Go to A Distant Drum of the Coming Revolution
- Add a comment
- Go to More on execution for crimes committed as a minor
DamonLeigh,
You are on the right course! But this WriterofLight has a history of contorting reality!
posted by
Glennb
on March 3, 2005 at 11:18 AM
| link to this | reply
Some Suggested Answers - Marked DL
How is it that they have the emotional stability to decide to kill an unborn child, but not the emotional stability to be sentenced to death for deciding to kill anyone else?
DL - Could it be that there's a difference between a being that has life independent of another (like you and I), and a being that has life only as long as it is in the womb, and is not yet a viable being beyond that environment?
If crimes committed by minors are exempt from the death penalty, are they also to be exempt from any other prosecution?
DL - Is this a deliberate obfuscation, or are you genuinely confused? Minors are exempt from the death penalty. This is not the same as being exempt from prosecution. Maybe you could buy a dictionary?
If criminals cannot be executed for crimes committed as minors, are they also exempt for crimes committed as adults?
DL - Clearly not. Again, are you really this confused? Minors are exempt from the death penalty for crimes they commit as minors. If an adult commits a crime, they are tried as an adult and, in the less civilised parts of the world, could face execution.
When did the Supreme Court’s duty shift from upholding the Constitution as the supreme basis for American law to warping it into compliance with so-called international standards?
DL - I guess when Bush took power, but it may have been before then. But Bush has tweaked and fucked with the Constitution more than any other president in history, as well as stuffing the supreme court with his lap-dogs, so there's definitely a correlation.
If these so-called standards of criminal justice are so infallible and authoritative that the Constitution must be re-interpreted into conformity with them, then am I correct in making the perfectly reasonable assumption that minors in other countries never commit crimes worthy of death because the lack of a death penalty deters them?
DL - If your confusion is really this bad, you need to seek help! Justice is never infallible because it's a human construct, and humans are fallible. That is not a perfectly reasonable assumption. It's just a silly one. However, in much of the civilised world, no crime is considered "worthy of death" because we tend to take "Thou shalt not kill" rather more seriously than nations that pretend to be Christian, and then regularly fry their criminals. Also, the death-penalty-as-deterent has been proved to be a convenient falsehood time and time again.
If youth crime rises now that the death penalty for crimes committed by minors has been abolished, who should be held responsible?
DL - Errrr...the minors themselves? The parents? A society that makes gun ownership a central plank? A culture that produces 'The World's Scariest Police Shoot-Outs' and presents it as entertainment? Take your pick.
Hope this helps.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on March 3, 2005 at 2:11 AM
| link to this | reply