the difference between 17 and 18

[Happy Monkey]

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.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat

I am for the most part opposed to the death penalty. If it is wrong to take a human life, then the law should have to adhere to the same morality.

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

Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat

And, really, the death penalty amounts to an easy out. The convicted killer committed these horrific acts and gets euthanized. That's nice. I bet most of the victim's deaths were nowhere near as easy and painless as lethal injection. Let the bastards rot in a maximum security cell for 40 years to reflect upon their sins. If you want to punish someone, that's the way to do it. It would also end this ridiculously arbitrary line between someone who at age 17 and 364 days commits a murder versus someone who commits a murder at age 18 and 0 days.

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

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

The death penalty is a form of self-defense for society.

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...

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

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

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?").

[dar512]

Originally Posted by Catwoman

Yes, but how can you tell? If you kill a 17 year old, by the same logic, you must kill a 5 year old for the same crime.

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.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat

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?").

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...

[lookout123]

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?

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by lookout123

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.

*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.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

*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.

[lookout123]

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.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Catwoman

So OC, when do you think the cut-off point should be?

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

I'm sure you'll agree that a 5 year old should not be sentenced to death for a murder?

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

This is an impossibly vague debate since no two crimes are the same etc etc but at what point does an individual become responsible for their actions? 10? 12? 18? I know some 30 year olds who don't understand that washing makes dishes clean.

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.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

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.

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?

[lookout123]

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.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by lookout123

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?

[OnyxCougar]

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.....

The FOID card was created in 1968, by the FOID Act, as a way to identify those persons eligible to possess and acquire firearms and firearm ammunition as part of a public safety initiative in the State of Illinois.

Each applicant for a FOID card who is over the age of 18 shall furnish to the Department of State Police either his or her Illinois driver's license number or Illinois Identification Card number.

What is the legal age to purchase or possess a firearm?
A person must be at least 18 years of age to purchase a rifle or shotgun. To purchase a handgun, you must be at least 21 years of age, pursuant to federal law. For statutory regulations concerning underage persons possessing firearms, refer to Virginia Code §18.2-308.7, possession or transportation of certain firearms by persons under the age of eighteen.

(Arizona)
Buyer must not be a "prohibited possessor" under federal or state law and be

• over 18 years of age in order to purchase a long gun or
• over 21 in order to purchase a handgun.