On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 16:51:20 -0500, Ned Simmons wrote:
In article ,
says...

Are you saying we should try to rehabilitate a murderer? How
do you propose they will contribute more to society than they
have taken? Even if it's possible, why invest money and effort
on someone who as already shown themselves to be unworthy of trust?

Yes, I think we should try, and I think there's a much
better chance of rehabilitating a teenaged as opposed to a
30 year old murderer. The Court agrees.

What's the rate of rehabilitation actually working, where the person
changes and becomes a non-criminal?

If it doesn't work
out I have no problem with life imprisonment, but if we
kill the kid we'll never know. As far as expense goes,
under the present system, life in prison is probably no
more expensive than 20 yrs on death row with all the
attendant appeals.

I didn't bring up expense, Ned. Tax money gets spent to keep society safe
in many different ways.


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

6-1/2 years?

Can you show me a case where a 6 1/2 year old has been convicted of
murder and sentenced to death?

No, but if as you say above, the crime should determine the
penalty then we should ignore age entirely when sentencing
and 6 year olds are fair game.

Red herring. If you're convicted of murder, that means a specific set of
circumstances has happened. If, because of age, a murder conviction isn't
appropriate, it won't happen. So, my question stands.