Where is the "He's just a kid" line drawn?

Ok, so a friend of mine asked me this the other day, "Let's say a child killed both of his parents and any siblings in the house. He's only 8 or 9, but when asked by a psychologist, he was well aware of what he did. What do you do to the child?" You see, folks, I believe firmly in the whole 'eye-for-an-eye' thing, so I say, if you take an innocent life (no matter who you are/what your title is) you deserve to die as well. So I say kill the kid. You can get mad, call me a monster, you can do whatever. But let's be honest, can you really say that just because of his age, he's not a criminal, even though he knew good and well what he had done? What are your thoughts? What would you do?

 

What I would do, and I'm not trying in any way to use this as an excuse for what the child did, but if the psychologist diagnosed him with psychosis or with insanity, I would have him put in an institution until he reached the age of 18 and then tried again as an adult, and if he was fully aware of what he did, like you mentioned in your post, and even if he did not have any mental impairment, I have him in solitary confinement in JV until adulthood and then sentence him as an adult. But I would not kill him. Just by a legal standpoint he is too young to receive the death penalty! And from a moral standpoint, I do not support the death penalty, but if I did I would not sentence him to death until he reached the age of 18.

 

Well, i can certainly see your point, though I stay firm in my decision. And as far as when you said from a legal standpoint, I just meant assuming it was fully my decision, I didn't consider laws. But still, what you said is certainly fair I suppose,but regardless, you are entitled to your opinion

 

That's fine!!
It's better to hot or cold than lukewarm

 

Eh... this statement really doesn't make sense to me. Children haven't really figured out how the world works. They don't know about everything there is to life,. To say he was "aware of what he did" really doesn't mean anything, because there's no way a child can be aware of everything they're throwing away when they murder someone, it's just not possible. They could be aware that they killed them intentionally, but at that age children aren't able to contemplate the risk/reward of their choices. They do whatever is appealing to them.

I understand your view on this, as it is a very logical standpoint, but it is inherently unfair. You can't compare the way an adult thinks to the way a child thinks, they're two separate things entirely. "It sounded like a good idea at the time" is a statement that I think perfectly sums up the way kids think. I wouldn't say that adults follow this same logic, but by then they should know better.

But at what age should they know better, and why does age matter? Well, as you get older, you start to realize everything that life has to offer you. Why don't I kill anyone? Firstly, because I know it's wrong. But secondly, that means I wouldn't be able to chase my dreams. There's no logical or moral reason for me to kill someone. A child doesn't understand either of those. A child may think "My mom grounded me! How can I get back at her?" even though logically, retaliating at their mother would only worsen the situation for themselves, and morally/ethically they're being grounded in order to be taught that what they did was wrong. Kids don't see things from that perspective, and do things because they're impulsive.

What age should people know better? Well, legally, this is defined as 18 years old. I'm more inclined to say sixteen, as by then you're really starting to think about your future.

I'm no expert, obviously, but this is what I think.

 

Again, a VERY good point. What you seem to misunderstand is that when I said he was 8 or 9, the age wasn't really the issue i was trying to address (sorry i tend to forget to explain my metaphors). When I use the child as the murderer, i suppose my point was that no matter what, whether the killer is seemingly innocent, or "just a kid", they still must be treated as such, a killer. While my thoughts may seem cold, in my opinion, death penalty should be used for all murders. Eye-for-an-eye as i stated in the original post. I guess it's just me, but when I see a world filled with 7billion+ people, i think, does it even matter if the kid dies or not? Thats one out of 7BILLION PLUS! I oughtta put that thought in a separate post. But anyway, as I've said, you're entitled to your opinion, and I to mine.

 

Please don't take this the wrong way, but i think that having a mindset that in a world of 7 billion people, one life is meaningless, is a horrific mentality. I believe that every human life has value and that no matter what a person does, whether evil or good, doesn't diminish his or her human dignity. I don't mean what he or she did wasn't evil or that I am in any way condoning it, but if someone killed my parents, I truly would not take revenge or wish him or her dead, I would pray for that person's soul and forgive them, and even though I would want appropriate punishment for that person, it would not include having them executed. Something that someone does that is evil is evil, but it doesn't make that person less of a human being or less worthy of living!

 

If this is what you believe, you can believe it. I disagree, I think when a bad enough evil is done, your life no longer matters. But hey, maybe you're more of an optimist than I haha. But in all seriousness I respect your opinion. I mean, you're (likely) older than me, maybe you've seen or know things that I do not. At only 14, I might be wiser than the typical kid my age, but that doesn't make me any shape or form of genius, so maybe you know better. I personally have no idea. But regardless of the wisdom of me versus you, I still respect your opinion no less than I respect my own.

 

Thanks!!! Actually, I will be 17 this year, so I am only 3 years older than you

 

Well at age 8 or 9, they're not likely to understand the full extent of what death is. They're more likely to think it's more of a long sleep, instead of a lifeless body that has begun it's decaying process. However, using your scenario, I'm more inclined to use a 2 strike rule. The first time, learn from the mistake and pay for your crime in prison. Forget juvenile detention. The second time, after they have been released, if they kill someone again. Kill them. If they cannot figure out that killing will be punished, then they deserve an execution. I don't believe their life is valuable at that point if they continue to believe everyone else's life is not. We have no need for trash if it can't be recycled/re-purposed and useful again, in the case of human life, if they cannot be taught that life is valuable with their second chance at life, then they should have no value to the rest of the world when they murder again.

 

I think this event depends on what the child is, though by law it would be treated all the same, I think, in punishment, though the reformation may differ.
Generally, I think the punishment will be nonlethal at a child's age.

-The child is a prodigy and has the mind of an adult and knows exactly what he is doing and what his actions are and what just happened. You can't really determine if this is the case, though. But if he does, then I would personally want him tried as an adult (law won't allow it due to his age). Whatever his reasoning for the kill, I am unsure if this child could be reformed or not.
-The child is a sociopath/psychopath and is not bothered much or at all by his actions. He may be guilty by reason of insanity, and it does not feel right to execute someone who does not understand what feelings are or how to control their actions.
-The child played CoD one time too many, and wanted to do it in real life. After the kill, he could not figure out where everyone was supposed to respawn. In this case, the child is simply mistaken, and made a major error in reality.

I know there are more possibilities, but I would have to be forced to treat them all the same with nonlethal punishment.