Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

If we as a society won't allow juveniles, sixteen year olds in particular, to vote or to sign their name to a legal contract and the justification for that restriction is because they aren't "mature enough" or that they "don't/won't understand" the lasting consequences then how can we expect them to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime? If sixteen year olds are old enough and mature enough to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime then shouldn't they also understand the lasting consequences to the things I mentioned above?

I agree with Jermey, we need to not set a double standard. We need to rehabilitate young offenders, because if you are not a hard criminal before you go to prison for 20 years of one of the most impressionable times of your life, you will come out of it as one. These are kids that probably grew up in broken homes, and this was the only path they were going to take, because it was the only one they saw. So lets rehabilitate, and give them productive lives, not ones that are going to keep the cycle going.

I agree with you for the most part Natalie. Although if it's a really small crime and the juvenile is unarmed, then they should go to juvenile court. But for crimes bigger than that example, they need to be charged as an adult would be charged. There's actually this reality TV show (that I can't remember the name of) where, in each episode, a group of kids who are on the streets and in gangs, etc. are taken into a jail as a form of rehabilitation, and they go through a day of being in jail and they also hear stories from people who are in jail at that time, and they always say that one doesn't want to end up in jail. I think there was one particular episode where a girl went with her mother to watch her mother plan a funeral for her. It's pretty interesting, and it does seem to help a lot.

Jared, I understand what you mean by some kids growing up in broken homes and having bad lives growing up BUT you always have the option to not go down that road. You have the option to try to better yourself and make something of yourself. Although most people don't do that, they don't always pull a gun on a cop. That is a serious offense and I feel like you guys are so focused on the fact that he's our age that you're blinded by what he did. Jeremy, I don't understand what you're saying. I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me so if you could maybe clarify that would be great. Thanks. Kirstina, I do get what you're saying. Most kids need to see what can happen but this kid is plenty old enough to know right from wrong.

I realize that, but the people that are the most likely to pull a gun are the ones that have the most messed up life beforehand in most cases. We should try them as children, and try to rehabilitate them. Before your 18, and move, a large part of what you do, and know is influenced by your parents, and other senor figures in your life, and even friends Until you reach adulthood, its hard to be your own person, especially in the environment that generates this type of person. There is the odd person in there that is just a bad person, and it is all there fault, but we need to try to rehabilitate them as a child, not as an adult.

Jeremy, there's a major difference between crime and legal contracts. They don't have anything to do with each other. Sentencing teens like adults is important because it protects us. It's a safety issue. Plus it tells other kids, "You break the law, you get in huge trouble." And they don't allow people under 18 to sign contracts without parental consent to protect them from making stupid decisions.

Natalie I'm sorry for the confusion. I was replying more to the article then directly to your post. To clarify I disagree with your position about putting juveniles into adult court that commit violent crimes. At least with the current system we have in place. Kirstina I know there is a major difference between committing a violent crime and signing legal contracts/voting. That's my entire point. If a sixteen year old is not mentally mature or responsible enough to understand the long term consequences of voting then they most definitely aren't mature or responsible enough to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime like shooting at a police officer, an act that take far more mental maturity to fully understand when compared to voting. As long as our society wants to say that sixteen and seventeen year olds aren't mature enough to understand the consequences of something like voting then how can we expect them to understand these violent crimes that they commit. I'm all for placing older teens in adult court when they commit an adult crime but only if they aren't subjected to an unfounded and unreasonable double standard. Either sixteen year olds are on the same maturity level as adults or they aren't.

i think it is totally understandable because it shows that this kid is planning on doing crimes in the future.

i think that they did the right thing by arresting him if you are 16 then you are old enough to realize that shooting a cop isn't a good idea and you will have a punishment for it

Natalie i agree with your point of view on this article. If he is 16 he already knows what he is doing. We are all in high school and know well the consequences if we did that. I also agree with what you said about his background. It seems like this is a record and he already knows the consequences. So in my opinion he should be charged for adult crime.

I believe this kid should get charged as an adult because like they said in the article. He is a threat to society and to himself.

