NationStates Jolt Archive

Looming over this case is the potential for the defendant to be the first person executed for committing an aggravated rape in which the victim survived since La. R.S. 14:42 was amended in 1995 to allow capital punishment for the rape of a person under the age of twelve. The defendant contends that Louisiana stands in a minority of jurisdictions in which legislatures have authorized capital punishment for the rape of a child not resulting in homicide and predicts that La. R.S. 14:42 is unlikely to survive the scrutiny of the United States Supreme Court, whose decisions the defendant interprets as making it clear that the loss of life is the essential component which renders capital punishment a proportionate penalty under the Eighth Amendment....

While we cannot purport to exercise the Supreme Court's independent judgment on any matter, it can be said for child rapists as a class of offenders that, unlike the young or mentally retarded, they share no common characteristic tending to mitigate the moral culpability of their crimes. Contrary to the mentally retarded and juvenile offenders, execution of child rapists will serve the goals of deterrence and retribution just as well as execution of first-degree murderers would. Our state legislature, and this Court, have determined this category of aggravated rapist to be among those deserving of the death penalty, and, short of a first-degree murderer, we can think of no other non-homicide crime more deserving.... We affirm [our prior] reasoning [in Wilson] today and hold that the death penalty for the rape of a child under twelve is not disproportionate.

Well, I agree.

But do you agree?

PDF Of Original Decision ('http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2007/05KA1981.opn.pdf')

News Coverage ('http://www.nola.com/newsflash/louisiana/index.ssf?/base/news-32/1179864545234300.xml&storylist=louisiana')

The U.S. Supreme Court, ruling on a case from Georgia in 1977, held that the death penalty for rape violated the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. But the high court said repeatedly that its ruling applied only to adult victims.

"They left open if a victim was a child," said Richard Dieter of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C.

IMHO, it is likely that this would be upheld by the current Supreme Court. I also believe that if Louisiana is successful, other states wishing to appear "hardline" on pedophiles will follow suit.

The death penalty as a post-trial punishment is not something a legal system should advocate under any conditions.

I dislike the use of the death penalty as a punishment for anything.

Life in prison without parole. Just because I'm against the death penalty. I won't take that discussion here though, been enough threads about that. :)

Life in prison, no parole, general population.

Death penalty is too costly.

No.

If the death penalty is meant to be a deterrent then it must be predicated that those who are sentenced to death committed a crime by their own free will.

It seems to many that paedophiles do not act via their own free will. Hence people stating that they should be locked up forever or executed.

IMHO, it is likely that this would be upheld by the current Supreme Court. I also believe that if Louisiana is successful, other states wishing to appear "hardline" on pedophiles will follow suit.

It's a bad idea only for the reason that it will encourage a rape to become a rape-murder just to eliminate witnesses.

Ah, civilisation at its best. :rolleyes:

Life in prison, no parole, general population.

Death penalty is too costly.

Probably should argue that in another thread (as has been done to death before).

It's a bad idea only for the reason that it will encourage a rape to become a rape-murder just to eliminate witnesses.

Would that not also apply to other violent crimes?

Death to Predatory Pedophiles is not only an idea I agree with, it would be one of the things the legal system might do that puts a smile on face.

I might suggest they start with my cousin who is currently serving out what amounts to 150 years for his rape of several children.

Life in prison, no parole, general population.

Death penalty is too costly.

Yeah, that sounds better, cheaper, and far less time wasted on appeal.

I mean segregation of inmates based on crimes is really special protection anyway...they should be treated as equals.

No. Same arguments as in all death penalty threads. Risk of error makes it all too possible that an innocent might be killed. As such, I will be against the death penalty in all cases, even the gruesome child-rape ones.

Would that not also apply to other violent crimes?

Doesn't it already? I thought the point of the article was the application of the death penalty to non-homicidal rapes?

What is wrong with the far simpler idea of "childrapist island" ?
Make sure everybody sent there is both infertile and too old to arouse the other inhabitants.

The death penalty shouldn't be done under any scenario. Life without parole is what is required. With them in the general population of course. Let them see how their fellow prisoners view kiddie rapists.

Doesn't it already? I thought the point of the article was the application of the death penalty to non-homicidal rapes?

Well I was more commenting on your statement re witnesses...

You are right though...I also think the article was regards the application of the DP on non homicidal crimes.

I would not advocate the harshest punishment for rape. The harshest penalty should always be for death. What incentive does the rapist have to NOT kill the child if s/he is going to be punished the same regardless?

Life in prison, no parole, general population.

Death penalty is too costly.

I'm not pro death penalty but, surely life in prisonment is more costly then the death penalty?

We said "No!", already. (http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/187.htm) / Nous avons déjà dit que "Non!". (http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/FR/Treaties/Html/187.htm)

Well I was more commenting on your statement re witnesses...

You are right though...I also think the article was regards the application of the DP on non homicidal crimes.

Certainly a living victim is a witness... We don't want a sentencing policy that encourages dead victims.

No.

If the death penalty is meant to be a deterrent then it must be predicated that those who are sentenced to death committed a crime by their own free will.

It seems to many that paedophiles do not act via their own free will. Hence people stating that they should be locked up forever or executed.

Woah, I can see your point if a child looks like an adult and the molester reasonably thought that the child was an adult, otherwise I do not see how this is a free will issue. Nobody forced the molester to molest.

The death penalty shouldn't be done under any scenario. Life without parole is what is required. With them in the general population of course. Let them see how their fellow prisoners view kiddie rapists.

In many cases... thats the same as the death penalty. But I'd agree to it, its a cheaper more efficient way of execution, no long waits, no appeals to the court for thier life, no protesters... you are one smart person!

I mean segregation of inmates based on crimes is really special protection anyway...they should be treated as equals.

Well, you know you're a bad person when you've been sent to a maximum security prison and the other inmates think you don't deserve to live. Even if you manage to not get killed, that kind of atmosphere has to have an effect on you.

Incidentally, prison service rumour says Roy Whiting may not last much longer.
Ref, for anyone who doesn't know:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Payne

I would not advocate the harshest punishment for rape. The harshest penalty should always be for death. What incentive does the rapist have to NOT kill the child if s/he is going to be punished the same regardless?

This is a reasonable argument. We do not want to encourage rapists to kill the raped. However, I think we should kill the pervies. Our Supreme Court was being a little goofy when it said that adult rape may not be punishable by death. I am of the opinion that the Constitution lets states use whatever punishment that they want as long as they are not inhumane.

