Discussions
Death Penalty and Child Rape
Posted by rightcommentary • 6/25/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Court struck down LA v. Kennedy today...
I blogged about it...
www.rightcommentary.com/2008/06/25/death-is-an-appropriate-sentence-for-the...
Still stunned by the logic of the decision. As it presently stands, only murder, espionage, terrorism, and treason are capital offenses.
User Comments
-
Up here in Canada, we just had a man's conviction for child rape overturned, 20 years after the crime was committed. The real perpetrator, who recently confessed to the crime, is Paul Bernardo, another convicted child rapist. Now if Canada executed child rapists the wrongly convicted man probably wouldn't have been killed, because he pled to a lesser charge due to the certainty of being convicted; but ironically, Bernardo would have, and therefore would never have been able to exonorate the innocent man by confessing to the crime.-
This is one of the more important arguments against capital punishment for any crime at all.
-
-
Left you a love note on your site. All in all, we agree, on just about all o fit. I think that's a first.
-
I do believe that a child rapist deserves the death sentence, or at least a life sentence. However, I am afraid that it may lead to more children being murdered in an attempt to keep from getting caught if the rapist knows the punishment is death.
Then again, knowing they face a life sentence might spur them to kill the child for the same reason, so I am torn on this issue.-
I say, arm the children
But seriously - convicting a person for murder has more evidence to contend with than rape, and a heftier sentence anyway. So even if they do murder (which would suck) they will theoretically be caught easier.
Or maybe not.
I go back to my original sentiment. Shoot them on sight. -
So if someone mistakes you for a child rapist you will not mind being shot? -
It's just awful all the way around.
I like the 'arm the children' idea, at least with knowledge. Sometimes that doesn't help though.
A few years ago, we had a girl in our taekwondo class (who was actually the daughter of our head instructor), she was a blackbelt and had won several kickboxing tournaments. She was one tough chick, to say the least.
She committed suicide at 16 and after the fact, they found out that she'd been being raped by her uncle for several years.
I know it is partly psychological, but of all kids, I thought she would have a better chance, you know?
-
I would have to be doing some seriously strange things to be mistaken for a child rapist. That said - I have no fear of being shot. Furthermore if I found someone raping MY child, the court system is the last of their worries.
Chelle - I know what you're saying. There are a couple of types of rape and molestation that would occur, and the kind you mentioned is definitely psychological. As a parent you have to be proactive, involved and very, very aware of what you're child is doing (or how they act, etc) all too often these days kids behavioral changes get blown off as "a phase" when in reality they are symptoms of more serious problems. -
It usually a member of the family. I agree on arming the kids with knowledge. Sex education at school I mean, when to know when you are being abused and whom to tell.
-
Some of the reasons I like living in Idaho:
Lots of guns is normal.
Lots of good people who recognize Mala in se versus Mala Prohibita.
And lots of deep, rich, loamy, and easily dug soil, in far mountain valleys where tracking dogs are very unlikely to ever go.
Anyone ever touches my kids and I'll be giving them a tour. -
And cornfields - aren't there lots of cornfields out that way?
-
Uh-oh Don, you know this will only further ruin our reputation here among the peace loving city folk.
Oh well, I agree! -
As needed Anok, a corn field will appear.
-
Aint that the truth, Don.
-
I think the traditional jail time for child rape (and the nature of that jail time, if you know what I mean) is deterrence enough.
Not to mention the fact that murder is worse than rape. Everybody knows that. -
@Don - Amen, brother.
-
-
Interesting isn't it? One crime against individuals. Three crimes against the State.
-
That is a bit disturbing, isn't it.
-
Was wondering if anyone was going to notice it...
I think it's just a small leap before Coker get's expanded to say the DP is per se illegal except for crimes against the State. -
Good catch.
Now I have the heebie-jeebies -
That is downright frightening. Yet another reason to love Idaho.
-
Well the US is not doing too badly. Only Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and China execute more people per year than the US does.
-
Good heavens! Fourth Place? We need do do something about this!
(By the way. Does that list include the Sudan and many of other South American, African, and Middle Eastern Nations where score isn't kept and people just disappear?) -
Yes it allows for a margin of error. www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT50/001/2008/en/b43a1e5a-ffea-11dc-b092-...
Perhaps it should be bourne in mind that some states send people to countries with behind the scenes executions via a process known as rendition. -
Our crime statistics are abysmal internationally as well. We constantly rank in first, second or third place for violent crimes when compared to other first world countries.
We are number 24 in highest violent murder rates for all countries.
