NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/25/scotus.child.rape/index.html

Here's the part I need help with: 5-4 decision?

I want to read the dissenting opinion. The article doesn't have it, which leaves me looking for it. If anybody finds it, could you post it? This should be good.

Edit: Nevermind. They added it:

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissent, saying, "The harm that is caused to the victims and to society at large by the worst child rapist is grave." He was supported by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

In his dissent, Alito wrote that the majority ruled against the death penalty "no matter how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted and no matter how heinous the perpetrator's criminal record may be."

For definite proof, death for the following:

-More then four counts of rape.

-More then two counts of murder.

-Treason.

Edit: Nevermind. They added it:

Quote:
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissent, saying, "The harm that is caused to the victims and to society at large by the worst child rapist is grave." He was supported by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

In his dissent, Alito wrote that the majority ruled against the death penalty "no matter how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted and no matter how heinous the perpetrator's criminal record may be."
Horrible. Disgusting.

The consititution has nothing against capital punishment, yet that's the judges ruling? Insanity.
Edit: I agree with Judge Samuel Alito

No capital punishment, full stop, would be a better ruling.

I already disagree with capital punishment (and live somewhere where it doesn't exist) so this doesn't change anything for me.

For definite proof, death for the following:

-More then four counts of rape.

-More then two counts of murder.

-Treason.


Horrible. Disgusting.

The consititution has nothing against capital punishment, yet that's the judges ruling? Insanity.
Edit: I agree with Judge Samuel Alito

I consider 'life without parole' to be a death penalty. In fact, I consider it to be worse. I may be the minority here, but when I see a man like this, I see a man I want to have a nice long quasi-existence decaying in a tiny cell. And I know my streak of barbarism might disgust some, but I'd also like to point out that other men in prison have a very healthy attitude toward child molesters in prison.

But requardless of that last remark, I don't think this man deserves a quick death.

No capital punishment, full stop, would be a better ruling.

With this I agree, but we probably agree for different reasons.

No capital punishment, full stop, would be a better ruling.

A man breaks out of prison and rapes you several times over before the police catch up to him.

Three weeks later, he kills all of his guards, escapes, and rapes you again. Are you REALLY going to say "Nah, just put him in there for life, it's not like it'll happen again, right?"

I consider 'life without parole' to be a death penalty. In fact, I consider it to be worse.

I agree if only it actually meant 'life without parole'. All to often Lifers are being extended a hand of generosity for good behavior. Personally, once you are given life without parole your case should never be considered by a Parole Board, period.

But requardless of that last remark, I don't think this man deserves a quick death.

Amen.....

A man breaks out of prison and rapes you several times over before the police catch up to him.

Three weeks later, he kills all of his guards, escapes, and rapes you again. Are you REALLY going to say "Nah, just put him in there for life, it's not like it'll happen again, right?"

Its OK, Robocop wouldn't let that happen.

A man breaks out of prison and rapes you several times over before the police catch up to him.

Three weeks later, he kills all of his guards, escapes, and rapes you again. Are you REALLY going to say "Nah, just put him in there for life, it's not like it'll happen again, right?"


Yes, as a matter of fact I would. The problem here though isn't that he raped someone, it is the obvious major problems with the prison he was at. Someone really needs to correct those problems. He never should have been able to get out of prison in the first place.

A man breaks out of prison and rapes you several times over before the police catch up to him.

Three weeks later, he kills all of his guards, escapes, and rapes you again. Are you REALLY going to say "Nah, just put him in there for life, it's not like it'll happen again, right?"

A crooked cop gets someone you know death sentence for something you know they didn't commit. The person is killed and you never ever have proof about it.

Three years later, the same cop does the same thing to someone else you know. Are you REALLY going to say "Ah, well, it's worth it, at least SOME criminals are dying, right?"?

I consider 'life without parole' to be a death penalty. In fact, I consider it to be worse.

Depends on the jail and on what one calls "without parole" IMO.
Of course, I have pleaded for enslaving such people in the past ;)

A crooked cop gets someone you know death sentence for something you know they didn't commit. The person is killed and you never ever have proof about it.

Three years later, the same cop does the same thing to someone else you know. Are you REALLY going to say "Ah, well, it's worth it, at least SOME criminals are dying, right?"?
Definite proof. As in his DNA is on the knife, his alibi is crappy and contradictory at best, he had the victims blood on him when the cops came and found him, he had a violent history, a motive, and witnesses.

Yes, as a matter of fact I would. The problem here though isn't that he raped someone, it is the obvious major problems with the prison he was at. Someone really needs to correct those problems. He never should have been able to get out of prison in the first place.
And as you say that, the man from the prison comes in and rapes you again. "It's okay, just put him back in for life." Right? NEVER underestimate the inefficiency of the government.

And as you say that, the man from the prison comes in and rapes you again. "It's okay, just put him back in for life." Right? NEVER underestimate the inefficiency of the government.

The death penalty is one of the most inefficient punishments in existence.
In the USA at least.

Definite proof. As in his DNA is on the knife, his alibi is crappy and contradictory at best, he had the victims blood on him when the cops came and found him, he had a violent history, a motive, and witnesses.

Still not enough.

Plus if you want revenge, you can always watch the guy rot in prison instead of a quick death.

Point:
U.S. Supreme Court rulings in 1976 and 1977 barred capital punishment for rape -- and by implication any other crime except murder.

The death penalty is one of the most inefficient punishments in existence.
In the USA at least.
Because they have those murderers on death row for YEARS! They should have a limit to the amount of time spent on death row before the actual execution!
Still not enough.

Plus if you want revenge, you can always watch the guy rot in prison instead of a quick death.
And several cameras recording the whole thing in a public place like Downtown Baltimore in the daylight. That enough?