Certainly a living victim is a witness... We don't want a sentencing policy that encourages dead victims.

Well I am sure there have been plenty of murders of witnesses to violent crimes...

disagree with death penalty under any circumstances.

Woah, I can see your point if a child looks like an adult and the molester reasonably thought that the child was an adult, otherwise I do not see how this is a free will issue. Nobody forced the molester to molest.

I fail to see where the issue is seeing as I made no mention of my own opinion.

If someone forced a molestation/rape then there would not be a question regarding free will...free will would be negated surely?

In many cases... thats the same as the death penalty. But I'd agree to it, its a cheaper more efficient way of execution, no long waits, no appeals to the court for thier life, no protesters... you are one smart person!

That indeed could happen and the side benefits are certainly something you can't ignore. But I really just believe that we shouldn't give these bastards preferential treatment with some kind of isolation because their crimes wouldn't be popular by their fellow prisoners. They shouldn't have harmed a child. They should get the same punishment as everyone else.

That indeed could happen and the side benefits are certainly something you can't ignore. But I really just believe that we shouldn't give these bastards preferential treatment with some kind of isolation because their crimes wouldn't be popular by their fellow prisoners. They shouldn't have harmed a child. They should get the same punishment as everyone else.

I am in full agreance with this statement.

That indeed could happen and the side benefits are certainly something you can't ignore. But I really just believe that we shouldn't give these bastards preferential treatment with some kind of isolation because their crimes wouldn't be popular by their fellow prisoners. They shouldn't have harmed a child. They should get the same punishment as everyone else.

I gotta ask...

Why is a child considered more worthy of revenge than an adult?

The death penalty is wrong in all circumstances. One does not give up one's right to life by committing a crime.

I am constantly amazed by the disproportionate reaction people have to child molestation. There are many worse things that could happen to a child. Off the top of my head - anything that leads to the child's death, torture, the whole host of problems associated with grinding third world poverty, AIDS, being forced to become a child soldier, child slavery... I'm sure there's more but those come to mind.

Two women close to me were abused as children, and they both came to terms with it to the point where they'll tell people about it. They live full, productive, sucessful and happy lives. The same can't be said of a dead child, a child soldier or a child living in griding poverty.

Child Molestation is wrong, but it is not 'let's torture people till they die' wrong.

Why is a child considered more worthy of revenge than an adult?

Cultural brainwashing. In many non-western cultures people would also not comprehend this.

I gotta ask...

Why is a child considered more worthy of revenge than an adult?

A child has the aura of innocence. They remind people of their own children. I don't have an exact answer. For myself I don't have a firm belief that a child outranks an adult. But harming a child like harming an adult is a crime and one shouldn't do either and when caught and punished you shouldn't receive some special consideration because of what might happen when they are put in with the general population. Like I said, they shouldn't have committed their crime.

A child has the aura of innocence. They remind people of their own children. I don't have an exact answer. For myself I don't have a firm belief that a child outranks an adult. But harming a child like harming an adult is a crime and one shouldn't do either and when caught and punished you shouldn't receive some special consideration because of what might happen when they are put in with the general population. Like I said, they shouldn't have committed their crime.

So criminals do not have a right to be protected from crime, and the state should facilitate crimes against them?

Death penalty for child rape? No. And the reasons have been highlighted already. All I can do is recap.

First off, if they're going to die anyway, why not cover the crime up by killing the kid? Who knows, you might stand a higher chance of getting away with it.

As far as that goes, child rapists should get a nice, long sentence that's short of life in a maximum-sexurity prison. Child murderers should get the same sentence as any other murderers - life, no parole, maximum security, hard labor. In either case, they should be required to be denoted as murderers or child rapists in a clearly obvious manner (the idea I would have is that the number that identifies them should start with a number that identifies their crime. It's that or make them wear a pacifier with a skull on it to let the general population know that they killed a child, and, well, the Nazis did something like that, so I doubt it would go over well.)

Oh, and one more thing - the nature of the crime would directly be proportionate to how much shit the other inmates could get away with in terms of beating them up. Child murderer? Anything short of murder, eye gouging, or broken bones is fair game. Child rapist? Same, but leave their teeth intact. Feel free to swing at the nuts. Ordinary rapist? No pinning them before you attack them. You get the idea - don't cause a riot and don't destroy property, and prison becomes a survival of the fittest. That is, when they're not on a chain gang where they belong.

<Insert obvious explanation of irreversibility, fallibility of trial, etc.>

I should also note that I believe the function of imprisonment should be to prevent further harm being done by the criminal, not to enact a punishment out of a sense of "deserving".

So criminals do not have a right to be protected from crime, and the state should facilitate crimes against them?

I see nothing wrong with putting a criminal in prison. And if the excuse not to is because something might happen to them inside than that is hardly a reason not to punish them. One can debate the pros and cons of the criminal justice system but whatever flaws it has doesn't let the criminals off the hook. They will serve their time.

death is the only way as it is laws are already to lenient only 3 years in jail and most offend again afterwards

No.

I see nothing wrong with putting a criminal in prison. And if the excuse not to is because something might happen to them inside than that is hardly a reason not to punish them. One can debate the pros and cons of the criminal justice system but whatever flaws it has doesn't let the criminals off the hook. They will serve their time.

That's not what you're propagating - they can serve their time without being put in a lion pit. You're propagating that they be put where everyone knows they will be the victims of crime and doing nothing to stop it. As I said, you seem to think that the state shouldn't protect criminals from crime and should in fact facilitate those crimes against them.

I'm not pro death penalty but, surely life in prisonment is more costly then the death penalty?

Take into account 15 years of hearings and appeals, retrials et cetera. Adds up quick.

No. Same arguments as in all death penalty threads. Risk of error makes it all too possible that an innocent might be killed. As such, I will be against the death penalty in all cases, even the gruesome child-rape ones.

Child-rapists is one of those that there is no reasonable solution. If you put them in general population, they're dead anyway. The death penalty is more humane even if you are innocent.

That said, I don't agree with the death penalty for the reasons you stated but it does not seem reasonable that we spend extra money to protect people who have committed a crime so gruesome that the general population will kill them. In addition to rejecting the death penalty, are we also responsible for saving their lives?

And if the excuse not to is because something might happen to them inside than that is hardly a reason not to punish them.

So, has anyone ever been allowed to go free because they'd be at risk in the general population?

I'm not pro death penalty but, surely life in prisonment is more costly then the death penalty?

Nope, (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108) unless you want to sacrifice judicial security even further than you already do with the death penalty.

