Underage Execution

[[deleted user]]

Willie Francis was only seventeen when he was killed in Louisiana as Prejean describes on page 19.
Not only was he young, but he was still killed after surviving the first attempt.

Do you believe that it should be legal to put minors to death for a crime?
Why or why not?

[[deleted user]]

Well, as we all seemed to agree in the capital punishment thread, I do not believe that death is a proper punishment for crime.

However, I'm thinking of your question as more of: should minors get the same punishment as legal adults for crimes?

I think it is truly rotten that kids are committing such heinous crimes and wish that they were given the same opportunities as we all are to have successful, crime-free futures. But, I realize that is dramatically optimistic and I must think realistically.
I believe that while children don't always understand the severity of what they're doing, they still know it is wrong. However, after the age of at least 16, a person knows that theft, rape, and murder are WRONG and SEVERE! I believe that they should be punished as if they were a legal adult because while it is unfortunate that a potentially bright future is wasted, a 17 year-old is choosing to eliminate their bright future when they choose to kill or rape.

[Sarah]

Well what about a fifteen year old or a fourteen year old? Where do we dry the line at who is 'mature' enough to make their own decisions?

And what is maturity, anyways?

[Lindsey]

Good question Sarah! Like many issues related to the justice system, it is difficult to determine "where to draw the line" because each case is so different. And as imperfect human beings, we will never find an exact rule that works in all cases.

Another interesting aspect to consider is the minor's background. It is true that young adults are more easily influenced. Many of the examples Prejean presented in her novel, including Pat, come from poverty, broken families, and a history of crime. Because these young adults (practically children) have known nothing better than crime, should they be judged less harshly?

Just something to consider.

[Josh]

Based on that logic, adults should be judged less harshly for their crimes based because of their background. I'm sure there are cases in which a person grows up knowing nothing better than crime.

In other words, you can't make exceptions such as that. If there is a punishment for a certain activity then it should be applied to everyone who partakes in that certain activity with no exceptions.

[[deleted user]]

Athough I do agree with what Jenny said, personally I think the "line" should be drawn at 18, the age that determines most things in our country. If someone cannot go to war until they are 18 to put themselves at risk to die for our country and government, why should someone under 18 be allowed to be killed by the government? I think that someone under 18 is still considered a minor because they are young and immature. I do not believe that should be punished so harshly by death even if what they did was wrong. Life in prison would teach them more than death could because they could possibly have 70-80 years to learn from their mistakes.

[John]

Metaphorical Explanation: I'm sure most gas stations would sell me cigarettes a few days before I'm 18.

If you're 17 going on 18 and committing a crime that an adult could be given the death penalty for, your maturity level doesn't change drastically enough to say when you are 18, "now that he's grown up and mature, he'd never do that again"

Why not round up? Are they going to learn that murdering/raping is bad overnight on their birth certificate b-day?

[Yalan]

Nice question! Since there is no marker to round up, the government could easily round up the age of a 16 year old, have him face the death penalty, and say that the maturity there wouldn't change, thus making the age restriction pointless. So no, I don't think it should be even a couple days before because if there is any leeway at all, the government would have the right to change the limit whenever they wanted to.

[[deleted user]]

I agree with Yalan and John. Honestly, if you're old enough to be on the road, driving by yourself at the age of 16, and deemed mature enough or capable enough to theoretically/potentially put others at risk, then I think they're old enough to be punished as adults. Not that I'm trying to say that punishments should be harsher for those who have a license, ha!

And I definitely disagree with the idea that people in different circumstances should be punished differently. Stealing food for survival is a different story, but when it comes to murder and rape, people know those are wrong, and they will always be wrong, no matter what your circumstances are. Also, to say that people can't tell the when something is wrong because they grow up around crime is bizarre to me, because crime is crime. Crime is wrong. It is a widely-known fact that rape and murder is a crime. Just because they grow up with crime as the norm, doesn't mean they don't know it's wrong.

[Erin]

This is a tough question. It seems wrong to sentence and kill a minor as an adult. They're still underage and should be treated differently. However, I strongly believe that if a person is old enough to make their own decisions every day and control their own actions, than they are old enough to live with the consequences of those actions. If a person can consciously kill another human being, than they can face the consequences, even if the consequence is death.

[Gage]

It should be completely illegal to put a minor to death for a crime. In short, minors aren't even truly arrested for most crimes; they are simply slapped on the wrist. The actual prison age is 18. So execution for a crime should apply to all those 18 and older who are convicted of such an extreme crime. Life in prison seems more just for underaged criminals. At least until they're old enough to be tried as an adult.

[[deleted user]]

It's the fact that they are simply slapped on the wrist that is the problem. Minors (once they've reached a certain age) know what they're doing is wrong and should be punished for it as if they were an adult. There is a certain age of maturity, reached before the age of 18, obtaining the knowledge that certain crimes are bad, and just consequences should be given. People should not be able to hide behind the excuse of being a minor.

