View Single Post
Old December 25th, 2012, 10:41 PM   #20 (permalink)
copestag
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,350
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 246 Times in 192 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kool kat2 View Post
Age restrictions are all backwards. Either way, this wasn't a killing in self defense or accidental. It was cold murder. With a side of rape and torture. If you're old enough to RAPE and TORTURE a human being, without having been forced into it by some crazy mentor, then you're old enough to be incarcerated for the appropriate amount of time, not flippin juvi. Hell, statutory "rapists" get harsher sentencing than juvi, and no forced sex or torture involved. (of course im referring to the instances where its consensual)
You can ignore the blue text below.... its what I was originally typing before it dawned on me.... the best way to get the point across is an example based on your own arguments..... since you mentioned statutory rape Ill use that

so here goes:

a guy brutally rapes, tortures, and murders someone at the age of 15....... you want him tried as an adult because he was mentally capable as an adult at the age of 15

what if you later found out that same guy at the age of 15 was in a sexual relationship with a 40 year old woman.... would you also want that woman arrested for statutory rape?

either hes an adult or he isnt.......... statutory rape implies hes not an adult........ but murder implies he is?

you cant (in good faith) have it both ways...........but under the law you can today

we arent however talking about today........ and under the laws at the time he committed the crime.... he could not be tried as an adult....... therefore he cannot be tried that way today......

3 years juvi maximum sentence legally possible

ignore blue text below...... unless your curious about a different approach at futility

as I said......

would you feel the same way if he was 6 when he did it?...... what if he was 10?

at what age do you qualify someone as 'adult'............ the law has said 18 is a reasonable age to use

when we start making exceptions to the law its a slippery slope..... for what criteria do we make exceptions......... shouldnt exceptions work both ways?

so if you say certain people at age 15 are mentally competent to be considered adult if they commit a crime.......... then should we also agree that certain people should be allowed to legally drink @ 15? do we have some test to base the criteria on?

we shouldnt be making exceptions to law only when it works in the governments favor.......... the laws should be adhered to no matter the circumstance
copestag is offline  
Reply With Quote