Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wobbles)
    a) Maybe you are forgetting the whole point of the thread - he KILLED TWO people.

    b) Mindhunter
    Okay thanks, because I'd totally forgotten. You haven't explained yourself at all, just got mad and veered off your original arguments. But anyway,
    http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/s...penter/12.html
    ^ This site uses that book as a reference for the info on David Carpenter (see sources link on the right, or read the first page). Now I've skimmed throughand I still don't even see the word "grandparents" let alone anything about him killing any grandparents.

    The point is, you're lying.

    But I'm more interested in understanding why you think, because the child was *allegedly* abused and a lot of serial killers were also abused, "it would be absurd to let this kid go free into society again."

    This particular kid. Aged 8, not Kemper, who was twice that age.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Complete scum. I would call for his execution at 18, but I don't know. The law is there to protect kids from being punished, even for such horrible mistakes. He should be seriously assessed. His life is already ruined, but I don't know what will happen of an 8 year old murderer.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blátönn)
    I don't see where the moral conundrum lies. They killed and are in turn killed themselves. 'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth'; the oldest principle of just retribution still, I think, rings true.

    At the age of six, and arguably earlier, you know that killing is wrong - there isn't a culture in existence where it is thought otherwise, it's basic human nature. To say that someone shouldn't be held fully responsible for their crimes due to a young is pure sentimentality. Hang 'em high, I say.



    If the whole world thought that rape was morally acceptable but I disagreed would that make me wrong? No, it wouldn't, and so the point is moot.
    Can't be bothered to argue that he shouldn't be hung - which I don't believe he should - as the point seems too ridiculous to argue. However, the point in bold - are you for real? Did you know that the criminal age of responsibility in the UK is 10 years of age. This is similar for many other countries, and many of the US states. Do you know why this is? Because they accept that children under this age cannot be held responsible for their actions, because they do not yet fully understand the severity and consequences of those actions; hence no eight year old could have the required mens rea for those actions (in all of the countries/states where there is a higher level of criminal responsiblity than eight).
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    At first i was going to reply to the people who sais he should be put on death row and tell them tha that's wrong and he's a child etc..

    But i thought about it and if he managed to kill two people one of them his own father aged 8, imagine what he's going to do when he's been imprisoned for 15+ years, so i think he should be judged as an adult..

    I don't think i'd feel safe knowing he's free TBH.
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by Bateman)
    At first i was going to reply to the people who sais he should be put on death row and tell them tha that's wrong and he's a child etc..

    But i thought about it and if he managed to kill two people one of them his own father aged 8, imagine what he's going to do when he's been imprisoned for 15+ years, so i think he should be judged as an adult..

    I don't think i'd feel safe knowing he's free TBH.
    If we accept that prison is going to make him worse, I would think the sensible solution would be to rework the prison system, not kill a child.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by numb3rb0y)
    If we accept that prison is going to make him worse, I would think the sensible solution would be to rework the prison system, not kill a child.

    If he is mesed up at 8 i think jail i sgoing to make him worse.

    Anyway that's not a chance i'm willing to take.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bateman)
    If he is mesed up at 8 i think jail i sgoing to make him worse
    Or perhaps he'll grow older and develop intellectually and socially and realise what he did- which is only a more extreme act of what was allegedly happening to him as he was being brought up- was wrong and that society will punish him if he does it again.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think you're all forgetting that he may have been abused. If he has then his brain probably isn't permanently wired for him to be a lethal serial killer.

    If they take him into some kind of care home now, they will probably iron out all his issues by the time he's 18.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pcok)
    Can't be bothered to argue that he shouldn't be hung - which I don't believe he should - as the point seems too ridiculous to argue. However, the point in bold - are you for real? Did you know that the criminal age of responsibility in the UK is 10 years of age. This is similar for many other countries, and many of the US states.
    When I wrote 'there isn't a culture in existence where it is thought otherwise' I was referring to the belief that murder is morally wrong, as opposed to the age of liability.

    (Original post by pcok)
    Do you know why this is? Because they accept that children under this age cannot be held responsible for their actions, because they do not yet fully understand the severity and consequences of those actions; hence no eight year old could have the required mens rea for those actions (in all of the countries/states where there is a higher level of criminal responsiblity than eight).
    So, because a gaggle of lawyers say something is so means that it catagorically is? The fact that the age of responsibility is not unanimously agreed upon throughout the world evidences the fact that they are not infallible in their opinions. Conversely numberous psychological studies show that an internally dependant conscience exists from a young age.
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by Blátönn)
    So, because a gaggle of lawyers say something is so means that it catagorically is? The fact that the age of responsibility is not unanimously agreed upon throughout the world evidences the fact that they are not infallible in their opinions. Conversely numberous psychological studies show that an internally dependant conscience exists from a young age.
    It's not just a "gaggle of lawyers". These decisions were usually made by legislators with a democratic, populist seal of approval. In the cases where the judiciary had to make the call, we're talking about incredibly intelligent judges with huge amounts of experience and the backing of top academics in and outside the field of ethics and law.

