|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Mar 2, 2005 9:55:26 GMT -5
or puff..puff
Yesterday the high court reversed itself and said 16-18 year olds cannot face the death penalty...
Whats your take... and why?
Mine..... representing the over 50 crack smoking idiots society..
1. A real set back for youths rights....
We allow those same age kids to hunt,drive,a get a job..and some have been working to reduce the voting age to 16..If these kids are said to be underdeveloped mentally and socially these rights may be in trouble.
How can you justify having them drive if they cannot tell right from wrong as the doctors reported..
They could not operate a gun safely ...and as for voting they would not be smart enough to know they were being duped...(like getting older fixes that)
2 The old way was to take each case on its own merits...why change?
The high court said it represented the changing of the morals in society,and many countries and states outlaw the practice all together..
It was a 5-4 deeply divivded vote for good reason...
Why is national law based on what other countries and states decide....they can change overnite.
Other problems if this is true..
Gay rights..might be further set back...if states voting against gay rights is the standard how could the high court go against it?
Abortion could be held to the same standards...what the moral bearing of America wants is different than 30 years ago....how states vote should dictate national Law?
Of course not in both cases...just as it should not in this case...a huge over reach and shows being out a touch with reality..
!7 year olds like the DC sniper knew right from wrong..planned and carried out terroristic murders knowing full well the consequences...
Gangs will just use under 18 to carry out their murders...
In other parts of the world under 18 year olds can vote ..hold public office...serve in militaries..and be married...
If what the scientist reported is true...
Under 18 cannot determine correctly if they are gay..
could not marry....in any form..
and should not have children because they are kids themselves and could not possible raise them right.
I think it was a case of scientist bending science to meet its objectives...
Society didnt need a magic number to be an adult...
The anti -death people did...and they got it.
So tell the realitives of those murdered that the person who murdered their loved one gets to live a life.. complete with ups and downs...hopes and joys..why their loved one gets nothing.
Let the power dinking begin...
|
|
|
|
Post by itsallaboutme on Mar 2, 2005 10:18:56 GMT -5
You consevatives seem to forget about the Constitution & the rights of individuals.
PURE bs!!!. JUST YOUR UNINFORMED OPINION. ONE DAY, HOPEFULLY, YOU WILL PROVIDE A LINK TO SOME SUPPORTIVE DATA.
Scientist reporting that people under 18 can't determine if their GAY? You are a moron. I'm living proof that thats false. What Scientist are these??? You continue to support your narrow minded views with LIES!!!!!.
|
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Mar 2, 2005 10:46:17 GMT -5
You are living proof? of what?
You continually attack me personally...
I just reported that the scientist who testified against the death penalty showed that the brain parts that determine right from wrong are not fully developed by age 18..
How you could determine at age 14 is great ..and futher supports my position that we need to review every case individually.
I dont think you can posssibly fathom that I actually supported gay and abortion rights under the same non subjective reviews that the high court gave the death penalty..
I dont support that we should change our laws or modify our morals to someone elses standards.
Yet you want each state to have a vote over gay rights..
Yet 18 states wanted the death penalty ...can we have it both ways?
You said nothing about the kids rights and how this decision might effect their rights...
Narrow minded? Everything to you is GAY.
WE KNOW
Now can you debate how this might effect you if OTHERS take this case to heart and think it gives credence to their agendas.
Like not allowing kids the right to drive...
or ever vote...
or hold public office
or to be a part of any discussion concerning education ..such as school dress codes... and other
rules.
How about their right to use a gun to hunt..or drive a boat..jeep ,atv or snowmobile..
You said nothing about 17 year olds murdering people ..planning and using terrorist ideals.
Nor the rights of victums families to see justice carried out.
You call me names..call me narrow minded and a lier...
you impeach yourself...
and thats not what I was after...
|
|
|
|
Post by itsallaboutme on Mar 2, 2005 11:05:27 GMT -5
Hey, every time you post something negative about Gays you've attacked me.
The heading of the thread was
"The Death Penalty for Kids". Yet you rant about Gays.
How the hell did that have anything to do with the topic???
When I first read the topic thread I was planning on responded to it then as I read your post I saw your numerous posts about Gay this and Gay that.
You spent more time on Gay stuff they you did on the title of thread. Why must every issue YOU post have something in it about Gays?? If you would have responded to your on Thread title without pulling gays into I would have responded only to the thread title.
Now, how do I feel about the Death penalty? It's useless in it current form. It cost more money then just putting someone away for life. What's the deterrent if it takes a minimum of 10 years or more likely that someone will not be put to death if giving said sentence.
