Death Penalty for Children?

[Gina B]

That's a hard one for me. From the viewpoint of having an 8 year old daughter, I'd say yes, the death penalty should apply, but reasoning also tells me that a 12 year old is awful young. Were I uninvolved and the one who had to give the injection to a child, I don't think I could do it.

I'm not sure what Bart is referring to as far as the bible speaking of punishments for children. I would assume that it is talking about adults in those situations, but adulthood in those times happened at a much younger age than what we call adults, didn't it?

Gina

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by Bartimaeus:
Should a police officer not use deadly force in stopping a child murderer only because it is a child? If not, we must be consistant and carry out our continuing responsibilty to society and follow the law of God in dealing with murderers. They are among us.
Thanks -----Bart

I think there is a big difference between a soldier shooting a 12 year old suicude bomber, or a policer officer using deadly force to shoot a 12 year old who is posing an immediate threat,and carrying out the death penalty.

I do understand the frustration of those with whom I disagree, and I am not saying that after this child reached adulthood he should not be evaluated for sentencing at that time.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by C4K:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bartimaeus:
Should a police officer not use deadly force in stopping a child murderer only because it is a child? If not, we must be consistant and carry out our continuing responsibilty to society and follow the law of God in dealing with murderers. They are among us.
Thanks -----Bart

I think there is a big difference between a soldier shooting a 12 year old suicude bomber, or a policer officer using deadly force to shoot a 12 year old who is posing an immediate threat,and carrying out the death penalty.</font>[/QUOTE]I also addressed this point earlier:

I said:

Let's frame this debate in the context of war. If an Israeli soldier in Jerusalem saw a 12 year old suicide bomber with a detonator in her hands coming to kill Israelis in the market or on a bus, would he be justified in shooting her before she could get to the innocents around him or push the button? Absolutely!!!!!!!!!

Joseph Botwinick

You responded:

I was going to stay out, but your scenario about the war situation does not fit the argument at all. That Palestinian child poses an immediate threat to life and must be dealt with on the spot. The 12 year old we are talking about would no loger pose a threat if he were incarcerated until adulthood and then sentenced.

To which I responded:

No threat for at least another two years of incarceration where he lifts weights and becomes an even more hardened criminal, gets released back into society with a clean record, and kills again. No thanks. This child may not be an immediate threat for 2 years, but will be an even bigger threat when he gets out.

Are you saying wait until he's 18 and then give him the death penalty? Why wait? Is he any less of a murderer at 12 than he will be at 18?

Joseph Botwinick

I do understand the frustration of those with whom I disagree, and I am not saying that after this child reached adulthood he should not be evaluated for sentencing at that time. [/QUOTE]

If you are going to execute him when he is 18, then what is really the difference? Is he any less a murderer at 12 than he would be at 18, and why?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Bartimaeus]

C4K,
Simply saying and having no reference to Bro Joseph's example of wartime action, please answer. Should a police officer not use deadly force to stop a child murderer from carrying out his/her clear intent to commit serious bodily harm? If you say no, then your position on child execution is inconsistent. The age of the purpetrator of a crime as I have suggested is not considered and cannot be. If a child's life can be taken in commission of a crime, why should execution be wrong for punishment?

Gina,
I was referring generally to Bible law on the punishment of murder. I do not believe the Scriptures make any reference to age. Adult or child the punishment is the same.
Thanks ------Bart

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by Bartimaeus:
C4K,
Simply saying and having no reference to Bro Joseph's example of wartime action, please answer. Should a police officer not use deadly force to stop a child murderer from carrying out his/her clear intent to commit serious bodily harm? If you say no, then your position on child execution is inconsistent. The age of the purpetrator of a crime as I have suggested is not considered and cannot be. If a child's life can be taken in commission of a crime, why should execution be wrong for punishment?

Thanks ------Bart

IMHO there is a big difference between using deadly force to stop a 12 year old who is posing an immediate threat to the public and the scenario we are discussing. If this child is incarcerated he does not pose that same measure of threat. That would be a situation that calls for immediate action. In an ideal world (which every police officer knows we do not live in) some action could be taken to attempt not to kill the child, but we all know that is unrealistic. In your scenario the police officer must act as judge and jury, a job which I would not relish, but one for which I admire every officer.