So seeing as we have a high death penalty too - doesn't surprise me
-
Actually, according to this article, we're apparently doing a lot better, violent crime wise.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4257966.stm -
It is the same 2000 people every week, on Friday and Saturday night after the pubs close. Lets just say the wild west was nothing compared to a Scottish city centre on a Friday night (without the guns though). I can confidently walk into any bar in the world confident that no matter what happens I will have seen it all before.
-
I'll drink to that.
-
That article doesn't really give any statistics though - not about the US.
From 2000, answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=3231 -
True. And it takes a bit of work, but reading between the lines, we are at least 5th. And probably a little bit further down considering all the "rioting" in Europe these days by "youths" who coincidentally are Muslim.
-
-
Bottom line is - I still am just flabbergasted that a Supreme Court Justice made an equivocation between child rape and the death penalty and decided that the death penalty was "worse" than child rape... that's what still amazes me..
-
Hey RC. I can see the justification. I don't happen to agree with it, but I see it.
The child lives, the murder victim doesn't. I have to assume thats about it. -
RC: I know, right?
Pedophiles need to die. www.kobrascorner.com/opine/list-people-who-need-to-die.php
Donlewis: You're probably right about that. -
Eh. I don't see it - child rapists should fry... seems more than adequate punishment to me... I mean - with the price of oil and all - the electric jolt's gotta cost between 5-10 bucks... versus 60K a year for incarceration... it appeals to my sense of saving the taxpayer's dime...
-
Hell, take 'em out back and shoot them. Bullet isn't that expensive
On the other hand there IS an alternative. Castration plus a tattoo across the forehead that says "rapist" or "child molester" or some such thing.
That way everyone knows they will be coming a mile away AND they lack the proper equipment to do the deed anyway. -
edit
@RC OK. You convinced me. After all, we're all interested in conserving energy these days
@Anok. But your way sounds more fun. -
Can we ratify Anok's suggestion? Who seconds the motion? -
Hey you know, they do have a special chair that helps move the castration process along quite nicely
-
"Bottom line is - I still am just flabbergasted that a Supreme Court Justice made an equivocation between child rape and the death penalty and decided that the death penalty was "worse" than child rape..."
I may be in the minority here, but it is worse than child rape. It flabbergasts me that this would even be considered. This has always been a touchy subject for me, I was raped by a male relative when I was 2 and 1/2 and it always suprises people that I do not see being raped as a child as the worse thing that could happen to you.
Before everyone tells me I'm wrong (as they usually do) please read my reasons.
I truly believe that by considering child rape to be the do all and end all of awful things, you are actually making it harder on the child victim.
Where I live a radio station is having a child abuse fundraiser and some people were talking on there today saying how if you are molested you will never recover, your life will never be the same, the molester has killed your soul.
I wanted to scream, What the feck is wrong with you people. Whether you are trying to help or not, when I child is trying to recover from sexual abuse the last thing they need to hear is how their lives are ruined and they will never recover. They need to know that they can survive and recover or else they do not stand a chance at being able to move on with their lives.
I feel that by equating rape with murder, you are sending a message to the victims that part of them has been murdered, when instead they need to be being told that they can be okay again. -
In my opinion - also having been raped as a child (one a bit older and several times and I remember every excruciating detail) the abuse and sexual abuse of a CHILD is far worse than the death penalty of a person willing to do such heinous things to a CHILD.
It does kill a part of your soul, and it does cause long term damage. And it is very, very hard to get over, recover from etc.
I have no love or forgiveness for rapists - particularly not for those that rape children. I have no pity, no compassion, and I think that they are the most vile creatures on the face of the planet.
They deserve to die, in my not so humble opinion, and there are a lot of people out there that feel the same way. -
The way I see it is it just doesn't seem like a important enough issue to the Courts and Law because this crime usually happens more often to women and adolescent girls.
We had a case here in Boston where priest molested young boys,
they were able to sue and won.
Why don't more women sue their rapist?
I read somewhere a few years ago that a woman who was raped
by her rapist had revenge by raping him with a huge cucumber and other metal objects and she was arrested and actually got to spend more years in jail than her rapist did for raping her. I don't have the source for you because this was a while ago and I can't remember her name. -
Jeunelle, where on earth did you get the idea that women are not allowed to sue their rapists? -
@Madamex....AH HA. I am glad to see somebody is reading this thread
so exactly why don't more women sue their rapist? -
Juenelle, I think the difference here is that the church covered up the crimes, and just shifted the priests around, allowing them continuous access to new victims. The victims sued the *church* not the priests individually, if memory serves correct.
And it took a damn long time to do it, too. -
Well, good news, RightCommentary...that's not what the court said at all. But then, you knew that.
-
Yes they did get to sue the church but not the rapist, why not sue the rapist is what I wanna say?
If this crime ever happened to my children, it's over for the rapist
If it happened to me, I would try to sue him first and then I'll wait a few years,
plan right and then it's over for him.
