For Rape & Murder, Sometimes It's Wise to Put a Teenager to Death

• Uhh.. killing a 13 year old boy is any more justified? Besides if it's cost we are talking about, execution costs THOUSANDS of dollars. It's cheaper to keep them locked up. I honestly think we should put them to work. We have a supply of workers we aren't utilizing, the prisons!

• Well said, Saint. How people don't "get" this, I'm not quite sure.

• I think there are good arguments on both sides of this debate,.. as for myself, I think in certain instances it would be justifiable to kill them.(though there should always be extensive analysis performed which examines the likeliness of repeat offense, versus the potential for reform.) In these debates, financial cost is always more emphasized than the Cost of Security for the innocents involved...which I find absurd. I'm more concerned about the other potential victims that would fall prey to the monsters, or future offenders that might come from their influence, moreso than the burdens of taxpayer joe. (though I feel your pain joey...sincerely.) @Shopgirl....such things that commit acts like the vicious rape and murder of an elderly schoolteacher who spent most of her life trying to instruct the future minds, ARE NOT CHILDREN. They're rabid animals in People suits who for whatever reason do what they do. (not all of them are abused, or otherwise traumatized as children, some are simply monsters born, or created by several chaotic social conditions varying each to each.) As I've said in other posts,..hatred for the rabid things is wasted, and senseless, but SO is attempting to cure what cannot be cured. IF at that age you're committing rape/murder, chances are a few therapy sessions aren't going to cause you to be a born again christian who opens up an orphanage, or becomes a teacher out of guilt for past crimes....chances are HIGHLY more probably you're going to use your sociopathic skills of deception to convince others you're "cured"...get out of prison, and be more educated and efficient at committing similar or worse crime.

• Oh my friggin' gawd, Pete! HA HA HA!

• Some are just evil by nature!

• I love Taco Bell too-maybe that's what's for dinner

• Nope, sorry Pete, I cannot agree. GWB's speech to Congress immediately after 9/11 was pitch perfect. That was when he became my president. Up until then, honestly, no. He is regular reader but not a regular speaker. He is not a natural orator. That does not mean he is unintelligent. Less than charming for our television society, sure. But stupid? Not even. Besides, to consider him a moron is to doubt the capacity of nearly the neat half of our country to determine a candidate's suitability for the highest office of the land, if not the world. Would those who voted for Obama-One be willing to accept such a put down? I think not, and rightly so, more for who they are, less for who Obama is. What's wrong with Taco Bell? LOL!!!! I love the enchirito. LOL!! Oh no, I'm craving one now and I'm in now condishun to dwive. Hahahahahahaha!

• goodness Pete...Taco Bell? lol

• I still honestly believe Bush is stupid, Russell. The man could barely speak a cogent sentence, even when someone else was writing his words. If he wasn't a third-generation Connecticut rich kid, he'd be screwing up orders at Taco Bell.

• Copy that Russell, copy that.

• Trajan, they always try to fall back on that arguement and blindly repeat in until they seem to believe it themselves. I used to think it was funny that libs called George Bush stupid. I don't think Harvard gives those MBA's away to stupes. And I know the Texas National Guard doesn't let morons fly their aircraft. But they still persisted in calling him stupid at every turn. and I think they honestly believed it. I'm of the opinion that it's because so many college profs. are liberal and they convey the attitude that if you don't agree with them you must be an uneducated fool.

• @ccccc - I understand. I am politically conservative and there is a tendency in the wider world to equate that with ignorance or stupidity. It is not fair. I have even had people ask me how I could have these political views when I am so well educated. Liberals and Conservatives just place things differently on the hierarchy of values.

• Okay but EVERYONE knows that's a very real possibility if the do a crime that will get them sent up-so to me, if they want to make that "mistake" then they are taking that chance. Even the non-violent dumbasses know what could and likely will happen to them once behind the wall.