So, has anyone ever been allowed to go free because they'd be at risk in the general population?

I get what he means and it is a difficult issue. Not saying this would actually happen, but imagine I'm going to prison for the rest of my life. It's assured. I'm done. And I'm a pretty boy who isn't going to be able to survive. Now, without any special crime, I'm going to gen pop. However, if I commit a "better" crime I get special treatment. Do you see how that's backwards?

By the way, I was a victim of child-rape and I feel sorry for my rapist. She should have been imprisoned, most likely in a mental facility, but she was 13 when she did it and also was a victim herself from her uncle, I believe it was.

I get what he means and it is a difficult issue. Not saying this would actually happen, but imagine I'm going to prison for the rest of my life. It's assured. I'm done. And I'm a pretty boy who isn't going to be able to survive. Now, without any special crime, I'm going to gen pop. However, if I commit a "better" crime I get special treatment. Do you see how that's backwards?

Yeah. Still, it doesn't sit well with me introducing people into the general population who are basically going to get killed.

Yeah. Still, it doesn't sit well with me introducing people into the general population who are basically going to get killed.

Of course, it doesn't. You're a compassionate person. Nor I. However, I do think this is one of those cases where a slippery slope and equal treatment applies. Again, if I rape you should I receive worse treatment than if I rape your child? It's a complicated problem and they (molesters) by their actions have created a situation where no outcome is a good one.

Of course, it doesn't. You're a compassionate person. Nor I. However, I do think this is one of those cases where a slippery slope and equal treatment applies. Again, if I rape you should I receive worse treatment than if I rape your child? It's a complicated problem and they (molesters) by their actions have created a situation where no outcome is a good one.

Complicated is an understatement. This confuses my brain greatly.

Complicated is an understatement. This confuses my brain greatly.

Best solution is to take whatever steps necessary to ensure no one gets killed in prison.

By the way, I was a victim of child-rape and I feel sorry for my rapist. She should have been imprisoned, most likely in a mental facility, but she was 13 when she did it and also was a victim herself from her uncle, I believe it was.

Whereas we are discussing adult child rape.

Jocabia...your situation must have been horrific and damaging. I am not denigrating you but I do think there is a difference between an adult raping a child and children 'experimenting' with sex. Experiment including the darker side of sex. I am being dispassionate with my words. However I do not think non consensual sex is moral.

I'd kill a guy who raped a child but I wouldn't want it to be in the hands of the government.

Death Penalty for Child Rape?sure. why not.

I'd kill a guy who raped a child but I wouldn't want it to be in the hands of the government.Vigilante?

Whereas we are discussing adult child rape.

Jocabia...your situation must have been horrific and damaging. I am not denigrating you but I do think there is a difference between an adult raping a child and children 'experimenting' with sex. Experiment including the darker side of sex. I am being dispassionate with my words. However I do not think non consensual sex is moral.

I was four, my friend. That's not children experimenting with sex. She was a rapist. She raped me for a year including beatings and the like. You know what they say about assumptions. She might not have quite been an adult, but I think she was old enough to recognize that what she was doing was wrong, particularly since she beat me into the hospital when I finally told someone about it.

Best solution is to take whatever steps necessary to ensure no one gets killed in prison.

And that would be to seperate every criminal from every other criminal always. That's pretty much what would be necessary.

Death penalty is too costly.(Life in Prison is less expensive):confused:
You are not making sense

I think that if the cases are definate, im talking of child rape, not statutory rape, then death penalty.

how is that more expensive than life improsenment, you make no sense, how much does 6 foot of rope and a stool cost these days?

Vigilante?

I disagree with vigilantism unless you are talking about personal beliefs. I don't trust the rest of you.

I think that if the cases are definate, im talking of child rape, not statutory rape, then death penalty.

how is that more expensive than life improsenment, you make no sense, how much does 6 foot of rope and a stool cost these days?

People on death row go through appeals over and over again for years. The costs add up.

I was four, my friend. That's not children experimenting with sex. She was a rapist. She raped me for a year including beatings and the like. You know what they say about assumptions. She might not have quite been an adult, but I think she was old enough to recognize that what she was doing was wrong, particularly since she beat me into the hospital when I finally told someone about it.

Yeah. As you say....assumptions. I assumed you were older. One reason I was dispassionate.

Obviously she already had developed the unpleasant traits of a sociopath. Given that the accepted theory is that rape concerns power.

Either way it is completely wrong and does deserve punishment and repairing (?).

I admit that if a child of mine was raped I would go spare.

People on death row go through appeals over and over again for years. The costs add up.

And a quick link to illustrate of which there are thousands.
http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.php?pid=cost

No.

if i was molested as a child, i wouldn't want the molester to be killed. Re-education and Medical/Psychological aid is the key, not complete utter imprisonment or death (in an utopia anyways)

given the state of USA today, i would pin out that any molester/rapist/murderer caught, like other people obsessed with theft, or other things, etc should be given the aid they need to solve their problems. of course while still being jailed or doing community service.

for the repeated offenders... those are the ones that even with aid they still cant get past their problems... those are the ones that should be imprisoned for life. everyone should have a second and third opportunity to correct their wrongs, unless they aggravated too much their crimes

anyways, until further determined by specialists, everyone should have chances of getting better and overcoming their worst nightmares and problems and not just thrown away in jail or on the electric chair just like that. people should get help and help each others too.

bear in mind in the first place that while some people might kill out of necessity, fun, because their high, or whatever reason, a child-molester will molest most likely because he/she was molested in the past, when he/she was a child. by doing it, the self subconscious or the unconscious is reliving the experience and in a way, is "healing". what the conscious doesn't realizes, as it is being subdued by the other two, is that it is only aggravating the mental condition of his/her own and of the others, and not really healing, thus propagating the dilemma. most likely they too will see themselves as the kid they are raping/molesting, by switching roles. they live in the past. what the molester needs to do is face the demons, not subject to them. and that wont happen with prison beatings or being raped in prison. they need aid.

btw, maximum security prison should be for real threats. like people who kill anyone without hesitation. and that segregation idea (similar to the one employed by Nazis) someone gave... your an ass mate. you should be in their shoes before even suggesting that. segregation is bad.

and death penalty should be banned. your no better than murderers if you murder them just like that

Yeah. As you say....assumptions. I assumed you were older. One reason I was dispassionate.

Obviously she already had developed the unpleasant traits of a sociopath. Given that the accepted theory is that rape concerns power.