MadameX...What did the Court say about it? To tell the truth, I am not sure if I already knew that. -
Many, many reasons, Jeunelle. Most stand to recover nothing, as their rapists don't own property that could be subject to a judgment and, since many are in jail, there's no income to garnish. Since that's the case, there's not only little motivation to sue, but it would mean paying an attorney cash up front, which many are not in a position to do. And, of course, going through a trial and publicly describing what happened to them is terribly traumatic for many women--so traumatic that some opt not to prosecute rather than to go through that. There are many, many reasons.
Re your latest comment about why those victims sued the church and not the rapist, the answer is stunning in its simplicity: most priests don't own anything. There would be no possibility of collecting anything if they were sued personally. -
I don't know for sure, and I can't speak for anyone else - but the thought of confronting your rapist in a court of law for the purposes of suing isn't really on the top of my list of priorities.
it's....psychological. -
YES. Of course you're both right.
Who the heck wants to go through all that, the process is just too much for most people
and then having to tell the story to the court and jury isn't the 1st thing on a victims list either.
It's like being raped all over again with the pretty harsh questioning from lawyers,
your face in the paper, your personal sex history and everything else they dig up on you.
You have to be pretty tough to go through all that.
That woman who claimed that Kobe raped her had some money to gain as Kobe has some money but she opt out quick so who can say for sure if she was raped or just a golddigger trying to get paid. -
@MadameX & Anok...Re your latest comment about why those victims sued the church
and not the rapist, the answer is stunning in its simplicity: most priests don't own anything.
There would be no possibility of collecting anything if they were sued personally.
Exactly (stunning in it's simplicity) and since they don't have anything I say take their life,
they do own that and that would appease me if I were raped or my children.
Obviously the Church and the Law has their own agenda
and it does not have the Victim's best interest at heart, only their own.
-
-
I know I'll get flamed for this but it just dumbfounds me that we'll advocate abortion and the murder of millions of unborn while striking down the ability to terminate (pardon the pun) folks who are found guilty of raping children.
Just seems ass backwards to me. I mean if someone out of those two scenarios ought to be sent packing....But then again, what do I know? I'm just a dumb Alabama born conservative. Not as edumacataed as the rest.-
With conservatives - it's always been a question of timing...
-
On the flip side I am just as dumbfounded by people who oppose abortion and support the death penalty - mainly due to the reasoning behind it
Generally speaking, I support both. -
I say kill those who deserve to die. Let live those who are innocent. But that's just me.
-
I say turn child rapists out into the general population in prison, and let the games begin.
-
Wearing teddys.
-
'housekeeping, you want pillow?"
Actually, I know wholeheartedly support Anok's castration/tatoo suggestion several posts above.
-
-
They should send these child rapist to war, especially in zones
that are extremely dangerous in the Middle East or send them on that last assignment
where there is no way in hell they will return. If they just so happen to return, simply put them down.
This will save us from sending a lot of our children to war, send those child rapist instead,
most will return in body bags. End of story.-
OK, sure, why not? Only it will have to be in their own units, and then both sides will shoot at them.
-
Human shields?
-
This could lead to a spirit of commonality and end war as we know it! The Don Plan! (OK, Anok helped).
-
-
@Donlewis & Anok...Agreed
-
this quote is very important in this story
"Alito denounced the court's "sweeping conclusion'' that the death penalty is inappropriate "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.''" ~ quoted from www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/25/ST2008062501374.html-
I just vomited in my mouth a little bit.
Seriously. -
Funny, murdering the soul of a child doesn't warrant the death penalty?
I'm still torn, I want to see them fry but I am afraid it might lead to more child murders if they know they will face death if caught. -
I could be wrong Chelle, but there is a psychological aspect to rape from the rapist's point of view. If they are going to kill, they will kill, if they aren't likely to kill, I don't think they will. (Although I'm sure some will).
Children are murdered even when the kidnapper/rapist/child abuser has no threat of the death penalty hanging over their heads.
So I'm wondering if it would really cause a spike? -
I left out that part of the decision... there are equally interesting passages in other parts of the dissent.
Again - my jaw just hit the floor... when it was announced.
that and I'm pissed they didn't announce in Heller... I mean what the heck - what's ONE day going to do? Are they planning on ordering out for Pizza tonight and hammering it out or something?
When Heller comes down - I'm strapping my sidearm to my belt and walking into the District tomorrow... -
Can I come with you RC, can I can I?
Pleeeeaaaseeee?! -
I know it's sad, this is one of those times that I love the right of rebellion.
-
I blogged on that issue too...