• Prison rape isn't mirthful, it helps dab a tiny bit of mental pain killer on a wound we know will never get the mending it deserves. It's an outlet. And sometimes, just the mental exercise of imagining a vile mutant is suffering in a way that would twist his mind, his heart, his soul along with his colon just helps make it feel a little less horrifying. For just a few minutes... it's better than not feeling any outrage and it's better than crawling up inside the head to indulge some cerebral gymnastics to avoid the demand for justice most profound that bangs inside your chest.

• Sharon: Sure. But it also happens to non-violent dumbasses, who really don't deserve to be sodomized. Then they get hepatitis or the hivvies.

• CW: Yeah, but add actual delight to the mix.

• I don't think prison rape is funny. BUT.....if you are a pain in the ass rapist/perv then you deserve to have a pain in the ass time in prison.

• I used to talk with the guards before visiting, had to wait a little bit now and then, and many of them said "that's what happens - it just does" is that what you mean? if so then yeah I hear that.

• cw: Don't worry, I understand. But yeah, some people think it's funny. (I know a lot of prison guards.)

• Does anyone think it's funny? I don't think it's funny but when will you understand alot of us are pretty fucking fed up with the bullshit sentencing guidelines we see? We're pissed off and this is how we vent.

• Behind glass? yes it's like that here too, when they first go in, before they get to their assigned prison facility. Or if they are in solitary, county jail or have committed an offense during a visit it's behind glass. Some of the prisons are a little different in the clothing allowed into the visit room but for the most part it's similar in nature.

• angry grandma: That's exactly why I don't think prison rape is funny.

• yeah, our prisons have windows as well. but county doesn't. Still can't touch at all not even hug/hand holding. And please don't cry (like i did!) or you are removed because you are causing an embarrassment to the guards (that's what i was told 13 yrs ago!!) My son messed up and went in for 3 months. Ok he did crime, did time. I visit first time, and i couldn't do anything but cry. His son was just born and he couldn't see him. Anyways. male guard got a female guard and they came to me and both lifted me up by my arms (i freaked thought i was being arrested or something) escorted me to the visitors door. Told me that i was an embarrassment to them and i wasn't allow back! Couldn't say good bye or anything. they took him and put him in search room for 3 hours after i left. He had to wait for the other prisoners. He told me on the phone, that the reason i embarrassed the guards was there was no female guards in the visitors room (no female inmate visits) and the males thought i was doing it to cause a riot or something. he got the "screws" pissed at him for a while. Wasn't allowed small things. he knew it was cause i was crying. Anyways. I attempted to go back for a visit with daughter in law just before christmas, with permission from his lawyer (who met us there!) and i got all the way inside until i got to visitors lounge. Was told if i cried, or made any remark on his "condition" i would be immediately arrested for causing a riot. that threw me. The lawyer looked at me and had the same look on his face as i did. (he was going as a friend not a lawyer) Well,,, let's say i got arrested!!!! My kid's face was all puffed up. Left eye could hardly see. Lips cut up. I freaked. The lawyer immediately called for a lawyer visit! and i got arrested!! Seems the "screws" allowed a guy from violent holding (holding cell for prison) into the shower when my son was in there the night before. And this guy attempted to ... well he dropped the soap! Anyways, my son's roommate happened in there and he came to rescue. Lawyer got him out into a secured area immediately and then showed pics and such to DA and judge and he came home less then a week later with a bracelet. NON VIOLENT CRIME! He was 17. My case was thrown out! Anyways. Sorry lost topic in my story!

• Trajan: I agree with you on all counts excluding, of course, the death penalty. No need to explain how lucky we are- I'm aware. I'm not saying you're guilty of this, but there's a tendency with some here to mistake liberalism for ignorance or blatant stupidity. Or a dislike for our country. None of these descriptors accurately characterize me.

• I'm in Texas and when I visit my clients we interact behind glass. Makes things much easier for everyone in my opinion.

• Here in WA you can bring babies in even though they are CONSTANTLY finding stuff in - on - around the baby, stroller, bag. In the visit room you can touch each other but it's hand holding and a brief hug exiting or upon entry. They can't have money on them - it's put on "the books" for them to use for "the store" they call it. My Ex told me he'll never leave WA because we have the "choice prisons". Not kidding...easy life for them here.