Either way it is completely wrong and does deserve punishment and repairing (?).

I admit that if a child of mine was raped I would go spare.

I get irritated when people do that because of some of the response I got to the issue as a child, but that's not your fault. You made an incorrect assumption, but not one that couldn't be gotten from what I said. I should have been clearer.

Unfortunately, I've gotten a lot of "oh, that's not so bad" throughout my life, because she was a girl and I was a boy. Generally, girl on boy relationships of that type in our society are just not taken seriously enough so your statements hit a nerve. I find it so frustrating that a man sleeping with a girl is disgusting while we make jokes about a boy sleeping with a woman.

I was four, my friend. That's not children experimenting with sex. She was a rapist. She raped me for a year including beatings and the like. You know what they say about assumptions. She might not have quite been an adult, but I think she was old enough to recognize that what she was doing was wrong, particularly since she beat me into the hospital when I finally told someone about it.

The arbritrary adult/child divisions in most criminal justice systems are another thing which make little to no sense, as this case shows. Its getting better (in the UK at least) with a sliding scale of criminal responsibility, but its still not great...


Thats all rather off topic - as to the death penalty, nope. Its inhumane, a poor detterrant, unnecessary, illogical, and expensive.

I get irritated when people do that because of some of the response I got to the issue as a child, but that's not your fault. You made an incorrect assumption, but not one that couldn't be gotten from what I said. I should have been clearer.

Unfortunately, I've gotten a lot of "oh, that's not so bad" throughout my life, because she was a girl and I was a boy. Generally, girl on boy relationships of that type in our society are just not taken seriously enough so your statements hit a nerve. I find it so frustrating that a man sleeping with a girl is disgusting while we make jokes about a boy sleeping with a woman.

Greed for power is genderless.

And that would be to seperate every criminal from every other criminal always. That's pretty much what would be necessary.

Pretty close to what supermax prisons do now. There'd have to be some safe social interaction. Humans do not handle prolonged solitude well.

Pretty close to what supermax prisons do now. There'd have to be some safe social interaction. Humans do not handle prolonged solitude well.

Supermax prisons are the debil.

By own will or not, 25 or more years in prison are far more gruesome than an execution - But do not contain the moral dilemma. So I would vote for that plus a try to rehabilitate the one who commited the crime, but if it doesn't work, just lock the criminal up until it does (Don't stop trying, but if it doesn't work, you can't just let him go - Using new methods is good, too which excludes guinnue pig like ones).

Child-rapists is one of those that there is no reasonable solution. If you put them in general population, they're dead anyway. The death penalty is more humane even if you are innocent.
Nope.

Two reasons:
a) Be willing to invest money in the prison system and you can reduce / eliminate (never completely mind you) the problem.

b) Are you aware of how many living convicted child rapists there is in the jails in the US today? The risk of death is greatly exaggerated.

On December 31, 2005 --

-- 2,193,798 prisoners were held in Federal or State prisons or in local jails

Homicide rates pr 2002: In local jails 3 per 100,000 and in State prisons 4 per 100,000.
Local jails had an average of fewer
than 20 inmate homicides each year

Over 3 years (2000-02), there were 59 jail inmate
homicides reported nationwide, resulting in a rate
of 3 jail inmate homicide deaths per 100,000 inmates.
Violent offenders were the most likely to be killed
in local jail (5 homicides per 100,000 inmates),
followed by property and public-order offenders (3
for both). Drug offenders (1 per 100,000) had the
lowest homicide victimization rate of all offenders.

Kidnaping offenders had the highest rate of jail
inmate homicide (15 per 100,000 inmates -- 5
times the rate for all inmates), followed by inmates
held for rape (9) and violation of parole/ probation
(7). But even among these offenders with the highest
homicide rates, a combined total of eight homicides
took place nationwide over this 3-year period.
The rate of homicide in State prison was 4 per 100,000
prisoners, and varied little across offense types.
Three types of offenders had as many as 10 homicides
per 100,000 prisoners -- arsonists (16), kidnapers (15),
and probation/parole violators (12). Among these three
categories with the highest homicide rates, the number
of homicides was small, with a total of nine prisoners
killed over 2 years.

State prisoners convicted of fraud and driving while
intoxicated had the lowest rate of homicide, with
zero homicides reported for 2001-02.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/shsplj.txt

Considering that this also includes all homicides, gang-related, drug related et al, it is a relatively low risk of death in jail. Still too high though, but don't assume that being a convicted child rapist in gen pop is an automatic death penalty..

That said, I don't agree with the death penalty for the reasons you stated but it does not seem reasonable that we spend extra money to protect people who have committed a crime so gruesome that the general population will kill them. In addition to rejecting the death penalty, are we also responsible for saving their lives?
When we want to get them off the streets and keep them locked up? Yes. We are responsible for their lives then. If you want to keep your society safe you have to be willing to invest in that safety.

Nope.

Two reasons:
a) Be willing to invest money in the prison system and you can reduce / eliminate (never completely mind you) the problem.

b) Are you aware of how many living convicted child rapists there is in the jails in the US today? The risk of death is greatly exaggerated.

On December 31, 2005 --

-- 2,193,798 prisoners were held in Federal or State prisons or in local jails

Homicide rates pr 2002: In local jails 3 per 100,000 and in State prisons 4 per 100,000.


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/shsplj.txt

Considering that this also includes all homicides, gang-related, drug related et al, it is a relatively low risk of death in jail. Still too high though, but don't assume that being a convicted child rapist in gen pop is an automatic death penalty..

When we want to get them off the streets and keep them locked up? Yes. We are responsible for their lives then. If you want to keep your society safe you have to be willing to invest in that safety.

Excellent post. Pause for my consideration.

Yes. Castrate them first, then kill them. They should be put in the express line for the death penalty.

Yes. Castrate them first, then kill them. They should be put in the express line for the death penalty.

Pity that'll make convicting them much harder, since they'll have no reason not to kill their victims.

Excellent post. Pause for my consideration.

Thankies :)

I should also add, I don't believe that prison murders of child rapists would be the bigger (more prevalent) problem here. It is more likely that child molestors face violence - a beating here, a broken bone there - some more or less regularly. (Sometimes due to a twisted hierarchy that you apparently can find among some inmates, where child molesters find themselves at the bottom.)

Certainly a living victim is a witness... We don't want a sentencing policy that encourages dead victims.

My thoughts exactly.

I'm good with it.

Well, I agree.

But do you agree?

