Cruel And Unusual Punishment ?

[newsports]

After being convicted of murder in the DC sniper case of Lee Boyd Malvo, the jury elected not to issue a death sentence on him because of is age. In only three states in the United States has the death penalty been given to a juvinile in the past 10 years. Recently four of our Supreme Court justices voiced there opposition to the death penalty for defendants 16-17 as, " inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilized society". With the conclusion being reached more often across the country by judges and jury's alike, that teenagers by virtue of their age and lack of life's experiences should be given a reprieve and the opportunity to be rehabilitated, would the correct course of action be to simply outlaw the act of capital punishment for all under the age of 18? Or are there circumstances that warrant the forfiture of life regardless of the defendants age?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/27/politics/27SCOT.html?hp
http://newsports.us

 

[Johnney]

i feel there should be some kind of special consideration for juvies. that is up to 15 or so. once you hit 15-18, your on the carpet. and unless your of limited intelligence you get the axe as with your counter parts of adult age.

 

[5stringJeff]

I think there should be a very large burden of proof to give the death sentence to a teen. I have no illusions that they don't know the difference between right and wrong, but when you start talking about minors, you have to draw the line somewhere. But I think Johnney may be right... around age 15 or so, if a teen knows the difference between right and wrong, knows the consequences of his actions, and purposefully commits a crime (e.g. 1st degree murder) worthy of death, I would consider the death penalty as an option.