<And a 16 year old who commits a triple murder
should not be executed? Why would that be?
Anyone over 9 or 10 should be able to form
sufficient intent for murder and understand the
nature of killing.>
I was asked by James about executions of individuals whose crimes were committed when they were juveniles, and I replied. Do what you want with the information. Everyone has different ethical standards. You feel comfortable executing even 9 or 10 year olds, evidently, partly as a population-control measure, because of your feelings about overcrowding.
I wrote "individuals whose crimes were committed when," but of course we know that what I should have written was, "individuals who were convicted of crimes when," because of that little convicting-the-innocent problem.
This exchange has been a good example of why it's pointless to invest time discussing such matters here. If you want to lessen crowding, for instance, and are willing to execute not only 16 year olds, but 9 or 10 year olds to that end, why in the world would it make a bit of difference to you that the system is biased? That it is rigged in favor of whites, of the killers of blacks, of females, of the young (the old are rarely executed), the educated, the well-to-do... why, in fact, would anything matter to you except to "get rid of as many as possible within societally acceptable means."
Your idea and Christine's of "societally acceptable means" is very latitudinarian indeed! 'Selective' justice, characterized by racial and economic and other biases, is fine! Killing juveniles is okay! Killing innocents is acceptable! Killing the mentally retarded is okay! Killing the insane is okay! Because doing those things is ... "societally acceptable!!" Wooooo! I must say, I'm impressed by the way your faction ... sort of...keeps your eye on the ball, I'd guess you could call it... and doesn't let yourselves be distracted by... you know... those little details I've so tiresomely presented for your consideration! |
