There are only three countries in the world that execute teenagers.

I dont care how old you are, or how terrible and mean your life has been: if you commit murder, you are an animal. A rather dangerous one.


We put dangerous animals down. Do we care that the pitbulls that ripped some kid's throat out were beaten and starved and didnt get puppy beds? No, we dont. Damaged goods is damaged goods.

I think Congo kills more black people than white people too. Gonna go harass them about it?

fuckin owned

http://texaspolitics.lamc.utexas .edu/html/exec/0700.html

That is interesting, but it doesnt say he has no other power. He can make recommendations to the board of pardons and paroles. And can approve or reject the boards pardons.

He doesnt have direct power to stop an execution, but he can certainly influence it one way or the other.

Regardless, thanks for the govt lesson.

thanks for the info tribal imperialist

Pro or anti death penalty is a different argument than the age limit on death penalty..


Half of you are in one argument and half in the other.

Pro or anti death penalty is a different argument than the age limit on death penalty..


Half of you are in one argument and half in the other.

No I think everyone is pretty much in agreement that if you are going to execute people, its stupid to worry about how old they are.

I think Congo kills more black people than white people too.

You are teh smartie. Almost as smart as stone, I'm starting to think. Waaay too smartie for lil' ol' me.

BigBrown']No I think everyone is pretty much in agreement that if you are going to execute people, its stupid to worry about how old they are.

thats my thinking... kill em all. (ick.. quoted metallica)

You are teh smartie. Almost as smart as stone, I'm starting to think. Waaay too smartie for lil' ol' me.
so there, dum dum!

But until such time, the overall government of the country does not control the process. "The United States" doesn't execute prisoners, the States do.

Shhh - the whole democratically-enacted legislation thing is getting in the way of Tribal Imperialist's implication of moral equivalance.

I wish the majority of this country was more committed to preventing violent crime, number one by making sure all children are brought up right.

Punishment by definition is reactive. Punishment happens after efforts to prevent people from committing crimes has failed. It'd be great if everyone was perfect, which is apparently what you're hoping for. However, we're not, which is why this little thing called punishment exists.

You are teh smartie. Almost as smart as stone, I'm starting to think. Waaay too smartie for lil' ol' me.


It is about time you realized it.

BigBrown']Are you arguing that holding them in prison until after they are 19 and then executing them is not executing a teenager?

Maybe he's arguing that teenagers don't know killing=bad

Teenagers are fucking annoying. We should kill more of them.
:lol:

If teenagers are responsible enough to vote, drive and fire automatic weapons, they're responsible enough to know the consequences of their actions and therefore can be sentenced to the death penalty.

If teenagers are responsible enough to vote, drive and fire automatic weapons, they're responsible enough to know the consequences of their actions and therefore can be sentenced to the death penalty.agreed

I used to be in favour of capital punishment but in the last few years I have learned the error of my ways. I have found that there is no redeeming virtue in having capital punishment, and the arguments against it are many.

A common argument is that capital punishment is a good deterrant. There have been countless studies into this and studies have found that not only does the death penalty not ask as a deterant, but when countries have abolished capital punishment their homicide rates stayed the same and in some cases even went down. Possibly in earlier centuries when executions were performed in the public and were very gruesome did it act as a deterant. Now that they are done privately it can not be argued that they act as a deterant.

*For an example of this look to a book called "A Handbook on Hanging" by Duff and he explains that in the times when the British House of Commons was trying to pass an act to abolish hanging, the bill would proceed to the House of Lords, where it was (until recently) always condemned. In these times where the people were waiting for a resolution, there were no hangings. During this time the murder rate decreased.

Some make the argument "we put down mad horses/dogs/*insert animal here*" so we should do the same with humans. What you are actually stating by saying this is that these animals are on the same plane of existence as human beings. I am not going to say much more on this point but obviously humans are much more complicated than any animal and must be treated with a different kind of logic than that which we use for animals.

The biggest problem with state killing is that it is still killing. It may be simply put as killing killers is wrong. The "Establishment" has a great situation as it is faceless. The result, however, is the same.

When one compares Great Britain, Austrailia, Canada, and the United States, one may say that for the most part they are very similar. They all have similar types of government. They are all capitalist. Because of these similarities we may look at these nations and compare them. When we compare the crime rates of these nations, however, there is a large discrepancy in the United States. Canada has a murder rate many times lower than the United States. Great Britain's murder rate is less than half of Canada's. America's murder rate sticks out like a sore thumb in these comparisons. We must ask why.

I don't think there is one simple answer, but I think if there was going to be an answer to that question it would be that an American child is taught from a very young age that violence is okay. In Canada there are only a few times where killing another person can be legally correct. One has to prove that they are in imminent MORTAL danger from another person. In some States in America you may shoot someone for (this is only a few of them): people trespassing on your property, aiding a police officer, protecting another person from harm. In general though there are more situations where killing is acceptable in the law than anywhere else in those 4 countries.

State killing plants a sort of unconcious thought in our heads that killing is all right. It is seen like removing an unwanted part of the state through execution. One may argue the the Nazi's also were a state that was executing an unwanted portion of their population. This is an extreme example but the logic and reason behind it are similar.

I do not pretend to say that if the States abolished capital punishment they would dramatically reduce their crime rate. I only say that it is just one more instance where it is alright to kill, amongst your many others. Your "right" to guns is, in my opinion, your biggest problem.

The final problem with capital punishment is the amount of innocents that have been killed. I read an article the other day that suggested that for the most part over 20% (and sometimes up to 25%) people are killed who have been innocent of the crime. Unfortunately I don't have a link to that article, but its true. That means 1 in 5 and sometimes 1 in 4 people killed by the state are innocent.

I used to make the argument that these poor individuals must sacraficed for the good of the state. That they is in fact an acceptable ratio in order to be allowed to illiminate the rest of the undesirables. You must ask though whether it is correct to eliminate those 20% who are innocent. I would hope that good moral people would say that this is an outragous number. We must then ask what a lower number would be. We have established that 20% is wrong, but how about 1 person. In my opinion even one innocent killed by the state is too many.

I know how it is for those who like capital punishment. It pleases the masses. In argument logic however, a majority of people wishing something doesn't make it correct or good. This is called the "Appeal to popularity" -- one of the falacies an argument can posses. I don't think I will change any minds here, but hopefully will open their minds to the idea of abolishing capital punishment like I did.