i read this today in the newspaper, its shocking!
"a dad was stabbed through the heart after confronting two teenage thugs who bullied his 13-year-old son, the 35yr old man went looking for the yobs after they alledgedly turned up at his home to intimidate his son.
he had phoned the police but been put on hold. minutes later he staggered back to the block of flats in brixton, south london, with a knife wound to his chest. the father died soon afterwards in hospital. His son told the court that a 14yr old boy had bullied him for days to steal £20.00 and to hand over a computer game. the court heard that the alleged bully threatened to kill the boys dad and later came to his home with a 16yr old".
sorry about the long post, but i thought it was such a sad story.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
That's awful...I don't know what's wrong with some people...
That's horrid... Britain needs to implement a death penalty for scum like this.
Sure, FGT, something like that would never happen in the USA with all the death penalty preventing it...
Don't you have something else to say FreddiesGhettoTrench, than telling us how good the American system is??
This is such a sad story... Unbelievable that such things happen.
This is such a sad story... Unbelievable that such things happen.
It is against EU law to have the death penalty.
Sure, FGT, something like that would never happen in the USA with all the death penalty preventing it...
absolutely right Barbara!! it's NO deterrent
but look at the positive - you don't get repeat offenders
That's horrid... Britain needs to implement a death penalty for scum like this.
Of course in the eyes of a right wing extremist, the American justice system under ultra-conservative rule is plain perfect.
I blame todays music
Wednesday, March 2nd, 2005
In a landmark decision on the death penalty, the Supreme Court abolished the execution of juveniles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a 5 to 4 ruling yesterday, the Supreme Court abolished the death penalty for juveniles. The historic decision came in the Roper V. Simmons case out of Missouri which involved Christopher Simmons, who was 17 in 1993 when he tied up a woman and threw her from a bridge to her death. The Supreme Court decision overturned his death sentence declaring that the execution of juveniles violates the Eighth amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. This decision could affect more than 70 death-row inmates who face execution for murders done when they were 16 or 17 years old. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the majority. Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
In an unusual move, the Supreme Court ruling cited the "overwhelming weight of international opinion" in banning executions of those under 18. Justice Kennedy, noted that the U.S was the only country in the world that still officially permitted the execution of juveniles. He wrote that since 1990, only seven countries have executed persons under 18. They are Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo and China. However, all of these countries have since publicly disavowed the practice. Justice Kennedy also noted that the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits the juvenile death penalty, has been ratified by every country except Somalia and the United States.
But fellow justice Antonin Scalia assailed Kennedy's argument. Scalia took the unusual step of reading his 24-page dissent from the bench. He accused the court of "proclaiming itself sole arbiter of our nation's moral standards." Scalia disputed the notion that a national consensus on the juvenile death penalty has emerged and warned about taking into account international opinion.
Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas signed onto Scalia's dissent. Justice Sandra O'Connor issued a separate dissenting argument.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/02/154242
In a landmark decision on the death penalty, the Supreme Court abolished the execution of juveniles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a 5 to 4 ruling yesterday, the Supreme Court abolished the death penalty for juveniles. The historic decision came in the Roper V. Simmons case out of Missouri which involved Christopher Simmons, who was 17 in 1993 when he tied up a woman and threw her from a bridge to her death. The Supreme Court decision overturned his death sentence declaring that the execution of juveniles violates the Eighth amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. This decision could affect more than 70 death-row inmates who face execution for murders done when they were 16 or 17 years old. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the majority. Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
In an unusual move, the Supreme Court ruling cited the "overwhelming weight of international opinion" in banning executions of those under 18. Justice Kennedy, noted that the U.S was the only country in the world that still officially permitted the execution of juveniles. He wrote that since 1990, only seven countries have executed persons under 18. They are Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo and China. However, all of these countries have since publicly disavowed the practice. Justice Kennedy also noted that the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits the juvenile death penalty, has been ratified by every country except Somalia and the United States.
But fellow justice Antonin Scalia assailed Kennedy's argument. Scalia took the unusual step of reading his 24-page dissent from the bench. He accused the court of "proclaiming itself sole arbiter of our nation's moral standards." Scalia disputed the notion that a national consensus on the juvenile death penalty has emerged and warned about taking into account international opinion.
Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas signed onto Scalia's dissent. Justice Sandra O'Connor issued a separate dissenting argument.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/02/154242
Think about it. These people can ONLY get worse as they get older and stronger. Someone has already died because of these scumbags.
You're serious, aren't ya?? Oh my.. You're even worse then I thought you were.
Well, it's maybe better to lock you up too... You're already an extrimist and you ONLY get worse as you get older and stronger.
Well, it's maybe better to lock you up too... You're already an extrimist and you ONLY get worse as you get older and stronger.
Wednesday, March 2nd, 2005
In a landmark decision on the death penalty, the Supreme Court abolished the execution of juveniles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a 5 to 4 ruling yesterday, the Supreme Court abolished the death penalty for juveniles. The historic decision came in the Roper V. Simmons case out of Missouri which involved Christopher Simmons, who was 17 in 1993 when he tied up a woman and threw her from a bridge to her death. The Supreme Court decision overturned his death sentence declaring that the execution of juveniles violates the Eighth amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. This decision could affect more than 70 death-row inmates who face execution for murders done when they were 16 or 17 years old. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the majority. Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
In an unusual move, the Supreme Court ruling cited the "overwhelming weight of international opinion" in banning executions of those under 18. Justice Kennedy, noted that the U.S was the only country in the world that still officially permitted the execution of juveniles. He wrote that since 1990, only seven countries have executed persons under 18. They are Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo and China. However, all of these countries have since publicly disavowed the practice. Justice Kennedy also noted that the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits the juvenile death penalty, has been ratified by every country except Somalia and the United States.
But fellow justice Antonin Scalia assailed Kennedy's argument. Scalia took the unusual step of reading his 24-page dissent from the bench. He accused the court of "proclaiming itself sole arbiter of our nation's moral standards." Scalia disputed the notion that a national consensus on the juvenile death penalty has emerged and warned about taking into account international opinion.
Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas signed onto Scalia's dissent. Justice Sandra O'Connor issued a separate dissenting argument.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/02/154242
A very stupid decision. What makes it so a person who is 18 is mature enough to understand that they killed someone, but not someone who is 17 11/12?
European Union doesn't allow it? Wow.
Cool.
Cool.
I am actually pro death penalty when it comes to very serious crimes, and I think that anyone above 13 has the ability to consciously commit a very serious crime. Only after a lot of deliberation and a fair trial the death penalty might be given to a juvenile.