Should 16 and 17 year olds be eligible for the death penalty?

It’s a serious question. There are some crimes committed by 16 and 17 year olds so heinous that perhaps the death penalty is warranted. I strongly support giving prosecutors discretion when it comes to trying 16 and 17 year olds as adults depending on very rare and extreme circumstances. In my view, Arron Campbell would be an example that should be executed. The guilt is 100%, the evidence is 100%. The odds of him being innocent are estimated to be around 1/35 quadrillion or so. I don’t see what benefit there is depriving prosecutors from trying 16 and 17 year olds as adults. 16 and 17 year olds are minors as they are under 18, but they are a very different type of minor when compared to those who are 13, 12, or 10 or even 14. A 16 or 17 year old who commits such crimes bare far more responsibility than minors much younger. Arron Campbell KNEW exactly what he was doing. This was not an act out of immaturity of misunderstanding, but an act of premeditated rape and murder. Why he didn’t get 50-life is beyond me.

All under 18 are rightfully included in a protected class called being a minor. And it’s true that vast majority of minors, including most 16 and 17 year olds should be tried as minors. But when someone, 16 or 17 commits such a heinous crime, shows catastrophically lack of remorse, there should be no question they should be eligible to be tried as an adult. Society deserves protection. Crimes like rape and murder committed by 16 and 17 year olds should be eligible to be tried as an adult on a case by case basis. I won’t change my view on this.

I believe UK courts should allow for some 16 and 17 year olds to be tried as adults, and should face the death penalty by firing squad. This will not bring back the victims, but it will bring some measure of justice and closure to the victims family. And if that is the best we can do, so be it. We ought to place the rights victim’s family above the relinquished right of life of the sadistic child killer. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/killer-aaron-campbell-spends-18th-21986702

There should be no death penalty period.

4 Likes

There should be no death penalty period.

This monster abducted, kidnapped, raped, tortured her and murdered her. The forensics revived that she sustained 117 injuries and she suffered catastrophic injuries. This kid had no remorse whatsoever for the truly heinous crimes he committed. There are no prospects for rehabilitation. Why the fuck should we keep this super predator alive?

I’d say the penalty should be determined by the family of the victim rather than the state.

While a lot of people in here will share your anger and frustration reading about such situations, and understands your feelings very well, the reason why most people won’t agree for the death penalty has to do with the fact that people have the ability of foresight.

Let’s assume that the government managed to kill such criminal with the death penalty, what happens then?

Was that the only case in which the death penalty was allowed? Was the death penalty brought back for this one particular case, and then instantly abolished afterwards?

Because if that were to be the case, it would set a very dangerous precedent, that the government can simply kill anyone they want, with no problems whatsoever, for anything, whenever they want, legally. This is definitely not how a good legal system should work.

So no, the death penalty would definitely not be used on this one particular case. Once established, it would be applied to many cases, and with each new case, the probability of killing someone innocent grows to 100%. Every country that allowed the death penalty has murdered a lot of innocent people. A lot of people who supposedly “should receive closure”, later has protested against the death penalty. This is why most countries have abolished it.

There is no possibility of you knowing, that someone is “100% guilty”. You feel that this is the case, but you aren’t in the position of actually knowing that.

If the odds of someone begin innocent are anything except 0, the guilt can’t be 100%. And I have hard time even imagining, there is a mathematical formula that actually would allow someone to calculate persons “probability of being innocent”.

Even if you have recorded evidence of him, with his face, committing the crime he is accused of, you can never be sure that he committed such crime willingly. There have been cases of people having evidence of them, and even admitting to committing a crime, as serious as killing their own wife, and being killed with the death penalty, to be later found out as framed by the actual perpetrator of the crime, who got away with it, since the only witness of their crime was killed by the authorities.

Are you really willing to risk murdering hundreds of innocent people, aiding such criminals, simply to kill one person you are 100% sure is guilty of a crime? When you have the alternative of keeping them alive in jail, away from society, when they can’t harm anybody for the rest of their life? If the cost is the problem, the solution is simple, stop throwing people into jail for committing victimless crimes. 5 to 10 people prosecuted for 10 years in jail for some nonsense, like possession of something obscene, or possession of drugs, would consume the same amount of money, as the brutal violent murderous rapist with the life sentence.

And if your answer is “yes, we should murder this one individual and allow the death penalty even if it can result in hundreds of innocent people being killed”, then you clearly don’t care about justice, you care about vengeance. And considering you aren’t the one that has been victimized in any way by this criminal. I would suspect it’s not even about vengeance, you simply try to rationalize your own sadistic and murderous tendencies and masquerade them as morality.

I don’t like this criminal, but I don’t like the idea of hundreds of innocent people being murdered even more. That would make us, the entire society, not better than such criminals.

2 Likes

Justice should be about rehabilitation, not revenge. The death penalty doesn’t serve to rehabilitate, nor prevent harm, it exists for the purposes of revenge only.

4 Likes

The death penalty is barbaric and should be abandoned. It does not prevent crime, nor does it solve any meaningful ends. It does not right any wrongs, nor does it correct that which needs correction. It does not punish, it does not satisfy. It needs to go.

4 Likes

Crime is a psychological thing. If someone interacts with bad people during childhood, it’s very likeky to become bad person too.

Social services should be there for people who can change.
Death penalty should be there for people who can’>T< change.

Pointless violence is bad. I really hate when someone kills someone for no reason. There are males who will kill a girlfriend just because she talked to another male, even WITHOUT any sexual desires. Some girlfriends will do the same to a male, as well. Not to mention what people say they want to do to MAPS…

Pointless violence is really bad, it breaks my heart.

1 Like

I agree. People who commit horrendous crimes should be punished accordingly and locked away if they are a danger to society, but the death penalty doesn’t achieve anything if it doesn’t deter crime.

Why are you so rude? Can’t we just use psychology to help people, instead of punishing them?

What do you mean by “horrendous crimes”?

I totally agree, but I add just one detail, justice must also take into account the example that is showing to other people. Like, if a person committed murder and be forgiven afterwards without much ceremony, that would be bad because it would encourage this crime. In other words,I think the phrase “punished as an example” is valid depending on the circumstance.

I agree with the idea that in a way people are not to blame for doing what they do. And that idea can be use for crimes. I even believe in a kind of destiny, but in a more scientific sense. Like, I believe that nothing is random in the world (I think the quantum theories that contradict this were just misinterpreted by human) … However, I think that people who don’t like this idea due the sense of impunity it creates don’t understand what all that implies in the end. Like, yes, a criminal is not to “blame” for what he did. But the person who punishes him (even with death if applicable) is also not to blame for what he did ^^" So in the end everyone did what they were meant to do. Which in the end implies that the very idea of destiny, although valid, doesn’t change anything in our lives.

You know exactly what I mean. Having intercourse with children (which is r-pe) and producing CP are horrendous crimes.

Alright. I didn’t know what horrendous crime is. I thought you are changing the the real meaning of the word, so it can fit your narratives. But now, thanks to you, im educated and i know what horrendous crime is.

Thanks.