The Death Penalty should be applied equally to all ages

[Arthur Brain]

You're still dodging the question.

Answer the question I asked, not a question I did not ask.

I'm not going to respond to anything else you say in this thread until you do.

If we allow one person to get away with a crime, what does it teach him and other (would-be) criminals?

This is a strange form of "not responding"...

The law applies to adults so of course an adult with no mental impairment should not get away with a crime.

 

[JudgeRightly]

This is a strange form of "not responding"...

The law applies to adults so of course an adult with no mental impairment should not get away with a crime.

You're still dodging the question.

Answer the question I asked, not a question I did not ask.

I'm not going to respond to anything else you say in this thread until you do.

If we allow one person to get away with a crime, what does it teach him and other (would-be) criminals?

 

[Arthur Brain]

You're still dodging the question.

Answer the question I asked, not a question I did not ask.

I'm not going to respond to anything else you say in this thread until you do.

If we allow one person to get away with a crime, what does it teach him and other (would-be) criminals?

No, I haven't. A five year old child is a person, yes, but they're not a criminal or held as accountable for their actions as an adult under law. You wanna keep beating this asinine drum of yours then go ahead.

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, I haven't. A five year old child is a person, yes, but they're not a criminal or held as accountable for their actions as an adult under law. You wanna keep beating this asinine drum of yours then go ahead.

You're still dodging. Why won't you answer the question?

Answer the question I asked, not a question I did not ask.

I'm not going to respond to anything else you say in this thread until you do.

If we allow one person to get away with a crime, what does it teach him and other (would-be) criminals?

 

[Arthur Brain]

You're still dodging. Why won't you answer the question?

Answer the question I asked, not a question I did not ask.

I'm not going to respond to anything else you say in this thread until you do.

If we allow one person to get away with a crime, what does it teach him and other (would-be) criminals?

I haven't dodged it at all and you know fine well that I haven't. Please carry on "not responding". Frankly, you're acting like a child with this.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I haven't dodged it at all and you know fine well that I haven't. Please carry on "not responding". Frankly, you're acting like a child with this.

Why won't you answer the question? Is it because you can't without undermining your entire worldview? Is it because you don't know? Have you never actually thought about what would happen if we did such a thing?

Answer the question.

I'm not going to respond to anything else you say in this thread until you do.

If we allow one person to get away with a crime, what does it teach him and other (would-be) criminals?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Why won't you answer the question? Is it because you can't without undermining your entire worldview? Is it because you don't know? Have you never actually thought about what would happen if we did such a thing?

Answer the question.

I'm not going to respond to anything else you say in this thread until you do.

If we allow one person to get away with a crime, what does it teach him and other (would-be) criminals?

Gordon Bennet, maybe I should post pics cos you sure don't seem to understand words too well. I'll see if all caps helps any. MY ANSWER HAS BEEN THERE FOR THE LAST DOZEN OR SO POSTS. WE SHOULD NOT ALLOW A PERSON TO GET AWAY WITH A CRIME - PROVIDED THEY'RE OLD ENOUGH TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR A CRIME IN THE FIRST PLACE.

That help any?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Gordon Bennet, maybe I should post pics cos you sure don't seem to understand words too well. I'll see if all caps helps any. MY ANSWER HAS BEEN THERE FOR THE LAST DOZEN OR SO POSTS. WE SHOULD NOT ALLOW A PERSON TO GET AWAY WITH A CRIME - PROVIDED THEY'RE OLD ENOUGH TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR A CRIME IN THE FIRST PLACE.

That help any?

No, that does not help. It just confirms, yet again, that you either do not understand the question, or are deliberately avoiding it.

You are answering: "Should criminals be allowed to get away with crime?"

I am asking: "What does allowing that teach the criminal and everyone watching?"

Those are different questions. Massively different.

Now answer the one I actually asked, not the question you want to answer.

I'm not going to respond to anything else you say in this thread until you do.

If we allow one person to get away with a crime, what does it teach him and other (would-be) criminals?

 

[Arthur Brain]

No, that does not help. It just confirms, yet again, that you either do not understand the question, or are deliberately avoiding it.

You are answering: "Should criminals be allowed to get away with crime?"

I am asking: "What does allowing that teach the criminal and everyone watching?"

Those are different questions. Massively different.

Now answer the one I actually asked, not the question you want to answer.

I'm not going to respond to anything else you say in this thread until you do.

If we allow one person to get away with a crime, what does it teach him and other (would-be) criminals?