I consider 'life without parole' to be a death penalty. In fact, I consider it to be worse. I may be the minority here, but when I see a man like this, I see a man I want to have a nice long quasi-existence decaying in a tiny cell. And I know my streak of barbarism might disgust some, but I'd also like to point out that other men in prison have a very healthy attitude toward child molesters in prison.

But requardless of that last remark, I don't think this man deserves a quick death.

Its times like this that I wish we didn't stop using the gas chamber. He most certainly deserves it.

The consititution has nothing against capital punishment,

It's the "cruel and unusual" part, I think.

Because they have those murderers on death row for YEARS! They should have a limit to the amount of time spent on death row before the actual execution!

And several cameras recording the whole thing in a public place like Downtown Baltimore in the daylight. That enough?

1- Considering how many of those were RELEASED DUE TO INNOCENCE, "years" is not enough.

2- That'd be wasteful and idiotic, not to mention in breach of several rights. Plus the guy would always be able to - for instance - masturbate in front of the cameras and whatnot.

It's the "cruel and unusual" part, I think.

Ah, but what constitutes cruel and unusual? Death is not unusual. And if you want cruel, our prison system'll do fine.

I'm British, people aren't allowed to be killed here :)

-Treason.

whats is it with USians and Treason :confused:

SNIP

its always worried me how you seem to enjoy the thought of prison rape

1- Considering how many of those were RELEASED DUE TO INNOCENCE, "years" is not enough.

2- That'd be wasteful and idiotic, not to mention in breach of several rights. Plus the guy would always be able to - for instance - masturbate in front of the cameras and whatnot.
1. Note the sheer amount of evidence needed.

2. So people can't have video cameras or those little video phones in public anymore? Wow, what have I missed?

Because they have those murderers on death row for YEARS! They should have a limit to the amount of time spent on death row before the actual execution!

Exactly. How would you propose to achieve that, without hurting justice ?

Again: pick slavery. Most Americans seem to have no problem whatsoever with buying lots of products made by 8 year old children working 18 hours a day for less than a dollar, so I do not see why so many deem it morally wrong if it was done by criminals.

It's the "cruel and unusual" part, I think.

Technically speaking that isn't against the death penalty since many people, I'm sure, were executed under Washington's regieme. No, that clause of the constitution means that a person will not be tortured by authorities, and caused excessive (or hopefully any) physical harm that is not necessitated by his own behavior (i.e he deserves a beat down if he lashes out at a penitentury guard, but the arresting police should put the smack down on him unless he's particularly recalcitrant). However the death penalty is fine, so long as you're not using the guitine or an axe. Firing squad, gas chamber, electric chair, etc, all things we did use for years and in some areas still use (that applies to electric chair and gas chamber) are protected by the constitution (and I'm a strict constructionist).

1. Note the sheer amount of evidence needed.

2. So people can't have video cameras or those little video phones in public anymore? Wow, what have I missed?

1- So you admit your system is currently handing death sentences willy-nilly?

2- People can if they wish, but most prisons aren't out in public.

I'm British, people aren't allowed to be killed here :)

We'll see about that...:sniper::p
whats is it with USians and Treason :confused:
Treason is one of the few laws actually in the constitution.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Take WW2.
I really don't think I want a man who has just released valuable information of when an attack is going to happen to the Nazis. like D-Day. Think of the outcome then? What would D-Day have turned out then?
its always worried me how you seem to enjoy the thought of prison rape
Connect the dots CTP.:eek:

Ah, but what constitutes cruel and unusual?

Someone better versed in such things should probably answer this question, but my understanding is that the Supreme Court adheres to the current social consensus about those categories.

That's why the majority opinion cites the paucity of cases in recent decades where the death penalty has been used against non-murderers.

Death is not unusual.

But state killing for crimes short of murder is.

And if you want cruel, our prison system'll do fine.

But "cruel" as part of the phrase "cruel and usual" suggests a sort of gratuitous or excessive cruelty, not the cruelty intrinsic to the sorts of ways modern societies deal with crime.

Exactly. How would you propose to achieve that, without hurting justice ?

Again: pick slavery. Most Americans seem to have no problem whatsoever with buying lots of products made by 8 year old children working 18 hours a day for less than a dollar, so I do not see why so many deem it morally wrong if it was done by criminals.

I'm completely ok with having prisoners do hard, slave labour. I think that they should be so that they can earn their rather expensive keep. Technically speaking its more expensive to kill them than it is to warehouse them, which still doesn't make sense to me but its what I've been told, or else I'd advocate executing anyone whos been sentenced for life, is a rapist, or has been imprisoned more than three times. Some people say, "People make mistakes." Which I agree with. But if you've gone to jail three times you obviously aren't willing to play by societies rules and as such you will not be a member of our society. Just my take.

1- So you admit your system is currently handing death sentences willy-nilly?

2- People can if they wish, but most prisons aren't out in public.
1. Yeah. It needs to be handling them FAR more efficiently, and it needs to be much quicker.

2.??? When did this turn to prisons again? I thought we were past that? I'm saying a man takes a knife to several innocent people and:
His DNA is on the knife, his alibi is crappy and contradictory at best, he had the victims blood on him when the cops came and found him, he had a violent history, a motive, witnesses, several of whom managed to get him on a video tape in the middle of downtown Blatimore in the daylight.

We'll see about that...:sniper::p

*is issued ASBO for dying in public*

Treason is one of the few laws actually in the constitution.

yeah...and?

Take WW2.
I really don't think I want a man who has just released valuable information of when an attack is going to happen to the Nazis. like D-Day. Think of the outcome then? What would D-Day have turned out then?

do you have any idea of what treason can be defined as?

Connect the dots CTP.:eek

LG is my gay Prison bubba?!

The problem is that the whole idea behind capital punishment isn't to punish, it's to discourage others from committing the same crime.

It's not going to work with child rapists because the motivation for the crime itself is mental illness. If somebody has an illness that compels them to commit this crime, their reason isn't going to stop them because of the penalty either.