To quote my brilliant self:
The district’s firearms ban was passed 1970s in response to urban violence that swept the nation a decade earlier. Not only did the 1976 law bar possession of handguns not registered before that date, it also requires shotguns and rifles in the home to be kept unloaded and either disassembled or trigger-locked at all times. There is no exception for self-defense, and the district has repeatedly prosecuted people who used prohibited firearms in otherwise lawful acts of self-defense. I must wonder if the ban is overturned this week - whether many of those who may still be incarcerated will be entitled to “habeas.” (grin)
Notwithstanding its ban, the district ranks among the deadliest cities in America, frequently earning the title of “nation’s murder capital” and periodically announcing “crime emergencies” that the city’s leaders seem powerless to stop except through putting every cop they have on the streets of DC (armed I might add). On the news, DC shootings are a daily event - especially in the crime infested South West corner of the “diamond.” Nationally, gun bans and similar restrictions have been utterly ineffective in reducing crime. The Centers for Disease Control and the National Academy of Sciences conducted exhaustive studies and could not identify a single gun-control provision that had a meaningful impact on gun violence.
Incredibly, the same city that disarms its citizens and deprives them of the ability to defend themselves rejects any legal duty to protect them from crime. In a series of cases going back to Warren vs. District of Columbia in 1981, the district has repeatedly and successfully argued in court that it has no duty to protect its citizens against violent criminals and that no amount of negligence in doing so (or failing to do so) can ever expose the city to legal liability.
from...
www.rightcommentary.com/2008/06/15/supreme-court-to-announce-dc-gun-case-th...
My source tho was mistaken - he really thought the term would end last Wednesday...
Again - what's the HOLD UP! Get the pizzas and the coffee and WRITE the decision NINO!
How hard is it to write - DC Gun Ban unconstitutional... game on? -
BCR, BCR, BCR (Blog Catalog Rebels)
-
Huh, imagine that, banning gun ownership and use for law abiding citizens ends up with high crime rates, who'da thunk it?
Because, you know, those criminals are really interested in obeying the law. *snort*
RC, we don't always agree, but on the things we do agree on - they're typically BIG!
-
-
-
OH MY GOOD GOD WHAT IN THE....
From the article:
" A Massachusetts politician and defense attorney has touched off a firestorm with his shocking public vow to torment and "rip apart" child rape victims who take the witness stand if the state legislature passed stiff mandatory sentences for child sex offenders.
Rep. James Fagan, a Democrat, made the comments during debate last month on the state House floor.
"I'm gonna rip them apart," Fagan said of young victims during his testimony on the bill. "I'm going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined, that when they’re 8 years old, they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep; when they’re 19 years old, they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody." -
What the fuck?
-
give me 5 minutes alone with that bastard.
-
That man obviously takes the THE out of Psychotherapist.
-
I think I need to add that to the copypasta list (yes it's copy pasta)
Very witty voodookobra -
@DrBurst...Yup this goes on inside the Law all the time, this kind of thing doesn't surprise me.
The Law is corrupt and the Lawyers...this man is monster and should be put out of his misery.
There is no denying what he said and he calls himself a Lawyer.
So wouldn't you say that since the Law is harboring these types of Lawyers,
that the Law is corrupt?
Who's interest do they have in mind, the victim or their own?
Personally most Lawyers in my view are so corrupt now that I consider them to be parasites, feeding off the blood of victims. Where is the virtue of the Law, exactly where did it go?
Do Lawyers have any virtue or conscience these days?
Most today are only concerned with lining their pockets.
It use to be a great moral and just profession but I can't say that's true today.
-
-
"offendedblogger
Funny, murdering the soul of a child doesn't warrant the death penalty?"
Again, as I posted before, I have to ask, why would you even want to say that? Do you not understand that the more a recovering child hears that, that harder it makes it for them.
Then need to know that they can be alright again, they need to be allowed to have hope. All statements like that do is make it worse for them. -
Well tomorrow's docket has two decisions... it's 10am they announce.
I'll do a write up on Heller for certain. I have a pretty good sense of what's going to happen I think... but I have no doubt Nino will throw a curveball...
BTW - for any of you interested... SCOTUSBLOG does a really good job and has real-time reporting... they send a lawyer to listen to the decisions and reads out in real time... it's a great blog and they're friends of mine... Akin/Gump is also one of the best firms in DC. -
This is the most heinous crime of them all, as far as I'm concerned. Am thoroughly fed up with the Supremes over this. To me there is only one course of action here: Nail the Rapist's testicles to a pool table and push him over backwards.-
I agree with ya, Jack. You can't get any lower than a child rapist. I think they should get tortured, daily, for at least a week, then shot in the head. -
I like the way you think, Jack.
