Death Penalty for Juveniles Ruled Unconstitutional!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

pax

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Nov 5, 2001
Messages
11,412
Location
Ewen's new American home
"Today, the Court repudiated the misguided idea that the United States can pledge to leave no child behind while simultaneously exiling children to the death chamber. Now, the US can proudly remove its name from the embarrassing list of human rights violators that includes China, Iran, and Pakistan-nations that still execute juvenile offenders. It can take pride in knowing that it is now in the company of the honorable nations that abandoned this antiquated practice years ago."
- Dr. William F. Schulz, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA

:up: :up: :up:
 
seems like celebrating the end of child labor or people not getting their hands chopped off for stealing.

as in, all reprehensible, Dark Ages practices that went out with the 19th century.

welcome to the 20th century, USA.
 
nbcrusader said:
Perhaps we can get out of the dark ages and teach our children that killing is wrong.



Unless that is too moral.....


and the abolition of the death penalty is a great, moral place to start.

what kind of message are we sending to children when we demonstarte that killing is wrong by killing someone?
 
Really, it's not all black and white. I think the death penalty on juveniles is wrong. I won't however defend the terrorists who wish to kill thousands of innocent people.
 
nbcrusader said:
Perhaps we can get out of the dark ages and teach our children that killing is wrong.



Unless that is too moral.....


Do you think that the parents of most juvenile killers taught them that killing was right?
 
Bono's American Wife said:
Do you think that the parents of most juvenile killers taught them that killing was right?
I would guess that the parents either taught them nothing, or these juveniles rebelled against them.
 
U2democrat said:
i won't defend them but i won't punish them by killing them.

For terrorists, I'm curious as to what you will do...

Let's say you make the ultimate decision. Would you put them in prison for the rest of their lifetime?

Would you ever let them out?

You have to punish them somehow.
 
Irvine511 said:



and the abolition of the death penalty is a great, moral place to start.

what kind of message are we sending to children when we demonstarte that killing is wrong by killing someone?


In our culture of violence and death, one small aspect of the judicial system influences our children?

The correct message is that one dies when one is found guilty. Not just inconvenient.
 
nbcrusader said:



In our culture of violence and death, one small aspect of the judicial system influences our children?

The correct message is that one dies when one is found guilty. Not just inconvenient.
Are you defending the death penalty for juveniles?
 
Macfistowannabe said:


For terrorists, I'm curious as to what you will do...

Let's say you make the ultimate decision. Would you put them in prison for the rest of their lifetime?

Would you ever let them out?

You have to punish them somehow.

Death penalty for terrorists doesnt work funnily enough as it makes martyrs out of them.
 
I know this wasn't directed at me, but...

Macfistowannabe said:
Would you put them in prison for the rest of their lifetime?

Yes.

Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
Would you ever let them out?

No. Not unless they were later found to be innocent of the crimes they were accused of, of course.

That's how I think it should be for all serious criminals-murderers, rapists, molesters, people along those lines.

Angela
 
paxetaurora said:
I don't think anyone is arguing that children shouldn't be taught that killing is wrong. :|

But we don't do it.


My statement was taken to two extremes. The fact is that we as a nation do not teach respect of life. Violence by children is often looked at as "kids being kids".
 
nbcrusader said:



In our culture of violence and death, one small aspect of the judicial system influences our children?

The correct message is that one dies when one is found guilty. Not just inconvenient.


there is no way i'm straying into an abortion discussion here, as much as i object to how you've framed the debate you wish to start.

i do, however, agree with a "culture of violence and death" -- we've always had this in our contry, from settling a continent via genocide to a Southern and Western male culture of revenge and redemption through bloodshed to the ease and availability of all sorts of firearms to a president who thinks the best way to spread democracy is through air campaigns and invasions, there's no question as to why there is so much violence in the US and why it is so reflected in our popular culture (but remember, art is just a mirror, and decisions about how much violence to include in film or television or music is mostly due to market pressures and a senese of 'what the consumer wants' as opposed to a culture of filmmakers who applaude violence).
 
nbcrusader said:

My statement was taken to two extremes. The fact is that we as a nation do not teach respect of life. Violence by children is often looked at as "kids being kids".