Someone better versed in such things should probably answer this question, but my understanding is that the Supreme Court adheres to the current social consensus about those categories.

That's why the majority opinion cites the paucity of cases in recent decades where the death penalty has been used against non-murderers.


Ah. Tyranny by majority I believe it is known as. If a majority opinion is no death penalty for murders, let it be so. if the majority opinion is to have the government pay for everything, give them a Plasma TV and a $700,000 home per person and pander to their every whim, let it be. Right?
But state killing for crimes short of murder is.
In your OPINION! The world is made of opinions, yours is not the only one.

But "cruel" as part of the phrase "cruel and usual" suggests a sort of gratuitous or excessive cruelty, not the cruelty intrinsic to the sorts of ways modern societies deal with crime.
I'd say our prison system is excessively cruel. And inefficient.

Its obvious that the SCOTUS is full of liberal activists that hate our children.

The problem is that the whole idea behind capital punishment isn't to punish, it's to discourage others from committing the same crime.

It's not going to work with child rapists because the motivation for the crime itself is mental illness. If somebody has an illness that compels them to commit this crime, their reason isn't going to stop them because of the penalty either.

No it's not. It's function is to rid the world of someone who can't be rehabilitated and is more dangerous to keep alive than to kill.

Sociopaths and the like.

No it's not. It's function is to rid the world of someone who can't be rehabilitated and is more dangerous to keep alive than to kill.

its weird how sociaty wasn't that twisted even when we hung people for theft :(

No it's not. It's function is to rid the world of someone who can't be rehabilitated and is more dangerous to keep alive than to kill.

Sociopaths and the like.

That's what life in prison/mental institutions is for.

Ah. Tyranny by majority I believe it is known as. If a majority opinion is no death penalty for murders, let it be so. if the majority opinion is to have the government pay for everything, give them a Plasma TV and a $700,000 home per person and pander to their every whim, let it be. Right?

He meant the majority opinion of the court, not the majority of people.

*is issued ASBO for dying in public*

??? ASBO?
yeah...and?
And I like the constitution unlike many modern politicians.
do you have any idea of what treason can be defined as?
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them AID and Comfort.
Enemies, giving them AID and Comfort.
Enemies, giving them AID
Aid as in help. Help can be in a number of ways. Including information.
LG is my gay Prison bubba?!
"Now who wants my ten pounds?":p

its always worried me how you seem to enjoy the thought of prison rape

Why the sudden jump to the premise of prison rape? Couldn't I have just been referring to violent beatings? Maybe it should worry me how quickly you inferred prison rape. :p

But to be generous, let's assume I were advocating....no, not advocating; more like nonjudgemental regarding prison rape. My not being in prison seems to help. I suspect I'd have a lower regard for prison rape if I were in prison. I have also noticed that while I frown on death and killing, I seem to take considerable amusement in the pain and injury of others. Especially those whose misfortunes are either their own doing or an occupational hazard. I'm not going to pretend it's very nice of me.

That's what life in prison/mental institutions is for.

Yes. So, now there's no reason for capital punishment.

That's what life in prison/mental institutions is for.
Until they break out, as some do.

Yes. So, now there's no reason for capital punishment.

I agree with that, although I'm not sure if you were being cynical or serious ;)

LG is my gay Prison bubba?!

Would you like me to be?

Until they break out, as some do.

So what?

"Sorry but we have to reinstate capital punishment because criminals are generally smarter than us and we can't figure out how to build a prison secure enough."

I mean, I could counter with the argument that when you HAVE capital punishment, sometimes innocents are wrongly executed.

So what?

"Sorry but we have to reinstate capital punishment because criminals are generally smarter than us and we can't figure out how to build a prison secure enough."

I mean, I could counter with the argument that when you HAVE capital punishment, sometimes innocents are wrongly executed.

And when you DON'T have capital punishment, MANY innocents are wrongly killed by people who shoud've been RIGHTLY executed!

Until they break out, as some do.
If they break out shoot them. You can't let a criminal who is smarter/stronger than the system survive. (http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Gary_Mitchell)
I agree with that, although I'm not sure if you were being cynical or serious ;)

I can be both.

And when you DON'T have capital punishment, MANY innocents are wrongly killed by people who shoud've been RIGHTLY executed!
Caps lock?

You must be right...

Caps lock?

You must be right...

Mind actually replying to the post? Or are you going to comment on my choice of emphasis all day?

And when you DON'T have capital punishment, MANY innocents are wrongly killed by people who shoud've been RIGHTLY executed!

Or held in prison better/longer. You want to kill somebody on the off chance that they may/or may not someday escape and may or may not offend again while they're at large.

But the fact is, someone who raped children is SICK. When someone has a sickness do you punish them for being sick or do you treat them?

Not too long ago the insane were kept in prison-like conditions because their insanity was not understood to be mental illness. Later, when our understanding improved, we started to treat them not as prisoners, but as patients, and voila'! Progress.

Is it as emotionally satisfying as killing them? I guess it isn't, but let's be honest: People who want to execute child rapists aren't doing it for the good of children. They do it for the emotional satisfaction of getting revenge.

Or held in prison better/longer. You want to kill somebody on the off chance that they may/or may not someday escape and may or may not offend again while they're at large.

But the fact is, someone who raped children is SICK. When someone has a sickness do you punish them for being sick or do you treat them?

Not too long ago the insane were kept in prison-like conditions because their insanity was not understood to be mental illness. Later, when our understanding improved, we started to treat them not as prisoners, but as patients, and voila'! Progress.

Is it as emotionally satisfying as killing them? I guess it isn't, but let's be honest: People who want to execute child rapists aren't doing it for the good of children. They do it for the emotional satisfaction of getting revenge.
Can all sicknesses be cured? Is it better to have one reformed man and twenty emotionally scarred children, or one emotionally scarred child and one dead sick man?