-
-
I was amazed at the boldness of the decision, especially by that court. Since I'm also against the death penalty, I'll take it, though it feels pretty darned uncomfortable to defend. Part of my reasoning goes to what Seabuckthorn says up top, www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/death-penalty-and-child-rape#comment_4398...
I won't get into the rest of it. Can't really add anything new to the arguments against the death penalty that you don't already know. -
Life in prison without parole. -
Now I know this may anger some, but screw it. I don't care anymore. I have to come here everyday and read all the comments about how evil anyone who isn't a total liberal is.
Who has won with these last two major supreme court rulings about gitmo and child rapists?
Are we really protecting the rights of non-uniformed enemy combatants and child rapists?
Oh yeah, happy times. Boy oh boy I can't wait for more leftist judges.
Flame away. I don't freakin' care anymore.-
In the first case, the rule of law and the international reputation of the US, which has been hurting and costing us our soft power.
In the second case, the opponents of the death penalty. In this case, though, i was a little confused, because I thought the proportionality argument they used made no sense. If proportionality is the standard, death is proportional for such heinous crimes. I just don't believe in the death penalty.
But I don't think anyone is going to flame. Opinion on BC definitely seems to be with you on the second case, and I've seen a fair number of people who agree with you on the first. -
Thanks Mark. For some reason this just really angers me today. I guess I'm a little sensitive because we have one crusader incessantly turning every discussion into a treatise against anything non DNC supported.
I appreciate your level headedness good buddy. You've talked me off the cliff, so to speak. -
Crusades are no fun. But don't confuse the DNC with MoveOn or the HuffingtonPost. I get tired of the babble too.
-
-
Maybe someone already said this, but there wouldn't be much of an incentive to let the child live if the perp knows they will probably get the death penalty.-
I don't think rationality ever enters into the equation anyway. That's why I don't buy arguments that the death penalty is a deterrent. Seems to me that the issue is just about what the right punishment is for the crime and nothing else.
-
-
Rape of any kind IS murder. Those people should be castrated and buried alive.-
I suspect the world is full of surviving rape victims who would feel violated all over again to discover that you thought their lives were over.
-
I am a rape surviver. It kills a part of you that you can never get back/
-
Probably so--or at least, for some people. But to equate it with murder is to suggest that rape victims have no worthwhile life after rape. That's a horrible thing to suggest about a human being who has gone on and reclaimed at least a piece of her life.
-
Your entitled to your opinion. I think rape is the same as murder. You take something not yours to take, and you effect the life of someone to it's very core. I know several rape victems that agree with me. I'm not at all suggesting that they have no life afterwards. It is forever changed and in my mind it is just as bad as killing someone. I'm making this statement from actually living through it. I'm not speaking ignorently.
-
-
@ mark
I'm confused, if it's not a deterrent, is it ever the right punishment?-
I'm not Mark (obviously ) but my interpretation of the death penalty is that some people do certain things that are so heinous, and they are not "rehabilitating" or even remotely capable of rehabilitation, that elimination from society is in the best interest of all involved.
-
I don't think most people need a deterrent to know that the crime is wrong. If they're gonna commit it, they're gonna do it no matter what laws are on the books, because they have zero impulse control. For me these punishments are about serving justice and preventing the offender from doing further harm. The death penalty does that. So does life in prison. The question the court decided was which one was right for the crime.
-
Anok. I don't know if it's so obvious. The eyes are similar.
-
Blasphemer!
-
-
it costs millions to execute and approximately $300,000 to put someone in jail for life. Child rapists do not fare well in prison mainly because the other prisoners were usually victims themselves and blames these dirtbags for their problems. Also, I think there's something to be said or having to live with what you've done.
Yes, it is murdering the soul of a child. I have known victims of child rape. They never really got over it, but they did go on to lead good lives.-
interesting. I've heard others mention the "rough handling" these creeps get in jail. I'm wondering if that's documented anywhere though or just an assumption?
Your point about having to live with what you've done is intriguing. Of course, that assumes the perp has a conscious.
-
-
Two arguments brought up here that I think are worth pondering are:
1) Chelle's concern that more kids would be murdered rather than just abused
and
2) The always prevalent issue of innocents being found guilty.
Good points - and definitely something to consider as we all fume over the idea of scuzzballs being allowed to live after destroying the innocence of a child.
I tend to think that when committing such an act, the perp isn't really thinking of the potential punishment, but then again I've no experience in dealing with such folks and could be totally wrong.
To the second point, and hopefully Tiff or someoen with more legal know-how will chime in, but my fears about wrongful execution are assuaged a bit by considering that the accused would be:
-presumed innocent until poven guilty
-found guilty in trial by a jury of peers that must find him so beyond a reasonable doubt (and unanimously, right?)
-happen to find himself in a juristiction that even considers the death penalty
not to mention from what I've read over the years it takes years to go form sentencing to injection, and the "death row" crowd has ample time to file appeals, etc.
Not saying it's perfect, just saying in my mind it's the best system I know of to protect against an innocent being accused/tried/executed.
Then again, rulings like this just enforce a need for vigiilantiasm in my mind. Someone touches my kid - screw "justice" - I'm baseball batting his brains all over the sidewalk.-
@kdawg
If you don't take care of them, theres a good chance someone else will or they will suffer greatly. -
Further evidence in my mind that we need no laws.
-
I fear it's coming to that, my masked friend. I'm even religious, and I'd have no qualms standing before god and saying "I shot the bastard because of what he did to my kid."
And if "he" didn't like that answer, well then I'm catholic so there's always Purgatory. -
I thought Purgatory was only for venal sins.
-
Damn straight, Kdawg
Although I thought the Pope put purgatory to rest? -
Kdawg, a few years ago in Illinois, the governor commuted the sentences of every single person on death row to life imprisonment--this was a Republican governor who had previously been a proponent of the death penalty. It was a dramatic action that probably would not have occurred quite the way it did had he not been about to leave office, but it was the result of a two-year-long study by a commission of defense attorneys, prosecutors, and a variety of other experts into the application of the death penalty. The commission was formed in response to the fact that since the death penalty had been reinstated in the 70s, Illinois has actually exonerated more people who had been sentenced to death (13) than actually executed them. While that might seem like evidence that the system is working, many of those people (almost all minority males) were on death row for a decade or more before evidence (in many cases, conclusive DNA evidence) freed them. In at least one case that I followed closely, that DNA evidence was known to the prosecution for several years before the defendants were actually exonerated.
The commission found a number of serious flaws in the process, and proposed a means of making death penalty proceedings fair and accurate--remember, this was a commission formed from "both sides of the fence", and the steps they deemed necessary were so onerous that no one was willing to champion them.
It is also important to note that appeal rights are limited, and generally do not allow the defendant to revisit factual issues. That means that if all of the proper procedures were followed and the defendant was afforded all of his rights, the incidental fact that he's innocent isn't necessarily grounds for appeal. -
And therein lies my main opposition to the death penalty for any crime, period. No matter how good the system, humans are involved. I would rather let guilty people live (in prison) than wrongfully execute innocent people.
-
good stuff, Tiff. I actually was aware of that. My brother's a big repub as well and he's a Duke grad lawyer. He's anti-death penalty because he says the death penalty is applied in an almost racist fashion - although his take is that the "race" that seems to decide it's application tends to be that of the victim. I.e., black guy kills a young black girl - send him to jail. But, if the victim were a cute little blonde - off with his head.
He's swayed me on this several times back and forth. Obviously I'm anti-abortion as a Catholic and have had trouble reconciling this with defense of the death penalty.
Thanks for chiming in Tiff. Always glad to get your perspective. By the way can we appoint you to the Supreme Court? -
@kdawg68..after you bash his head in with a baseball bat can I have the rest of his body?
I will put it to good use I promise.
-
-
lol Anok. Anarchist?
-
her castration idea would sure be a deterrent in my mind. Perhaps we need to bring back cruel and unusual punishment for cruel and unusual crimes? Punishment should fit the crime, yes?
-
Yup, to both of you.
-
-
If you extend it though to one crime, other groups will want it for other crimes also in the future. Everyone will wind up being put to death for even far lesser crimes.
The best solution is life in prison. It also prevents innocent people from getting the death penalty.-
It also lets a large percentage of repeat offenders back onto the street.
-
Only if it's life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. The sentence can exclude that possibility.
-
With the amount of sexual predators being released out into the public, I would say it's safe to say that very few, if any get life without parole.
-
That's true, but it's an option. Very few were sentenced to death, too, even before this ruling.
-
Yeah, which tells me that the kids in question were never really a high priority in the first place.
Ugh, now I'm nauseas again -
...The best solution is life in prison....
Or the Idaho way. SSS - Shoot, Shovel, Shut up. -
The problem, Anok, is that your emotional reaction leads to quite a slippery slope. I think, for instance, that parents who abuse their children are at least as bad as child molesters--possibly worse. You see stories on the news about parents who have kept their children in cages, starved them, broken their bones, burned them with cigarettes...should those people be put to death? What about people who do only one of those things? What about people who do those things to their wives instead of their children? Where's the line?
-
Tiff, I do feel that parents who abuse their children should be put to death.
My youngest brothers were severely abused by their birth mother - believe you me, I would love nothing more than five minutes in a desert with her, and a shovel. Seriously.