I agree with Natalie, everyone in the right mind should know shooting at someone; especially a police officer is wrong. And know their will be consequences to follow. So yes, juveniles should be charged as an adult depending on the circumstances.

I agree with charging juveniles as adults. People should know the right from wrongs at an early age and receive the consequences though an understanding of what they did wrong.

I agree with Melissa, people should know the difference from right and wrong, they definitely know the incentives for doing wrong as well.

Jeremy, I don't quite understand where you stand on the issue. You said that you realize there's a difference but then you said, and I quote, "Kirstina I know there is a major difference between committing a violent crime and signing legal contracts/voting. That's my entire point. If a sixteen year old is not mentally mature or responsible enough to understand the long term consequences of voting then they most definitely aren't mature or responsible enough to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime like shooting at a police officer, an act that take far more mental maturity to fully understand when compared to voting." You're contradicting yourself there and in your original comment.

Obviously there is something wrong with society if we have mere teenagers pulling out weapons and assaulting people to the point of felony. I think that the punishment is completely fair for such a sick individual. Criminal behaviors are not taught, but learned so he had to have learned this from someone he knew or a parent with a criminal record. Either way, what he did was wrong and he deserves to be behind bars.

I agree with charging minors as adults because this article is one of many where the felon was a minor. I did research over this in another class and i found many articles where they were charging a minor with adult charges because of how brutal the murders they committed where. Like i argued in my other paper "is your loved one's life any less valuable just because they got murdered by a minor"

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/03/sport/football/dutch-linesman-killed-football/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 Here's another case of teenagers committing violent crimes. They beat this man to death. There were two 15 year-olds and a 16 year-old.

they should charge minors as adults because they will be out in the streets again and doing more crimies. its there own fault that they get charged thats why they should face charges alone.

I think if you do the crime, you pay the time whenever the government wants you to.

i say same charge for everyone no matter what

if you're willing to make the decision to break the law and commit a serious crime with the consequences of an adult then you should definitely suffer the same consequences no matter your age.

if anyone commits a crime they should be charged the same no matter what age

I agree with the idea that no matter your age, if you commit a serious crime, you should suffer the consequences. Say a teenager decides to murder someone... Just because they're a minor, should they be charged with a lesser offense than an adult would have? NO. If you are willing, capable, and have the mental capacity and audacity to commit such crimes, you deserve prison and whatever other punishment you receive.

Great discussion guys! Here is some more food for thought. People who do bad things need punishment, but there is plenty of scientific evidence that teenage brains are in a state of development that doesn't excuse bad acts, but can help explain it. http://goo.gl/MXEAd Ask yourself if you are the "same person" you were when you were 5 years old? I can tell you, you will make decisions differently when you are 25, and probably 65.

This is a good point i have to say. That's why I think we need to do our best to reform kids, not just punish them. Make it clear that their will be consequences, but try them as hardened, adult criminals is not the way to do it.

This is an extremely touchy subject. It's hard to lay out things like this without stepping on toes of other controversial subjects like voting age and military eligability

Both side are going to pull their own narritive for who or what killed George Floyd however it is weird to see how the defense of the office pulled in the racial difference between the two.

Justice has been served in this case but if there was true justice George Floyd would still be alive. This is a good step but it's not nearly enough.

I don't think we should celebrate the bare minimum of putting away a murderer. While he is locked up, there are so many other's out there spreading the same harm and sharing the same narrative towards their fellow comrades. So many officers get away with a plethora of crimes, and some just stand by and watch. There can't be any"good ones" if they stand by and watch it happen without saying a word when they have the power to do so.

I agree with Sarai. There is so much racism that takes place in the police force, the death penalty, the government, and our overall society. People have fought against racism for decades. And winning one case, while it may be a starting point, is not something to celebrate when people of color have struggled so much.

I think it is good that we locked him up but I also think we need to do more about this kind of stuff. This stuff seems to happen often and something needs to be done about it.

Something needs to be done, so something like this doesn't happen and more lives can be kept.

The fact that a guilty verdict for Chauvin was even a surprise is a very bad thing it's good that there's finally some progress though.