Try and post something without pulling gay people into.
It would be like me posting something like this.
Thread title: "Death penalty for Kids"
(followed by)
Scientist believe that those men 50 & over with extreme male-pattern baldness" likely have had a chronic Masterbation problem.
Gay has nothing to do with criminal punishment.
|
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Mar 2, 2005 15:46:04 GMT -5
Since you cannot distinguish my allowing for the sake of argument that the judges ruling may and should have implications on both gay and abortion rights.
I am refering to what might be taken from the majorities opinion that Kenedy wrote
" Young people lack maturity ...are more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences ..and have characters that are not as well formed as that of an adult"
Could this argument be used against kids wanting an abortion.?..if they cannot make a mature decision as the judge wrote...
When you figurerd at 14 that you were gay ..could your parents have forced you into treatment...since you fell well short of the 18 year old threshold..
If Kenedy can change state law based upon this argument ,cannot others use it against more liberal positions...the court cannot figure on just anything but what the law is...here it is making a ruling using stuff with far reaching implications.
38 states have the death penalty and 18 prohibit it being used for 16 and 17 year olds...not a majority as Kenedy writes...
So what I was saying is that the Tactics used could come back to bite you ...and the court has painted itself into a box.
States can determine moral laws..and penal codes...now it seems that they need permission from the left to do so.
Or as an attorney with the criminal justice legal foundation writes...
"who detemines that a law is reprehensible? Is it the people or 5 lawyers that get appointed to the court?"
"why should 5 people get to judge morality for the entire country"
Look at this not has a rant against gays but a statement for state and peoples rights. Including gays and abortion...which is included in most morality discusssions.
|
|
|
|
Post by itsallaboutme on Mar 2, 2005 16:04:27 GMT -5
Ok, I'll humor you.
I think most people you, me even Gorf knew Right from wrong long before we were 14. So, how that translates into the dealth penalty for teenagers being cruel where as it's not once they are over the age of 18, I don't know...I guess it depends on your stance on the issue it's self.
My parents would have been smart enough to know "treatment" for homosexuals is a farce. For the sake of argument had my parents sent me to some "treatment" place they would have wasted a lot of money.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Mar 2, 2005 17:28:16 GMT -5
Bill, did you actually read the court ruling or someone's interpretation of it from a newspaper? The ruling says absolutely nothing about minors not being able to tell right from wrong. a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01mar20051300/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-633.pdfWithout that argument the basis for your comments regarding gays would appear to be moot. I do agree that there ought to still be held open the possibility of exceptions though for those considered to be minors by their age but have a maturity level and clear understanding of what they did as not being unacceptible behavior as well as knowing full well that the death penalty is a common result where they reside. There have been many cases reported of juveniles being used by gangs to perpetrate very serious crimes just for the fact that they are less likely to be treated the same as adults. Therefore without any exceptions to the current ruling it leaves open the possibility of more abuse in that regard. OTOH: From a religious and personal belief standpoint I'm very mixed about the death penalty in general. |
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Mar 3, 2005 9:55:18 GMT -5
Did i read it fully from start to end like a lawyer? No I read what Kenedy wrote as reported by news organisations. The quote I posted was exact from the papers ... I find it interesting that both of you figure that kids at 14 know right from wrong. Quess what ? I agree!!! bet that will make your day... When I was a kid we protested strict dress codes at high school and won...Now my old high school has a strict dess code...Why? Because our generation is a bit hypocritical..it wasnt good for us but it is good for our kids? We protested 18 year olds didnt have the right to vote...and won...because next month after graduating from high school we could be sent to Viet nam without being able to vote on any control of our destiny. We even got the pot and drinking age lowered for the same reasons...gee I quess if 18 year olds cannot be old enough to drink and smoke a doobie..Just like our parents we shouldnt be sent to war to protect their butts. Funny thing happened along the way..we grew up and decided we know better than our kids..why all the multiple drunk driving convictions for over 40 year olds..the breakup of marraiges and abuse ? Is it because our minds are develped further? I dont think so.. Now our generation believes that we cannot have a death penalty for hienous murders..and a first step is saying kids under 18 are not culpable and not liable for their actions...in effect changing laws to meet a moral shift to the left...many scientist testified the minds of 16 and 17 are highly susceptable to outside influences..duh...and the left is out there trying to win them over in our education sysyem..and through the media. I do believe they will catch on and learn they are being led like sheep...and wake up ,and study why..and see it benifits only the left..not society as a whole..we need a balance of info. out there..not just what democrats want nor just republicans ..but all sides presented...in all matters of politics...not just morals. So keep posting the funny cartoons...and the data that only shows a negative influence ...maybe it will help  |