Where to draw the line? that's a tougher question, children should be protected from that kind of harm always. Adults are adults and can fend for themselves, children cannot.
The severity of the abuse should be thought through carefully anyway. Defining abuse is a sensitive question. I know where I draw the line, personally. -
On a visceral level I agree with you, Anok, but the law requires something more clear. And I suspect that, although you say that you know where you draw the line, that would be more difficult in practice, as you saw cases with abuses you hadn't contemplated, in combinations you hadn't contemplated, with circumstances you hadn't contemplated. A clearly defined line would be very difficult to establish (whereas, murder is murder)
-
But murder isn't always murder. And I'm not sure what kind of combinations of abuse would render it justifiable, I'm thinking it wouldn't matter.
I mean, does it matter if the kid was starved and beaten, or molested and starved, or burned and beaten? Either way you slice and dice it... -
Of course it matters. Because I don't think anyone (or at least, few people) would advocate executing the overwrought woman who slaps her kid in the grocery store. So somewhere in between there and broken bones and starvation, there has to be a bright line. Otherwise, judges and juries are deciding on a case-by-case basis, often based on how much they dislike the defendant, where that line is.
-
I agree that a line has to be drawn between what is abuse, and what is appropriate physical contact between parent and child.
Thats not what I thought you were talking about.
In any case, after the ordeal of getting my brothers out of hell (they were in the worst abuse cases the child services and court system had ever seen) I have little faith in the court's ability to handle abused children properly. Scratch that, I have NO faith in the system.
I no longer care about what the courts require to go forward with a case, I care about common sense, and what that tells us. The courts have much too much room for loopholes and mistakes. -
That's true, Anok, but I thought we were talking about the applicability of the death penalty--which is administered through courts, whether you like them or not.
-
Oh, yeah, I'm totally talking from an Anarchist - no laws no courts - perspective.
-
Thank you Anok....just look at how the Church can hide its perpetrators
Prime example...the priest buggering boys and the Church hiding the Priest within the Church
and the a law does nothing for the Victims and the cost to us taxpayers
to keep them alive in jail is very staggering, not to mention the Lawyers
who are the ones getting paid handling these cases.
Getting paid by the blood, tears and suffering of Victims.
The crooked system is keeping these Lawyers in business.
Can the Church and the Law both be one and the same? hmmmmmmm
I say _uck'em and their Law. (Prodigy)
-
-
yes
-
I remember reading also that most of these crimes are done by family members. So you would putting your own family to death.
-
Yeah, and?
-
Uncle Ernie just went on a looonnnggg vacation.
-
So being related to a sick pervert who would rape or molest a child has bearing on how you feel about the punishment they deserve? I'm sorry, that just feels very wrong.
-
-
What if someone made up a story and your family member winds up dying because of a lie?
-
Well, anyone with an ounce of common sense would look into the story before proceeding to kill. I don't know 'bout you but I don't haul off on gossip alone.
But if my child said it was true, I would all over it. -
flip it around - what if you walked in on your uncle molesting your child? I'd have no problem "terminating" him on the spot, nor would I worry about acting as judge, jury, and executioner.
-
Don't know as I'd get as far as executioner, but I'd also be willing to accept the consequences of my behavior afterwards. We are not the law. We have an obligation to protect, defend, and so on, but not punish. Don't have the right to punish either.
-
-
When discussing this, let's take ourselves out of our own social mores and think of how they punish others in different cultures. How do we feel about women getting buried alive, with only their heads exposed in order to be stoned to death for cheating on their husbands or for having a child out of wedlock? What's stopping us from doing this then?
Would other countries think we are too harsh on things they'd consider petty, such as we think they're excessive in areas we'd not consider as serious? (i.e., cutting of hands for stealing, etc., since stealing can, in turn, lead to murder, etc. - when do we go too far ourselves?) Of course, I don't consider everything to be black & white, but I at least like to dissect why I believe things, rather than base my beliefs on sheer emotion.
-devil's adv. -
I don't believe in termination on the spot for something so heinous.
I want to slowly cook him alive, you know, something long lasting and memorable
with the most amount of pain I can dish out.
Yeah, I might be sick but what else is new?-
And I'm liking you more and more....
-
-
@Anok...lmao
Seriously. I have no love or forgiveness for someone who does these things.
And if I had children and I find out it happened to them, he will live to regret it painfully.
I don't mind sitting in jail either to get my REVENGE.
I WILL HAVE MY REVENGE...VENGEANCE IS MINE.
I can't always wait for the Lord to do everything.-
don't worry there are some lawmakers on your side
www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/26/scotus.child.rape.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topst...
-
-
OMG people - you're still arguing about this... GET over it!
LOL!