No. I don't agree. I stand behind no one in my distaste for child rape, but I do not think you can constitutionally execute a man for rape of someone under the age of thirteen whereh the victim lives.

PDF Of Original Decision ('http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2007/05KA1981.opn.pdf')

For those that want to know, the relevant discussion is on pages 38-57 (numbered at bottom of pages as 37-56) and the dissent is on pages 127-128. The rest of the opinion is about other stuff.

News Coverage ('http://www.nola.com/newsflash/louisiana/index.ssf?/base/news-32/1179864545234300.xml&storylist=louisiana')
The U.S. Supreme Court, ruling on a case from Georgia in 1977, held that the death penalty for rape violated the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. But the high court said repeatedly that its ruling applied only to adult victims.

This is misleading. In Coker v. Georgia (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=433&invol=584), 433 U.S. 584 (1977), the Supreme Court held: "a sentence of death is grossly disproportionate and excessive punishment for the crime of rape, and is therefore forbidden by the Eigth Amendment as cruel and unusual punishment." Although the court did refer to "rape of an adult woman" a few times, it never makes any statements that imply the rape of someone other than an adult woman would be considered differently. Moreover, the victim in Coker was actually a married 16-year-old.

The Court's analysis in Coker says nothing that would imply the rape of a child under thirteen is a capital offense.


IMHO, it is likely that this would be upheld by the current Supreme Court.

Perhaps. I think the dissent has the better end of the stick.

When you look at the factors that the Supreme Court considers, they all weigh against capital punishment in this case. "Captial punishment must be limited to those offenders who commit 'a narrow category of the most serious crimes' and whose extreme culpability makes the "the most deserving of execution.'" Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 568 (2005). Few states (and few countries, if any) provide the death penalty for child rape where the victim does not die. Although it is arguable that child rape is a degree worse than rape of an adult, it is not clear that this is sufficient to make the death penalty a proportionate penalty for the child rapist who does not take human life. To quote Coker:

Rape is without doubt deserving of serious punishment; but in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public, it does not compare with murder, which does involve the unjustified taking of human life. Although it may be accompanied by another crime, rape by definition does not include the death of or even the serious injury to another person. The murderer kills; the rapist, if no more than that, does not. Life is over for the victim of the murderer; for the rape victim, life may not be nearly so happy as it was, but it is not over and normally is not beyond repair. We have the abiding conviction that the death penalty, which "is unique in its severity and irrevocability," Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S., at 187 , is an excessive penalty for the rapist who, as such, does not take human life.

I also believe that if Louisiana is successful, other states wishing to appear "hardline" on pedophiles will follow suit.

In 1997, Louisiana was the only state providing the death penalty for child rape in which the child does not die.

Of the 38 jurisdictions permitting capital punishment, only 5 allow it for child rape.

(Note that 24 of the 38 states premitting capital punishment provide the death penalty only for crimes resulting in the death of the victim. Of the remaining 14 states, 5 provide the death penalty for sui generis extraordinary crimes agains the government (i.e., treason, espionage, aircraft piracy). Four states provide capital punishment for aggravated kidnapping, but those statutes would appear to violate the Supreme Court's decision in Eberheart v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 917 (1977) (holding kidnapping cannot be a capital crime when it does not result in the death of the victim.) Florida's sweeping drug laws provide for capital punishment in extreme cases (such as important of 300 or more kilograms of cocaine when the offender "knows the probable result of such importation would be the death of any person").

It seems to many that paedophiles do not act via their own free will. Hence people stating that they should be locked up forever or executed.

So, the less free-will you have, the more lentient? Then, how-come we can put so-many cows to death every-year? They didn't even do anything, and they have much-less free-will then people!

Having been a victim of child rape, I'm surprised at my own opinion. I've never actually thought about it before, but I think I'm against it. I don't like the death penalty at all. Maybe if I was a more emotionaly person about non-numerological things, it'd be different, but I tend to view the world very objectively. No. No death penalty.

Well, I agree.

But do you agree?


No. Death penalty is stupid.

1.It won't scare any criminal. Expecially those criminals whose criminal behaviour is more a mental/sexual deviancy (like a violent pedophile) than a "professional" behaviour (like a burglar).

2.Once you arrested a felon, he's not supposed to be able to hurt anyone anymore. So, there is no need to kill him. All humans have right to life (see various international conventions about human rights). If he can't be re-educated, just put him in jail and throw away the keys.
The state should never go on the same level of the criminals. Unnecessary killing of a man is homicide.

So, the less free-will you have, the more lentient? Then, how-come we can put so-many cows to death every-year? They didn't even do anything, and they have much-less free-will then people!

Not what I said. Just highlighting some of the inconsistencies.

So, has anyone ever been allowed to go free because they'd be at risk in the general population?

None that I know of, I was simply responding to the idea that putting certain criminals in general population would be wrong for they might get hurt. If this so upsets some people than they should work to make America's jails safer. Which of course means more money to ease overcrowding which I don't see ever happening. That child rapists will get a tough time in prison is no reason to give them special treatment. To spit out a cliche, you do the crime, you do the time.

the death penalty is always wrong. the severity of another person's actions have no bearing on the morality of one's response to that person.

Death Penalty <insert reason> = NO.

Yeah, kill anyone raping a child (under 12 sounds a good age) and castrate anyone raping an adult. :)

Yeah, kill anyone raping a child (under 12 sounds a good age) and castrate anyone raping an adult. :)

why not start by castrating morality rapists like you?

besides, 12, 6, 18, 99... age doesnt matters

It seems that most of us agree that the Death Penalty should not be considered.

As someone who once agreed with the Death Penalty as a means of population control and cost saving, I was eventually shown the light, and found that trying a death penalty case costs a much as that person serving a 40 year prison sentence. Since the typical person ends up spending 30 to 40 years on Death Row before being executed there are no costs savings and we end up paying for most people to spend 2 life sentences in prison.

It simply makes more sense to offer Life without parole, than Death.

In principle, I'm opposed to the death penalty. This is not because I believe that humans have a right to life: they do have such a right, just as they have the right to run for office, but such rights can be forfeited by the refusal to bear in mind the rights of others. No, what worries me is the fact that courts can get it wrong and that, to put it crudely, locking them up in the same cell as a big guy named Bull is cheaper and faster.

The question of the death penalty aside, it seems to me there are three issues at stake:

1. How will the good of the community be served?
2. How, if at all, should the criminal be rehabilitated?
3. What is an appropriate punishment for the criminal's actions?

