And what's wrong with that? When it comes to road damage, a single truck can be the equivalent of up to 50,000 cars. Trucks are the one damaging roads. Why should car owners pay for it?
Again, your point was irrelevant. It was only a straw man. Do you think I am that stupid?
This discussion was not about deterrence, that was only YOUR argument. I'm just saying YOUR argument is irrelevant. It's not me who's moving goal-posts, it's you.
So why should we not kill this guy? Do you have any reason?
Then your point is mostly irrelevant because there are other good reasons for death penalty.
Again, prison is not an effective deterrent. Do you think we should abolish prisons?
The solution is to correct this barbaric system where we spend millions of dollars on a criminal, not to keep the guy alive because of a bad system.
The purpose would be to stop spending resources on worthless people.
Just for the record, what purpose does keeping him alive serve?
What is barbaric is to spend the limited resources we have on piece of shit like this guy instead of helping innocent people. What is barbaric is to consider that criminals have more value and deserve more resources than good people. The civilized thing to do would be to kill him right now with a single bullet in the head without any kind of glorified ceremony and use the millions we'll save to help several hundred children to have a bright future instead.
You are barbaric for trying to save this criminal's life.
Why spend several hundred thousand of dollars to try to rehabilitate a criminal? Why not rather use the same money to help a few hundred innocent people who are in need to have a better future instead? Why a single criminal has more value than innocent people?
Prison is not an effective deterrent either. So what's your point?
One individual may have as much merit and ability as another individual, but saying "women" have as much merit and ability as "men" is the very definition of sexism. You are the one who is sexist.
The idea that everyone has the same brain and so goes through the same development following the same linear path is wrong. Moreover the idea that morality is in strict correlation with intelligence is also wrong. Sociopaths are often highly intelligent and have successful career (including in science), most don't even commit serious crimes when they are adults, it doesn't change that they are sociopaths.
Yes, there a few examples of teenagers who were rebellious and then became productive member of society. But there are an awful lot more examples of juvenile delinquent who committed crimes after crimes during all their lives. Prisons are full of them.
Schools are full of kids who never committed a serious crime (apart from trying drugs, which to me is not a serious crime) and who will never commit any. How do you explain that if they can't fully understand the consequences of their actions?
The development of the frontal lobe is somewhat researched (certainly not well research as neuroscience is quite new and changing rapidly), but saying from those data that someone under 25 years old can't fully understand the consequences of his action is nothing but speculative interpretation.
What we are talking here is morality. So go to a any 10 years old, describe what that teenager did and the reason he did it and ask the 10 years old if this behavior was good or bad. Again, try to learn a minimum about children moral development before thinking you know enough to have an opinion, because you really don't.
You think I have a trollish behavior? Tell me... If someone begins to argue with you that the sky is not blue, but red. You show him a lot of pictures with blue skies, but he simply discard them and continue to argue the sky is red. How will you react?
Try to look a bit at the "science" before accepting something as true. It's not science, it's only speculative interpretation of data. Worse, it's speculative interpretation of data which is not only proven wrong by simple observations we all make every day, but also by all research on children moral development which was done in the past by Piaget and all the ones who followed after him.
As for the anecdote, in this case the anecdote is this kid who acted like a narcissistic asshole (and a narcissistic personality disorder is certainly a possibility here). The vast majority of kids will do some small stupid things to test the authority (that's part of our hierarchical nature), but certainly not like this one. If you think this kid is a typical kid, you're a plain idiot.
I was not alone in school and I was not special. All our dissertations were more or less the same value. There certainly was a few morons, but the majority of my classmates were like me.
I am not the one making over generalizations, it's people who think a average 15 years old can't understand the consequences of his actions because of a very few problematic kids who are making ridiculous generalizations.
A 15 years old kid certainly knows the difference between good and bad.
So everyone under 25 is a brain dead moron? I guess it's time we forbid anyone under 25 to drive a car, vote or even live on their own since they are "literally incapable of fully understanding the consequences of their actions".
As part of the curriculum of my morale class in high school, we learned about Kohlberg's stages of moral development. At 16, I was between stage 5 and 6 (I was beginning to use stage 6 arguments).
A few years ago, I found some of my old class notebooks and dissertations (every Saturday morning we had 3 hours to do a dissertation on a random subject as part of my French class when I was in France). I read them expecting to find them stupid. I was surprised to see how "mature" I was at 13.
I remember reading 1984 when I was a kid. The only thing i didn't understand at the time was why sex played such a major role in the plot. I couldn't understand how sex could be such a motivator since I didn't go through puberty yet. But other than that, I certainly was able to understand all the moral and political message.
I'll go even farther than that. When I was 10, I was distributing flyers to make some cash (I was paid 5$ a week). There's one event I remember. Two girls (probably around 7) came to me and begun to tease me (this was in the 70s, when even 7 years old kids were free to be outside alone). At one time, they asked me which one of them was the most beautiful. I didn't want to answer because I knew the other would have her feelings hurt. I was fucking 10.
I'm sorry, but you are a complete idiot.