• If visitors did not put drugs in baby diapers we wouldn't have to ban babies. Etc., etc., etc.! If the criminals would stop trying to defeat the system just so they can have whatever they want to have, then they would get a lot more, more easily, and without being subject to humiliating procedures. But nooooooo, they just have to have it their way and they won't stop. Since they won't stop, time to give them the heave ho. If not by trap door, then by shipment to Alexander Island. Now.

• I know in MA, we have county lock ups (which are for 3 yrs or less) But are not for violent criminals (murderers and such) And we have State prisons. I also know we have "contracts" with 2 prisons in Texas. I'm not sure if they are private or state. But once a year, (for 20 yrs now) our prison's send certain prisoners to Dallas. Due to overcrowdness. I don't know what crimes just that they do. And it use to be you could decide (as the prisoner) to finish your time in Dallas. But not now. All must come back in Ma within 6 months of your release date to be processed out. We also have a "work" program in all of our prisons/jails. the prisoner get's paid $3.85 cents a day for working within the prison (kitchen, laundry ect) The pay is put into their commissary fund. Which they have a bracelet and when they want to purchase they have to have it scanned. Then the item is delivered at some point later. No one walks around with anything on them at anytime. They went to this system a few years ago to prevent the prisoners extorting others for money and such. And depending on their time in, they will have $.50 a day for everyday (of good behavior) they have been in put into a savings account. Which they recieve minus cost for "street clothes" and transportation cost. Dont know how it works but just telling what i have been told. We have no work release programs anywhere in MA except juvies. And they are not allowed to manufacture license plates, furniture, crafts. Nothing for the "outside" world. Due to attempted escapes. A few prisons allow gardens for their own food, if they want. Prisons no longer allow GED's or college course for prisoners. they have no internet access (state level) and all mail is censored. in mail and out. No magazine subscriptions either. The county lock ups, allow GED courses but no college. They have internet access on a hour basis once a week unless it's to take the test for GED (which they are doing away with and going back to paper tests) And all visitors are searched. State and county. Can't bring babies anymore because a issue that happened last year. Woman had drugs in babies diaper and drugs in the bottle. There is also NO TOUCHING allow in either. time to wait to visit someone in county is 1 hour. To visit someone in state, up to 4 hours before you can visit. This is due to the searches they do prior and after the visits. So that's how MA handles our prisoners. We have no death penalty. And life sentences is minimum 25-45 years. Parole board only meets 4 times a year. And you are not garunteered (sp) a visit to them. it's up to the crime, time served, your behavoir in prison ect. For instance: you could be up for parole say in March. But you have a issue on your record where you were in the holding cell for fighting. Someone got hurt but not badly. That may push your hearing until say until Dec. I have tried to figure it out. And thought it was the board just being jerks. But i get it somewhat now.

• True 'dat Pete. Many times, I end up rolling my eyes. And so, I turn to the interwebs to hear from the rest of the news sources.

• I guess I think both Fox and MSNBC are propagandists, Alexa. Both are only interested in getting shots in at the other side without scrutiny of their own positions or partisans, so both are intellectually dishonest. Plus I really get tired of watching grown men and women being forced to manufacture outrage for a paycheck every evening. It's like watching a political version of really shitty community theater.

• @ ccccc - I understand your position. I believe people can disagree in good faith. I do agree that most people can not be rehabilitated. I am a firm supporter of the death penalty. That being said, I want it to be applied when appropriate and only at that point. A jury should be allowed to consider all possible punishments. This is a very troubled individual. That is why we have the system we have. I have seen the justice system in several other countries and I will assure you we are the luckiest people on earth. Our system was designed to take into account how to deal with this damaged human in a manner that is appropriate for his circumstances.