Mind actually replying to the post? Or are you going to comment on my choice of emphasis all day?
I'd rather defuse pointless escalation of of internet arguments, if it's all the same.

Can all sicknesses be cured? Is it better to have one reformed man and twenty emotionally scarred children, or one emotionally scarred child and one dead sick man?

1)Do we execute mental patients who can't be cured?
2)I think there's real value to a system where we treat child rapists as patients. God forbid we start to learn what causes it and just maybe find a way to prevent it being committed by others.

...but dammit... that's just so much harder and less satisfying, isn't it?

Can all sicknesses be cured? Is it better to have one reformed man and twenty emotionally scarred children, or one emotionally scarred child and one dead sick man?

Your argument seems to be resting heavily on the idea that people imprisoned for life are likely to escape at some point. I've not checked, but I'm fairly certain that very few people actually escape especially those in high security prisons.

Your argument seems to be resting heavily on the idea that people imprisoned for life are likely to escape at some point. I've not checked, but I'm fairly certain that very few people actually escape especially those in high security prisons.

Not only that, but especially dangerous escapees are pretty much always caught, as the state makes a genuine and concerted effort to recapture them.

and quickly.

??? ASBO?

Anti Social Behavior Order

And I like the constitution unlike many modern politicians.

I prefer cheese crackers myself but that doesn't mean I'm going to worship its every word like the new messiah...wait what was I getting at?

oh right urm just because a piece of paper says something doesn't make it true

Aid as in help. Help can be in a number of ways. Including information.

or looking after wounded, having a relationship with an enemy soldier or giving a soldier a light...

Maybe it should worry me how quickly you inferred prison rape. :p

we all think about the same thing when we see a jumpsuit :p

I have also noticed that while I frown on death and killing, I seem to take considerable amusement in the pain and injury of others. Especially those whose misfortunes are either their own doing or an occupational hazard. I'm not going to pretend it's very nice of me.

its all good fun until someone slips on that bar of soap left in the showers

also shouldn't the slipping on banana peel not cripple them for the rest of their lives?

Would you like me to be?

you would just trade me for some cigarettes after you have had your filthy mud encrusted way with me :(

1)Do we execute mental patients who can't be cured?
2)I think there's real value to a system where we treat child rapists as patients. God forbid we start to learn what causes it and just maybe find a way to prevent it being committed by others.

...but dammit... that's just so much harder and less satisfying, isn't it?
1. Wouldn't know, I don't run an insane asylum.
2. Which is it? The twenty scarred kids or the one dead, mentally ill man? Besides, now without the death penalty we aren't solving anything. We just throw them in jail, and don't do a darn thing about it.

Your argument seems to be resting heavily on the idea that people imprisoned for life are likely to escape at some point. I've not checked, but I'm fairly certain that very few people actually escape especially those in high security prisons.
Did you know very few people commit murder? It shouldn't be a crime any more.

Did you know very few people commit murder? It shouldn't be a crime any more.

I didn't say that nothing should be done, I said that the risk of someone escaping prison is negligible. So is the risk of getting murdered - or do you walk around freaking out that everyone is trying to kill you?

But the fact is, someone who raped children is SICK. When someone has a sickness do you punish them for being sick or do you treat them?.

This approach will inevitably break down with the realization that most violence has neuro-physiological underpinnings. As is almost all of our behavior. You vote for one party or another because of the way your brain is wired- you rape a child because of the way your brain is wired, where is the border between sickness and simple difference in behavior? We end up in the Dystopian future where any potentially dangerous sign of maladjustment is considered a symptom, and patients are treated, for their own good, of course.

The answer is, of course, that punishment really does serve to deter. Even the "sick" take rational steps to avoid detection and capture, proof enough that on some level, their brains do process the potential down sides to their actions. The recent New York case of torture and abuse of a young woman is an example. So the sick brain does indeed understand punishment, and if you drop the punishment, you reward the behavior.


Not too long ago the insane were kept in prison-like conditions because their insanity was not understood to be mental illness. Later, when our understanding improved, we started to treat them not as prisoners, but as patients, and voila'! Progress..

Indeed, now instead of being kept in cells by wardens they are kept in locked rooms by doctors, or if they are marginally functional they can be kept at "group homes" at enourmous expense, or, when we don't have sufficient excess funds for that purpose, left to roam the streets of major cities like animals.

For the most part, progress seems to mean they can now watch television.

This approach will inevitably break down with the realization that most violence has neuro-physiological underpinnings. As is almost all of our behavior. You vote for one party or another because of the way your brain is wired- you rape a child because of the way your brain is wired, where is the border between sickness and simple difference in behavior? We end up in the Dystopian future where any potentially dangerous sign of maladjustment is considered a symptom, and patients are treated, for their own good, of course.

The answer is, of course, that punishment really does serve to deter. Even the "sick" take rational steps to avoid detection and capture, proof enough that on some level, their brains do process the potential down sides to their actions. The recent New York case of torture and abuse of a young woman is an example. So the sick brain does indeed understand punishment, and if you drop the punishment, you reward the behavior.



If punishment deters then where is the deterent from going from child raping to child killing? If he gets caught it's death penalty either way right? It seems like reasonable insurance to kill those who might tell.

Caps lock?

You must be right...

because let it never be forgotten that statistics, citations, arguments and proof can all be ignored when the poster TALKS LIKE THIS.

Besides, now without the death penalty we aren't solving anything. We just throw them in jail, and don't do a darn thing about it.

I'm unsure how killing someone after the fact solves anything at all.

If punishment deters then where is the deterent from going from child raping to child killing? If he gets caught it's death penalty either way right? It seems like reasonable insurance to kill those who might tell.

Indeed, in fact, I remember some time ago when one state or another was considering the death penalty for rape, many women's groups came out against it, for just that reason. If you make rape punishable by the same sentence as murder, all you end up with is dead rape victims.

