This shouldn't be constitutional.
-
Alicia Silverstone looked awesome when she was just 14. Maybe adult age should be 14 for girls and 16 for guys Nish
Regards, Nish Native CPian. Born and brought up on CP. With the CP blood in him.
Nish - Native CPian wrote: Alicia Silverstone looked awesome when she was just 14. Maybe adult age should be 14 for girls and 16 for guys LOL -:suss:Matt Newman / Windows XP Activist:suss: -Sonork ID: 100.11179
Could you Would you with a goat? - Dr Suess -
shooting Luttig -- whose son is now a federal judge For starters I wonder how much influence is involved there. I agree that it is sad that you are treated like an adult but not given the rights of an adult, however, he did commit murder and it doesn't matter what age you are it is still wrong. Just my 2 cents. -:suss:Matt Newman / Windows XP Activist:suss: -Sonork ID: 100.11179
Could you Would you with a goat? - Dr Suess****Matt Newman wrote: he did commit murder and it doesn't matter what age you are it is still wrong. So if a ten year old boy commits murder should he be executed when he turns eighteen? After a poor performance in London in 1899, Steinitz went insane and died a year later on August 12, 1900 at Wards Island, N.Y.
-
So you wouldn't oppose it if he was just one year older ? Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
More about me :-)
Colin Davies wrote: So you wouldn't oppose it if he was just one year older ? I would say good ridance! The legal system can't have it both ways, saying on the one hand you aren't smart and mature enough to know what you are doing when you are a minor and not allow you to vote, and then say if you commit a crime you are capable and you are an adult. Equal protection is what the founding fathers intended. Remember the US allowed slavery, and segregation, and that was wrong under the consitution all that time. The problem is that people are stupid and ignorant. After a poor performance in London in 1899, Steinitz went insane and died a year later on August 12, 1900 at Wards Island, N.Y.
-
I'd rather this guy wasn't let back into society. 17 is plenty old enough to know better. Like it or not, I'm right.
Jason Henderson wrote: I'd rather this guy wasn't let back into society. I agree with you that he shouldn't be allowed back into society, but he is dead now so it doesn't matter. Jason Henderson wrote: 17 is plenty old enough to know better Then 17 year olds should be able to vote, sign contracts, join the military, drink alchol, run for political office, and ect. Until they let 17 year olds do those things, then I will disagree with the idea that they can be tried as adults. After a poor performance in London in 1899, Steinitz went insane and died a year later on August 12, 1900 at Wards Island, N.Y.
-
Jason Henderson wrote: I'd rather this guy wasn't let back into society. I agree with you that he shouldn't be allowed back into society, but he is dead now so it doesn't matter. Jason Henderson wrote: 17 is plenty old enough to know better Then 17 year olds should be able to vote, sign contracts, join the military, drink alchol, run for political office, and ect. Until they let 17 year olds do those things, then I will disagree with the idea that they can be tried as adults. After a poor performance in London in 1899, Steinitz went insane and died a year later on August 12, 1900 at Wards Island, N.Y.
You are comparing apples to oranges. Being able to vote and being able to know that murder is wrong are two totally different things. Like it or not, I'm right.
-
You are comparing apples to oranges. Being able to vote and being able to know that murder is wrong are two totally different things. Like it or not, I'm right.
What I think he was getting at was that a minor is legally unable to be held responsible for thier actions. You can't have it both ways - that is comparing apples and oranges. ____________________ David Wulff hu·mour Pronunciation Key (hymr) n. & v. Chiefly British Dave's Code Project Screensaver and Wallpaper page.
-
What I think he was getting at was that a minor is legally unable to be held responsible for thier actions. You can't have it both ways - that is comparing apples and oranges. ____________________ David Wulff hu·mour Pronunciation Key (hymr) n. & v. Chiefly British Dave's Code Project Screensaver and Wallpaper page.
Are you agreeing with me again? :-D After a poor performance in London in 1899, Steinitz went insane and died a year later on August 12, 1900 at Wards Island, N.Y.