There is a chance that this 12 year old can be "fixed." Life has been so cheapened that I am not always certain that children know the full repurcussions of their actions. My advice is not to "let him walk with a slap on the wrist." He needs to be made aware that death is final, not like on his video games, movies ,and television. Taking a life is always a major crime, but the death penalty is not always the right solution. I am saying incarcerate him till he is 18, then hold a new sentancing hearing and let a jury (or judge) decide on his fate. During those years the child should be evaluated to see if he will still pose the same threat as a adult.

[ December 09, 2004, 01:31 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by C4K:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bartimaeus:
C4K,
Simply saying and having no reference to Bro Joseph's example of wartime action, please answer. Should a police officer not use deadly force to stop a child murderer from carrying out his/her clear intent to commit serious bodily harm? If you say no, then your position on child execution is inconsistent. The age of the purpetrator of a crime as I have suggested is not considered and cannot be. If a child's life can be taken in commission of a crime, why should execution be wrong for punishment?

Thanks ------Bart

IMHO there is a big difference between using deadly force to stop a 12 year old who is posing an immediate threat to the public and the scenario we are discussing. If this child is incarcerated he does not pose that same measure of threat. That would be a situation that calls for immediate action. In an ideal world (which every police officer knows we do not live in) some action could be taken to attempt not to kill the child, but we all know that is unrealistic. In your scenario the police officer must act as judge and jury, a job which I would not relish, but one for which I admire every officer.

There is a chance that this 12 year old can be "fixed." Life has been so cheapened that I am not always certain that children know the full repurcussions of their actions. My advice is not to "let him walk with a slap on the wrist." He needs to be made aware that death is final, not like on his video games, movies ,and television. Taking a life is always a major crime, but the death penalty is not always the right solution. I am saying incarcerate him till he is 18, then hold a new sentancing hearing and let a jury (or judge) decide on his fate. During those years the child should be evaluated to see if he will still pose the same threat as a adult. </font>[/QUOTE]If you mean they could be saved, I agree. They should be offered the Word of God and then executed. God does offer eternal forgiveness of sins, but does not always take away the consequences of the sin. This reminds me of the lady in Texas who chopped her husband up with an axe, found Jesus on death row, and then got a bunch of evangelicals to try and pressure Bush not to execute her. It simply doesn't work that way, IMO. Justice is demanded. The 8 year old girls death screams out for it.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Still disagree on the basis of the adult woman vs a 12 year old. He will have consequences for his sin, I just don't think it should be death for a child.

[ December 09, 2004, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[HankD]

Has anyone posted this Scripture out of the Law?

Israel was the only true theocracy on earth.
And in Israel, God imposed the death sentence upon children for even less than murder:

Deuteronomy 21:
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Not that we as a gentile nation are under this law but this passage above clearly illustrates the mind of God.

And for what purpose did He pass this awful judgment? "...and all Israel shall hear, and fear".

IMO these child crimes are escalating because these children know (via TV, news media, etc) that our government is soft when it comes to the punishment of children and they know that they can get away with murder.

Reading the Book of Revelation and portions of other NT Scripture also gives a clear view of the fact that there is a severe consequence of sin even post-Calvary, even for Christians.

Romans 13
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

1 Corinthians 11
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

The love of God does not preclude His severity even towards His children.

Hebrews 12
6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

HankD

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The Deuteronaomy passage applies to God's people, Israel - are we willing to return to every aspect of the law?

No one doubts that the government has the right to carry out the death penalty. I question its use on a child.

1 Corinthians and Hebrews deal with God chastening His children, not with a government executing a child.

 

[Matt Black]

Hank, I presume you're now off to get circumcised (rather you than me , brother!), check your tent for mildew, give up eating shellfish and pork etc.

Far from being soft, we indicate by not executing children that we are civilised; the moment we start frying children, we cease being civilised and lose the plot.

To those of you who are pro-juvenile execution, would it make any difference to your stance if the child concerned was 5 (as the two little Norwegian boys who kicked their 4-year old classmate to death three years ago were)? Or mentally ill? Or had learning difficulties? Do all children who kill have to swing or are some better than others?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[dianetavegia]

From our local paper today...

