Yes, posters get emotional, but when you know the punishment is off the table, it doesn't make sense to argue about it...
Click to expand...

I forgot to address your 22-year-old question. Yes, they should be treated as adults, anyone over 18 should be. Some people will that's an "arbitrary" line to draw, but it really isn't because that is when most kids have completed their educations and are actually capable of living apart from mom and dad. Also, we HAVE to pick an age because when it comes to laws we can't possibly test every child, and I don't think a "maturity" test would be accurate or reliable anyway. So pick an age, and I prefer to pick a higher age rather than a younger age, that way I know that the children who are still immature are protected.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
I agree with the decision made by SCOTUS regarding juveniles, but in other cases it is warranted. The only problem I have with those is the time it takes before the execution...
Click to expand...

It takes so much time because of due process. You wouldn't really want to take that away from people either.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
No, it's how lawyers make money...
Click to expand...

You should really educate yourself about the death penalty, the complications that run alongside it and the appeals process. It's a VERY complicated, long and drawn out procedure in the interest of making sure we aren't just executing people willy nilly. I think that is a GOOD thing, as would you if you had ever been convicted of a crime you didn't commit and sentenced to death. These things are IMPORTANT for goodness sakes! They protect US from the government.

Why Do Death Penalty Cases Take So Long? « Broden Mickelsen Law Blog
 
ChrisL said:
You should really educate yourself about the death penalty, the complications that run alongside it and the appeals process. It's a VERY complicated, long and drawn out procedure in the interest of making sure we aren't just executing people willy nilly. I think that is a GOOD thing, as would you if you had ever been convicted of a crime you didn't commit and sentenced to death. These things are IMPORTANT for goodness sakes! They protect US from the government.

Why Do Death Penalty Cases Take So Long? « Broden Mickelsen Law Blog
Click to expand...

If I'm ever convicted and sentenced to death, so be it...
 
ChrisL said:
You should really educate yourself about the death penalty, the complications that run alongside it and the appeals process. It's a VERY complicated, long and drawn out procedure in the interest of making sure we aren't just executing people willy nilly. I think that is a GOOD thing, as would you if you had ever been convicted of a crime you didn't commit and sentenced to death. These things are IMPORTANT for goodness sakes! They protect US from the government.

Why Do Death Penalty Cases Take So Long? « Broden Mickelsen Law Blog
Click to expand...

...and we still get it wrong often. Unfortunately, the process that was intended to be a safeguard has turned into something of a rubber stamp process. I believe that a defendant's best chance is at their initial trial. If you have to rely on appeals, you're pretty much sunk.
 
ChrisL said:
But you don't have a right to demand that from others who are now do you?

Read this please. It just might change your mind. Unless you just want to remain like a stubborn old man who refuses to learn anything new.

The Story Of Wrongly Accused and Convicted Jeffrey Scott Hornoff
Click to expand...

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?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
You said they shouldn't be tried as adults and should be released when the state deems them "safe". License to kill.
Click to expand...

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?
 
molten_dragon said:
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?
Click to expand...

What happens when they get "bored" again?
 
AlabamaPaul said:
What happens when they get "bored" again?
Click to expand...

If there was a fear that they would return to the same pattern of behavior, they wouldn't be released. The idea would be to fix whatever behavioral problems led 3 teenagers to murder a man because they were bored. If those problems could be fixed, then why keep spending money to incarcerate them? And if they can't be fixed, then they remain incarcerated indefinitely. Sure, the system wouldn't be perfect, and there would still be some recidivism, but it's got to be better than the current system where we just imprison people for mostly random lengths of time, and don't really do much to try and actually rehabilitate them while they're in prison.
 
molten_dragon said:
If there was a fear that they would return to the same pattern of behavior, they wouldn't be released. The idea would be to fix whatever behavioral problems led 3 teenagers to murder a man because they were bored. If those problems could be fixed, then why keep spending money to incarcerate them? And if they can't be fixed, then they remain incarcerated indefinitely. Sure, the system wouldn't be perfect, and there would still be some recidivism, but it's got to be better than the current system where we just imprison people for mostly random lengths of time, and don't really do much to try and actually rehabilitate them while they're in prison.
Click to expand...

No system can rehabilitate anyone that doesn't have a desire to be rehabilitated and better themselves in life. The system can offer an opportunity, just as it does outside of prison, but it is up to the individual to take advantage of those opportunities...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
No system can rehabilitate anyone that doesn't have a desire to be rehabilitated and better themselves in life. The system can offer an opportunity, just as it does outside of prison, but it is up to the individual to take advantage of those opportunities...
Click to expand...

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.
 
ChrisL said:
What do you mean? When someone is sentenced to the death penalty, they are a victim of state-sponsored murder. It's really that simple.
Click to expand...

Murder is the illegal killing of a person

If its state sponsored its not illegal. If its not illegal it's not murder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom