Topic: Death penalty
Quote: Can anyone make a rational argument as to why executing a criminal who was 18 years old when committing the crime is not "cruel and unusual punishment," but executing a criminal who was less than 18 at the time of the crime would be cruel and unusual?\nPut another way, can anyone explain why it is constitutional to execute a person who was 18 years old when they committed the crime, but it is unconstitutional to execute a person who was under 18 when they committed the crime?\nParticipants in this discussion should assume that the death penalty, in general, is constitutional. This has been the case from the beginning of our Republic, and has been reaffirmed multiple times. In other words, it is not an appropriate argument to try and argue that the death penalty, in general, is unconstitutional. That has neither been the case through our history, and is not the current state of the law.\n*Note: I am speaking within the context of the United States, and its Constitution.
Response: I think that we've got to draw a line at some point, to demarcate between adult and child. Where ever we do draw it, it will seem, in some situations to be arbitrary. If we made it 20, the question would be why 20 year olds and not 19. Through the years society has determined that by 18 people should have attained enough life experience to form intent and to comprehend that their actions have consequences (at least as it applies to the death penalty, they can be tried as adults w/o death). We don't execute people who can't comprehend the nature of their crimes and society says that, under 18 you can't fully comprehend criminal actions.
1.2