If punishment deters then where is the deterent from going from child raping to child killing? If he gets caught it's death penalty either way right? It seems like reasonable insurance to kill those who might tell.

That is a serious problem.
Once you've defined the ultimate punishment, if you assign it to less than ultimate crimes, what have you got left for the ultimate crime?

It cuts both ways- if you take Capital Punishment off the table, then you're stuck with "it's life imprisonment either way", same dilemna.

But if you go with "claim insanity, 2-5 years therapy, convince the shrink you're clean and you're free", that's also open to abuse.

There's always the idea of changing the nature of how the death penalty is administered- "child rape would have gotten you lethal injection, but then you killed the kid, so it's the chain saws" but that runs afoul of my civilized side.

On the third hand, rumor has it that bad things happen to child rapers in prison.

Not every dilemna presents a quick solution.

1. Wouldn't know, I don't run an insane asylum.
2. Which is it? The twenty scarred kids or the one dead, mentally ill man? Besides, now without the death penalty we aren't solving anything. We just throw them in jail, and don't do a darn thing about it.


False dichotomy. Do you have some sort of factual data that supports the argument that every child rapists has 20 victims? And is that before, or after the escape which you seem to feel is inevitable?

This approach will inevitably break down with the realization that most violence has neuro-physiological underpinnings. As is almost all of our behavior. You vote for one party or another because of the way your brain is wired- you rape a child because of the way your brain is wired, where is the border between sickness and simple difference in behavior? We end up in the Dystopian future where any potentially dangerous sign of maladjustment is considered a symptom, and patients are treated, for their own good, of course.

The answer is, of course, that punishment really does serve to deter. Even the "sick" take rational steps to avoid detection and capture, proof enough that on some level, their brains do process the potential down sides to their actions. The recent New York case of torture and abuse of a young woman is an example. So the sick brain does indeed understand punishment, and if you drop the punishment, you reward the behavior.


The problem is that it isn't that simple. Does anyone actually deny that there's a mental illness behind the idea of child rape? There are actual predictable factors that go into the formation of the condition.

Not only that but here's a new question to consider. How do you define a rape severe enough to warrant the death penalty? Rape is a pretty broadly defines crime, so would ALL such rapes be punishable by death, or only the most severe ones, defined by some arbitrary line?


Indeed, now instead of being kept in cells by wardens they are kept in locked rooms by doctors, or if they are marginally functional they can be kept at "group homes" at enourmous expense, or, when we don't have sufficient excess funds for that purpose, left to roam the streets of major cities like animals.

For the most part, progress seems to mean they can now watch television.

Then perhaps the funds would be better spent on the prevention side. A little education goes a long way.

To me, child rape is spiritual murder.

When a child is raped you murder the child within them and doom them to a life without innocence, replacing it with sorrow and suffering.

Should child rapists pay for their crimes through execution, hell yes they should.

To me, child rape is spiritual murder.

When a child is raped you murder the child within them and doom them to a life without innocence, replacing it with sorrow and suffering.

Should child rapists pay for their crimes through execution, hell yes they should.

By that logic all survivors of a child rape should be put to death as a mercy killing :rolleyes:

By that logic all survivors of a child rape should be put to death as a mercy killing :rolleyes:

Where does that logic come from :rolleyes::confused:

To me, child rape is spiritual murder.
Ooooohhkaaaaaaay...

Should child rapists pay for their crimes through execution, hell yes they should.
Would that be a spiritual execution?

Where does that logic come from :rolleyes::confused:

Living spiritually dead is barely living at all.

Living spiritually dead is barely living at all.

Exactly, therefore it is the equivalent of murder.

To me, child rape is spiritual murder.

Then we should give them spiritual executions. You go ahead and get right on figuring that one out.

Then we should give them spiritual executions. You go ahead and get right on figuring that one out.

Easy. Reverse-baptism.

Easy. Reverse-baptism.

....do I want to know what they dunk underwater?

Still not enough.

Plus if you want revenge, you can always watch the guy rot in prison instead of a quick death.

Quick death costs less. Of course child rapists should be shot. Just as murderers should, and, if I could get away with it, chavs.

You don't really need to sentance child rapists to death. Just send them to jail; their fellow prisoners usuallly take care of the death sentance themselves.

To me, child rape is spiritual murder.

When a child is raped you murder the child within them and doom them to a life without innocence, replacing it with sorrow and suffering.

Should child rapists pay for their crimes through execution, hell yes they should.

In theory, I agree wholeheartedly. However, I disagree with the death penalty due to the natural errors that occur in a system run by humans. Even a few innocent people being executed is enough, in my mind, to abstain from the legalization of capital punishment.

I'm against the death penalty, so the last crucial step is still lacking in my view.


And when you DON'T have capital punishment, MANY innocents are wrongly killed by people who shoud've been RIGHTLY executed!

Is that a problem that's plaguing Europe?

And can you show me the rate for murderes murdering again in states that doesn't have the death penalty?

Then we should give them spiritual executions. You go ahead and get right on figuring that one out.

David Hasslehoff nude, singing his favourite songs 24/7 for a year, while you're strapped to that chair from A Clockwork Orange where you can't ever close your eyes.

Actually, a month or two should be sufficient.

Then we should give them spiritual executions. You go ahead and get right on figuring that one out.

Go back in time and rape them as a child.

A crooked cop gets someone you know death sentence for something you know they didn't commit. The person is killed and you never ever have proof about it.
I've been there. It wasn't a death penalty per se, but he did die in prison. I did have proof about it, and sent it to the then-Attorney General, who was very hostile and did nothing (she is now serving out her second term as governor-- have I mentioned that I hate the state of Michigan?)
Child molestation cases have the highest rates of false conviction of any kind of case. It is easy to get the jury to focus on the horror of the crime, and lose any sight of whether the story they are being told is true at all.

One way to stop baby rapists is to kill the filthy bastards....post haste; and I'll gladly throw the switch!!

