In this week’s presentation, the Roper v. Simmons case was explained. In this case, a 17-year old boy and his friend tied up a girl and threw her off of a bridge to her death. The courts have found that it is unconstitutional to sentence a minor to death. I understand the law and I understand that the line needs to be drawn somewhere, but 18? Think back to when you turned 18 years old. Suddenly you can serve your country and buy cigarettes and vote. But were you really more mature at 18 than 17? Probably not. However, its fair to say you probably knew the difference between right and wrong at 17, and most likely years before that. You probably knew what murder was and that it was wrong before age 18. I do not think that there should be a specific death penalty age. I think that the facts of the case (both mitigating and aggravating) should help decide. The particular depraved way that this boy murdered the girl should be taken into account. This was not just a botched robbery or something semi-accidental. It was a preplanned robbery and murder. Premeditation is an aggravating factor.
However, this does not mean I am for giving the death penalty to all minors that commit a murder. I am just saying that the age should not be 18 years old. What if I murder someone at 17 years and 350 days? Technically I cannot be sentenced to death because I am under 18. I think the age should be 16, and then you can look at the facts of the case to make your final decision on whether to execute or not.
I agree that 18 should not be the age in which we decide to punish someone as an adult. I really don't think that there should be any specific age. That is like saying everyone matures at the same rate, which is simply not true. In Roper v. Simmons the murderer very clearly knew what he was doing, because he used the fact that he was 17 to his advantage, and didn't wait until he was 18, because he knew that legally he would be held more accountable. Anybody who commits such acts is clearly not exactly right in the head, so that really cannot be used in their defense.
ReplyDeleteI do not particularly support the death penalty, but I do know that the 17 year old boy in the Roper v. Simmons case was old enough to take responsibility for his actions. I haven't read all of the facts of the case, but it does seem that he had an intent to kill and carried out his plan. So when judges look at these types of cases involving juveniles I think that they should weight the facts of the case more heavily in determining a sentence because like Sabrina stated people do mature at different rates. And in this case this murderer was mature enough.
ReplyDelete