Age Of Defendant

Gotta agree with the death penalty first. 17 is certaintly old enough and 12 is too young (probably 13 maybe 14).

Well, we don't have death penalty here (and in Europe at all).

Besides, we have special criminal code for youth, going from 14 to 18 (depending on case up to 21). Highest punishment they can get is 10 years.

In the US, it's becoming a little too common to punish children as if they were adults.

I have said, on other threads, that I believe that the death penalty should be reserved only for the most heinous of crimes, one of which is serial murder.

Malvo is alleged to have calculated, planned, and executed multiple murders. If the charges are proven, and he is convicted, he deserves the death penalty.

In general, no matter what the age, anyone, even a young person, who is convicted of the cold blooded planning and execution of the multiple murders of innocent people deserve the death penalty.

The key here, IMO, is what was the young person's role in the crime. There is a big difference between a young person "going along for the ride" with an older person, who has a youngster intimidated. It is quite another when the teen participated willingly & happily in the slaughter!

Well, Phoenix, your opinion was "cultural differences" in my 'philosophy of law' and 'history of law' courses at university.

Our 'youth criminal law' is an educational criminal law, following the experience that junevile can't act like adults. (And since children are no juneviles, they can't be punished at all by criminal law under the of 14 .)

Thus, someone under 18 gets 10 years youth custody.

In old common law, children were neatly divided into thirds in terms of ages.

0 - 6 - no criminal responsibility whatsoever
7 - 14 - diminished criminal responsibility, depending upon circumstances
15 - 21 (this is before 18 became the commonly-accepted age of majority) - full or near-full criminal responsibility.

Now, courts look at a variety of factors, including maturity, to determine whether a child should be tried as an adult. In the Malvo case, my understanding is that part of it is due to the heinousness of the crimes (I think we can all agree on that) and part due to evidence found, such as fingerprints on the murder weapon(s) and the like. Another factor is age at the time of committing the crimes. Malvo's 17, not 7. It is a difference of a few months' time which is making this an issue at all. If he had committed his crimes this year, rather than last, or he had been born a year earlier, this discussion would be moot.