Regarding the first-named, it seems to me that the greatest good of the greatest number is best served by ensuring that the perpetrator of so heinous a crime be removed from society permanently. It's all very well to say that everyone "deserves" a second chance, but children also deserve not to be used as human guinea pigs to determine whether the criminal has genuinely reformed or not. The problem is not the recidivism rate as such, but the fact that it is near-impossible to tell whether the criminal has genuinely reformed. In any case, at a minimum, child rapists who have NOT been judged to be fully reformed need to be locked up until they are; thus, the minimum sentence, in the absence of mitigating factors, should be life with the possibility of parole.

Regarding the second factor, I think that it is clear that the right of the community to be protected from the criminal takes precedence in such a case over the criminal's right to rehabilitation. Again - as long as rehabilitation can fail, we have no right to use the public as guinea pigs.

Regarding the third factor, the particulars of the case are obviously relevant, but in any case most people in western society see child rape as among the most serious of crimes. This being the case, a short prison term is obviously incommensurate with the gravity of the offense.

Justice and the good of the community, therefore, demand that at least the possibility of a life sentence should exist and that requests for parole should not be lightly entertained. The only question remaining is what to do with the criminal during the sentence. There are two options: segregating child rapists to prevent them from being killed by their fellow inmates, and treating them as any other criminal would be treated. I advocate the later for the following reasons:
1. Equity. We have no right to treat a child rapist better than a thief.
2. Cost. It is politically impossible and morally dubious to demand an increase in the general population's tax burden for the benefit of child rapists. This being the case, which would you rather any given $100 of your tax bill was spent on - paying old-age pensions and supporting schools, or protecting child rapists from retribution?

the death penalty is always wrong. the severity of another person's actions have no bearing on the morality of one's response to that person.

Nonsense. The death penalty, to be effective, should be quicker, and more old fashioned. I think hanging is nice, or a firing squad. Put in express lanes for executing people and criminals will think twice, if they no the death penalty will actually be used...in sooner than 20 friggin years.

Absolutely. The death penalty should also be extended to murder, treason, crimes against humanity, repeated counts of (regular) rape, and a host of other unpleasentries that plague these sicko's minds.

The death penalty can be much less expensive than life without parole. Remove the lengthy appeals process: a rope costs five dollars. Conversely, keeping a man alive for 50 years could cost millions, consider food, room, board, health care, et cetera.

Well, I agree.

But do you agree?

PDF Of Original Decision ('http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2007/05KA1981.opn.pdf')

News Coverage ('http://www.nola.com/newsflash/louisiana/index.ssf?/base/news-32/1179864545234300.xml&storylist=louisiana')



IMHO, it is likely that this would be upheld by the current Supreme Court. I also believe that if Louisiana is successful, other states wishing to appear "hardline" on pedophiles will follow suit.

And since accusations of child molestation often disintegrate into witch trials we're basically looking at the first step towards returning to the lynch mob form of jurisprudence.

Absolutely. The death penalty should also be extended to murder, treason, crimes against humanity, repeated counts of (regular) rape, and a host of other unpleasentries that plague these sicko's minds.

The death penalty can be much less expensive than life without parole. Remove the lengthy appeals process: a rope costs five dollars. Conversely, keeping a man alive for 50 years could cost millions, consider food, room, board, health care, et cetera.

Yeah. And trials are a huge waste of money too. Why should criminals get trials? Rapists don't deserve to be given free room and board while we wait to find out that they're guilty. Cops have the bullets right there. Why not just plug 'em on the street and be done with it. Just drag the bodies to the curb and let the garbage men pick them up with the rest of the trash.

Nonsense. The death penalty, to be effective, should be quicker, and more old fashioned. I think hanging is nice, or a firing squad. Put in express lanes for executing people and criminals will think twice, if they no the death penalty will actually be used...in sooner than 20 friggin years.

And they should be public too. Not a few invited guests at the state pen. Madison Square Garden baby!

And ropes and firing squads make a lousy show. Strap him into a car and have the car explode while getting eaten by Crashzilla. Or maybe it could be a lottery prize that the winner gets to perform the execution in a manner of his choosing. Think of the suspense. Will he get executed by a guy who likes chainsaws? A martial artist who wants to see if that neck breaking technique really works, or if those katanas they sell on QVC really can decapitate someone in one stroke. Or maybe it will take 3 or four strokes. Or maybe it will be a guy who just wants to kick someone's skull in. Now that's a reality show.

Capital punishment is awesome.

Or maybe it's disgusting and barbaric and only appeals to ignorant hicks who vote in huge numbers in states like Louisiana and Georgia etc.

It's a bad idea only for the reason that it will encourage a rape to become a rape-murder just to eliminate witnesses.

That sort of intellectual knowing-what-the-fuck-you're talking about is for gays and liberals in Massachusetts. Real thinking is done in the gut. And the balls. That's why I always type with my penis.

If my posts seem to be getting unnecessarily pointless and juvenile because of the complete contempt with which I regard this sort of troglodytic politics.

And they should be public too. Not a few invited guests at the state pen. Madison Square Garden baby!

And ropes and firing squads make a lousy show. Strap him into a car and have the car explode while getting eaten by Crashzilla. Or maybe it could be a lottery prize that the winner gets to perform the execution in a manner of his choosing. Think of the suspense. Will he get executed by a guy who likes chainsaws? A martial artist who wants to see if that neck breaking technique really works, or if those katanas they sell on QVC really can decapitate someone in one stroke. Or maybe it will take 3 or four strokes. Or maybe it will be a guy who just wants to kick someone's skull in. Now that's a reality show.

Capital punishment is awesome.

Or maybe it's disgusting and barbaric and only appeals to ignorant hicks who vote in huge numbers in states like Louisiana and Georgia etc.


Or maybe your a fucking panzy?

Besides, there's no such thing as barbaric, you ignorant fool. Why not make executions public, but not with chainsaws and things. Just an old fashioned hanging for most crimes, and firing squad for treason.

We could just kill all the children then there would be no child rapists :D

but I don't see that going over well for some odd reason...

Totally against death penalty for anything except murder, and even then it should be used sparingly.

Well, I agree.

But do you agree?

PDF Of Original Decision ('http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2007/05KA1981.opn.pdf')

News Coverage ('http://www.nola.com/newsflash/louisiana/index.ssf?/base/news-32/1179864545234300.xml&storylist=louisiana')



IMHO, it is likely that this would be upheld by the current Supreme Court. I also believe that if Louisiana is successful, other states wishing to appear "hardline" on pedophiles will follow suit.