• Heyas Pete. Well, contrary to the characterization of "Fox News" like it's a bad thing, which would cause me to hurl the "MSNBC" faux news card, I watch and read a great variety of news outlets, out of sheer self-defense. I used to be a card-carrying member of the ACLU and they are who inspired me to cut the card up. ACLU's stock and trade is denial. They go out of their way to help the guilty go free. Why? Because they will convince themselves that a) their client really isn't guilty (wink wink, or, holding their nose) in order so they will provide a zealous and vigorous defense, or b) their client is probably guilty but he would serve their political agenda quite well, so they advance his case. Outside of the Innocence Project, which I consider a worthy cause, because I don't want to convict or execute the wrong person, those attorneys involved in the appeals process, the never-ending appeals in certain cases, e.g., Charles Ng, cost the American taxpayer so much money it is outrageous. When fewer of the members of the court automatically spout the word according to the ACLU, I'll relax.

• ccccc: My bad, thanks for the correction.

• Charlatan: Only the second comment was meant for you. Sorry for the confusion.

• "The only reason the cost of excising cancers is so high is because the very clever, very stubborn and very callous worshippers of the Church of the ACLU FIGHT to keep monsters and rapists alive." C'mon, Alexa, that's a little Fox News, isn't it? A friend of mine just went to a party at a Catholic church for a guy who'd been released from prison after 27 years. It took a priest, with the support of this parish, that long to prove the guy was innocent. And much of that delay had to do with prosecutors who refused to believed they had it wrong. Many of these innocence project people are clergy, academics and lawyers donating their time. One professor at Northwestern as got a number of people off death row by using his class to do the research. I agree that it takes much too long to whack a guy who's deserving, but that's more due to our shitty court system, which takes years to hear a single appeal. And since more than 200 people have been released for death row now, I think there's pretty good evidence that we have an impressive history of convicting the wrong guys both through malfeasance and basic human fallibility. But to blame it on the ACLU is kinda of like blaming all election fraud on ACORN. It makes for an easy-to-digest villain to the right, but not much more.

• You must have misunderstood my intention. I didn't hint that you sympathised with the killer more than the victim. And I am not a strong supporter of the death penalty myself; I simply think his age should not save him any consequences.

• Charlatan: I don't know of anyone who characterized this 13 year old killer as such. But my money is still on him being horrifically abused. And even so, that doesn't excuse murder.

• I dislike that his age has been made an excuse for his behaviour. People have a basic sense of right and wrong MUCH before thirteen years of age, not to mention his crime was not just wrong but horrendous. Rape and murder? Come on. Don't portray him as a lost little boy who just hasn't been brought up correctly. And sure, you may sympathise with him if he has been abused, but I find that a repugnant 'reason' to repeat the behaviour.

• I know bad inside and out. It's why I'm empathetic. I am not, however, stupid. Nor does it mean that, just because you don't support the death penalty, you do not sympathize with a victim and their family. Or that you sympathize with a killer MORE than the victim. That's nonsense.

• Interesting responses. It seems to me that many of the bleeding hearts on here have no concept of how truly evil/bad some people are. The belief that ALL humans are fundamentally good people is a faulty premise. If you're operating from a faulty premise it follows that your conclusions are, as well. As someone else stated, and rightly so, his age is a potential mitigating factor, but only ONE factor. The bottom line is that evil is evil. Anyone who can rape and murder an OLD LADY in the manner he did should be put to death. I can't imagine any mitigating circumstances where I would feel differently, in this particular case. Fiscal reasons are not the only reason to exterminate such vermin from this planet. The other is principle. Certain acts deserve nothing less than execution, and a swift one at that. People are like Doritos. We make more. Those who CHOOSE (remember, they did an AFFIRMATIVE act that put them in their current situation) to violate the social contract by murdering and raping in heinous, unthinkable ways, need to die. Why would you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to fix someone that's broken? It doesn't work and isn't worth the cost. Some of you act like I'm trying to off someone who got caught stealing CD's at Target. For Christ's sake, he violently killed and raped a 65 year old lady!

• &#64;Trajan, I use to work for attorneys and served jury duty seven times. Yes, seven different cases, seven different empanelings, across two states. All but two to a finding (they dealt pleas). I will agree with this much: of all the parties in the courtroom, the jurors easily take the proceedings the most seriously of all. I've been in a few trials where the judge, and everyone else, were openly bored and apathetic. I, too, have been hearing murmurings from some in America that life sentences are as you say a quasi-death penalty, so, they are not appropriate either. Appropriate for who and for what? That is because they completely and utterly ignore the harmed, the killed, and the equally harmed society in which they offended. For reasons yet to be clear, the moment someone is dead, and their civil rights evaporate, the hard-core leftists completely forget <i>those</i> humans <i>and</i> the families and friends they left behind. Stunning.

