Cops: Boy, 7, Beat Baby Sister to Death

[Embar Angylwrath]

Where do you draw the line as to competency? And if competency is your personal qualifier, what level of competency is sufficient? And how do you measure it?

[Rsak]

t was my attempt to get a pro-death penalty supporter to engage in a debate of the criteria used to determine whether or not an individual receives death.

The problem is that none of us at this board are capable of deciding whether the individual should be killed. However as we belong to the society in general do have the right and capablity to decide if the death sentence should be open to the jury that decides his fate if it goes to trial.

The criteria should be compentency as well as nature of the crime.

A child uncapable of taking care of his sister or being trained to get his parents could make a mistake that would have dire consequences.

However a 7 year old taking a gun to his school killing numerous individuals involves an interely different motivation that must be considered.

[Kulaf]

Where do you draw the line as to competency? And if competency is your personal qualifier, what level of competency is sufficient? And how do you measure it?

Well competence is part and parcel with mitigation. So there is no "line" to be drawn and each case needs to be determined on its own merits. As to what level of competency is "sufficient"......well that again varies case to case. Not everyone marches lock and step into adulthood. Some go faster and some go slower. The court would need to make this decesion based an available expert examination and recomendation......much in the same way a person is comitted due to mental competence. As to how you measure it.....see previous.

[Embar Angylwrath]

So if the expert says "This person has the cognitive ability of a 7 year old, and a jury sends that person to the sleepy-cot, then what that says to me is, 7 year olds are capable of cognitively understanding right and wrong, and therefore are eligible for the death penalty if they do something heinous.

You have the same understanding?

[Kulaf]

Knowing right from wrong is not the only measure of competence. Understanding the repercussions of the action as it pertains to people other than oneself is also a factor. So while I have no doubt that a 7 year old that hits their sibling in the head with a 2x4 knows that it is wrong to do it......do they necessarily understand what can happen to the other person?

[Embar Angylwrath]

That goes to the cognitive ability of the person. If a person is 7 years old, and has the cognitive ability for a person his age, and a person is 35 years old, and has the cognitive ability of a 7 year old.. what's the difference?

Yet we'll put to death people with low cognitive ability. They aren't insane, but they actions-consequences don't register with them. Yet we still put them on the sleepy-cot. Do you have an issue with that?

[Kulaf]

I do.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Then, if you have an issue with the way the death penalty is applied in this country, aren't you morally bound to oppose it until such time it is administered in a way not in conflict with your moral grounding?

[Kulaf]

First off.....I do not have a problem with the way the death penalty is applied in this country. However I do have a problem with the way the death penalty is applied in certain cases. That is a big distinction.

I think the judicial system makes mistakes all the time. By your logic I would be morally bound to oppose the jailing of anyone until I could be guaranteed that mistakes never occur.

Rather I will focus my moral beliefs to certain situations on a case by case basis.

[Embar Angylwrath]

The death penalty has a certain permanancy attached to it. There is an inability to correct a mistake.

[Kulaf]

And?

Many actions have a permanent effect. War for instance. People die in war.

Would you apply the same arguement?

[Tholiak Eladamri]

If hes white..hell get off..if hes black..hell be found guilty only to have it overturned because hes black...well probably see this kid in a few years for something else illegal...that other Black kid who murdered and was let off because hes black..is back in the news for what? his 2nd probation Violation?

[Partha]

Then, if you have an issue with the way the death penalty is applied in this country, aren't you morally bound to oppose it until such time it is administered in a way not in conflict with your moral grounding?

No, you're morally bound to make it better, not to refuse to use it in cases where it is clearly in order, as expressed by the wish of the citizenry of the locale that condemns him to death. This is a strawman, as no community in America will advocate for the death of a 7 year old, and there are laws on the books to prevent them from being served with capital punishment.

As far as the 35 year old with the 7 year old's mental capacity, you have a link, I'm sure.

[Partha]

And another question.

Who moved Tholiak's rock? Put it back, please.

[vaulos]

Despite Keebler's rather rude dismissal of Kulaf's remark, the answer to Embar's question is that we don't execute the child because we don't believe that he is old enough to know the difference between right and wrong. It is for this reason that people under a certain age have "legal guardians". The age, I admit, is rather arbitrary, but we do tend to err on the side of caution about these things.

Anyway, the kid isn't culpable under the law because he's too young to know better. His parents, on the other hand, could very well face charges because they are the legal guardian of a child who did something very nasty on thier watch.

[Embar Angylwrath]

And?

Many actions have a permanent effect. War for instance. People die in war.

Would you apply the same arguement?

People aren't tried, convicted, and sentenced to war.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Despite Keebler's rather rude dismissal of Kulaf's remark, the answer to Embar's question is that we don't execute the child because we don't believe that he is old enough to know the difference between right and wrong. It is for this reason that people under a certain age have "legal guardians". The age, I admit, is rather arbitrary, but we do tend to err on the side of caution about these things.

Anyway, the kid isn't culpable under the law because he's too young to know better. His parents, on the other hand, could very well face charges because they are the legal guardian of a child who did something very nasty on thier watch.

Again, its not really the age we're talking about , is it? It's a presumption that people of a certain age and under can't know any better. So really, we are using age as an indicator of the true measuring stick... cognitively knowing right from wrong, or perhaps understanding consequences of actions.

So again, I ask you, why dp we allow people how aren't cognitively able to understand right and wrong, or essentailly have the cognitive skills of a child, to be put to death?

[vaulos]

Well, actually, they certainly are tried, convicted and sentenced to war if the country doing the invading is a democracy.

[Rsak]

It's a presumption that people of a certain age and under can't know any better.

The presumption is that is the only reason we could decide not to use the death penalty.

We also look at the severity of the crime, damage to the individual having committed that crime, the way it was carried out, past offenses, and remorsefullness in court among others.

The attempt to boil this complex issue into a single moral judgement based on age borders on intellectual dishonesty.

[vaulos]

Again, its not really the age we're talking about , is it? It's a presumption that people of a certain age and under can't know any better. So really, we are using age as an indicator of the true measuring stick... cognitively knowing right from wrong, or perhaps understanding consequences of actions.

So again, I ask you, why dp we allow people how aren't cognitively able to understand right and wrong, or essentailly have the cognitive skills of a child, to be put to death?

Actually, it isn't that we believe that individuals under the age of 18 can't know better (some actually do), but rather that we are willing to give them another chance to get it right, believing that the error might have been a result of imperfect or incomplete moral education. After a certain age, however, we expect people to educate themselves about right and wrong. If they fail to do so, it is at thier own peril. We have the noted exception of insanity, but those individuals are obviously not who we are talking about (because they don't get put to death).