I'll start another thread on Heller tonight... I'm still digesting it and will blog later... -
Yeah. I get discussing what a decision means and if we disagree or not, but now we're talking the law of the land. Time to move on. Same with the DC gun ban. But look at how Row v. Wade didn't put a debate to rest. No, we love to argue and hope that the next court will somehow be willing to interpret the Constitution our way. Not how it works though.
-
Well I saw you already started a thread on Heller... so I guess all I have to do now is blog on it...
-
Looking forward to it.
-
I'll cease with my lawless vigilante assertions. See what a bad influence Anok has been on me?
-
Good horse. But please continue to express political disagreement without worrying about whether or not you'll get flamed. You have a valid point of view that needs expressing.
-
I might reply to you , Mark - please don't ever stop being you. Your ability to listen to opposing viewpoints and be able to discuss rationally, while at the same time being true to your own beliefs, is quite remarkable and admirable.
-
I need boots, you guys. Pretty soon you'll be hugging each other.
Just to lighten things up.
-
-
DrBurst...Finally some good lawyers for a change.
Well lets hope they are victorious because if they are not...I will have to have my REVENGE.
@rightcommentary...lmao -
I have'nt read anything that relates to the anatomy of the crime of child molestation/incest, abuse...No one wakes up one morning and decides they are going to grow up and be a sick bastard and hurt little children. Some one teaches them. They then have to decide whether they become the future victim or the perpetrator. A lot choose that which they feel will make them stronger..the perpetrator. I feel sure that a large amount of the this kind of crime comes from a chain of events...break the chain...break the violence. Sometimes it means the death of the perpetrator, but once the criminal is caught and separated from society he is left with his own demons. Maybe living with your demons is a stronger punishment. Death means the pain is over. Every time one of us kills another when it isn't absolutely necessary I believe it hurts humanity. It won't bring the child's innocence back. And abuse and violence is always systemic. Healing has to come from a lot of places. I've never known more violence to help healing.-
See now I feel the opposite way.
I feel that it's because we want to be SOFT of the Punishment,
it creates DOUBT, GUILT and SHAME in the minds of the victims
and the victims families when they experience a heinous crime like this,
that they should not take Revenge or that the Perpetrator does not deserve some form
of equal Punishment for their actions.
Living with their own demons is not a stronger punishment
because most of these perpetrators don't believe they did anything wrong
and will never change their ways or point of view.
Allowing the perpetrators to live won't bring back the children
but also allows most of those perpetrators to become repeat offenders,
living right next door to you and your young ones.
Their death (the perpetrator's)does not mean the pain is over because the victim
and the victims families still suffer from pain, a pain that may never heal.
I've known someone who ran into her rapist once he got out of jail
and almost had a mental breakdown and she lost her job.
So it affects you (the victim) on many levels, while we are still trying to decide
what form of punishment we should dish out if any at all.
We send a message to society that we don't care if you rape and plunder,
we don't take that crime seriously and their is no REAL PUNISHMENT.
-
-
There are many ways to murder the soul of a child,the precedent unfortunate would have far reasoning implications. I'm not a legal expert at any cost but that is the way it is.
Unless we start instituting the death penalty in every case where severe psychological trauma is done?
I am for mandatory castration though.-
Cooper, what about the fact that castration (chemical or otherwise) does nothing to reduce the violent impulses and control issues associated with rape?
-
-
I too question the logic of all the latest ruling. It's really beyond me why the court system can't send a strong message to people who would commit these type of crimes. What an upside down world this is. It's ok to abort babies which is the most innocent but when it comes to child rapist..no no..we can't give them with capital punishment.-
There is, of course, no logical analogy there, unless the state is rounding up women and aborting their children. The Constitution, as you undoubtedly know, is about what the GOVERNMENT can and can't do.
-
Come one Tiffany, the phrase "undoubtedly" is an assumption, and you know what assuming can lead to.
-
-
I always get nervous when people say the Constitution says what the government "CAN" do. With the exception of Art. II Sect. 8 - the Constitution is negatively constructed... it's about restraint, not enabling, government powers. It also of course spends alot of time outlining duties and responsibilities of the branches of government and the relationships between them... except for Article III - which of course winds up being defined by Marbury v. Madison...
(sigh)
Anyways... I don't know that I undoubtedly know that the Constitution is about what the government CAN do. -
Right Commentary, I'm not sure why you'd choose to divert the real issue by parsing the compound phrase "can and can't" and then deciding that one exception was not sufficient to justify the inclusion of the word can...we apparently are surrounded by people who don't grasp that the Constitution applies to government action. It would seem to me that you'd be smart enough to see that as a bigger issue than your ability to snatch a word out of context and play semantic games.
-
Maybe because he's a lawyer? And he's talking to another lawyer?
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
