The ruling of the Supreme Court that the death penalty for children that are under the age of 18 when they commited their crime is cruel and unusual, is a ruling that I agree with, but under one circumstance. In order for that to be cruel and unusual to me, the child must undergo several test to test their knowledge and the level of their thinking. It is one thing for the child to be incompetent on more levels than one, but generally, children have mastered the skills of whats right and wrong around the age of 13.
Kiara Hall
CPO2001
T R 1:05
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I do agree with you that a child raised in a healthy environment and with an average IQ should have mastered the ability to know right from wrong by the age of 13, if not before then. However, there are children who don't have that basic luxury. While I am sure that these children exibit illegal behavior WAY before committing murder, I'm not convinced that, as children, they deserve the death penalty. Like I said, in most cases, I'm sure that they were on the wrong path WAY before committing murder. Perhaps the states need to investigate how we can reach these children before it is too late and they do something, like murder, that can't be undone.
Deana Davis
POS1041
T/TH
Knowing right from wrong is something that can be different in each and every household. Right from wrong is truly a learned ability, not one that you are born with. I am pretty sure that extensive testing is done before enforcing any type of harsh penalty on people who have committed crimes, especially those of mental illness or or youth. If they are deemed to be of sound mind and body though, I do believe that the death penalty is just as necessary for them as for others, dependent upon the crime of course.
Eric Kennedy
POS1041
T/R 11:35
Post a Comment