David Hasslehoff nude, singing his favourite songs 24/7 for a year, while you're strapped to that chair from A Clockwork Orange where you can't ever close your eyes.

Death first.

One way to stop baby rapists is to kill the filthy bastards....post haste; and I'll gladly throw the switch!!

I entirely agree, kill all the babies.

I entirely agree, kill all the babies.

:p

you would just trade me for some cigarettes after you have had your filthy mud encrusted way with me :(

Ye... ...I mean.... ...Nooooo. Of course not. I respect you. ;)

Go back in time and rape them as a child.

Mmm. Most child molesters have been molested as children thems...

TIME LOOP!!! :eek:

Where does that logic come from :rolleyes::confused:

By the idea that you're suggesting that the victim of such a crime can't possibly lead a happy and fulfilling life.

I've been there. It wasn't a death penalty per se, but he did die in prison. I did have proof about it, and sent it to the then-Attorney General, who was very hostile and did nothing (she is now serving out her second term as governor-- have I mentioned that I hate the state of Michigan?)
Child molestation cases have the highest rates of false conviction of any kind of case. It is easy to get the jury to focus on the horror of the crime, and lose any sight of whether the story they are being told is true at all.

^This.

I've seen it happen to someone I know.

Mmm. Most child molesters have been molested as children thems...

TIME LOOP!!! :eek:

Chicken and egg paradox?

Chicken and egg paradox?

Yup.

Just as murderers should, and, if I could get away with it, chavs.
If we're looking for how to deal with offenders, I suggest we shouldn't take advice from those who want an entire (rather amorphous) section of society murdered. There's certain times when big words just can't hide inane views.

Well, while I am in favor of the death sentance for first degree murder (I live in Philly, and before anybody says "what does that have to do with anything?", its a really messed up place to be right now), I think that killing somebody who rapes a child is kinda reckless. The potential for convicting an innocent is too high, and besides...they have a really, really rough time in prison.

And as an aside...isn't a life prison sentence considered capital punishment?
I may be wrong, but I've heard that before...

I consider 'life without parole' to be a death penalty. In fact, I consider it to be worse. I may be the minority here, but when I see a man like this, I see a man I want to have a nice long quasi-existence decaying in a tiny cell. And I know my streak of barbarism might disgust some, but I'd also like to point out that other men in prison have a very healthy attitude toward child molesters in prison.

But requardless of that last remark, I don't think this man deserves a quick death.

Such a person should be sentenced to life without parole and not put in solitary or protected custody. He should be released into the general prison population - he'll last a couple of days as Bubba's best buddy before dying an unpleasant and very much deserved death.

Quick death costs less. Of course child rapists should be shot. Just as murderers should, and, if I could get away with it, chavs.
Nah, keep them in jail, forever, for actual criminals.

As to class war - it's stupid from communists, and it's stupid from MC people who desire so hard to be UC. Don't be a moron.

I consider 'life without parole' to be a death penalty. In fact, I consider it to be worse.

There was a middle eastern tale about a man sentenced to immediate execution by the Sultan. He begged for his life and said that he could teach the Sultan's horse to speak, if he was given a year, and if he failed, surely then the Sultan could put him to death.

The Sultan agreed.

The unfortunate man's friend said: "you're an idiot! You can't possibly teach a horse to speak!"

The condemned man said "I know. But a lot can happen in a year. Perhaps I will die anyway. Perhaps the Sultan will die. Perhaps he will change his mind, and pardon me. Perhaps circumstances will change. And perhaps that horse will speak, after all."

Even more can happen in a lifetime. A life sentence does not take away hope, a death sentence does.

And as you say that, the man from the prison comes in and rapes you again. "It's okay, just put him back in for life." Right? NEVER underestimate the inefficiency of the government.

So, can I be ABSOLUTELY certain I've got this right.

You would trust the government (and by extension the judiciary) to be certain that death sentences are carried out in a manner that avoids any innocent people being executed because in your view you can't trust the same government and judiciary to run the prison services in an efficient manner, despite having no evidence that escaped prisoners are a credible threat to life and or limb.

Is that what you are saying?

I have never used the head banging against the wall smiley and never will, but if I were so inclined this might be an apposite occasion for it's application.

So, can I be ABSOLUTELY certain I've got this right.

You would trust the government (and by extension the judiciary) to be certain that death sentences are carried out in a manner that avoids any innocent people being executed because in your view you can't trust the same government and judiciary to run the prison services in an efficient manner, despite having no evidence that escaped prisoners are a credible threat to life and or limb.

Is that what you are saying?

I have never used the head banging against the wall smiley and never will, but if I were so inclined this might be an apposite occasion for it's application.

You're GOOD! :D

Is to not have policemen looking for trouble; instead judges resolve trouble brought to them. So if someone rapes your daughter, you kill him, and no one brings it to a judge -no problem. Someone wants the judge to revenge the rapist, judge reviews your actions, recognizes there's no punishment directly equatable to the pain done your daughter to be levied on the rapist, no means to reverse the damage done so he may return to her what's lost, and he -if a father or realistic- empathizes w/your killing inclination so rules you go unpunished. If it was wrong for you to have vengeance against the rapist then an equal punishment's your own death. But if death is a greater punishment than the rapist should have received yet it's recognized he should have been hurt what punishment levied on you would equal the difference?

I wonder if I should argue brutalization or if there are enough people dogpiling on Conservative morality as it is.

So, can I be ABSOLUTELY certain I've got this right.

You would trust the government (and by extension the judiciary) to be certain that death sentences are carried out in a manner that avoids any innocent people being executed because in your view you can't trust the same government and judiciary to run the prison services in an efficient manner, despite having no evidence that escaped prisoners are a credible threat to life and or limb.

Is that what you are saying?

I have never used the head banging against the wall smiley and never will, but if I were so inclined this might be an apposite occasion for it's application.

