Be careful about photographing your kids!

Mxsmanic wrote:

Ron Hunter writes:


Funny, I don't recall any state having executed anyone under 18. In
Texas, which accounts for more than half of the executions in the US, no
one under 17 is even elegible for the death penalty, and it takes YEARS
for the trials, and retrials, and more years before execution.
So, how about a few examples of those executions....


The people executed had committed their crimes while still under the age
of 18:

Name Age at time Execution
of offense Date

Joseph John Cannon 17 22 April 1998
Robert Anthony Carter 17 18 May 1998
Dwayne Allen Wright 17 14 October 1998
Sean Sellers 16 4 February 1999
Steve Roach 17 10 January 2000
Chris Thomas 17 13 January 2000
Glen McGinnis 17 25 January 2000
Gary Graham 17 22 June 2000
Gerald Mitchell 17 22 October 2001
Napolean Beazley 17 28 May 2002
T.J. Jones 17 8 August 2002
Toronto Patterson 17 28 August 2002
Scott Allen Hain 17 3 April 2003

Personally, I don't see why persons under 18 or having committed capital
crimes under the age of 18 should be exempt from capital punishment, if
this punishment is applied to older offenders for the same crimes.

NONE on those people was executed before they were 18, correct? In most
states of the US, 17 is the legal age for criminal responsibility. I
wouldn't object to changing it to 18, but then I see nothing wrong with
punishing those over 14 in the same way as others for the same crime.
If you are old enough to plan and execute a capital crime, do the time
(or take the punishment).

Trevor S wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

snip

Personally, I don't see why persons under 18 or having committed
capital crimes under the age of 18 should be exempt from capital
punishment, if this punishment is applied to older offenders for the
same crimes.


No resaon, a point for me is the obvious sociatial hyporicsy

eg a 15 yr old having sex with an Adult, this situation is looked upon as
intrinsically bad and yet executing a 15 yr old isn't IMO if a person is
old enough to be executed they are old enough to make decisions about their
sexuality.


Barring force, any person, of any age, makes decisions about their
sexuality. It is incumbent on parents to assure that their children
have sufficient information to make good choices.

Ron Hunter wrote in
:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Ron Hunter writes:


Funny, I don't recall any state having executed anyone under 18. In
Texas, which accounts for more than half of the executions in the US,
no one under 17 is even elegible for the death penalty, and it takes
YEARS for the trials, and retrials, and more years before execution.
So, how about a few examples of those executions....


The people executed had committed their crimes while still under the
age of 18:

Name Age at time Execution
of offense Date

Joseph John Cannon 17 22 April 1998
Robert Anthony Carter 17 18 May 1998
Dwayne Allen Wright 17 14 October 1998
Sean Sellers 16 4 February 1999
Steve Roach 17 10 January 2000
Chris Thomas 17 13 January 2000
Glen McGinnis 17 25 January 2000
Gary Graham 17 22 June 2000
Gerald Mitchell 17 22 October 2001
Napolean Beazley 17 28 May 2002
T.J. Jones 17 8 August 2002
Toronto Patterson 17 28 August 2002
Scott Allen Hain 17 3 April 2003

Personally, I don't see why persons under 18 or having committed
capital crimes under the age of 18 should be exempt from capital
punishment, if this punishment is applied to older offenders for the
same crimes.

NONE on those people was executed before they were 18, correct?

That's a pretty fine line, jail then at 16 for the crime but as long as
you don't kill them until they turn 18 and it's okay ?

In
most states of the US, 17 is the legal age for criminal
responsibility. I wouldn't object to changing it to 18, but then I
see nothing wrong with punishing those over 14 in the same way as
others for the same crime. If you are old enough to plan and execute a
capital crime, do the time (or take the punishment).

So lock 'em up and/or kill 'em but don't let them them drink a beer or
have sex ?

--
Trevor S


"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein

Sounds like some I've seen.... Lesbians too. Sick....

Adam

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
George Kerby writes:

"Nominally female"? Does that mean what I think it does?

It means that they were supposedly women, but many of them looked like
men. And they often had extremely short, bleached blonde hair, tiny
breasts, and sharply defined features.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Ron Hunter writes:

The 'justification' for limiting porn has always been that it exploits
the desperate, or ignorant, or just immoral.