It seems like no one tried to help him, but that's what I'm thinking about from reading this passage.

I personally don't understand how people thought he would be not guilty. There is so much evidence proving him guilty, yet many were still shocked. My primary issue with the case is how it took someone to be killed for light to be shed on racism. There isn't complete justice, but we are getting pushed in the right direction.

South Carolina has the electric chair and now a firing squad as their execution methods. It's absurd that the firing squad passed and that South Carolina is now the fourth state to allow this. Personally, I don't believe that there should be any execution methods and this just seems completely crazy to me that a firing squad is now one.

I find it kind of funny they would use a firing squad. It is a waste of money and a lot more extra work and time spent on worthless people. I believe executions for those kinds of people should be quick, easy, and cheap. Firing squads just seem ridiculous especially since it's not like they are being attacked and need to use multiple people for one person.

I don't understand why they would choose a firing squad of all things. I feel like there are more humane ways to execute someone but I suppose some people may want to go out with a bang.

I don't understand why this is even a thing. No one should be sentenced to death and if they were sentenced to death, it should be a humane way, not a firing squad or electric chair.

This is just stupid. This would be such a painful and awful way to go, even if you did something bad enough to get sentenced to death. Imagine what these people's families would be thinking, watching their son or daughter getting shot to death.

I don't understand why South Carolina thinks this should be aloud. Granted the death would happen anyway but having people line up and shoot people just seems inhumane and unnecessary.

I personally don't understand how they came to the decision that this was smart or found a way to justify it. I don't think that it is something that is going to be used in other states...hopefully. I think that this should be intervened by the national government considering how inhumane the idea is.

I agree with Joey, this seems like a recreational activity that fire squads would enjoy participating in, rather than an act of justice.

I think this is a pretty cruel punishment even for large criminals and seems like its more for the firing squad than it is about justice.

Having a firing squad as an execution method is ridiculous. It's a cruel and inhumane punishment that shouldn't be used, and the fact that four states have it listed as an execution method is disturbing.

I think that there should be a death penalty in cases where the criminal is too dangerous to be kept in captivity but a firing squad is an insane method. Not only is it a waste of money, time, and effort but do they really need a full firing squad for one person? That just makes no sense and seems nothing but cruel and disturbing.

I disagree with this they should not be adding new way of execution. This a cruel way to punish people and it should not be allowed. There are other way to punish people other than getting violent.

I think a firing squad is very extreme. I think the death penalty in general is very extreme. I can't believe South Carolina is the 4th state to allow this as well. There are definitely other ways to go about this than a firing squad or a death penalty at all.

I don't believe as we are such an advanced society that we should resort back to such a harsh capital punishment.

I can't see a death sentence not being a cruel punishment let alone the electric chair as the method, but South Carolina seeking to go further by adding the firing squad is even worse the fact that anyone would be convinced this is acceptable is astounding to me and shows the disconnect people have from the people around them

I really hope they get more injections, so the executions can be more humane again

People should not be allowed to bring guns to the polling stations. These can be used as a form of voter intimidation which is a crime, though at it's core I have respect for people's right to carry, guns should never be used to scare or intimidate voters

This should not be allowed. This could cause many harmful things including intimidation and crimes against a particular group of people.

No, people should not be allowed to bring guns to polling stations.

No, people shouldn't be allowed to bring guns to voting sites. I feel like this will create more problems than solutions.

This should not be allowed

I dont think people should be able to bring guns to a voting site

This should not be able to allowed

I don't think there is a reason they should even feel the need to bring a gun to a voting site. But no they shouldn't bring a gun.

This should not be allowed I think that this could cause major issues with other people and safety.

People should not be allowed to do this. What would the purpose of having a gun be? Something bad could happen if this was allowed.