:p

1- Considering how many of those were RELEASED DUE TO INNOCENCE, "years" is not enough.

2- That'd be wasteful and idiotic, not to mention in breach of several rights. Plus the guy would always be able to - for instance - masturbate in front of the cameras and whatnot.

1)considering that thats not many at all and I can only recall one person who was executed that was innocent, years is plenty. Hell most death row inmates spend about 20 years on the row before they get executed if they are going to be proven innocent it'll happen. As far as them rotting away, if they are dead they cannot hurt anyone else and it costs a LOT of money to house them for all that time. I'd rather my taxes didn't go towards feeding clothing and educating them.

2)The majority of the cameras spoken of are in the inner harbor area and are a good crime deterrant. They don't breach anyones civil rights anymore then the cameras in the supermarket do. If anything they have helped solve a number of crimes commited in the area. Its not like they are in the bathrooms. And frankly if someone did what you said in front of the cameras A) They deserve do get caught and B) They would get the cops attention pretty quick as you can't go anywhere in that area without ALOT of people seeing you! :eek:

I' m totally against the death penalty for any reason.

Civilized people don't kill peoplle. So we kill people who kill people to teach those people that killing people is wrong by killing them.

I think the death scentence is appropriate only when the individual can not be trusted in society or will not return in society. If the person will be released for any crime and just end up in jail again due to their refusal to change they should be killed.

If someone has a jail scentence way past their natural life they should also be killed.

Its cheaper on the tax payer. If someone is one of the utmost worst crinimals or is a continous repeat offender they have no role is society and thus should be removed from it both physically and financially.

1)considering that thats not many at all and I can only recall one person who was executed that was innocent, years is plenty. Hell most death row inmates spend about 20 years on the row before they get executed if they are going to be proven innocent it'll happen. As far as them rotting away, if they are dead they cannot hurt anyone else and it costs a LOT of money to house them for all that time. I'd rather my taxes didn't go towards feeding clothing and educating them.

2)The majority of the cameras spoken of are in the inner harbor area and are a good crime deterrant. They don't breach anyones civil rights anymore then the cameras in the supermarket do. If anything they have helped solve a number of crimes commited in the area. Its not like they are in the bathrooms. And frankly if someone did what you said in front of the cameras A) They deserve do get caught and B) They would get the cops attention pretty quick as you can't go anywhere in that area without ALOT of people seeing you! :eek:

1- Even if:

"You not recalling" was proof that it doesn't happen to many people;
There weren't work-in-prison programs that help pay for the inmates;
Your mind didn't change should you ever be accused of a capital offense,

one innocent dead would be more than enough!

2- I meant cameras in the prison. If someone masturbated in front of the prison cameras while in jail, what would they do? Jail them?

If punishment deters then where is the deterent from going from child raping to child killing? If he gets caught it's death penalty either way right? It seems like reasonable insurance to kill those who might tell.

That is... a very good point. If we implement the death penalty for child rape, child rapists might be inclined to kill their victims, since it would be harder to catch them.

Mmm. Most child molesters have been molested as children thems...

TIME LOOP!!! :eek:
Clearly someone from the future took me seriously. Oh dear.
Chicken and egg paradox?
Egg.
Is to not have policemen looking for trouble; instead judges resolve trouble brought to them. So if someone rapes your daughter, you kill him, and no one brings it to a judge -no problem. Someone wants the judge to revenge the rapist, judge reviews your actions, recognizes there's no punishment directly equatable to the pain done your daughter to be levied on the rapist, no means to reverse the damage done so he may return to her what's lost, and he -if a father or realistic- empathizes w/your killing inclination so rules you go unpunished.<snip>
Then the family of the alleged rapist, who don't believe he did rape anyone, kill you. Then your family kills some of them. They kill some of your family. Back and forth, revenge leading to more revenge, until one of the families has been destroyed. All because you couldn't control your bloodlust.

This is why we have a justice system. So the facts can be weighed impartially, and judgement made and the matter settled. Well, that's the idea at least.
That is... a very good point. If we implement the death penalty for child rape, child rapists might be inclined to kill their victims, since it would be harder to catch them.
Indeed. Dead bodies aren't very talkative, and are a lot easier to hide than live children.

If child molesters are more likely to molest children themselves (I do agree with that) this is all the more reason not to release them ever again in the public.

When I was speaking with a warden in year 12 there are some very key facts that I remember

1) Over 90% of the people in jail have been or will be in there again
2) Drug rehabilitation in jail works on about 3%
3) 80% of people in jail have had either or both parents in jail before.

Its very systematic. Allowing the people back into society only further increases the chance that a new generation will do the same things again. This is why I am in favour of the death penalty.

You can either keep them in a cage for life taking spending alot of tax dollars or you can remove them from life in at least a half humane manner.

Lets not kid ourselves and think that people will go straight as soon as they leave jail. In most cases they will just be more inteligent criminals. They would have had plenty of time to learn the tricks of the trade from the others with them.

You can either keep them in a cage for life taking spending alot of tax dollars or you can remove them from life in at least a half humane manner.

You do realize that the death penalty is far, far, far more expensive than life without parole, don't you?

If child molesters are more likely to molest children themselves (I do agree with that) this is all the more reason not to release them ever again in the public.
And if they know that when they do molest children that they'll be going away forever they'll have nothing to lose and everything to gain, and will be more inclined to kill their victim to hide their crime.

When I was speaking with a warden in year 12 there are some very key facts that I remember

1) Over 90% of the people in jail have been or will be in there again
2) Drug rehabilitation in jail works on about 3%
3) 80% of people in jail have had either or both parents in jail before.

Its very systematic. Allowing the people back into society only further increases the chance that a new generation will do the same things again. This is why I am in favour of the death penalty.
So, rather than attempt to fix the system and restore criminals to functioning members of society, you'd rather just kill them?

