Should children be legally responsible for their actions?

[Incognito]

For kids, no. I can't imagine what kind of society it would be, that would execute children under 16 and despite what they did.
I say lock them up for life. Take away the priviledge of their freedom and till they die. Rather than a few years like they did with the Bulger murderers. Think they got out after several years and one of them went on to reoffend...but it was kept hush hush for some reason

How does this statement make any sense? If a 15 year old killed 30 people with an ax as they slept he should get jail for life? So you'd be fine with paying for him to live all those years with 4 walls, three meals a day, clothes and a place the relieve himself all while him victims rot in the ground? That is absurd. If you willing to have your tax money support people why not have it support the homeless? Provide THEM with 4 walls, three meals a day, clothes, and a toilet until they can provide for themselves. This is assuming that the 15 year old in question was mentally competent and assuming that any of us had any say in where our tax money actually went (yeah that's a laugh).

[lastwish]

I am against the death penalty on principle because I think it degrades the dignity of the society itself, rather than out of sympathy for the criminals themselves. Just because an "eye for an eye" is satisfying on some instinctive desire for revenge, that does not mean it is conducive to a stable society.

What do you mean that it is not conductive to a stable society? Conceptually, I think if there is state intervention in regulating personal desire for revenge, society will be much more stable.

I did two 4-month internships at a facility for the criminally insane (one of the scariest experiences of my life to date). There is NO going back for those murderers, as Giga said. They do not rehab.

Most ppl who are apologists regarding putting violent criminals to death do not speak from a place of experience, only theory. I think everyone should be allowed to see firsthand the horrific effects of these rabid animals and then decide their values on the matter. The only ones who would still be against the death penalty (or at least a chemical lobotomy) would be those making a religious-based decision, not one based on rational facts.

You mean, the mentally insane should be put to death? There is a glaring ethical problem with that. Those mentally insane do not have the Mens rea to commit the crime. Also, if we take the Mens rea out of consideration in law and only consider the Actus reus, judges will have a problem justifying manslaughter. All criminals will be treated the same regardless of whether they have intent or not.

[IndiReloaded]

You mean, the mentally insane should be put to death? There is a glaring ethical problem with that. Those mentally insane do not have the Mens rea to commit the crime. If we take the Mens rea out of consideration in law and only consider the Actus reus, judges will have a problem justifying manslaughter. All criminals will be treated the same regardless of whether they have intent or not.

Yes. I mean exactly this. Not all mentally insane, btw, but those who lack the impulse control and will kill other humans.

We put down rabid dogs. Its a kindness to them, IMO. You think that because Mary Bells happen to have a human genome we should treat them with any less kindness?

You haven't spent any time in a mental facility for the criminally insane, obviously.

[Incognito]

Mens rea? Actus reus? Layman's terms please.

[IndiReloaded]

What exactly is "the DP"? I only know one abbreviation that is "DP" and it has nothing to do with a lobotomy . In seriousness though I don't know what you mean. Chemical vs surgical perhaps?

DP = death penalty. I didn't define my shorthand explicitly, sorry.

Regarding lobotomy, chemical or surgical would be fine. We know that ablation of the amygdala can remove violent impulses. Certain drugs can do the same. My ultimate solution for violent criminals would be some kind of a reboot of their psych firmware, a la CJ Cherryh or Harry Harrison. Alas, the 'science' of psychology hasn't progressed that far yet. It will take a genius with expertise in both genetics, programming and psychology to get us to this point. Someday.

[IndiReloaded]

Mens rea? Actus reus? Layman's terms please.

Bullshit lawyers terms for things that are only classifications of the problem. Nothing to do with a solution. That would take away from repeat business.

[Incognito]

I personally think that any law system that is so complicated and fragmented that people have to be hired to sift through it and interpret should be destroyed and rebuilt from square one. Personally I hate most lawyers. I do because they will try to get someone out of a punishment whether they are guilty or not. It comes down to not whether the person is guilty or not, but what loophole/technicality can be found to get them off and if they have the money to pay the lawyer to find such a loophole. Disgusting. They are almost as guilty as the people who they keep justice from being served to.

I'd like to see simple laws like "If you steal you will pay back what was stolen plus a percent", "If you rape someone you will be raped", "If you kill someone you will be arrested and turned over to the victim's family".
Simple, easy to understand, and just.

I think I'm getting off topic again though.

[Gigabitch]

I'm not interested in the punishment as a deterrent or as revenge. I simply want threats permanently and efficiently removed. If an eighth grader is a threat to my life and safety, I want him removed just as much as I would if he were an "adult".

[xxazurexx]

How does this statement make any sense? If a 15 year old killed 30 people with an ax as they slept he should get jail for life? So you'd be fine with paying for him to live all those years with 4 walls, three meals a day, clothes and a place the relieve himself all while him victims rot in the ground? That is absurd. If you willing to have your tax money support people why not have it support the homeless? Provide THEM with 4 walls, three meals a day, clothes, and a toilet until they can provide for themselves. This is assuming that the 15 year old in question was mentally competent and assuming that any of us had any say in where our tax money actually went (yeah that's a laugh).

Whether I'd be fine with it or not, I don't have a say in where my tax money goes, it goes where the government says it is needed, not where I want it to go and I have no choice but to pay it....

[Charlie Boy II]

People get frustrated when a criminal "gets away with it" but that is an inevitable result of a system that places a strong emphasis on personal rights and due process. It is a worthwhile sacrifice, in my opinion.

[qwertz]

Hmmm, I think if life sentence meant life sentence that would be enough, but these days (at least in the uk) a life sentence can carry a minimum term of 15 years...wtf? life should mean life.
Even the bulger killers only served 8 years for murder its ridiculous.

I dont really know what the justice system is like in the rest of the world, but in the uk it stinks. I know from personal experience that a person killing someone (albeit not on purpose) can get away without a single day in prison. How the fcuk is that right??

[xxazurexx]

^ I agree, it pure sucks!!

Someone not paying council tax, gets longer in prison than a peadophile....how does that one work then?

And murderers and peados are walking free from jails and way before their jail terms are up and simply because the prisons are too full. God knows who is living next door to us or over the road....they are protected with new identities in a lot of cases.

IMO, they should never be freed.

[Gigabitch]

While we're at it, can we please decriminalize drugs and focus that budget on prevention? We need to attack the demand, not the supply.

[IndiReloaded]

People get frustrated when a criminal "gets away with it" but that is an inevitable result of a system that places a strong emphasis on personal rights and due process. It is a worthwhile sacrifice, in my opinion.

Ah, THAT argument.

Having a system that protects personal rights and freedoms does NOT = a needlessly complex system that can only be navigated by lawyers.

[IndiReloaded]

Whether I'd be fine with it or not, I don't have a say in where my tax money goes, it goes where the government says it is needed, not where I want it to go and I have no choice but to pay it....

YES, you do have a say. But, as with all financial things, you have to take your own responsibility in the matter.