Malvo was seventeen when he went on a shooting spree with John Mohammed. He was convicted and will be sentenced to life in prison (I’m assuming without parole, but I could be wrong on that).
There seems to be a lot of discussion about whether or not Malvo should have been excused from the possibility of the death penalty because of his age at the time of his crimes. However, most people (I’m assuming) don’t have a problem with Malvo spending the rest of his life in prison for his crimes.
My question for debate is; if you feel that Malvo was responsible enough for his crime at age seventeen to spend the rest of his life in prison (in effect, wasting the rest of his life), why would you feel that he is not responsible enough for the death penalty? He is already being held to highest degree of responsibility allowable in some states (those without the death penalty). He is hardly being treated as a child. Since we’re already willing to treat him as an adult, why not go all the way?
(Please note that this debate only applies, obviously, if you approve of the use of the death penalty. If you’re anti-death penalty in all cases, then this debate obviously does not apply to you; as Malvo’s age would be irrelevant.)
First if all, it’s a bad thing to single out one specific heinous case and then let that case frame the debate on an otherwise interesting topic.
Second, by asking only pro-dp debaters to participate when you’re asking why this kid shouldn’t be executed when he is responsible enough to face a life without parole sentence, then there is really not much left to debate.
Personally I don’t believe in the DP. Unlike some others I know that the original meaning of “an eye for an eye” isn’t death for death, but that the offender shall pay a fine equal to the damage caused. Furthermore, I have not seen any evidence that the DP actually scares criminals, and I do believe it’s ironic to kill people who kill people just to make the point that it’s wrong to kill people. Killing someone of your own species isn’t how evolved civilized societies behave, IMHO.
As to the OP, sure, why shouldn’t he be executed. Aside from the fact that only great nations like Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Nigeria, Congo and Saudi Arabia are the only ones besides the US that has executed juveniles in the last decade or so, no, I don’t see much of a difference between a 17 year old and a 18 year old. But I guess the line has to be drawn somewhere.
A sidenote: This is the third active DP thread in GD right now. Wouldn’t it be easier with only one?
I’m guessing that some jurors weighed not only his (technically) juvenile status during the sentencing, but the fact that he had been under the influence of a malevolent, controlling adult for some time (years?).
This case is very disturbing and I don’t think there are any easy answers.
Well, that was what I wanted to get to. There are certainly those who hold the opinion that had Malvo been two years older, they wouldn’t have had a problem with him getting the DP. But since he was 17, then he’s excuseable on those grounds. It was people who hold that opinion that I’m trying to get to and get their reasoning.
Well, this isn’t a standard pro- or anti- DP debate…
Well, I’m aware of studies suggesting that there is a clear difference between the average 17 year old and the average 18 year old when it comes to how well the brain functions and it’s capability to reason. However, I suspect that if you compare two specific individuals such differences has more to do with education and life experience than with biology.
My take on this would be that some people experience a psychological barrier when faced with the issue of executing people below the age of 18, as in: “if you’re not old enough to vote or drink, then you aren’t old enough to be executed”.
As I said, I don’t see much of a difference between 17 year olds and 18 year olds. But then the question arises: Where should the limit go? Some states allow for 16 year olds to be executed, and it’s not that long ago that 15 year olds were sentenced to death in the US. I don’t see much of a difference between 15 year olds and 16 year olds either, but by using that argument then there really is no limit, is there?
i don’t know how true this is. i guess that’s because i haven’t talked to many people about it. at any rate, count me as one who thinks the death penalty and life imprisonment should both be off the list of potential punishments here. i think parole exists for cases precisely like this one, where an individual commited a crime and should do his time, but should also be given a chance to repent, if you will.
as far as the difference between 17- and 18-year-olds, it doesn’t matter. the fact that they are hard to distinguish is why sentences in cases like this are evaluated on an individual basis. few would advocate the death penalty for a person who was a brainwashed cult member, whether he was 16, 17, 18, or 28. i think the possibility for reform must be considered in all death penalty cases, so age is irrelevant. certainly, though, the younger one is, the more opportunity he has change his ways.
I don’t think Malvo merits the DP. He has been under the influence of John Mohammed for some time, twisted into an unfeeling killing machine.
I even feel that Life w/o parole may be too harsh; if the brain mechanics feel that there’s any hope of salvation for this young man, then he should be given another chance after successfully completing a regimen of mental therapy.
As far as J. Mohammed is concerned? I’d have no moral qualms about pushing the plunger myself on that sick SOB.
Although I’m against the Death Penalty in general, if they’re going to implement it there need to be a minimum age for it. I think 18 is a logical age, since 18 is generally considered the age when people are fully responsible for their actions.
I know the argument goes “well, he’s 17… which is really close to 18.” but then we just get into a slippery slope. What if Malvo was 16 at the time? 15? 14? There needs to be a bright line so there won’t be any fuzzy gray line where someone “might” be old enough for the chair. Either you’re old enough, or you aren’t.