-
Are you agreeing with me again? :-D After a poor performance in London in 1899, Steinitz went insane and died a year later on August 12, 1900 at Wards Island, N.Y.
I am agreeing that the system is seriously flawed if it says one thing and then does another, but I am not saying anything as to whether this individual should or should not have been held responsible for the crime he commited because I do not know what only he knows. If anything, the child should be the one to determine thier responsibility on a per-case basis, and if they decide they are responsible, they should be treated as an adult in every respect. I, personally, am against the death penalty because there are too many variables involved to be able to lump a totally definative sentance on someone. There are three primary reasons why I oppose all forms of capital punishment: 1. *I* could murder someone in my lifetime for reasons that would be wholey justified to myself, though I can't see it happening, and could be executed for this. *That* is about 1% of the reason I oppose the death penalty - no-one else can ever truely understand the real motive, and more often than not entire legal systems are constructed in such a way as to prevent them from even being portrayed. 2. Man, in some cases, may belive that the laws that are dictated to the majority of mankind where spoken by a divine all-powerful being, but I do not. Laws where written by men, and with anything written by man they were written to offer something physically, socially or mentally to thier authors and not for the good of our species, or any other alterior motive they may be translated into meaning. Although many people both present and past have had truely beautiful meanings, they are only truely beautiful in meaning to the mind that concocted them, and those that agree. "I may agree with some things, but others will disagree with me." I simply cannot subject something as sacred as life itself through a process defined by a man. That is another 1%. 3. The other 98% is based on the fact that an innocent person can in turn can be murdered by the system. I cannot justify to myself the state sponsored murder of an innocent human being, even if it means that the act of doing so may indirectly protect and save the lives of hundreds upon thousands of people. I am not God, and the fact that a man who believes in one can make a descion to that affect makes me cringe. To be perfectly honest with you, if faced with the choice of an executioner I would rather put a bullet through my own brain than chance my oppositions. I will leave these descions to those of us that are able to justify anythink to them
-
A man was just executed for a crime he commited when he was 17 years old. If you are considered incapable of making rational choises and are unable legally to sign contracts, vote or drink alchol, then why should you be punished the same way an adult is? This is common sense and follows simple geometric logic. I am embarrased that we are still such barbarians, and we will look back on this time and realize we are no better than the evil slave traders and Native American killers of our past with such aburdity such as circumcision, and executing crimminals for crimes they committed as minors. Here's the CNN link: CNN After a poor performance in London in 1899, Steinitz went insane and died a year later on August 12, 1900 at Wards Island, N.Y.
Let's look at the "real" victim here - John Luttig. Is he any "less dead" because the person that purposefully shot him twice in the head was 17 and not 21? Did he suffer any less? Did his family and friends grieve any less? Also, is Napoleon Beazley any less likely to commit the crime again if released because he was 17 and not 21? Is he any less responsible for his actions? At the end of the day, there is one less cold-blooded murderer using up the earth's resources. Move on. Mike Mullikin "Thank you America, every night I see increasingly stupid things happening here in Australia. Then you come along and top it." - Michael Martin - The Lounge :bob:
-
****Matt Newman wrote: he did commit murder and it doesn't matter what age you are it is still wrong. So if a ten year old boy commits murder should he be executed when he turns eighteen? After a poor performance in London in 1899, Steinitz went insane and died a year later on August 12, 1900 at Wards Island, N.Y.