:scratch:

i've been working with kids since i've been 15, and any kind of violence -- whether it's throwing rocks on the playground to actual fistfights in jr high or god forbid something worse -- is absolutely NEVER tolerated.

can you substantiate this claim with examples?
 
Irvine511 said:
there is no way i'm straying into an abortion discussion here, as much as i object to how you've framed the debate you wish to start.

Perhaps that could be viewed as referring to abortion, but when a gang initiation involves the death of another, the persons's life is just an inconvenience to the recruit. Our willingness, on an individual basis, to solve problems with violence is not discouraged.
 
nbcrusader said:


Perhaps that could be viewed as referring to abortion, but when a gang initiation involves the death of another, the persons's life is just an inconvenience to the recruit. Our willingness, on an individual basis, to solve problems with violence is not discouraged.


fair example.

and i agree with you.
 
There is a major problem with violence - entertainment and such does not discourage it, but uses it to attract attention. For sure, I as well would agree that we live in a culture of violence and death. Sometimes within the system, the victim is portrayed as the criminal, and the criminal is portrayed as the victim. But in this particular thread especially, juveniles notoriously struggle with identity and finding their in-crowd. From time to time, they may get into trouble. I'm by no means "for the murderer" - but I would give the juvies a decade to turn their lives around.
 
We have a generation of kids fed on violence and parental neglect and when the results of that upbringing begin to show, one solution is kill the child who has murdered? That is just wrong IMO. That's like a parent who slaps a child for hitting his little brother.

And if the death penalty is such an effective deterrent (speaking for adult and juvenile offenders) why are our death rows crammed with condemned men and woman?
 
Macfistowannabe said:
There is a major problem with violence - entertainment and such does not discourage it, but uses it to attract attention. .

okay, this drives me a little nuts. here's why.

it is NOT entertainment's job to tell us how to live. it is not entertainment's job to give us pat little stories that affirm what we already believe. it is not entertainment's job to present us with wholesome characters who make decisions that we would make. just because there is violence in a film does not mean that, 1) it's an endorsement of violence, or 2) that the movie is there telling you what decisions you should make.

("Million Dollar Baby" spoiler alert; though probably everyone knows the twist by now)

one thing that has been driving me crazy of late was the campaign orchestrated by right wing movie critic Michael Medved hand-in-hand with Rush Limbaugh. Medved gives away a crucial plot twist in order to state that the film is a pro-euthenasia piece -- and by giving away that plot twist, there's no question that it damaged the film at the Box Office since much of the surprise of the film rides on that. firstly, who cares if it's pro-euthanasia? it has every right to be, should it choose to be, and so long as the topic is presented in a toughtful, adult manner (which it is in the film), what is the problem? why are we so resistant to the presentation of things we don't agree with? why do we have to have our own moral code affirmed each and every time we go to the movies!?!?!

drives me crazy.

characters in movies do not always do what we would do. ometimes they offend us, and that is their right. It is our right to disagree with them. It is not our right, however, to destroy for others the experience of being as surprised by those choices as we were. Eastwood and Swank's characters perform in ways that is entirely consistent with who they are. that is one hallmark of great filmmaking: characters are logically and truthfully followed to their limits, and if you care about the characters (as i did), they force you to think about the decisions they make. if you leave a movie and discuss what should have been done, what you would have done, and what you would wish for your loved ones, then the movie has served a purpose, whether you agree with it or not. a movie is not good or bad because of its content, but because of how it handles its content, whether it's with violence or euthanasia or abortion or whatever contentious issue.

the film was called pro-Nazi, because the Nazis believed in euthanasia. to me, the real totalitarian thing would be a world of movies where everyone in them had to do what we thought they should do.

(end of rant)
 
nbcrusader said:





The correct message is that one dies when one is found guilty.

And what do you say about ALL the times
when one is found guilty
and later determined to be innocent?
 
Back
Top Bottom