This shouldn't be allowed. It's unnecessary and could cause an even bigger issue than there would have been if a gun hadn't been brought.

i feel having fire arms there would not be okay and it would not be safe many things could haoppen it could cause chaos

Thanks for posting this Jessica! A good amount of responses so far. I will post a wikipedia link for state-by-state carry rules. If that isn't tricky enough, some states have laws differentiating "carrying" a firearm and "brandishing" (holding it pointed toward someone). I suspect we will be hearing more about this over the next week. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state#Iowa

No people shouldn't be allowed to bring a gun because agreeing with someone else's comment, it would only cause more problems than solutions, therefore it is unnecessary.

I don't think people should bring guns to the voting site because it may cause others not to come and may scare people. It would not be safe and there could be many things to go wrong.

I think bringing guns is super unnecessary to bring to a polling site, it could scare people away and possibly be the cause of an injury or death.

i think that unless you have your concealed carry licence, you should be able to bring it. yes, there is a chance of people being afraid, but there is nothing you can do about that. it isn't going to harm the election in any way and there are rules that have to be followed in order to be given the privilege of the license in the first place

why would you bring a gun, something for self-defense, killing, hurting... to voting sites? ummmmmmm

I simply do not see the point. I mean sure you can bring them if you are licensed but that doesn't mean I'm not going to judge you because clearly, the purpose is to make a statement, and not for self-defense. It's not like a grandma is going to point a gun at your head and make you vote Biden.

I personally think that you shouldn't be able to bring guns to voting sites. People are already intimidated going to these places to vote, and adding weapons would just cause more harm than good.

I personally don't believe there is any reason to bring a weapon to voting sites at all. There should be no weapons in a building during a government event.

If the gun holder has a licensed weapon and has years of experience with guns, then I think it wouldn't be a problem. A problem I noticed in the USA is everyone is very paranoid about guns, but not the person holding the gun. If the person has had little to no mental health issues and had years of experience with guns, then It shouldn't be a problem.

It doesn't make sense for people to be able to open carry firearms because votes could feel intimidated by the weapons into voting for a candidate they don't actually like.

i can't think of a reason of why people can bring guns into voting places. yes, they have a right to own one, but i don't think you need to carry a gun with you to vote

I think it's okay for someone with a license to carry to bring one in because that's the entire purpose of a license, but I think it should be kept to only small firearms in the event that someone were to attempt to attack a voting site.

I do not think people should bring guns to voting sites there is absolutely no reason. It only takes one person to get mad or get their feelings hurt and then start shooting then people are hurt or even dead. Especially when the world and the people are like the way they are right now.

I don't think that people should bring guns to voting sites because it would be easy for them to just decide to shoot it up if people don't agree with them.

I don't think it's a good idea to bring guns to voting sites because there is no point to. You wouldn't be in danger more than likely so there is no reason to take a gun with you to vote. And it may make other people uncomfortable and feel less safe while voting.

While people in Texas are struggling for power, on top of a global pandemic happening Ted Cruz should not be leaving for Cancun.

This is especially sad as well because up until now he denied climate change, and when he was proven wrong, instead of helping, he just left.

I think that him and his family are wrong because he didn't believe in climate change and not that he knows that iyts real hes not going to do anything to help, hes just going to leave.

I don't think what Ted Cruz did was okay. It shows that he doesn't care about what the people in Texas are going through and just makes him look bad in general.

I feel like if you are someone who is viewed as a leader, you should not run away from the problems at hand. He is a congressman in Texas and I feel like he should've stayed home with his people and not go stay in Cancun while his state is under duress

I think Ted Cruz leaving to go on a trip to Cancun with his family was extremely immature and inconsiderate. He is a well known politician with a large following that leaves a lot of people looking up to him. As soon as things got bad he decided to leave when instead he should have been helping and thinking of recovery plans for the people in Texas.

I think that Ted Cruz leaving was really dumb on his part. Peoples houses are literally falling apart and flooding and people are dying and he is doing nothing about it. So unless he's out there making plans on how to save everybody, he doesnt deserve the title he has.

I feel like this was not right of him to do. Ted Cruz is an important figure there in Texas and if he can't be there to help during the bad times, he shouldn't deserve to be there for the good.