[Dane]

If it can be proved that the minor intentionally killed someone, then i think it's just for them to be put to death as any other person is for that same crime.

The difference in maturity between a 17 year old and an 18 year old is miniscule, therefore they shouldn't be treated any differently.

However, if a baby that can't even talk picks up a gun and shoots someone, the parents should be to blame more-so than the baby of course. Should the parents be put to death? I feel as if i'm rambling.



I think that if one minor is put to death for a crime, there won't be any more crimes caused by minors. So i think it is just to put a minor to death for a crime. The crime would have to be serious though, like killing their parents or something scary like that.

[Holland]

My question is really similar to the one that started this discussion, but there's a slight difference so I'm going to post it anyways.

In my class there was a question posed based off this quote from Roberts, "I believe in death penalty in some instances, like for people who rape and torture little children. Messin' over adults is one thing, but little innocent kids? I'd pull the switch on them myself" (147). The discussion that followed basically covered whether or not people agreed with this statement. Most said they did not with similar responses much like Jenny's above; that murder was murder regardless of age or any other circumstances.

This led me to question how these same people would respond if they were discussing the death penalty. In this scenario replace the victim with an incriminated minor ready to be put to death by the government (i.e. the murderer). Both situations are dealing with the death of children, but I seriously doubt anyone would react the same way. It made me look at things at a different angle, and I thought it was interesting. What does this say about the death penalty and its implications? I hope this makes sense, because I found it a little difficult to convey the idea in my head with words. Ask for clarifications if needed!

Oh and as a side note, I don't agree with what Dane said about if one minor is put to death for a crime then there wouldn't be anymore crimes from minors. This is too idealistic and if it was possible it would have already happened with the adults that get death penalties. There have been hundreds in our country but rape and murder still happens.

[Allyson]

I believe that the right age for the death penalty should be 18. 18 is when you are charged as an adult and gain more privileges as a person.

Kids at the ages of 15 or 16 should get an appropriate punishment of maybe life in a juvenile jail. For me the thought of a kid so young being sentence to the death penalty

[Allyson]

ah i didn't finish. It is wrong for someone that young to die from their mistakes, these are the ages when children are still learning on how to correct their mistakes and learn from them.

There should be a limit on teenagers receiving the death penalty and it should be an age that is appropriate for this degree of punishment.

[Andy]

This is an interesting question, good thread.

To me, a murder is a murder, I don't care if you're eighty years old or if you're fresh out of college, you should know what you're doing when you kill somebody, and the death sentence reflects that. I feel like if you never execute a juvenile, you're sending the message that if you want somebody dead, you better do it while you're young, that way you only go to prison and always have a chance to get out.

I can understand why many believe that children should not be sentenced to death in serious crimes because usually there's a psychological screw that isn't tightened all the way somewhere, and that's why I think we need to be extremely careful when we sentence people to death. Don't judge them based off of their age, but off of their mental capacity, can they comprehend what they did and what consequences that results in? If yes, then the death penalty should be an option.

[[deleted user]]

Yes, Andy! I agree with the idea that they should be sentenced according to their mental capacity rather than age, very good point! :D

[Danielle]

Yes, yes, yes, many of you do bring up intresting points. And I can see why one might think that someone should be sentenced to death based on their "mental capacity rather than age". But because I am a firm believer in not killing anyone, it's easy for me to say that I'm definetly a firm believer in not killing minors. As Allyson stated before, this is when they are still learning from their mistakes, and although killing someone is certainly something that is far from a "mistake"-sentencing minors to death is wrong as well.

[Josh]

The probably with instituting a punishment on a case by case basis is that there is no standard/set law. It would more or less mean that the punishment is up to the court's discretion which could lead to an abuse of power.

[Anna]

When a person turns the age of eighteen (obviously I havn't experienced this myself but...) it seems as if a switch would go off that "I am now respondsible for my own actions." Kids have the feeling that they are protected by mom and dad up to that age in their life and parents can fix any mistakes made. Hitting that age should send a signal that they now have to fend for themselves.
As it was mentioned before, the government recognizes 18 as the set age to treat a person as an adult. If the government thinks 17-years-olds are kids, guess what, so does the kid. We too often view ourselves the way others view us. If teachers think we are dumb, we live up to it. If coaches think we are unathletic, we often live up to that as well. We are influenced more by what others think of us than what we think of ourselves. Eighteen it the year that this mindset should be reversed automatically. To relate this back to the death penalty for minors, kids think they are supposed to act out and "be a teenager." For some this mindset obviously goes way too far and can lead to violence crimes such as rape and murder. But, it is society that has influnced their actions, not themselves. I do not believe that a teeneage murderer thinks that killing is just a kid thing but the societal expectation, or lack of expectation resides in their mind. Let a kid be punished for his wrongs but not by death.

*It also seems to me that the fact that Willie Francis, the 17-year-old, was sentensed to death and not killed the first time he was electricuted is a sign: KIDS DESERVE SECOND CHANCES.