A state that kills children
- Thread starter Adam
- Start date
Asguard:
I don't intend to commit a crime without being willing to face execution.
Adam:
Question is, do you think he's really a child? As I said, the American system is a bit fucked- we can vote before we can drink, etc.
Tell me, if a 17 year old killed someone you loved, would you feel that great about them being let off because of a simple one year?
I'm stating this badly, I think. But I'm trying to say that it's more an ethical issue than legal one. All systems are bendable, and the good ones are more flexible than most (for instance, they can balence extenuating circumstances). So what do you take issue with here?
edit personal atack
I don't intend to commit a crime without being willing to face execution.
Adam:
Question is, do you think he's really a child? As I said, the American system is a bit fucked- we can vote before we can drink, etc.
Tell me, if a 17 year old killed someone you loved, would you feel that great about them being let off because of a simple one year?
I'm stating this badly, I think. But I'm trying to say that it's more an ethical issue than legal one. All systems are bendable, and the good ones are more flexible than most (for instance, they can balence extenuating circumstances). So what do you take issue with here?
edit personal atack
Last edited by a moderator:
What kind of retarded logic is this? This sniper kills innocent people going about their daily lives(including a child), and you expect anyone to value his life. Cry me a fucking river...Originally posted by Asguard
and that just proves that life doesnt matter in which case SO WHAT if he murders the lot of you?
Can a 17 year old:
- vote?
no
- buy booze?
no
- buy cigarettes?
no
- be legally responsible for himself?
I think under special circumstances.
- be taken into the military?
I think under special circumstances.
- go to pubs?
not without parent.
- vote?
no
- buy booze?
no
- buy cigarettes?
no
- be legally responsible for himself?
I think under special circumstances.
- be taken into the military?
I think under special circumstances.
- go to pubs?
not without parent.
Ok, I don't have a problem with trying 17 year olds who kill people as adults, but I hate arguments like this. You're deliberately attempting to set up a situation in which he might allow emotions to overwhelm his logic, then claiming that this makes his logic in some why faulty. It's sort of an inverted appeal to pity fallacy. People use it all the time, and it annoys me because it doesn't make any sense.
- They can't vote
- They can't buy booze(then again, neither can anyone under 21).
- They can't buy cigs
- Of course they can be held responsible for himself/herself.
- I believe there is a special wafer that allows a person to enter the army at 17.
- Who cares about pubs...
Hope that helps. Oh, and when they snipe out innocent people they can get fried...
By the way: it's pointless to quibble over whether or not a 17 year old is an adult based on what they can or cannot do. It's all arbitrary. We have arbitrarily decided that at 17 you can drive, but you can't vote. You can smoke, but you can’t gamble in a casino. You can have a credit card, but you can't buy a lottery ticket. We have also arbitrarily decided that at 17 you can be executed for murdering people. It's not as if there's some underlying system of logic that we use to mathematically determine how the law should work.