In article ,
says...
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?

Honestly, I don't know. What I do know is that it's easier to change a
teenager for the better than a 30 year old, and we haven't entirely
given up on older offenders yet.


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.

Sure you did, you said (emphasis added),

"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?"



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.


Since the Supreme Court has previously ruled that murders committed
under the age of sixteen are not subject to the death penalty, your
question is moot-of course there have been no executions of 6 year olds.

You objected to the Court raising the age from 16 to 18, but have been
coy about whether you think limiting the death penalty at any age is
appropriate. If you do believe it's appropriate, then we're only arguing
about where to draw the line, and you've given no reasons for your
objection to the Court's action. If you don't think age restrictions are
called for at all, and prefer to rely on the judgement of a jury in all
cases, then you need to be prepared for very young offenders to face the
death penalty. I'm not saying that's an illogical position, but if that
is your opinion, we're having the wrong conversation.

Ned Simmons