"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 ? Put 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 ? Participants 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 . * Note : I am speaking within the context of the United States , and its Constitution ."
"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 do n't execute people who ca n't comprehend the nature of their crimes and society says that , under 18 you ca n't fully comprehend criminal actions ."
"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"
"I think that we 've got to draw a line at some point , to demarcate between adult and child ."