    Also, nothing is unanimously agreed upon. Some murderers don't think murder is wrong, does that mean they should be allowed to murder?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blátönn)
    When I wrote 'there isn't a culture in existence where it is thought otherwise' I was referring to the belief that murder is morally wrong, as opposed to the age of liability.
    And when I wrote 'they accept that children under this age cannot be held responsible for their actions, because they do not yet fully understand the severity and consequences of those actions', I was referring to the fact that this shows that there are cultures in existence which do not believe that an eight year old can know that muder is morally wrong.



    So, because a gaggle of lawyers say something is so means that it catagorically is? The fact that the age of responsibility is not unanimously agreed upon throughout the world evidences the fact that they are not infallible in their opinions. Conversely numberous psychological studies show that an internally dependant conscience exists from a young age.
    (a) You do realise that legislation says this, rather than 'a gaggle of lawyers', yes?

    (b) I didn't say that it is 'unanimously agreed upon throughout the world', rather I was replying to your point that 'there isn't a culture in existence where it is thought otherwise'.

    N.B: Legislation is created by Parliament, and elected body, therefore, arguably, representing the views of society. It is then approved by the House of Commons, and the House of Lords.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by numb3rb0y)
    It's not just a "gaggle of lawyers". These decisions were usually made by legislators with a democratic, populist seal of approval. In the cases where the judiciary had to make the call, we're talking about incredibly intelligent judges with huge amounts of experience and the backing of top academics in and outside the field of ethics and law.
    Sooo . . . lawyers, lawyers, more lawyers, and some others thrown in for ***** and giggles?

    (Original post by numb3rb0y)
    Also, nothing is unanimously agreed upon. Some murderers don't think murder is wrong, does that mean they should be allowed to murder?
    Some things are just wrong, they don't require philosophising.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blátönn)
    Sooo . . . lawyers, lawyers, more lawyers, and some others thrown in for ***** and giggles?
    I have now edited this into my last post, but you clearly don't realise that legislation is created by Parliament, and elected body, therefore, arguably, representing the views of society. It is then approved by the House of Commons, and the House of Lords. In future, if you don't understand something, don't bother trying to post authoritatively on it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pcok)
    And when I wrote 'they accept that children under this age cannot be held responsible for their actions, because they do not yet fully understand the severity and consequences of those actions', I was referring to the fact that this shows that there are cultures in existence which do not believe that an eight year old can know that muder is morally wrong.
    I wasn't arguing against this, I readily accept that this is the case - I just disagree with the stance.

    (Original post by pcok)
    (a) You do realise that legislation says this, rather than 'a gaggle of lawyers', yes?

    (b) I didn't say that it is 'unanimously agreed upon throughout the world', rather I was replying to your point that 'there isn't a culture in existence where it is thought otherwise'.

    N.B: Legislation is created by Parliament, and elected body, therefore, arguably, representing the views of society. It is then approved by the House of Commons, and the House of Lords.
    I was, admittedly, being flippant. It is, however, essentially true that this legislation was brought about by a group of people who are fallible and may not necessarily be qualified to make such a judgement (i.e not psychologists/ethicists). The fact that they 'arguably represent the views of society' as elected officials is essentially meaningless, a society as a whole is not automatically correct - society as a whole used to believe in god, sensible people now accept this is a steaming pile of turd. It doesn't matter how many, or which, people say something is so - it's not necessarily correct.
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by Blátönn)
    Some things are just wrong, they don't require philosophising.
    I couldn't agree more. One of those things is killing children.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wobbles)
    I'm not seeing your point. Child murderers are much more likely than others to kill again. Killing one to possibly save another is a good thing, and at worst, still a good thing since he killed 2 people. Get it?
    You make me sick.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ascient)
    Or perhaps he'll grow older and develop intellectually and socially and realise what he did- which is only a more extreme act of what was allegedly happening to him as he was being brought up- was wrong and that society will punish him if he does it again.

    So what do you suggest?
    Taking a chance and risking the safety of other people?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by numb3rb0y)
    I couldn't agree more. One of those things is killing children.
    I think his status as murderer supercedes his status as child. It's a minor, sure, but it's a minor who just put a bullet in his dad's brain.
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by Blátönn)
    I think his status as murderer supercedes his status as child. It's a minor, sure, but it's a minor who just put a bullet in his dad's brain.
    And thus you just proved my point. Your view is just as fallible as mine. The difference is that the consequence of mine isn't the finality of the state-sanctioned murder of a child.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm wondering how many people on this thread have actually had significant contact with an 8 year old recently. A lot of the time they are not aware of the significance of their actions, or understand the consequences. Personally I'd put the age of trying someone as an adult (whether or not the death penalty exists, which is a separate point) at somewher between 12 and 14. I don't see what killing the child or jailing him would achieve in this situation, other than potentially destroying the life of a child on the basis of what he might do in the future. The point that he's been abused so he should punished more is just sick IMO.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 11, 2008
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.