I understand that even if he had stayed most likely it wouldn't have had that much of an effect on the situation but it's basically a slap in the face to all the people who didn't have the fund's in Texas to even heat their homes if that was an option and could only dream on going on a vacation to Cancun. He at a minimum could have donated the money the family spent on the trip to help some of the people freezing to death and losing their homes.

I believe he did not do the right thing in that situation and he should have stayed and helped Texas instead of running away like a little baby.

This made me so mad. I know that he was just trying to be a good dad, but he's not just any dad. He's a senator. And there's a crisis going on and he's flying to Mexico while people are literally dying.

He should've stayed in Texas to help the texans in crisis instead of going to cancun for warmth.

Personally, I don't think Ted Cruz should have left Texas because it was a time that people needed help from the government most and he wasn't anywhere to be seen.

Ted Cruz should not have left but there was not much that he could do being a senator in DC. The most he could have done much like Dan Crenshaw was hand out water, or food. And that is better than nothing but he had no control over what was going on or had no way to actually help bring the power back.

I think it's ironic to say that Joe Biden was hiding during the campaign trail in the 2020 election. Then proceeds to "Hide" in Cancun when his state was in a crisis.

This especially makes me mad since most of my family lives in Texas and they had no power and no running water and he just left them alone there to go to Cancun. This is a situation involving his own state and he doesn't even show the decency to pretend to care about the people there as their senator

I think that it's about time for us to not have to wear masks anymore. We have had to wear them for a long time, and at this point, I feel like enough people are vaccinated or going to be vaccinated to lift the mask mandate.

I think the mask mandate was lifted way too early. There are not nearly enough of us vaccinated to reach herd immunity and schools ends in the next week or two for the majority of schools in Iowa. I think it would have been much smarter to wait until next year to do so that way we could finish out the school year without disruption.

I think they have been alright. At least, according to this article, he isn't spreading too many lies. Only 3 out of 20, which isn't the best, but could definitely be worse.

Bidens first week can be monumental if you're on the left-leaning side, President Biden has changed a lot of bills backed by Republicans that were signed during Trump's term in office. But if you're on the right-leaning side his first week in office has been a clear sign of what his presidency will fulfill. Whether the Pipeline or 30+ Executive orders he's signed off on. I feel as if bi-partisanship will be quite difficult during this administration.

It looks as though it's going to be a close race between the two. Biden is in the lead by a few so he might just win by a hair.

It was pretty close at first but Biden is definitely going to pull through and win.

There is no way Trump is going to win, Biden is definitely winning.

It's pretty crazy how the red states flipped I was definitely more interested in the presidential election than the last one.

I was not expecting some of the states that were red to flip to blue as they did, I was more into seeing who was winning in this election because of how close the race was.

McConnell is an utter ghoul. Trump, even in the long tradition of criminal presidents, is in a whole 'nother league, and absolutely should be tried for his many, many crimes. The idea that just because he's out of office shouldn't be a factor. That would be like saying a hitman shouldn't be tried for murder just because they quit.

impeaching trump is only going to hurt the Biden admin, the first 100 days are they most important but now with the senate trial people are going to be more focused on that then the thing Biden is doing

If you label Trump as a criminal then you would have to label every other politician as one as well. The fact that he's not in office not only makes him a civilian but trying him at the federal level, just to block him from running again in 2024 is pointless and a waste of congressional time. As well as the American government needs to put the focus on other things than an ex-politician, let's start worrying about getting money to the American people and getting vaccines out.

If the Senate does not vote to impeach Donald Trump it will prove that a President has the power to do whatever he wants as long as his/her party is in the majority. Also, I know that if President Biden was to do the same thing and literally incite a riot on the Capitol then house republicans and republican voters would be calling for impeachment. No matter what party you are, doing what Former President Trump did is disgusting and justice has to be served.

Just like the last impeachment, this one is a waste of time. We need to focus on the US and not Impeaching Trump. Given the current situation, we do not have the time to impeach Trump. If we impeach him it's going to be another 3 months of wasted time just like the last impeachment.

I feel like people tend to judge Trump on how he acts rather than what he has done. Yeah he acts childish but if he's done good things why cant he be credited for it.