Teens kill a man for fun. Should the 14 year old be charged as an adult?

[Mockingbird]

@buttonjockey308

This “child” killed a man in cold blood for amusement. He. Should. Die.

This monster is 14 years old, and not quite wise to the ways of the world or his ability to wreak havoc in it. Think about how dangerous he will be once he realizes how powerful he can be. Simply put, he’s bad, throw him back.

Yup.

[bizzwire]

@Lissa

Yes, must. Why? Because we are better than they are-- at least we should be. We are not so barbaric that we would cast people to the wolves, leaving them without certain food, medical care or protection from other inmates.

We should be, but we’re not.
Let me clear something clear. I am not talking about transport for, say stealing a loaf of bread. I’m talking about hard-core psychopaths with no shred of remorse or hope of rehabilitation (in anticipation, let me quickly add that I will not define or decide who goes into this category, but I’m thinking along the lines of, say, Jeffrey Dahmer).

Currently, these people have two choices:

1. We kill you. This is done all the time, so it kinda flies in the face of our society saying “we are not low enough to respond in kind” since evidently we are.

2. We lock you up-warehouse you, actually-with other violent criminals under very artificial and unpleasant conditions where you will most likely never be rehabilitated, but will more than likely end up more angry, resentful and dangerous with each passing year.

I propose a 3rd alternative:

3. Since you are incapable of living within our society, you are excluded from it. You will be sent to a place to live out the remainder of your life without any of the benefits that fall to those who particpate in a society under the rule of law. You will have all the tools necessary for a comfortable survival, but we cannot protect you from disease, accidents, or your fellow cohabitants. A rough but not uncomfortable and long life can be yours if you choose to work together.

Would this be more palatable if some mechanism were provided to protect the prisoner’s welfare?

[Lissa]

@bizzwire

Since you are incapable of living within our society, you are excluded from it. You will be sent to a place to live out the remainder of your life without any of the benefits that fall to those who particpate in a society under the rule of law. You will have all the tools necessary for a comfortable survival, but we cannot protect you from disease, accidents, or your fellow cohabitants. A rough but not uncomfortable and long life can be yours if you choose to work together.

Would this be more palatable if some mechanism were provided to protect the prisoner’s welfare?

If they’re incapable of living within the bonds of civilized society, what makes you think they would be able to cope with a situation like what you propose? A group of anti-social people forming a happy little society working together?

You assume they would know how to farm and harvest food, collect water, and build homes?

I’ll tell you exactly what would happen: the strong would slaughter the weak, hoard all of the food, rape and rampage at will. No farming would be done. Disease and starvation would decimate the population. Broken bones would fester, apendixes would burst, and people would die of easily fixable illnesses.

You’d be sentancing them to Hell-- a situation which is probably the definition of cruel and unusual punishment. It would be almost more immoral than the death penalty.

For Christ’s sake, we’re Americans! Our rights protect everyone, even the most heinous among us. History judges us not by how we interract with those of whom we approve, but by how we treat our “undesirables”.

[bizzwire]

@Lissa

If they’re incapable of living within the bonds of civilized society, what makes you think they would be able to cope with a situation like what you propose? A group of anti-social people forming a happy little society working together?

You assume they would know how to farm and harvest food, collect water, and build homes?

I’ll tell you exactly what would happen: the strong would slaughter the weak, hoard all of the food, rape and rampage at will. No farming would be done. Disease and starvation would decimate the population. Broken bones would fester, apendixes would burst, and people would die of easily fixable illnesses.

You’d be sentancing them to Hell-- a situation which is probably the definition of cruel and unusual punishment. It would be almost more immoral than the death penalty.

For Christ’s sake, we’re Americans! Our rights protect everyone, even the most heinous among us. History judges us not by how we interract with those of whom we approve, but by how we treat our “undesirables”.

Sheesh, why so negative?

You’re right, of course. It would be hell, and I suspect many (myself included) would respond with “yeah, so?” I commend you for your empathy and the grace with which you have expounded your position.