You can either keep them in a cage for life taking spending alot of tax dollars or you can remove them from life in at least a half humane manner.
It costs a lot more to execute someone than to keep them in jail for life.

Lets not kid ourselves and think that people will go straight as soon as they leave jail. In most cases they will just be more inteligent criminals. They would have had plenty of time to learn the tricks of the trade from the others with them.

And this is obviously an unalterable fact about all kinds of prison system, so we may as well just accept it and execute more people.

Because they have those murderers on death row for YEARS! They should have a limit to the amount of time spent on death row before the actual execution!
Yeah! Down with the appeals process! Who would want to realize that we almost killed an innocent person anyway?


Wait a second.....

1. Note the sheer amount of evidence needed.You mean to tell me that, in this appeals process to demonstrate that someone is guilty or innocent, we're actually going to have to prove it? You've gotta be shitting me. This is starting to sound like we'll actually need to do some work to kill the fucker...

And when you DON'T have capital punishment, MANY innocents are wrongly killed by people who shoud've been RIGHTLY executed!Do you have any evidence to back this up? Given your previous post regarding evidence and proof, I can take a guess.

Acceptable evidence: figures on how many people actually escape from jail, numbers of people who then commit a new crime, number of people who are wrongly put to death.

Can all sicknesses be cured? Is it better to have one reformed man and twenty emotionally scarred children, or one emotionally scarred child and one dead sick man?Right. Let's just round up all the AIDS patients and retards. After all, they have an incurable sickness that not only burdens them, but also those around them. In the case of AIDS, it can even be used against other humans.

And how many rapists have actually raped 20 people?

Which is worse, one dead innocent man and twenty emotionally scarred children with a rapist still on the loose because we already convicted someone for the crime?

Quick death costs less. Of course child rapists should be shot. Just as murderers should, and, if I could get away with it, chavs.Nope, it doesn't.
Study Concludes Death Penalty is Costly Policy
In its review of death penalty expenses, the State of Kansas concluded that capital cases are 70% more expensive than comparable non-death penalty cases. The study counted death penalty case costs through to execution and found that the median death penalty case costs $1.26 million. Non-death penalty cases were counted through to the end of incarceration and were found to have a median cost of $740,000. For death penalty cases, the pre-trial and trial level expenses were the most expensive part, 49% of the total cost. The costs of appeals were 29% of the total expense, and the incarceration and execution costs accounted for the remaining 22%. In comparison to non-death penalty cases, the following findings were revealed:
The investigation costs for death-sentence cases were about 3 times greater than for non-death cases.
The trial costs for death cases were about 16 times greater than for non-death cases ($508,000 for death case; $32,000 for non-death case).
The appeal costs for death cases were 21 times greater.
The costs of carrying out (i.e. incarceration and/or execution) a death sentence were about half the costs of carrying out a non-death sentence in a comparable case.
Trials involving a death sentence averaged 34 days, including jury selection; non-death trials averaged about 9 days.
Total cost of Indiana's death penalty is 38% greater than the total cost of life without parole sentences
A study by Indiana's Criminal Law Study Commission found this to be true, assuming that 20% of death sentences are overturned and resentenced to life.
The most comprehensive death penalty study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million more per execution than the a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of life imprisonment (. On a national basis, these figures translate to an extra cost of over $1 billion spent since 1976 on the death penalty.

Yeah...death penalty is significantly more expensive.
1)considering that thats not many at all and I can only recall one person who was executed that was innocent, years is plenty. Hell most death row inmates spend about 20 years on the row before they get executed if they are going to be proven innocent it'll happen. As far as them rotting away, if they are dead they cannot hurt anyone else and it costs a LOT of money to house them for all that time. I'd rather my taxes didn't go towards feeding clothing and educating them.
More of your money goes to killing them. Also, most courts won't bother with a case after the execution (why would they? We wouldn't want to know how many innocent people are killed)
Here are some articles on it, however:
Witness Clears Man Executed In Texas for 1985 Slaying (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/21/AR2005112101384.html)
Chicago Tribune: EXECUTED TEXAS MAN WAS LIKELY INNOCENT (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=1813)
How Many Innocent Inmates Are Executed? (http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/fall97/deathpen.html)
Stop the Execution of the Innocent (http://www.aclu.org/capital/innocence/10362res20030510.html)

1) Over 90% of the people in jail have been or will be in there again
2) Drug rehabilitation in jail works on about 3%
3) 80% of people in jail have had either or both parents in jail before.




These speaks more of a really broken system then it does anything else. I have a feeling the warden would have told you this. However, you may have blocked it out because it didnt conform to your 'quick fix, kill everyone' agenda.

Which is worse, one dead innocent man and twenty emotionally scarred children with a rapist still on the loose because we already convicted someone for the crime?

A point that's often overlooked. When someone is executed it's really difficult to reopen the investigation, meaning that nobody will be looking for the real criminal should an innocent have been executed.

More importantly: The guilty will still be free, while an innocent has been killed.

A point that's often overlooked. When someone is executed it's really difficult to reopen the investigation, meaning that nobody will be looking for the real criminal should an innocent have been executed.

More importantly: The guilty will still be free, while an innocent has been killed.

It's the same reason that we don't have any real figures relating to how many innocent people are executed...why would we spend the money on every case when we were supposed to have gotten the right guy the first time around?

[QUOTE=
Then the family of the alleged rapist, who don't believe he did rape anyone, kill you. Then your family kills some of them. They kill some of your family. Back and forth, revenge leading to more revenge, until one of the families has been destroyed. All because you couldn't control your bloodlust.
This is why we have a justice system. So the facts can be weighed impartially, and judgement made and the matter settled. Well, that's the idea at least.
[/QUOTE]

Why were the McCoys, Hatfields, various frontier /Texas families, and Jahiliyyah tribes able to bloodfeud for generations? Because they never wiped each other out. No man (and by extension gov.) is impartial. What justice system do we have?