As abhorrent, horrid, and damaging rape is to anyone, let alone a child, I think that the death penalty would have a tragic result: if you knew the penalty were to die for raping the child, why not kill them so they can't report the rape?

Historically, we saw this with highwaymen in the UK -- since stealing a sheep carried a death sentence, and murder carried a death sentence as well -- why not commit the more lucrative crime and be a bandit?

Yeah. And trials are a huge waste of money too. Why should criminals get trials? Rapists don't deserve to be given free room and board while we wait to find out that they're guilty. Cops have the bullets right there. Why not just plug 'em on the street and be done with it. Just drag the bodies to the curb and let the garbage men pick them up with the rest of the trash.
The death penalty as it stands gives the defendant an absurd amount of appeals. If it is proven original beyond any doubt that the person did a crime worthy of capital punishment, no appeals, go directly to the chair, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

And about death penalty being more expensive, maybe per prisoner without taking anything else into consideration. More people who get put in jail for life without parole and more people who get put in jail for petty crimes and absurd drug offenses force the state to build more and more jails to accommodate the exponentially increasing jail community.

Uhh... no. No death sentences. Not even for the latest and greatest flavour-of-the-month crimes. Nuh-uh.

And they should be public too. Not a few invited guests at the state pen. Madison Square Garden baby!

And ropes and firing squads make a lousy show. Strap him into a car and have the car explode while getting eaten by Crashzilla. Or maybe it could be a lottery prize that the winner gets to perform the execution in a manner of his choosing. Think of the suspense. Will he get executed by a guy who likes chainsaws? A martial artist who wants to see if that neck breaking technique really works, or if those katanas they sell on QVC really can decapitate someone in one stroke. Or maybe it will take 3 or four strokes. Or maybe it will be a guy who just wants to kick someone's skull in. Now that's a reality show.

Capital punishment is awesome.

*snip punchline*

When your lucky number comes up, and the sicko is tied to a rack, at your mercy ... will you choose Death by Irony?

I expect it would take several hours, and you might be tempted to finish it off with the chainsaw. I'd have used the katana, myself ;)

I think we should definatly use the death penalty for child rapists, for three reasons.

1. I'm a child (14) and dont want to be raped

2. When facing a death sentence, people will think twice before raping any children

3. That will be 1 less child rapist to worry about

And, as far as the death penalty is concerned, I think we should get rid of the very expensive, you dont feel a thing, euthanasia deaths, and go back to the much cheaper, hang them by a rope technicque.

Nobody killed, no death penalty.

Nobody killed, no death penalty.

What if they raped 30 little kids?

What if they raped 30 little kids?

Murdering 30 people is no more deserving of the death penalty than murdering one, for what reason does quantity matter here?

Rape and murder are entirely different classes of crime.

What if they raped 30 little kids?

Problem with the judicial system in America is that whether or not a person committed a crime does not matter. The only thing that matters is that the prosecutor can make it appear that the person committed the crime. Obviously, most people convicted of such crimes did infact commit them. However, there are still a great to many people who committed no crime whatsoever, and were convicted. An unfortunate flaw of our system(Not saying it's necessarily a bad system, just pointing out the flaw). Due to this, even if convicted of the most heinous crimes, I am against the Death Penalty. One can stop a prison sentence(albeit with difficulty) by proving innocence, yet what if a person is proven innocent after they have been killed? An apology? One cannot stop a person from being dead.

Thus, it is far better, regardless of crime, that a person serves time in prison than be put to death, at least in my mind. At least then, there is a chance at redemption for the innocent.

Thus, it is far better, regardless of crime, that a person serves time in prison than be put to death, at least in my mind. At least then, there is a chance at redemption for the innocent.

While I might have agreed to this argument 20-30 years ago, I don't anymore because of modern DNA technology.

While I might have agreed to this argument 20-30 years ago, I don't anymore because of modern DNA technology.

It can still happen. I will agree it occurs with far less frequency, but it is still possible, and occurs today.

Death to Predatory Pedophiles is not only an idea I agree with, it would be one of the things the legal system might do that puts a smile on face.

I might suggest they start with my cousin who is currently serving out what amounts to 150 years for his rape of several children.

Damn right. Parasites, the whole group. There needs to be no possibility of release.

Yes. Child rapists are scum deserving of death.

My post is to the subject of "method of execution." It is not entirely on-topic, but addresses the vengeance/punishment theme which keeps coming up in debates on the death penalty.

It is not meant to have any relevance to the economics of punishment (which is off-topic too) nor to the question of whether child rape deserves the death penalty. As such it is off-topic.

I was just researching the topic, and I found this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/Methods_of_executions_in_the_United_States.PNG/800px-Methods_of_executions_in_the_United_States.PNG
From wikipedia, "capital punishment"

This is a graph of execution methods in the USA, which I'm sure you would agree is the ideal example of a democratic republic which employs the death penalty in enough quantity and in a consistent way over this kind of period (two centuries) to give good statistics.

Statistics, did I say? Look at the picture again. That is a picture of some statistics, aka, a graph.

The big red bulge is executions by hanging. They peaked at around 1900, and you can quite clearly see them being steadily phased out in favour of electrocution, in black.
Then there's the gas chamber (blue,) a great idea the Nazis decided to adopt, the new best practice in execution. Despite being new and different, it doesn't phase out electrocution very convincingly in the US, but it is clearly favoured over hanging.

There is a hiatus, which I think was caused by a federal ban on executions. It is simply irrelevant to my point, which is to the the method of execution.

Once execution is resumed, electrocution is favoured over hanging or gassing, but it was quickly discarded in favour of lethal injection.
Yes, quickly. Look at the graph. The black (electrocution) jumps up to a certain level (because I posit: existing electrocution infrastructure) but lethal injection takes the show. It is the current best practice in the US.

Now consider this:

Hanging kills by physical assault: it breaks an essential part of the human body. It is neither more nor less humane than the guillotine, though a more definite and painless assault than stoning.
Gassing attacks the body at a cellular level, causing cessation of cellular life, and the shutdown of the nervous system at more or less the same time. But it leaves the victim with a choice: to breathe or not to breathe.
Electrocution attacks the nervous system, the electricity being conducted through the nerves with enough current to burn them out, or at least stop the heart. It was unreliable and probably painful, but usually very quick.
Lethal injection kills consciousness by stages, finishing it painlessly at about the time it stops cellular activity. It is extremely reliable, and allows easily for the anonymity and impersonality of the executioner.


