When considering the death penalty what is it that truly sparks the debate on its existence? Could it be the methods used like lethal injection? Is it the possible hypocrisy in taking ones life? Is it a necessity for victim closure? Many issues of debate arise when highlighting this topic. Here, the idea is to focus on the younger offenders who can be sentenced to death. The overall goal is to not decide whether or not the death penalty should exist, but in correlation to those who are juvenile, should age alone be able to cease the implementation of the death penalty?
Before we can completely dissect this issue, consider this a possible reality in your life. If an immediate family member of yours was a victim in a brutal murder, in which the death penalty became relevant, how would you feel? Not only that, if you learned that the offender was seventeen, sixteen or possibly even fifteen would that change anything? On the other hand, what if that offender was a sibling, son, cousin, etc?
This is such an interesting topic and definitely one that I have thought about myself. I agree with you completely when you say that a person cannot mature within a few months to such a significant degree as to warrant a different sentence. I have always wondered why they make such a "set in stone" declaration of age instead of setting a possible age approximation and weighing the facts of the particular case. This seems like the type of situation where I would have a list of minimums or standards that must be met and the more that are met, the more severe the sentence.
ReplyDeleteI like this topic, it will be very fun to follow and probably fun for you to research.
ReplyDelete