Martin Marvinski wrote: So if a ten year old boy commits murder should he be executed when he turns eighteen? It depends on the circumstances. Killing the someone just to steal a car definitely, if it is something more like self defense definitely not. -:suss:Matt Newman / Windows XP Activist:suss: -Sonork ID: 100.11179
Could you Would you with a goat? - Dr Suess -
I am agreeing that the system is seriously flawed if it says one thing and then does another, but I am not saying anything as to whether this individual should or should not have been held responsible for the crime he commited because I do not know what only he knows. If anything, the child should be the one to determine thier responsibility on a per-case basis, and if they decide they are responsible, they should be treated as an adult in every respect. I, personally, am against the death penalty because there are too many variables involved to be able to lump a totally definative sentance on someone. There are three primary reasons why I oppose all forms of capital punishment: 1. *I* could murder someone in my lifetime for reasons that would be wholey justified to myself, though I can't see it happening, and could be executed for this. *That* is about 1% of the reason I oppose the death penalty - no-one else can ever truely understand the real motive, and more often than not entire legal systems are constructed in such a way as to prevent them from even being portrayed. 2. Man, in some cases, may belive that the laws that are dictated to the majority of mankind where spoken by a divine all-powerful being, but I do not. Laws where written by men, and with anything written by man they were written to offer something physically, socially or mentally to thier authors and not for the good of our species, or any other alterior motive they may be translated into meaning. Although many people both present and past have had truely beautiful meanings, they are only truely beautiful in meaning to the mind that concocted them, and those that agree. "I may agree with some things, but others will disagree with me." I simply cannot subject something as sacred as life itself through a process defined by a man. That is another 1%. 3. The other 98% is based on the fact that an innocent person can in turn can be murdered by the system. I cannot justify to myself the state sponsored murder of an innocent human being, even if it means that the act of doing so may indirectly protect and save the lives of hundreds upon thousands of people. I am not God, and the fact that a man who believes in one can make a descion to that affect makes me cringe. To be perfectly honest with you, if faced with the choice of an executioner I would rather put a bullet through my own brain than chance my oppositions. I will leave these descions to those of us that are able to justify anythink to them
You feel exactly the same way I do. This is very strange. I would have written the same thing you did. After a poor performance in London in 1899, Steinitz went insane and died a year later on August 12, 1900 at Wards Island, N.Y.
-
Let's look at the "real" victim here - John Luttig. Is he any "less dead" because the person that purposefully shot him twice in the head was 17 and not 21? Did he suffer any less? Did his family and friends grieve any less? Also, is Napoleon Beazley any less likely to commit the crime again if released because he was 17 and not 21? Is he any less responsible for his actions? At the end of the day, there is one less cold-blooded murderer using up the earth's resources. Move on. Mike Mullikin "Thank you America, every night I see increasingly stupid things happening here in Australia. Then you come along and top it." - Michael Martin - The Lounge :bob:
Mike Mullikin wrote: Is he any "less dead" because the person that purposefully shot him twice in the head was 17 and not 21? Did he suffer any less? Did his family and friends grieve any less? No. I think you are missing my point. In this society we have decided that if you are under eighteen, then you cannot be held to the standards of an adult because you are not competent to make decisions. That is why children can't vote, drink, smoke, fight wars, and ect. If the minor is legally unable to make a full and informed choise like an adult, then it can be said that they cannot be tried as an adult. I'm not saying he shouldn't remain behind bars for the rest of his life, because he should have. Should we execute a girl when she turns eighteen for a horrible murder she commited when she was 12? No, because under the law, minors have special protection just like the mentally handicaped, the insane, and others. Mike Mullikin wrote: Also, is Napoleon Beazley any less likely to commit the crime again if released because he was 17 and not 21? Is he any less responsible for his actions? I'm not saying they should release him ever. I do think juvinille crimminals should be punnished longer than spending time in jail until they are 21. That is why they charge children as adults now. Too many were getting light sentences because they were minors. After a poor performance in London in 1899, Steinitz went insane and died a year later on August 12, 1900 at Wards Island, N.Y.
-
You feel exactly the same way I do. This is very strange. I would have written the same thing you did. After a poor performance in London in 1899, Steinitz went insane and died a year later on August 12, 1900 at Wards Island, N.Y.