There is a discrepancy in the law for juveniles. A child who takes a weapon to school could receive five years, but a child under 13 who commits a violent crime will only get two years in the juvenile justice system."

The boy's attorney is also planning on raising ethical questions regarding the treatment of juveniles during the trial after he said his client was interrogated without having his rights read and without his parents.

There are currently no laws in the state (of Georgia) that mandate a parent must be present during the interrogation of a minor.

http://www.times-georgian.com/

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by dianetavegia:
From our local paper today...

There is a discrepancy in the law for juveniles. A child who takes a weapon to school could receive five years, but a child under 13 who commits a violent crime will only get two years in the juvenile justice system."

That is a huge discrepancy.

The boy's attorney is also planning on raising ethical questions regarding the treatment of juveniles during the trial after he said his client was interrogated without having his rights read and without his parents.

There are currently no laws in the state (of Georgia) that mandate a parent must be present during the interrogation of a minor.

No offense, but maybe Georgia should overhaul its laws concerning juveniles. Many adults cannot withstand coersive questioning; children are truly vulnerable.

And a two year max for violent crimes, well, that just doesn't seem appropriate in many cases either. But between two years incarceration and death, there is a lot of middle ground.

 

[dianetavegia]

Amy's father, along with Sen. Bill Hamrick, R-Carrollton, are seeking to introduce Amy's Law, which would allow more discretionary judgment for judges sentencing minors younger than 13 in violent crimes.

 

[HankD]

The Deuteronaomy passage applies to God's people, Israel - are we willing to return to every aspect of the law?

No one doubts that the government has the right to carry out the death penalty. I question its use on a child.

1 Corinthians and Hebrews deal with God chastening His children, not with a government executing a child.

Acknowledged and I pointed that out.

Hank, I presume you're now off to get circumcised (rather you than me , brother!), check your tent for mildew, give up eating shellfish and pork etc.

I simply pointed out one of the laws that God created when He established the Nation of Israel.

Far from being soft, we indicate by not executing children that we are civilised; the moment we start frying children, we cease being civilised and lose the plot.

And God is not "civilised" because He ordered the death of the rebelious Israeli child?

Before the Law, God destroyed every living thing on earth in the flood: men, women, children, infants.

Sodom and Gommorah?

If one holds to a futuristic view of the Day of the Lord then the book of Revelation shows that a huge portion of the humanity upon the populated earth will be destroyed in the wrath of God.

Finally, nowhere did I advocate the execution of children. I simply pointed to Scriptures in which it was potentially a possibility in certain circumstances as well as the fact that God Himself gave commandment to Israel to do so (men women and children) and did so Himself and will do it again.


HankD

 

[Matt Black]

By your argument, then, I deserve to fry or be turned into a pillar of salt,since "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". I thank God that we are no longer under that Old Covenant! And, no, I don't believe in some kind of futuristic divinely-ordained Holocaust; that is just one of many eschatologies which one can draw out of the Bible if one wants to to which I do not subscribe

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[HankD]

By your argument...

It is not my argument.

I simply presented Scripture from both the Old and New Testaments as to the nature of God of whom we can say "God is love", He is also holy and wrathful against those who rebel against Him.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

And, no, I don't believe in some kind of futuristic divinely-ordained Holocaust; that is just one of many eschatologies which one can draw out of the Bible if one wants to to which I do not subscribe

Luke 17
24 For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.
25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.
26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.

Jesus compared His coming with two biblical events, one global the other local, both involved the wilful destruction of human life by God our father which is scriptural.

5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air;

Genesis 19
24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

HankD

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

God is holy and just - always and in every circumstance.

No human government can make that same claim.

 

[dianetavegia]

The 8 year olds mother is not doing well at all. The father has gotten involved in changing the law but the family is in virtual seclusion other than that. If the mother were to harm herself over the loss of her little girl, I would charge the 12 year old, who is now 13, with manslaughter which would call for a stiffer sentence. He's an 'adult' now in Georgia. Never has anything been issued by his parents or him saying they were sorry for what happened.

 

[Matt Black]

Ah, so the boy is wholly responsible for his actions, irrespective of his circumstances, but the girl's mother is not?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

How can this 13 year old now be held resonsible for the action of this little girl's mother?!?