1 Another example ofDiFi's hypocrisy: a cop is murdered in cold blood & that's justifiable grounds for the death penalty, but it wouldn't be if it was a mere peasan..er, citizen. One of the big problems with our society & government is we have de facto special classes of citizens. Serving politicians & law enforcement officers often receive sepcial attention &/or privileges that aren't offered to the ordinary citizen. Cop or politician accidentally takes a gun into the airport & they're detained for a few minutes while their creds are checked & then they're let go. Ordinary citizen forgets he/she has a .357 snubby in his/her carry-on & it's a felony charge. I regret that the cop in question was murdered just as I regret every other citizen who was murdered.

2 Hear, hear! On this, Publicola and I are in complete agreement.

3 I agree that all murders should be treated alike, but cop or no, you aren't suggesting that a 16-year-old kid should be executed?

4 It's been announced that the 16 year old will not face the death penalty in this case. However, i would have no problem with executing him, given the facts as i heard them. And i'd feel the same way if he were out to kill a civilian just for the hell of it, too.

5 If a 16 year old is competent enough to take someone else's life intentionally then he's competent enough to face the consequences. I did many things when I was 16 that I regret, but I was old enough to know better. I cannot see how a murder can be chalked up to a mistake of youth or that a person should not face the same penalties as anyone else because of his age. So yep, if the 16 year old in question did murder someone in cold blood sans any mitigating circumstances then he should receive the death penalty. If we had a fool proof method of rehabilitation then perhaps we could do away with the detah penalty altogether, but unless human nature radically changes that's not going to happen. The death penalty is the only guaranteed method to ensure that a person won't commit a heinous act again. It's regretable that a 16 year old should be killed because of this, but less so than said 16 year old imposing his own desire to play God with another persons life. It may seem cold but its the only way to be just. Is there some compelling reason why a 16 year old murderer should be treated differently than a 26 year old murderer?

6 Well, as long as everyone is asking, yes, there is acompelling reason why a 16 year old killer should be treated differently that than one who has attained majority. The law of the State of California does not permit a person who has not attained majority to be exececuted. Period. And, since one cannot be denied bail in the event of a non-death penalty matter, the little shit is entitled to be released on "reasonable bail". That term is subject to some interpretation, but the punch line is that it has to be reasonably calculated to compel his return to court. Remembr the Luster older brat that got out on a million and skipped to Mexico"? That judge didn't have to let him go for that cheap, but the lawyers convinced the judge to let him out. That comes from having Democrats in the statehouse. This little shit will get a 24/7 tail, or have a home detention anklet, or something, but if his folks put up their house and everything they own, he might get out. If he does, don't be surprised if he has an accident. Our police folks around here don't much like what he did.

7 Shelly S, Sorry - because there's a law that prohibits or prescribes it just isn't a compelling reason. There are many, many laws in the state of California which should be ignored & or disregarded because they are based on flawed reasoning. Ditto for most other states & double ditto for the feds. If you wish I'll be more than happy to discuss in great & painfully boring detail most of the laws which should be ignored. Now you may argue that for good or bad we are bound by the law & thus it compells us, but this isn't a discussion of law as it stands; rather it's a discussion of what should be. So tell me why you think the law prohibiting the execution of those under 18 is a good thing.

8 Who said I thought it a good thing? Not I. Many of our 16 year olds are hardened cons, and they should be executed for doing this stuff if they are 10 for my money. But, considering the political climate here in the People's Republic of California, you go change the law; I just don't have the energy. But, maybe, paraphrasing what Condi Rice said the other day, it takes an overwhelming catastrophe to get things changed. So, perhaps now is the time. You start the initiative, I'll donate and sign the petition.

9 The death penalty is a great thing. If it is applied to everyone who is guilty, and not just those who are not rich or white enough to escape it. No such thing as a repeat offender after the death penalty is given.