Martin Marvinski wrote: This is very strange Tell me about it! You know all good relationships start with a falling out and then a making up... Lets fall out again, hey? ;P ____________________ David Wulff hu·mour Pronunciation Key (hymr) n. & v. Chiefly British Dave's Code Project Screensaver and Wallpaper page.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Is he any "less dead" because the person that purposefully shot him twice in the head was 17 and not 21? Did he suffer any less? Did his family and friends grieve any less? No. I think you are missing my point. In this society we have decided that if you are under eighteen, then you cannot be held to the standards of an adult because you are not competent to make decisions. That is why children can't vote, drink, smoke, fight wars, and ect. If the minor is legally unable to make a full and informed choise like an adult, then it can be said that they cannot be tried as an adult. I'm not saying he shouldn't remain behind bars for the rest of his life, because he should have. Should we execute a girl when she turns eighteen for a horrible murder she commited when she was 12? No, because under the law, minors have special protection just like the mentally handicaped, the insane, and others. Mike Mullikin wrote: Also, is Napoleon Beazley any less likely to commit the crime again if released because he was 17 and not 21? Is he any less responsible for his actions? I'm not saying they should release him ever. I do think juvinille crimminals should be punnished longer than spending time in jail until they are 21. That is why they charge children as adults now. Too many were getting light sentences because they were minors. After a poor performance in London in 1899, Steinitz went insane and died a year later on August 12, 1900 at Wards Island, N.Y.
Martin Marvinski wrote: In this society we have decided that if you are under eighteen, then you cannot be held to the standards of an adult because you are not competent to make decisions. That is why children can't vote, drink, smoke, fight wars, and ect. You're trying to simplify this too much. There is no clear age where a child becomes an adult. Some states allow driving and even marriage at age 14. A 17 year old can join the military. 18 year old's can vote and buy tobacco. Legal drinking starts at 21. Hell, you even have to be 35 years old to be elected president. People just don't mature at the flip of a switch when they achieve a certain age, each state makes the determination for themselves. Martin Marvinski wrote: If the minor is legally unable to make a full and informed choise like an adult, then it can be said that they cannot be tried as an adult. Are you implying that a normal 17 year old doesn't realize that murder is wrong? This guy knew exactly what he was doing and deserves whatever punishment that the citizens of Texas sentence him to. I look at it this way, a murderer obviously does not value human life very much, so the sacrifice of their life can't be considered too extreme. Mike Mullikin "Thank you America, every night I see increasingly stupid things happening here in Australia. Then you come along and top it." - Michael Martin - The Lounge :bob:
-
****Matt Newman wrote: he did commit murder and it doesn't matter what age you are it is still wrong. So if a ten year old boy commits murder should he be executed when he turns eighteen? After a poor performance in London in 1899, Steinitz went insane and died a year later on August 12, 1900 at Wards Island, N.Y.
Martin Marvinski wrote: So if a ten year old boy commits murder should he be executed when he turns eighteen? Nope. He should be killed just then, cause he is not normal. It'd be an injustice to him, to allow him to grow up into a serial killer Nish
Regards, Nish Native CPian. Born and brought up on CP. With the CP blood in him.
-
Martin Marvinski wrote: In this society we have decided that if you are under eighteen, then you cannot be held to the standards of an adult because you are not competent to make decisions. That is why children can't vote, drink, smoke, fight wars, and ect. You're trying to simplify this too much. There is no clear age where a child becomes an adult. Some states allow driving and even marriage at age 14. A 17 year old can join the military. 18 year old's can vote and buy tobacco. Legal drinking starts at 21. Hell, you even have to be 35 years old to be elected president. People just don't mature at the flip of a switch when they achieve a certain age, each state makes the determination for themselves. Martin Marvinski wrote: If the minor is legally unable to make a full and informed choise like an adult, then it can be said that they cannot be tried as an adult. Are you implying that a normal 17 year old doesn't realize that murder is wrong? This guy knew exactly what he was doing and deserves whatever punishment that the citizens of Texas sentence him to. I look at it this way, a murderer obviously does not value human life very much, so the sacrifice of their life can't be considered too extreme. Mike Mullikin "Thank you America, every night I see increasingly stupid things happening here in Australia. Then you come along and top it." - Michael Martin - The Lounge :bob:
Mike Mullikin wrote: Hell, you even have to be 35 years old to be elected president WHAT!, it is written in the actual law that you have to be a farting old demented bastard to be president? ;P That certainly explains a lot of things... Amazing :wtf: "It could have been worse, it could have been ME!"