• Try "my last comment was only meant to remind people that committing a heinous act does not make a child a man."

• Trajan: I wasn't clear, I think, so you've misunderstood what I was trying to convey. My last comment was only meant to remind people that people that committing a heinous act does not make a child a man. He is still a child, but has been referred to as a man in the commentary. But to explain my position, for a variety of reasons, I do not support the death penalty. Nor do I have much faith in the rehabilitation of criminals- it CAN happen but isn't likely. I think the little jerk should get life. I do not have a problem with children facing life, in general, though I realize that some deem it cruel & unusual.

• &#64;ccccc - I do not think he is a man, but I do think that he can answer for a particularly heinous crime. Using your logic how could we punish an 18 year old? He can not even buy beer? How could we expect someone who can not be trusted with beer to be able to answer for a crime like murder? The fact that he is 13 should not be a bar to the death penalty, but it should be a consideration for the jury.

• If a 13 year old boy is such a man, why is he legally too young to vote or consent to sex? Sorry guys. He might be an evil kid, but he's a kid just the same.

• cw: Thanks for the info. I like the idea of such programs. I do wonder, though, if it's a state by state basis. Also, is this only practiced in state institutions, because privately run prisons are the wave of the future, or so I hear.

• &#64;Slicky - The argument regarding costs is still up in the air. There is competing evidence suggests it is less costly. Regardless, for me cost is not a concern. It is more about society holding some actions as above mercy. Using the cost benefit analysis is not appropriate in this situation. As and advocate of the death penalty, I do believe we over use it. It should be much rarer than it is. I also find it hard to be sympathetic to the life imprison argument many anti-death penalty groups advocate. For me it is a quasi-death sentence but I also fear it is the first step on a slippery slope. If you can not execute someone, how can you justify giving them a quasi-death sentence? How long is too long?

• hey ccccc-I was married to an offender for way too long and I can tell you for a fact that they already have in place work programs with pay that offset cost of incarceration, also a forced savings account for each offender. In fact in WA prisons any money they get will be "taxed" but it doesn't go to FIT like us free folks. It goes to cost of incarceration, victim's awareness, felony debt, forced savings-the savings goes to the offender upon release . This man and his "cohorts" were blatantly honest in the fact that they did not want to do things the right way, but their way.

• &#64;Shannie, thanks, I dig how you Rawk the Comment too, all the time. Yeah, I know, I sometimes think "did I just say that?" and then I go "yeah, and I'm ok." LOL! @A'G'ma, not all states recompense their jurors at the same rate. $50 a day is actually high, yes high, compared to what other states pay. I suggested the alternative as a way to get around the low reimbursement rates, to elevate the importance of jury duty to not only the actual juror but all the persons who rely on the juror, such as all the people who expect money from him. If the juror did not have to worry about losing pay in order to pay unremitting bills, because the bills would be reduced to compensate for loss of wages and insufficient reimbursement, then the extremely important civic duty of serving as a juror would be taken more seriously by everyone. The current system we have is broken, no doubt about it. But if we don't start thinking outside the box and implementing novel, daring, swift and effective solutions, we'll just keep limping along the path we're on, which is headed downwards, not up. I do not agree that cases such as this are a Catch-22. The youth of the offender matters when they are so very young, that they are still unable to understand the difference between right and wrong. I knew it was wrong to kill by the time I was 10, for crying out loud. If we could jail lousy parents for not teaching their child the difference by 10 or even younger, then I'd be happy with that too. Sounds like a great deal to me: if your child kills someone, and you believe it is because you did not teach them that it is wrong, then to spare their lives, though they will still be jailed for a long time, you agree to "serve time" as well. You give up your job and work for the community to pay for your child's incarceration.