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Mar 3, 2005 16:53:27 GMT -5
Did i read it fully from start to end like a lawyer? No I read what Kenedy wrote as reported by news organisations. The quote I posted was exact from the papers ... My point being that the quotation you copied doesn't exist in the actual judicial document. Is it possible that there are different people running the school now than those that protested the dress codes when you were a kid? There was a legal pot smoking age when you were a kid? Over 40? "Overall, young drivers, and especially, young White males account for a large share of the alcohol-crash problem. (NHTSA, 2001) Almost one-third (33 percent) of all pedestrians 16 years of age or older killed in traffic crashes in 2000 were intoxicated. (NHTSA, 2000) Research continues to show that young drivers are more often involved in alcohol-related crashes than any other comparable age group. Alcohol-crash involvement rates, share of the alcohol-crash problem and alcohol-crash risk all reach their peaks with young drivers, with the peaks for fatal crashes occurring at age 21. (NHTSA, 2001)
The highest prevalence of both binge and heavy drinking in 2000 was for young adults aged 18 to 25, with the peak rate occurring at age 21. (SAMHSA, 2000)
The highest intoxication rates in fatal crashes in 2000 were recorded for drivers 21-24 years old (27 percent) followed by ages 25-34 (24 percent) and 35-44 (22 percent). (NHTSA, 2000)Older drivers involved in fatal crashes in 2000 had the lowest intoxication rate (4 percent) of all adult drivers. (NHTSA, 2000) One in ten Americans aged 12 and older in 2000 (22.3 million persons) drove under the influence of alcohol at least once in the 12 months prior to an interview for a nationwide survey. (SAMHSA, 2000) Thirty percent of 15-20 year old drivers killed in motor vehicle crashes during 2000 had been drinking. Twenty-one percent were intoxicated. (NHTSA, 2000) For ages 13-19, 53 percent of the deaths were drivers, 47 percent were passengers. Based only on the driving age population 16-19, 60 percent were drivers, 40 percent were passengers. At ages 13-15, more young people were killed as passengers than as drivers. (IIHS, December 2001) The intoxication rate for 16 to 20 year old drivers involved in fatal crashes in 2000 was 15 percent. (NHTSA, 2000) Based on the latest mortality data available (1998), motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for people from 15 to 20 years old. (NHTSA, 2000) Twenty-six percent of young male drivers involved in fatal crashes in 2000 had been drinking at the time of the crash, compared with 13 percent of the young female drivers involved in fatal crashes. (NHTSA, 2000)" Again, the report does NOT say kids under 18 are not cuplable. It says they ought not be subject to the same level of penalties as adults. There is a major difference in those two statements and it isn't just semantic. The case decided the minor in question could not be given the death penatly, however, he was given life in prison without the possibility of parole or lessen sentence other than by the specific decree of the governor of the state. To get a balance of information you have to have people that are willing to read the information that's already readily available and try to understand it rather than reacting on pure emotion and idle speculation reported by others that like taking snippets and sound bytes out of context. What percentage of the people that voted in the 2004 presidential election voted based on what they saw in some commercial for "either side" that totally misrepresented the facts or presented blatant lies? |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Mar 4, 2005 13:26:21 GMT -5
When minors are afforded the rights of the majority, only then should they be held to the same standards.
Why is a 16 evaluated for competency on an individual basis when it comes to standing trial for murder, but cannot be evaluated to determine if they are competent to vote, or buy cigarettes, or buy alcohol, or attend an R-rated movie?
When minors are allowed to petition to be treated like adults for the good things, then I would not have a problem with them being treated like adults when it comes to bad stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Mar 4, 2005 22:36:24 GMT -5
The bigger issue to me is whether there is a need for the death penalty at all.
The reports from virtually every state show that it costs 2 -3 times as much to execute someone for a crime than it does to place someone in prison for life without possibility of parole.
The reports tend to company the cost of individual cases where the outcome of the trila is to successfully convict and sentence someone to the death penalty. They commonly don't also show the additional disproportionate costs of trials that are aimed at getting a death sentence but end up with a life imprisonment sentence instead compared to "just" going to trial with the intent of life imprisonment.
Switching death penalty trials to life sentence trials could save hundreds of millions of dollars nationally.
Are there any real benefits to the death penalty?
|
|