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Hell, you even have to be 35 years old to be elected president WHAT!, it is written in the actual law that you have to be a farting old demented bastard to be president? ;P That certainly explains a lot of things... Amazing :wtf: "It could have been worse, it could have been ME!"
jan larsen wrote: WHAT!, it is written in the actual law that you have to be a farting old demented bastard to be president? Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." Mike Mullikin "Thank you America, every night I see increasingly stupid things happening here in Australia. Then you come along and top it." - Michael Martin - The Lounge :bob:
-
Martin Marvinski wrote: So if a ten year old boy commits murder should he be executed when he turns eighteen? Nope. He should be killed just then, cause he is not normal. It'd be an injustice to him, to allow him to grow up into a serial killer Nish
Regards, Nish Native CPian. Born and brought up on CP. With the CP blood in him.
:wtf: ! Don't you believe he/she could know redemption ? And I would like to know what the word "normal" means :confused: ? We're talking shit, 'cause life is a 'biz You know it is Everybody tryin' to get rich God damn! All I wanna do is live ! KoRn, Children of the Korn
-
jan larsen wrote: WHAT!, it is written in the actual law that you have to be a farting old demented bastard to be president? Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." Mike Mullikin "Thank you America, every night I see increasingly stupid things happening here in Australia. Then you come along and top it." - Michael Martin - The Lounge :bob:
I can see that the constitution aims at selecting mature president-material, but you have to admit that Reagan and the Bush'es seems to have escaped this filter. Mike Mullikin wrote: No Person except a natural born Citizen... I this preventing people born by caesarean operation from being elected?. :laugh: In Denmark we're also stupidly proud of our constitution and the bare mentioning of anyone breaking the constitutional laws makes the crowd go "Uuuuuh". But it is actually frequently updated (by vote) to enhance it to withstand the challenges at the current. "It could have been worse, it could have been ME!"
-
I am agreeing that the system is seriously flawed if it says one thing and then does another, but I am not saying anything as to whether this individual should or should not have been held responsible for the crime he commited because I do not know what only he knows. If anything, the child should be the one to determine thier responsibility on a per-case basis, and if they decide they are responsible, they should be treated as an adult in every respect. I, personally, am against the death penalty because there are too many variables involved to be able to lump a totally definative sentance on someone. There are three primary reasons why I oppose all forms of capital punishment: 1. *I* could murder someone in my lifetime for reasons that would be wholey justified to myself, though I can't see it happening, and could be executed for this. *That* is about 1% of the reason I oppose the death penalty - no-one else can ever truely understand the real motive, and more often than not entire legal systems are constructed in such a way as to prevent them from even being portrayed. 2. Man, in some cases, may belive that the laws that are dictated to the majority of mankind where spoken by a divine all-powerful being, but I do not. Laws where written by men, and with anything written by man they were written to offer something physically, socially or mentally to thier authors and not for the good of our species, or any other alterior motive they may be translated into meaning. Although many people both present and past have had truely beautiful meanings, they are only truely beautiful in meaning to the mind that concocted them, and those that agree. "I may agree with some things, but others will disagree with me." I simply cannot subject something as sacred as life itself through a process defined by a man. That is another 1%. 3. The other 98% is based on the fact that an innocent person can in turn can be murdered by the system. I cannot justify to myself the state sponsored murder of an innocent human being, even if it means that the act of doing so may indirectly protect and save the lives of hundreds upon thousands of people. I am not God, and the fact that a man who believes in one can make a descion to that affect makes me cringe. To be perfectly honest with you, if faced with the choice of an executioner I would rather put a bullet through my own brain than chance my oppositions. I will leave these descions to those of us that are able to justify anythink to them
I would also add against death penalty the inalienable right to every human being to live, whatever the human being. I find also disturbing that a State allows itself to do something it forbids to its citizens. We're talking shit, 'cause life is a 'biz You know it is Everybody tryin' to get rich God damn! All I wanna do is live ! KoRn, Children of the Korn