• I would much rather pay to lock this kid up for life than to execute him. There are multiple reasons for this, but I'd rather address something else: lowering the cost involved with incarceration. Take away amenities (keep the library), serve the most basic of meals(PBJ & Fruit), implement prison work programs with prisoner's pay offsetting the cost of their incarceration, quit housing non-violent offenders, and make non-violent offenders work for the community with their earnings benefiting the community &/or victims. Set aside a minor stipend paid for by any prison work program so that newly released prisoners have no immediate need to re-offend. If we reduce the cost of incarceration & focus only on housing the violent, perhaps it wouldn't be such an issue to permanently incarcerate a broken child.

• &#64;JD - I understand. Voluntary drunkeness is not a defense in any state I am aware of. Still, I do agree with you on the point that no one should be disqualified. His age should be a consideration, not a bar. @alexa - As a clerk and attorney I have been in on many jury selections, voir dires as they are known, and trust me people take it very seriously. I think every civics class should include a visit to a court house and the observation of a jury trial. It is such a civilized process.

• I am not a big fan of judges or juries or our legal system per se. And i am a fan of the death penalty, (even though i live in a non d/p state) I believe in eye for an eye. And i also believe that all crimes (no matter what they are) should all be judged on the act it's self. In MA, if you get called to Jury duty, your company must pay you for up to 3 full days of pay. After 3 days, no more pay and the courts will pay you $50 a day!!! Woo Hoo. Don't see how a federal law making household bills and such be reduced by your days of jury duty makes sense. I haven't heard of any one every spending more then 3 days in jury. Unless it's the federal grand jury duty. and at that, it's 3 days a week for 13 weeks. Which is paid at employer pays the first 3 days. and then the fed's pay $100 a day after that. that is if you have an actual job. if you collect welfare or social security or unemployment or any type of aid, you don't get paid at all. I do not condone killing a child for a crime. But in this case, we all know that he is unsavable. so maybe not killing him but he needs a harsh punishment to fit the crime. Which will mean we (taxpayers) will continue supporting him for a while longer. We will imprison people who are declared "retarded", but can't give them death penalties because of their infirmeries. We imprison all the time people with mental defects. Again, we don't kill them. And i don't think the cost is worth the damnation of killing this child. I know i say he should be punished to fit the crime. And i also said eye for an eye. But he is still a child and i can't fathom what would cause him to actually do something like this to begin with. Ok, now that i seem to confuse everyone with my comment, to kill a rapist murderer but not this child. i am actually a little mixed up myself on him. I think as a parent and as a taxpayer. Not a good match. And then i think of the victim and the horror which was done to her and the saddness for her family seems to rile me up. a clear case of catch 22

• Hey alexa kim-I agree with you/Trajan. Unless the bar scenario is played out with a person that has a history of violence whilst drinking then down they go.

• Oh boy! Alexa Kim, this is me talking to me in my head "oh no she didn't!", "oh yes she did". I have to say I am never bored by your posts. And that was a great one.

• &#64;Slicky, the link is to a notoriously severely lefty anti-death for anyone except the victims of murderers site. The only reason the cost of excising cancers is so high is because the very clever, very stubborn and very callous worshippers of the Church of the ACLU FIGHT to keep monsters and rapists alive. If they would stop interfering with the will of the majority of the people, it would cost considerably LESS. No one wants to execute an innocent person, we want to excise the cancer. Once our system of due process has determined that, then we should be allowed to proceed with the excision. But too many out there who simply do not like the death penalty will fight to prevent it, no matter how well prosecuted and appealed, no matter how nasty the convicted monster is, and no matter how much it hurts everyone else. That's why it's expensive. If we stopped allowing endless appeals, an excellent income stream scheme weaseled into the process by defense attorneys, and we stopped being influenced into doubting everything our process does to deliver justice correctly, dispatching the guilty monsters would cost less.

