In article ,
says...
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:08:12 -0500, Ned Simmons wrote:

We've apparently decided to stop executing children, so anything is
possible g.

Remind me again how a murderer who is a day short of 18 years is a
"child" please?

Take it up with the Supremes.

"While drawing the line at 18 is subject to the objections
always raised against categorical rules, that is the point
where society draws the line for many purposes between
childhood and adulthood and the age at which the line for
death eligibility ought to rest."

Do you have a good argument for 17-1/2 years? 8-1/2?

The age of the murderer doesn't change the outcome
for the victim and their family,

Are you looking for revenge here, or is this an eye for an
eye thing?

and if you're old enough to murder
someone you're damn well old enough to suffer the consequences.

6-1/2 years?


But keep that funny size paper outta here.

On that, we agree. It just looks _wrong_.

It *is* wrong (and doesn't fit in any of my binders).

Ned Simmons