Writing a fuzzy limit into law is difficult to do well, and dangerous to do poorly. A hard age limit can make annoying PR-type stories, "he was just 3 days under/over the limit!", but unless the accused is retarded it does avoid a jury being asked to decide whether the person was "adult enough", whatever that means.

The gov't has a different set of responsibilities from either of us. The death penalty is a form of self-defense for society.

Having society decide whether to punish or rehabilitate first would be a good idea.

self-defense definition – self-defense is the use of force to protect oneself or one’s family from harm; self defense is generally justified if it is proportional to the danger posed.

The individual nut in prison poses no serious danger to society. Are you thinking of punishing the nut for the potential crimes of others (deterent argument)? I'm not keen on the state wielding any more power than is absolutely necessary.

Anybody else thinking about the abortion debate's arbitrary line...

Well, it's not working too well. Doesn't the US have one of the highest - if not THE highest - homicide rates of any Western country?

Frankly, I don't think murderers sit around doing cost/benefit analyses before they commit their deeds. ("Let's see. That guy has a $1000 in his pocket. I can walk over and shoot him and be $1000 richer. Of course, if I'm caught, I'll get the death penalty, but then again I COULD claim I'd just eaten a twinkie and get out after two years. Hmmm.... Yes or no?").

Most 17 year olds can understand the consequences of their actions and are capable of malice with forethought. I don't think the same is true of any five year olds.

That's why I qualified my statement with the idea of getting a better system set up.

Studies have shown a 10 lower IQ mean in prisoners compared to people on the outside. And considering the behavior of the people on the outside...

sweet! this is going to make it really easy. all we have to do is give everyone an IQ test and execute those that are criminally stupid.

edit: the more i think, the more i like this plan. it has a multitude of benefits

A) about 3/4 of our politicians would be gone and we could look for some honest replacements
B) it would be a boon to the economy, especially in the labor market, think of all the workers needed to dig graves, etc...
- unemployment would drop to... well, maybe nothing.
C) people who drive at 50 in the left hand lane would be gone!!!

where do i vote for this plan?

*sigh*

As laudable as that idea seems on the surface, it fails in that you can't test for criminal stupidity, only lower cognitive functioning.

It IS an entertaining thought. My freshman survey class would drop down to maybe 5 students. Make MY life easier!

However, in addition to the problem with this solution that TS pointed out, there is also the fact that some of the worst serial killers are highly intelligent - Ted Bundy, for example - so you still wouldn't have eliminated all the predators.

true we wouldn't get 'em all, but we could make a dent in them... it's just the odds we're playing, after all. and if nothing else, it would be like throwing chlorine in the gene pool. and rush hour would probably be better too.

and it just seems more scienterific than killing all the people who annoy me.

I don't know the answer to that is an arbitrary age limit.

Of course not. But in someone not mentally handicapped, 16 is way different than 5.

I think that is exactly why the law should be left as it is (15) and let the adjucating courts decide. That's what they are there for. I do think the line has to be drawn somewhere, but it's not always an easy line to draw. In the case mentioned in the article, the juvenile knew he would not get the death penalty because of his age. In this case, maybe a 15 year old line may have deterred him. No one knows. It's not an issue we can say definitively one way or the other in every case.

Then should the court, rather than some law, also decide for each person when they have the right to vote or to drink? Or should the preferential treatment only be used when the government wants take things away rather than grant them?

i'm not sure that i can adequately put this into written format, but when has that ever stopped a cellarite?

Glatt - i think it is positive thing that our society has decided to give blanket privileges (drinking, voting) at a certain date in time, irrespective of one's maturity. it can be assumed that at certain points in time, say age 18, you have experienced enough in life, and hopefully been educated enough that you can step into the aspect of adult life we call voting. By 21, hopefully you are not as vulnerable to peer pressure situations and can be deemed ready to drink if you choose.

those are freedoms, rights, privileges that are being granted without requirement of a passing grade other than the ability to stay alive for enough birthdays.

the death penalty issue is looking to take something away. it would be wrong to tie that to a birthdate in an arbitrary manner. we should look at the individual and the specifics of the crime.

i'm having a hard time putting to words what i really mean, but it boils down to this, if we are giving something positive it is ok to give a blanket treatment, but if we are taking something away (a life, freedom) then we should look at the individual.

Just to pour a little juice on the fire...

So when is it ok for a person to exert their (given, granted, expressed) right to keep and bear arms?

It varies from state to state, but wolf would be a better one than I to tell you. I believe it's 18 to purchase a rifle and shotgun and 21 for hanguns because of the various gun control laws.

Here is a sample of state laws.....