So what is your age limit? If 16, why not 15? And if 15, why not 12, or 10, or 7, or 5?
The only thing we can say with any certainty is that the Victorians tried and tested the hang-em-high method of crime reduction, with less than stellar results to show for it.
Why should there be an age limit? If a person is capable of consciously plan a crime and execute it, he/she should be able to take a responsibility and punishment for it. What I mean, is that such incidents should be decided case by case basis, not setting some hard limit just because a perpetrator is below a certain age. A person doesn't become somehow magically different at midnight he turns 18. Aand it's not like we have a problem of minors of 5 years old running around and killing people, so the bar sets itself naturally (I'd guess proposed 16yo is pretty accurate for the serious crimes).
OK, so it's bad bad phrasing on my part.
How would you personally decide "if a person is capable of consciously plan a crime and execut[ing] it?"
> Aand it's not like we have a problem of minors of 5 years old running around and killing people
Yeah, that was hypoerbole on my part. It's not unknown for 10-year-olds to commit hideous crimes, though.
so why 18 then. The age limit is just a line in the sand that is different in differents states and for different things (driving, drinking, having sexual relationships)
For what it's worth, I completely agree!
I'll take that as you're agreeing with me!
This seems necessarily goading. Why does 18 magically make someone an adult? If anything, we've swung way too far to the left on this issue. A 14 or 15 old person is mature enough to understand complex moral issues. At 15 I drove a 6,000lbs death machine car and had a part time job on top of school. The idea that I didn't understand rape or murder was wrong at that age is asinine. I'd say high school age is fair game for serious prison time for serious offenses.
Here in Chicago a lot of our shooters are 15-17. These aren't innocent children, but fairly serious criminals with nothing but a life of crime ahead of them. Catching them early has potential for betterment compared to leaving them in the loving arms of the gang system and more or less guaranteeing the further victimization of others.
You're proposing hanging 14 and 15-year-olds?
Purely and genuinely because I'm curious: at what age would you say "stop, they're too young to hang"?
>Catching them early has potential for betterment...
But once they've crossed a line, despite having another 40-50 years of life in front of them, that's it? Not any chance of trying to turn them into contributing, worthwhile members of society?