You're Under 18 - Will Be Doing Only Time…
Below is my comment to a friend's blog. Here is the link – The Noy G Show - take a read (Post is titled - The U.S. is One of 5 Countries on Earth).
Quick Synopsis for those too lazy to click the link –
“The Supreme Court decided that the United States will no longer execute criminals who committed capital offenses when they were under the age of 18. The majority decision gave three reasons for its holding. First, the rest of the world is against it. Second, the majority of the country is against it. Third, juveniles are psycholigically unready to be accountable on a capital level for their crimes.” Noyam’s post argues against this holding and I support his argument.
My Comment:
I'm actually extremely pissed off about this recent decision because there were a lot of people I wanted to kill in high school. Retrospectively, now that I could not be put to death for it, regardless of how sane, mature, psychologically stable and premeditated my actions were, I would've gone on a major killing spree before my 18th birthday.You think Lee Malvo was bad? Ha! I'm a ton smarter than that no-balls, trunk hiding degenerate. I could have thought things through, and lasted a ton longer on the streets. I could've wiped out most of my enemies without slipping up. I could have researched victims, planned each killing decided whether or not torture was necessary, hid bodies, etc... And because I was a day or so before my 18th birthday, I could have stayed alive to reap the book benefits. I could have spent all day watching ESPN in jail (actually not much different than my law school life). If only I would have known...
There is no way that you can convince me there is a logical and legal maturity and mental capability difference between a killer who is 18 to the day, and a killer on the day before his 18th birthday - yet this is what the Supreme Court effectively decided. This opens the floodgates for making other such blanket decisions on psychological capabilities and perhaps that can be a future post. I argue that there cannot be a cutoff like this, it needs to be a case-by-case decision as Noyam mentions. It needs to go to the jury. They need to decide based on evidence whether the killer can be put to death.
I am interested in hearing other opinions on this matter…
Quick Synopsis for those too lazy to click the link –
“The Supreme Court decided that the United States will no longer execute criminals who committed capital offenses when they were under the age of 18. The majority decision gave three reasons for its holding. First, the rest of the world is against it. Second, the majority of the country is against it. Third, juveniles are psycholigically unready to be accountable on a capital level for their crimes.” Noyam’s post argues against this holding and I support his argument.
My Comment:
I'm actually extremely pissed off about this recent decision because there were a lot of people I wanted to kill in high school. Retrospectively, now that I could not be put to death for it, regardless of how sane, mature, psychologically stable and premeditated my actions were, I would've gone on a major killing spree before my 18th birthday.You think Lee Malvo was bad? Ha! I'm a ton smarter than that no-balls, trunk hiding degenerate. I could have thought things through, and lasted a ton longer on the streets. I could've wiped out most of my enemies without slipping up. I could have researched victims, planned each killing decided whether or not torture was necessary, hid bodies, etc... And because I was a day or so before my 18th birthday, I could have stayed alive to reap the book benefits. I could have spent all day watching ESPN in jail (actually not much different than my law school life). If only I would have known...
There is no way that you can convince me there is a logical and legal maturity and mental capability difference between a killer who is 18 to the day, and a killer on the day before his 18th birthday - yet this is what the Supreme Court effectively decided. This opens the floodgates for making other such blanket decisions on psychological capabilities and perhaps that can be a future post. I argue that there cannot be a cutoff like this, it needs to be a case-by-case decision as Noyam mentions. It needs to go to the jury. They need to decide based on evidence whether the killer can be put to death.
I am interested in hearing other opinions on this matter…
posted by EDS | 2:01 PM
3 Comments:
If a person is old enough to kill someone in such a way that it can be classified under the law as murder, that person should be subject to the death penalty. You can't determine that at a certain age a person becomes smart or becomes "worthy" of the chair. We already allow a jury to decide if the individual is guilty so we should also allow them to decide whether the defendants are psychologically capable of being held accountable on a capital level.
I can argue that many of the people over 18 are not psychologically capable of being held accountable on a capital level. But we should not establish a specific age but rather we must evaluate, on a case by case basis, the nature and intent of the crime.
We set up a court system based on using a jury. Let’s not put this in the hands of 9 old people who sit at a desk all day with no fear of getting fired. We must be allowed to let the common man evaluate the merits of the case and make a decision. To rob us of this is to rob us of our freedom. (Humming of the Star Spangled Banner in background). Isn’t this decision an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen! (Chicken Parm- you better get this one)
AJS
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
For my view on the over/under 18 issue, see my comment on The Noy G Show. However, I wanted to use this comment to explain my view of the death penalty in general.
My basic view is that I am all for the death penalty. God was for it (see The Bible by God). He (yes, He) even wanted the death penalty to be pretty gruesome, not some sort of wimpy lethal injection. The only question is - who should get it?
The answer is simple - anyone who is convicted to life without parole should be killed. The basic reason that a person has a "right" to live is that he can contribute to society. Not that the person must contribute, but he has the potential to contribute to society. Once a person is spending the rest of his life in jail with no chance of getting out, he no longer can contribute to society in any meaningful way. By definition, prison removes him from society. As such, he is just deadweight (no pun intended).
If a person will never be paroled, why should I (as a taxpayer) pay for him to remain alive? Paying taxes is an investment in government. If the government supports this person in jail, where is the return to the taxpayer. (Almost every other government spending can potentially provide a return. Even welfare, arguably, which gives the poor money, provides the taxpayer a return by making the poor less likely to steal from a taxpayer to get that money.) Simply, anyone convicted to life without parole should, instead, be put to death. Once they are buried, they are no longer a burden on the taxpayer.
The most common liberal argument against this logic is that death "costs" more than life in prison. Thats a bunch of crap. First, even under the current system, this is a debatable point. In addition, there is a simple reform that easily makes the death penalty cheaper - corporate sponsorship. Beheadings were a major attraction in France. Hangings always brought capacity crowds. Modern day executions could easily get Super Bowl sized ratings on television, especially if they get creative. I am sure Ford would pay millions to have some murderer be forced to suck on a tailpipe. Imagine how much Orville Redenbacher would pay to have someone holding a bag of popcorn on the electric chair. Under this system, a handful of executions would pay for the entire penal system (and maybe even social security).
This system would be great fun for the whole family. They could even have some sort of American Idol type of interactive event, where the viewers vote on the type of death. (In fact, I wish American Idol let us vote on whether to kill the singer. If they did, Clay would have definitely beat Ruben.)
In summary, instead of using taxpayer money to keep prisoners with no hope of parole in already overcrowded jails, the government should publicly execute them and raise money at the same time by offering corporate sponsorships. [Note: this argument is just as valid for a 16 year old as a 80 year old. There is no reason to go into the type of distinctions the Supreme Court is worried about.]
--General R. Blie
Post a Comment
<< Home