Should a person's 'tough childhood' be considered when deciding Life or Death Penalty?
Juries are reminded to consider a few things during sentencing a murderer. In some cases, if a person had a rough childhood, the jury is reminded of that and told to consider it. In effect, the punishment for the adult's actions are possibly relative to the person's childhood.
Is this right or wrong?
Yes
Side Score: 11
|
 |
No
Side Score: 21
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
In many cases such a consideration is already present, particularly when defense attorneys attempt to claim "for action x, not guilty by reason of insanity". Some people do develop psychoses because of past trauma and are acquitted or found not guilty of their alleged crimes (most often with the caveat of going to a psyche-ward). Side: yes
2
points
Yes, I believe it is right to consider what a person might have gone through in their childhood that probably desensitized them to the good in and the rights of others. They may have been constantly abused physically or sexually or may have been raped repeatedly throughout their childhood years. If there are extenuating circumstances my wish would be for them to be brought in during the sentencing phase of the trial or before the jury even goes out to consider that person's fate. Side: yes
I agree that it should be considered during sentencing. But if it is considered during deliberation of the verdict, it could result in the freedom of someone who could potentially kill again. I feel that during that stage, the only facts that should be considered are those effecting the actual crime and who committed it, and how. Not really why, or if again, et cetera. Side: yes
1
point
|
how about this, A bad part of a city has a crime problem and that problem is related to drugs. Everyone sells or buys drugs in that neighborhood. A kid who grew up in that moves to a different city, where he starts selling drugs and gets caught by a police officer and kills him. In some states the death penalty is used for cop killers. The kid is 18 and thus qualifies for the death penalty. Should he be granted a different penalty than a person who does a similar crime who had a good childhood? Side: No
No... the action should. What, just because his dad never hugged him that makes him special? No, that just might make him more dangerous because he has fuckin' problems. Look, if you kill your wife because she was cheating on you, then that means you kill people who deceive you. Since this is a fuckin' world of fuckin' rats, a lot of people are in danger. Thus meaning you should be executed. If you kill your wife because you were abused as a child, this means you are FUCKED UP and should be executed for everyone's sake. Of course, I feel that the death penalty should only be used if the evidence is overwhelming and you're not just determined guilty because of the jury. Although, I don't think you should be determined guilty until the evidence is overwhelming or proven beyond a reasonable doubt... so w/e. Side: No
2
points
Whether or not a person had a tough childhood doesn't really have anything to do with how they should be sentenced. Yes, it can provide insight into why they committed the crime they did, but so what? Even if it's some form of mental illness, nobody commits any crime without a reason. And regardless of what someone has been through as a child, it shouldn't earn them any slack when they've done something wrong. There are plenty of people who've gone through the same thing and gone on to lead normal, productive lives WITHOUT committing crimes. Side: No
Well, it depends on age. An 18 year old is considered an adult by the legal system. Is this enough life experience though for one to truly make "adult" decisions? Sometimes it is and sometimes it is not. There have been cases I believe, where someone would be spared the death penalty for an exceptionally low IQ, it would be said they have a "mind of a child," and so could not be given an adult punishment, but it is still right and necessary to permanantly remove that person from society. However, western society in generally, more so for the U.S. it seems than other countries, and on some level it may simply be a human condition, that people just don't want to grow up. At some point, a person of sound mind has to have the capacity to realize that what happened in their childhood does not have to effect their actions. They need to grow up, and I see it all the time, not so much murders, but on the streets, grown men in suit and tie throwing fits like children because of traffic. Adults crying over the fast food restaraunt not getting their order fast enough, people calling 911 for the silliest things. There was a grown man in Florida who had a python who escaped its cage once. There was a 2 year old kid in the house, it escaped again and killed the kid. These adults are acting like children and it needs to stop. Whether it's the atmosphere we live in where no one is at fault, the idea that parents need to be friends with their children instead of authority figures, that we expect government to put warnings on everything to sensor everything to tell us what we can or cannot do, whether these things are to blame, or whether it's just who we are I don't know. But I think it's important we do something different in our society so more of its people know how to be adults. So no, a person's childhood should not be any kind of consideration in any kind of criminal proceding. Side: No
If not the death penalty, what? Life in prison? I would prefer the death penalty. How do you measure a tough child hood? What if the childhood has nothing to do with the crime. Almost everyone would be pleading "tough Childhood". "Well hey! my bike got stolen! on CHRISTMAS, ...when I was FIVE. So give me a break." (; That really happened to me. You know what, I think I'm gonna go murder some people now. Side: yes
1
point
No. That person is still responsible for the crime that they chose to commit, unless it is against their abuser. Why should they take it out on someone who is totally innocent. The only way a person should not be held accountable for their actions is when there is mind control, or the person has been drugged by another person, or when psych drugs are involved as these truly do change a persons behavior beyond their own control. But on saying this, the other people involved should be made accountable for the actions of that person also. As far as pleading insane goes, I think this is ridiculous as I dont know of to many people thinking with true rationality that would go and kill anyone without good reason. Someone who kills someone over a packet of cigarettes and $200 obviously isn't rational by normal standards but it doesnt make shooting the 4711 guy any less a crime and the bastard should die for it, no matter how often he got smacked as a child, didn't have a father figure or whatever. Side: No
|