If you can't see a clear trend there, from barbaric (brutal, hateful and inhuman) to civilized (the State owning the decision, ethical and without hatred), then the next step will have to involve coloured blocks.

The death penalty may be right or wrong ... I've heard such good arguments for both sides that I'm left amemic on the subject ... but clearly the trend is towards taking the life, if it must be taken, and letting this alone be the punishment.

It remains to be seen whether using medical technology to kill can be discarded in favour of some even purer of form of capital punishment. I have some ideas, but I'll leave it there for now.

not only no but hell no! in what way would this be any less unconscionably absurd that then the sharia stoning of women for having an extramerital affair, (or even having been themselves raped)?

=^^=
.../\...

Yes. Child rapists are scum deserving of death.

yea man.....i tottaly agree on dat one.....they deserve death:sniper:

I live in Canada, so I don't advocate the death penalty for anything, except this: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=528594

So your opinion is "child rapists deserve death" ?

I'm only asking because you just shot your own opinion, so I'm not sure if you really meant it, or whether you meant the opposite?

Shhh... you with your logic and all. Stop it. We're busy emotionally sentencing people to death.

The funny part is it's hard not to be torn on this issue. I just find it amazing that so many people can be so comfortable with the "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" kind of thing.

not only no but hell no! in what way would this be any less unconscionably absurd that then the sharia stoning of women for having an extramerital affair, (or even having been themselves raped)?

=^^=
.../\...

Well, for one (see my long post above) stoning is less humane than lethal injection. Argue if you will.

For another, the "offences" are not even vaguely comparable.

Your offer to debate Shari'a law is declined.

Shhh... you with your logic and all. Stop it. We're busy emotionally sentencing people to death.

The funny part is it's hard not to be torn on this issue. I just find it amazing that so many people can be so comfortable with the "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" kind of thing.

Well it tears me as well, but I'm not claiming the power to fix it. As you very wisely said before, a rape is harmful in ways which cannot be undone.

Once the crime has been committed, the world is a worse place. We can patch up the community, the victims can recover, the perpetrator can repent to the point where they will certainly never do it again, but we can't do anything to reverse what has happened.

There is no "un-raping," it is not an offence comparable to fraud, where losses can be recouped. Fraud is an offence which can be measured in dollars of harm and gain, and simply reversed in dollars. The harm of rape is measured in experience, which cannot be translated into dollars, and cannot even be repayed in experience, because unlike my dollars and your dollars, experience isn't transferable.

So I think that is why otherwise reasonable people just resort to the death penalty. It's all too hard, they screw their eyes shut and cut loose with the worst thing they can think of. When they open their eyes, they want to see smoke and dead bodies, and after that it really makes no difference who was right or wrong. "Kill 'em all" indeed.

Well it tears me as well, but I'm not claiming the power to fix it. As you very wisely said before, a rape is harmful in ways which cannot be undone.

Once the crime has been committed, the world is a worse place. We can patch up the community, the victims can recover, the perpetrator can repent to the point where they will certainly never do it again, but we can't do anything to reverse what has happened.

There is no "un-raping," it is not an offence comparable to fraud, where losses can be recouped. Fraud is an offence which can be measured in dollars of harm and gain, and simply reversed in dollars. The harm of rape is measured in experience, which cannot be translated into dollars, and cannot even be repayed in experience, because unlike my dollars and your dollars, experience isn't transferable.

So I think that is why otherwise reasonable people just resort to the death penalty. It's all too hard, they screw their eyes shut and cut loose with the worst thing they can think of. When they open their eyes, they want to see smoke and dead bodies, and after that it really makes no difference who was right or wrong. "Kill 'em all" indeed.

I have said in the past that nothing can undo the rape (and I've said the same about murder), but I'd like to point out, lest I get credit, that I've never said it as eloquently as that. I rarely say this, but I couldn't agree more. Nicely put.

Life in prison, no parole, general population.

Death penalty is too costly.

More costly than keeping them in prison for decades eating three square meals a day, with taxpayers providing their bed, clothes, food, and their cable television? Some murderers and rapists serving life in prison live better than people who have never committed a crime. They're not starving to death in the street like thousands of American citizens are in "the greatest country in the world".

I must say that I am for the death penalty for some cases, ie Bundy, Gacey, the railroad killer. But in this case I must say that the death penalty is far too easy for the aggressor, life in the general population would fit the bill nicely.

More costly than keeping them in prison for decades eating three square meals a day, with taxpayers providing their bed, clothes, food, and their cable television? Some murderers and rapists serving life in prison live better than people who have never committed a crime. They're not starving to death in the street like thousands of American citizens are in "the greatest country in the world".

Um, yes, more costly. Have you been reading the thread? In maximum security prisons, prisoners are not sitting around watching Oprah all day, despite what you read on blogs.

Death penalty for the second offense. Castration for the first :p

How can a justice system punish the guilty, yet not reward the virtuous?

Doesn't that make it an injustice system, since its only action is to harm?

Sorry folks. Institutionalized murder might make YOU feel better, but the penalty is not proportionate to the crime. There is a reason the death penalty may only apply in capital murder and high treason cases. It is proportionate to the crime of taking a life or infamously selling out your country.

Once you open the door of applying the death penalty routinely for serious, non-homicidal crimes, you lessen the impact of the penalty.

Child rape is a heinous, infamous crime, but there are better ways of handling a child rapist than death. You might not get the instant satisfaction of hearing about them snuffing it, but I assure you a life sentence is much more painful and punishing in the long term.

Chemical castration is just...wrong. A stand out example of cruel and unusual punishment.

While I might have agreed to this argument 20-30 years ago, I don't anymore because of modern DNA technology.

There are still juries and a human element. Humans make mistakes. The dangers of a wrongful conviction will always be present in a legal system.

DNA is not a perfect solution either. There will be mistakes and wrongful interpretations there as well.

There are still juries and a human element. Humans make mistakes. The dangers of a wrongful conviction will always be present in a legal system.

DNA is not a perfect solution either. There will be mistakes and wrongful interpretations there as well.

Not to mention that there are cases where DNA is not involved, which makes the whole thing DNA testing thing a moot point.

The real problem with child rape is that children are easily susceptible to manipulation. If the rapist is someone whom the child trusts, such as a family member or family friend, it is possible for that person to ingrain a false truth within them to cover their tracks. Which only makes these cases all that much more difficult. Not saying that those accused are necessarily innocent of the crime, but going on a child's word alone can be... troubling.