I know it wasn't. That's why I've stated - even just in my above that we shouldn't allow a PERSON - NOT A CRIMINAL - to get away with a crime, provided that they're old enough to be held accountable for one. Geez...

 

[annabenedetti]

I know it wasn't. That's why I've stated - even just in my above that we shouldn't allow a PERSON - NOT A CRIMINAL - to get away with a crime, provided that they're old enough to be held accountable for one. Geez...

You make sense to me!

 

[Arthur Brain]

You make sense to me!

Yes, but you're sensible!

 

[commonsense]

If we allow one person to get away with a crime, what does it teach him and other (would-be) criminals?

JR what you're really asking is "If we allow one 'child' to get away with a crime, what does it teach him (or her) and other (would-be) criminals?
First, in order for a crime to be committed, there must be intent to commit a crime. Mens rea. Surely you don't think that a 5 year old can form the intent to commit murder and understand the moral wrong and all the ramifications of such an act. That's why young children aren't put on death row, even in the States. Yup, I looked it up.
Secondly, do you honestly think gangsters would hear that a 5 year old accidentally killed someone somehow, wasn't charged with a crime, and conclude "Hey guess what? Looks like we can kill people at will and we won't get charged. That kid got off...."
Perhaps you need to give this subject a little more thought...

 

[Arthur Brain]

JR what you're really asking is "If we allow one 'child' to get away with a crime, what does it teach him (or her) and other (would-be) criminals?
First, in order for a crime to be committed, there must be intent to commit a crime. Mens rea. Surely you don't think that a 5 year old can form the intent to commit murder and understand the moral wrong and all the ramifications of such an act. That's why young children aren't put on death row, even in the States. Yup, I looked it up.
Secondly, do you honestly think gangsters would hear that a 5 year old accidentally killed someone somehow, wasn't charged with a crime, and conclude "Hey guess what? Looks like we can kill people at will and we won't get charged. That kid got off...."
Perhaps you need to give this subject a little more thought...

Oh, he does. We had this "merry go round" a few years ago. He thinks children as young as five can be executed for "capital crimes".

 

[JudgeRightly]

JR what you're really asking is "If we allow one 'child' to get away with a crime, what does it teach him (or her) and other (would-be) criminals?
First, in order for a crime to be committed, there must be intent to commit a crime. Mens rea. Surely you don't think that a 5 year old can form the intent to commit murder and understand the moral wrong and all the ramifications of such an act. That's why young children aren't put on death row, even in the States. Yup, I looked it up.
Secondly, do you honestly think gangsters would hear that a 5 year old accidentally killed someone somehow, wasn't charged with a crime, and conclude "Hey guess what? Looks like we can kill people at will and we won't get charged. That kid got off...."
Perhaps you need to give this subject a little more thought...

Perhaps you should read the thread first... Or at least these two recent posts.

There would never be any such thing as a five year old murderer in a society that executed murderers.

Indeed, I can't find any case where it is clear that any five year old has ever murdered anyone at all, even in this near totally unjust society, much less in one that enforces the death penalty against convicted murderers.

I'm not even sure that a child as young as five would even have the capacity to commit actual murder. There have been cases where people were killed by a small child because they were playing with a firearm, but that isn't what we're talking about. Such cases are tragic but they aren't murders. In such cases, the child was playing and had no concept at all that what he was doing was actually dangerous, never mind deadly. Whoever was responsible for the care and disposition of the firearm might be guilty of negligent homicide and therefore deserving of the death penalty, but the child is not.


All of that to say that your hypothetical stretches credulity to the point that it loses its power to persuade and probably does your position more harm than good. I'd be surprised if the mindless idiots that you're debating this with even agree with you on what the word "murder" means, never mind whether a five your old child is capable of understanding what he's doing sufficiently for it to be considered something other than an accident, in which case no death penalty is warranted.

However, it is a hypothetical and should be treated as such. The hypothetical stipulates that a five year old has committed murder (i.e. that he has been convicted in court of the crime of murder). Given that stipulation, the punishment should fit the crime and the murderer should be executed. I submit that proving that a five year old is even capable of such a crime would be an up hill climb, never mind proving that he actually did it, but, once again, that takes the issue outside of what the hypothetical stipulates.

You'd have a better time, strictly from a debate perspective, if you simply increased the age of the child. Eight, nine, ten year olds are vastly more advanced mentally than five year olds. But even then, it would be a weird position to debate because, as I said, such things simply would not happen in a society that executed people who are convicted of murder. And even if it did, it would be so extremely rare that such an isolated case that went unpunished would have a negligible effect on the society at large, if it had any effect at all.

