I support the death penalty but when it comes to juveniles, probably not.

If they are mature enough to know what they are doing when committing a serious violent crime, they should also be mature enough as to understand the consequences. If they are not held responsible for a violent crime as any adult would, then it could encourage the commission of such crimes as they will not face the ultimate consequence for doing so. Justice is said to be "blind". The let her be blind and equal.

No, juveniles should not be executed for seriously violent crimes, but I don't think that exectution is the answer for violent criminals of any age. Execution may be valid in a few extreme cases where the criminal is a danger to society, and the means to contain them does not exist. This means that in the US, it's really hard to justify capital punishment. Some poorer developing countries might be able to make a case, but even then I think that it should be limited to adults.

That depends on the specific case.If they are true sociopaths or psychopaths,there is very little hope that they will ever be well enough to be put back in to society.

It depends on the crime. I mean, if they murdered someone, than I think they should be held accountable for their actions. Maybe not death, because it's a bit harsh, but definetely something like jail. Not community service for a murder.

No! Young juveniles are still in the developing stages of life. Give them a chance. Many ex-juvenile offenders have become productive adult citizens. Allow them to make mistakes, before they mature into adulthood. Executing them does not help at all.

If you cant do the time. Then dont do the crime.

yes, if a juvenile murders someone in cold blood the only way they should avoid the death penalty is if they are able to bring that person back to life.

No, it is disgusting to see 12 year olds put in prison and put on death row for any crime. They cant even vote but they can be tried as an adult. Ridiculous, when people vote on these issues imagine it as your 12 year old. Not to mention that the children receiving such sentances are poor minorities. Nough said.

There has never been - and there never will be be - a moral justification for taking a life.. especially the life of a juvenile. A person who is not found to be of sufficient adult mind to vote, drive, fight in a war, or sign legal contracts etc. cannot then be held to the same level of responsibility as an adult when it comes to crime and punishment. No.. I will never buy that.

I'm not too sure about the death penalty. On one hand, If a person like John Allen Muhammed escapes from Prison because we outlawed it, How are we supposed to defend ourselves? But the death penalty is a form of hypocrisy. Killing someone for killing someone. It's a vicious cycle.

No one should be executed. The U.S. ought to join the civilized nations of the world that have abolished the death penalty, which is just a feel-good form of revenge anyway.

A really tough call for sure, but I think if one of these juveniles was to murder somebody I cared for I am positive I would really want to see them go to the chair. But after time I would probably realize they are just children. But jeez....it really all depends on the situation I guess. It would really suck to be the judge in a case like this...

I am 15 years old, and I know that it is wrong to murder another human being in cold blood. So, I believe that a 16 or 17 year old who goes on a carefully-planned killing spree does know what he is doing, and he should be prosecuted for it just like an adult who commits the same crime. Of course, if a kid is determined to have mental disabilities, then the case needs to be evaluated differently. However, if a kid over fifteen years of age murders someone else, then I believe he knew what he was doing, and needs to be punished and tried as an adult.

No. There is no debate here. Killing people is wrong no matter what the reason. From a pragmatic standpoint, the death penalty serves absolutely no use other than to satisfy some biblical need for revenge. It does not deter crime one bit, it cheapens life, and brutalizes everyone involved. So no. And it does not depend on the 'circumstances', it is an absolute NO!!

Only for murder. I am a firm believer in an eye for an eye. A killer is a killer in my view, whether they are young or old.

Absolutely. To not punish juveniled as adults would be to say that they don't have the same rights as adults. And in a lot of these juvenile cases, the parents should be reprimanded too.

The problem with this one is in the definition of juveniles. At what age can a person be held legally accountable? Personally I knew the difference between right and wrong at an early age. I chose to steal apples and smash windows and run at ten years old. Most of us go through the follies of youth, but know where to draw the line. These were decisions we made knowingly. With all that said, I vehemently oppose taking another humans life for any reason.

Again, another tough call. Depends on the situation. But, when a 17-year-old, almost 18, goes on a mass murdering spree with a sniper rifle, then I'd have to say YES, he should be held accountable for his actions. When a 17-year-old masterminds a plan to murder and rob a Burger King employee and manager, then YES, he knew what he was doing.