Most people producing porn are consenting. In the case of children,
that may or may not be the case. They may consent to have their photos
taken, and if this is informed consent, I don't see why it's a problem.
Publication is a separate issue, and it would require a great deal of
explanation to a child to help him give informed consent in that case.
Given that even 25-year-old models seem to have difficulty understanding
exactly what they are consenting to, it seems unlikely that
six-year-olds would be any better at it.

Consent to publication is a civil matter. Consent to photography may be
either a civil or a criminal matter, depending on the circumstances. In
cases where models don't consent to pornographic photos, it may well be
a criminal matter, since usually someone's privacy is being invaded
and/or there may be physical molestation involved. This is true for
models of all ages, of course.

Unless the images are shown to minors, it is hard to see how any harm to
them can be shown.

Another thing that adults routinely forget is that minors (prior to
puberty) don't care about pornography, since they are not interested in
sex. It's about as interesting as watching grass grow before the
hormones kick in. So there is no need to fret about small children
seeing pornography because they won't seek it out, and even if they find
it accidentally, it will only bore or disgust them, and they'll move on.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Ron Hunter writes:

Barring force, any person, of any age, makes decisions about their
sexuality. It is incumbent on parents to assure that their children
have sufficient information to make good choices.

Agreed. If you teach your kids that they can _always_ say "no," that's
the better part of the battle already. And they need to know how to
decide for themselves, because you can't always be standing next to them
(and you certainly won't be in the situations where they are most likely
to be abused).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Ron Hunter writes:

NONE on those people was executed before they were 18, correct?

Correct, but probably only because of the long legal process. They were
all close to 18.

... I see nothing wrong with punishing those over 14
in the same way as others for the same crime.

Why over 14? Do you really want 12-year-old murderers going free?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Gregory W. Blank writes:

So what advocate that people can do anything they want in the privacy
of thier own home ehh? Might reconsider that if you were living next to
Jeffrey Daumer.

Jeffrey's crime was forcing others to do things against their will.
It's not illegal to be sexually deviant as long as you don't harm anyone
(in most jurisdictions, and for most deviations).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

15. Oct 2003 16.16 -- Mxsmanic:
Ron Hunter writes:

NONE on those people was executed before they were 18, correct?

Correct, but probably only because of the long legal process. They were
all close to 18.

... I see nothing wrong with punishing those over 14
in the same way as others for the same crime.

Why over 14? Do you really want 12-year-old murderers going free?

(What about the executioners? They're murders too.)

The real problem isn't age, it's that death penality still exist in the
USA in the 2000s.

-espen

--
All generalisering er farlig.

Trevor S wrote:

Ron Hunter wrote in
:


Mxsmanic wrote:


Ron Hunter writes:



Funny, I don't recall any state having executed anyone under 18. In
Texas, which accounts for more than half of the executions in the US,
no one under 17 is even elegible for the death penalty, and it takes
YEARS for the trials, and retrials, and more years before execution.
So, how about a few examples of those executions....


The people executed had committed their crimes while still under the
age of 18:

Name Age at time Execution
of offense Date

Joseph John Cannon 17 22 April 1998
Robert Anthony Carter 17 18 May 1998
Dwayne Allen Wright 17 14 October 1998
Sean Sellers 16 4 February 1999
Steve Roach 17 10 January 2000
Chris Thomas 17 13 January 2000
Glen McGinnis 17 25 January 2000
Gary Graham 17 22 June 2000
Gerald Mitchell 17 22 October 2001
Napolean Beazley 17 28 May 2002
T.J. Jones 17 8 August 2002
Toronto Patterson 17 28 August 2002
Scott Allen Hain 17 3 April 2003

Personally, I don't see why persons under 18 or having committed
capital crimes under the age of 18 should be exempt from capital
punishment, if this punishment is applied to older offenders for the
same crimes.


NONE on those people was executed before they were 18, correct?


That's a pretty fine line, jail then at 16 for the crime but as long as
you don't kill them until they turn 18 and it's okay ?

Yes. NOte that all the people listed were quite old enough to know what
they were doing, and each one had a hearing to determine if they were
mature enough to merit being treated as an adult.



In
most states of the US, 17 is the legal age for criminal
responsibility. I wouldn't object to changing it to 18, but then I
see nothing wrong with punishing those over 14 in the same way as
others for the same crime. If you are old enough to plan and execute a
capital crime, do the time (or take the punishment).


So lock 'em up and/or kill 'em but don't let them them drink a beer or
have sex ?

WEll, those are totally different subjects.