• &#64;Trajan I'm not so sure about your bar illustration since it involves stimulants and not being in control of oneself. Clearly the nature of the teenager's crime was more akin to the character of the former illustration. Regardless, I'd probably agree with your assessment; I don't think that just anybody who kills someone should be put to death (would the bar fight be considered murder anyway?). There certainly are accidents and differentiating circumstances. My statement "the government has the responsibility" was not meant to be all-inclusive; I'm just saying that if we're going to put a 40 year old man to death for it, we shouldn't disqualify a 14 year old for it.

• I'm surprised no one has pointed out yet is that it's MORE expensive to put someone to death than it is to keep him/her in prison for life. http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

• &#64;ccccc I read it. It is indeed chilling.

• &#64;JD - I disagree that it is the responsibility of the government to put murderers to death. We must look at circumstances. A guy who walks into an orphanage and murders all the poor orphans while they hold cute kittens just because he likes the sounds of their screams deserves the death penalty. A guy who gets drunk in a bar and kills a guy in a fight probably does not. It is dangerous to make blanket statements. Each criminal, and each crime, is unique and the evidence should be weighed independently. That is why I oppose mandatory minimum sentencing. It treats divergent circumstances as equal based soley on the wording of a charge.

• Trajan's comment posted while I was writing and I'd like to add my voice to what he has said. If more juries were permitted to hear all the evidence, and more juries were truly selected at random, and jury duty was treated with the respect and value it merits, then we would have a much better chance at getting justice dispensed more evenly. Why don't we make it a federal law that a juror must have their rent, utilities, monthly accrued bills (car payments, etc.) reduced pro rata by the number of days of jury service?

• I don't particularly care about the resources, since there will always be people to incarcerate for one reason or another, but I'm in agreement with the fact that he deserves the death penalty. I think that government has the responsibility to put murderers to death, and while the offender is 14 years old, there are certain behaviors which any person knows are wrong and must be punished accordingly regardless of age. If he had committed a string of 50 serial murders, most everyone would be in agreement; the general consensus would be that a 35 year old man who kills 50 people should be put to death. Why does it matter the age of the offender? The punishment must be accordant to the crime.

• Just for the sake of argument, I'll play the devil's advocate and ask, aside from the feeling of squeamishness when contemplating excising a cancer while small, before it kills again, because you might feel you are acting too soon, how would executing a murderous child, <i>who has received due process</i>, be worse than say -- bear with the argument now, don't flip out, ok, we're just wanting to see how this reconciles with the philosophies of some -- killing a child, residing in a bad location for his health, namely, a woman's womb and who has <i>not</i> received due process? *waits*

• I am a strong supporter of the death penalty, but I do not particularly care for the limited resources argument. This is an emotional issue. Society has the right to say that there are some crimes that we will not tolerate and for which mercy can not be shown. That being said, circumstances should be taken into account. Justice is about giving to people what they deserve. We do not know yet about the circumstances surrounding this young man. Maybe he was abused. Yet, there are some people who are hardcore sociopaths. Their lawlessness is ingrained. The more violent of these people will continue to kill while in jail. The only logical solution is to remove the threat. He is 13. A 13 year old should have a basic understanding of right and wrong. He probably did not understand the full implications of his actions, but that is true of virtually all criminals. The best way to decide these things is with a jury. I'm an attorney and have no delusions regarding the system, but I do have a strong faith in the jury system. In my experiance, they get it right 99.9% of the time. It should be up to the jury, as the representatives of society, to weigh the evidence presented by both sides and make a judgment on whether this young man should die. If they choose to have him executed, I have no problem with that.

• comicshopgrl: Well said. If you check out the original story, she expounds upon her ideas in the commentary. It's chilling.

• So what is the equation to get the price tag on a human life? With this line of reasoning, we should be euthanizing the children and the poor for being a drain on our economy. How do I calculate my worth to society so I can avoid execution?

• By "teenager", we mean 13 year old boy. He's sick & defective, yes. I have no hope for his rehabilitation. However, for a child barely past a decade to be capable of such horrendous acts, he had to have experienced some horrendous abuse himself. And it didn't happen to him all that long ago, considering he was only 13. This wasn't an adult with impulse control, and the ability to clearly think things through. And while he's certifiable, I can't advocate putting a child to death, especially based upon the reason of limited resources.

TotalComments: 66