Bingo.

But Arthur would rather be outraged at the hypothetical than answer simple questions, because those questions undermine his entire worldview. Every single post he goes without answering the question further exposes how evil he is.

The point I've been trying to make is not about children, per se, but that the law should be applied equally to all humans, not just adults.

And unfortunately, there have been examples of children as young as six:

Six-year-old’s shocking boast after shooting his teacher revealed

The shooting on 6 January left first-grade teacher Abby Zwerner with severe injuries

www.independent.co.uk

It's not that much of a stretch to think that in our current world 5 year olds could do similar.

And we currently live in a society where people guilty of violent murder are let go because "he was just misunderstood" or "he's the actual victim here" or "he's not mentally competent to stand trial."

Perhaps you can answer the question, where Arthur cannot.

Every time a murderer is let go without sufficient punishment, what does it teach other criminals?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Perhaps you should read the thread first... Or at least these two recent posts.





And we currently live in a society where people guilty of violent murder are let go because "he was just misunderstood" or "he's the actual victim here" or "he's not mentally competent to stand trial."

Perhaps you can answer the question, where Arthur cannot.

Every time a murderer is let go without sufficient punishment, what does it teach other criminals?

Apart from the fact that I answered you several times. Never once have I stated that a criminal should get away with a crime as you accused me of. Care to retract? Ironically enough, Clete did answer you on the score where it comes to five year olds, something I did at the time this particular "debate" first came about. Basic science an' all. Ho hum...

 

[JudgeRightly]

Apart from the fact that I answered you several times.

You haven't answered my question at all. You've danced around it as though your life depended on it, answering all sorts of questions that I didn't ask, instead of the one question I did ask.

It just confirms, yet again, that you either do not understand the question, or are deliberately avoiding it.

You are answering: "Should criminals be allowed to get away with crime?"

I am asking: "What does allowing that teach the criminal and everyone watching?"

Those are different questions. Massively different.

Now answer the one I actually asked, not the question you want to answer.

I'm not going to respond to anything else you say in this thread until you do.

If we allow one person to get away with a crime, what does it teach him and other (would-be) criminals?

 

[JudgeRightly]

You make sense to me!

Aside from completely not answering my question at all, yeah!

 

[annabenedetti]

Yes, but you're sensible!

Guess I'll sensibly wait for your return, then.

 

[Right Divider]

Two of the least sensible members on TOL patting each other on the back for their sensibility... classic.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Secondly, do you honestly think gangsters would hear that a 5 year old accidentally killed someone somehow, wasn't charged with a crime, and conclude "Hey guess what? Looks like we can kill people at will and we won't get charged. That kid got off...."

Little Jimmy, 5 years old, kills his mother (intentionally or otherwise). A tragedy, to be sure. All the kids at his school hear about it, and ask him questions, how did it happen, is he okay. He says he did it on purpose.

Five years later, he's 10 years old, kills his little sister. Another tragedy. Something's clearly wrong with him, but he's underage, so he's not tried for murder. His classmates talk about it at school, the topic of his mother comes up, and they wonder why he killed his mother and his sister, and how has he not faced any serious consequences for his actions.

Another five years go by, he's 15 years old, he kills his best friend, but since he's underage, he isn't charged with murder. He gets sent to juvenile detention, and then somehow, a few months later, he's out on "good behavior." His peers start to wonder if anything will ever be done to stop him, or if there really aren't any consequences to their actions.

Five more years, he's 20. He kills a random person on the street. His lawyer successfully gets him off by claiming he's not mentally stable enough to stand trial, and the leftist judge lets him walk. His former classmates see him on the news, and one or two of the rowdier bunch go out and vandalize a gas station, because they see that their former classmate got away with murder, and all he had to do was plead insanity, so what harm could vandalizing a gas station do? I mean, it's nothing so serious as what he did...

I could continue this analogy, but maybe you can see where I'm going with this.

So again, I ask, if we allow one person to get away with a crime, what does it teach him and other (would-be) criminals?

What does it do to the foundations of civilized society?

When consequences for actions are removed, how does it affect those around criminals?

In gang-infested areas where enforcement of the law is more of a suggestion than a requirement, is it more or less common for there to be corruption of the people not in gangs? Do the regular folk tend to obey the gangs more than the law of the land?