The Death Penalty should be applied equally to all ages

[Nick M]

That 22 month detention must have emotionally scared him, causing him to commit more murders.

 

[Arthur Brain]

That 22 month detention must have emotionally scared him, causing him to commit more murders.

Nah, not the 22nd but the 25th would be great right about now!

 

[JudgeRightly]

It's not irrelevant at all to the sane among us at least, which admittedly is fleeting around this peanut gallery these days...

Saying it doesn't make it so, Arthur. And quit with the "holier than thou" spiel. It's not convincing anyone.

A three year old "nicks" a spoon. Should they be tried for theft?

Yes. By his parents. If that doesn't work, or if the parents are not around or unwilling to discipline their child, then by the local court.

A ten year old is raped by an adult and claims the sexual "encounter" was consensual.
Rape of a minor by an adult? Yes or no?

What does this have to do with children committing crimes? The child is the victim here, not the criminal...

Unless you want to imply that children are also committing a crime by consenting to sex?

The rapist should be tried and upon conviction executed.

Your position on this subject is as twisted as unsupportable as it gets

The only reason you think it's twisted is because of your own twisted sense of morality.

Now, answer the question, Arthur.

If we allow one person, even if they're an adult, to get away with a crime, what does it teach him and other (would-be) criminals?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Saying it doesn't make it so, Arthur. And quit with the "holier than thou" spiel. It's not convincing anyone.



Yes. By his parents. If that doesn't work, or if the parents are not around or unwilling to discipline their child, then by the local court.



What does this have to do with children committing crimes? The child is the victim here, not the criminal...

Unless you want to imply that children are also committing a crime by consenting to sex?

The rapist should be tried and upon conviction executed.



The only reason you think it's twisted is because of your own twisted sense of morality.

Now, answer the question, Arthur.

If we allow one person, even if they're an adult, to get away with a crime, what does it teach him and other (would-be) criminals?

Oh noes! A three year old has stolen a spoon with malice aforethought!! The world is caving in around is, where will it end??!

Obviously the child/minor is the victim of rape but with your purview they could well be complicit. After all, it they can be found guilty of a capital crime at five years old then why can't they be guilty of wanting consensual sex at ten? This is how twisted your position is, and I suspect why nobody else is that vocal in supporting it, no matter how they might be on other matters...

Got a verse that specifically says the DP should apply to toddlers and infants yet? No? Thought not. (psst, there isn't one)

 

[JudgeRightly]

Oh noes! A three year old has stolen a spoon with malice aforethought!! The world is caving in around is, where will it end??!

Obviously the child/minor is the victim of rape but with your purview they could well be complicit. After all, it they can be found guilty of a capital crime at five years old then why can't they be guilty of wanting consensual sex at ten? This is how twisted your position is, and I suspect why nobody else is that vocal in supporting it, no matter how they might be on other matters...

Got a verse that specifically says the DP should apply to toddlers and infants yet? No? Thought not. (psst, there isn't one)

Answer the question, Arthur! 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?

 

[Clete]

You're avoiding the question because you know where it leads. Stop being irrational. You're fake kindness is harmful to society.

A five year old is a human being made in God's image. A person.

Murder is a crime.

If a five year old commits murder, he has committed a crime. His age is irrelevant to that fact.

So, again I ask you, if we allow one person, even if they're five years old, to get away with a crime, what does it teach him and other (would-be) criminals?

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.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Answer the question, Arthur! 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?

Don't be so asinine as to conflate a five year old child with a criminal, it really is that simple.

 

[JudgeRightly]

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.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Don't be so asinine as to conflate a five year old child with a criminal, it really is that simple.

Answer the question, Arthur! 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]

Answer the question, Arthur! 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?

You've had my answer and if you wanna leave it, fine. Heck, even Clete has made the point that a five year old lacks the understanding that at the very least, older children may possess because their neurological development hasn't matured enough yet. Hence laws that aren't twisted on the score and whacko crazy. Go figure, or don't...

 

[JudgeRightly]

You've had my answer and if you wanna leave it, fine. Heck, even Clete has made the point that a five year old lacks the understanding that at the very least, older children may possess because their neurological development hasn't matured enough yet. Hence laws that aren't twisted on the score and whacko crazy. Go figure, or don't...

You've responded, yes, but you haven't answered.

All you've done is evade.

Answer the question, Arthur! 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've responded, yes, but you haven't answered.

All you've done is evade.

Answer the question, Arthur! 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?

You've had my answer multiple times, do I really need to post it again?!

A five year old is a child, NOT a criminal. If you don't like it then eh, don't respond. I'm not fussed to be quite honest.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You've had my answer multiple times, do I really need to post it again?!

A five year old is a child, NOT a criminal. If you don't like it then eh, don't respond. I'm not fussed to be quite honest.

You're not reading the question.

Answer the question I asked, Arthur.

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]

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.

Oh, I'm well aware of the definition of murder thanks and why it can't possibly be applied to fiver year old children. Society isn't perfect but it isn't so warped as to execute infants and thankfully, never will be.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You're not reading the question.

Answer the question I asked, Arthur.

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?

Providing it's an adult with mental faculties fully intact, we already have laws that give penalty for crimes committed. You may not think they go far enough, in fact I'm pretty sure you don't and I'm not gonna pretend the system is perfect - but it's preferable to what you and the radical right would have enacted.