Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: supreme court on teenager executions  (Read 1515 times)

amarain

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4036
    • View Profile
    • Atlanta Private Investigator
Re: supreme court on teenager executions
« Reply #10 on: October 13, 2004, 03:23:01 PM »
I should hope someone like the Avila guy in the article would end up in maximum security, and I hope everyone knows he's a child rapist. I hear they don't look too kindly upon that in prison. But the prosecution is seeking the death penalty in that case, so we'll see. If anyone deserves it, it's him. I don't give a damn if he can be rehabilitated; there are no second chances when you rape and murder a 5 year old.

desmo

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1749
    • View Profile
Re: supreme court on teenager executions
« Reply #11 on: October 13, 2004, 03:24:40 PM »
Nah, a shank up under the ribs is too nice.  Someone needs to get medieval on him.

absy

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3838
    • View Profile
Re: supreme court on teenager executions
« Reply #12 on: October 13, 2004, 03:40:06 PM »
The unfortunate incidence of rape in prison should not be something that we take comfort in.  Something as vile as rape and murder should be disavowed for all human beings.

There are essentially three different goals for punishment: deterrence,  rehabilitation and retribution.  I believe the state should more appropriately focus on the first two.

jgomez

  • Guest
Re: supreme court on teenager executions
« Reply #13 on: October 13, 2004, 03:42:48 PM »
I think the state should focus on deterrence and retribution.  Once the deterrence has failed, I think the only justification is eye for an eye. 

I think rehabilitation for people under 18.

The unfortunate incidence of rape in prison should not be something that we take comfort in.  Something as vile as rape and murder should be disavowed for all human beings.

There are essentially three different goals for punishment: deterrence,  rehabilitation and retribution.  I believe the state should more appropriately focus on the first two.

desmo

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1749
    • View Profile
Re: supreme court on teenager executions
« Reply #14 on: October 13, 2004, 03:48:49 PM »
A long slow painful death would help the deterrence factor.

buster

  • Guest
Re: supreme court on teenager executions
« Reply #15 on: October 13, 2004, 04:56:50 PM »
Did I say that I think people who would otherwise be executed should be kept in minimum- or medium-security facilities? That's absurd.

Hmmm, so people in prison got it made, such as Pete Rose, with giant big screen tv.  Inmates get to watch HBO.  Rarely will prison life will be hellish, unless it's in a maximum security prison, in which possiblility of getting rape is HIGH. 

Most inmates serve their time in minimu, to medium level security detention.  Oh, yeah, and they have free access to legal libraries, in which get get to sue the state over every little issue, such as not providing salt for my food. 

noell

  • Guest
Re: supreme court on teenager executions
« Reply #16 on: October 13, 2004, 10:52:50 PM »
Yes, I think all teenagers should fry.

:)

M2

  • Guest
Re: supreme court on teenager executions
« Reply #17 on: October 14, 2004, 12:56:41 AM »
I think the death penalty should be reserved for only the most extreme cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of the person's guilt. i.e. serial killer who admits to killing bunch of people...and there is substantial proof he/she did it...etc

Tobias Beecher

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2148
    • MSN Messenger - roger_76@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: supreme court on teenager executions
« Reply #18 on: October 14, 2004, 12:12:49 PM »
I say fry that teen bastard.


Still I Rise

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 79
    • View Profile
Re: supreme court on teenager executions
« Reply #19 on: October 14, 2004, 08:21:41 PM »
I don't really agree with the death penalty, but since we have it and it's probably not going anywhere, it's a reality of life. So, if we HAVE to have it, it should be carried out fairly.

And, if it is, I think it should be used only for the most heinous of crimes. But, only after DNA (if it'll help prove one way or the other, which isn't the case in every situation) has determined innocence or guilt; after all fairly conducted appeals are lost and exhausted, and there is no more question about a person's guilt or innocence.

But, with that being said... After all that's done, if they are found to be truly guilty, then execute them quickly. Bye. See you in Heaven. Or Hell.

Don't have them sitting around in solitary confinement for 29 years. That's money we could be putting into education or other good causes like medical research, or something..




Personally, I have no problem frying the scum and think we should accelerate the process.