This is topic Oklahoma now kills repeat rapists! in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=043357

Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-06-09-okla-molester-executions_x.htm

quote:
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Oklahoma on Friday became the fifth state to allow the death penalty for certain sex crimes, although legal scholars questioned the constitutionality of the new state law.

Under the measure signed by Gov. Brad Henry, anyone convicted twice for rape, sodomy or lewd molestation involving children under 14 can face the death penalty.


 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Eh. Not that I'm so fond of the death penalty, but what the heck. If you're going to have one anyway, double pedophile rapists seem an entirely reasonable target.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Hang on, hang on. Rape, ok. Sodomy, ok. But what is 'lewd molestation'? Can one be put to death for groping a twelve-year-old?
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Of course not. You'd have to grope a 12 year old twice, at least.
 
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
 
Hm? Death penalty on this, now? Good.
 
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
 
Wow. Oklahoma does have redeeming qualities.
 
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
 
I'm all for the death penalty, but I don't think you should get it unless you killed someone.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
I'm against the death penalty, but I approve of equally severe punishments for murder and for rape of children.
 
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 
quote:
I'm all for the death penalty, but I don't think you should get it unless you killed someone.
Can you qualify this further? By your logic, manslaughter perpetrators deserve to die more than serial rapists do.

Edit: perpetrators, not victims.
 
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
 
When they say sodomy, they're not talking about consenting adults, are they?

That would be pretty lame if you tried the wrong position a couple times and got the chair.
 
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
 
Baron, these are all for these crimes involving children under 14. If it's two consenting adults, it's fine. This targets only child molesters, and as far as I'm concerned, there's no Hell hot nor cold enough for them.
 
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
 
I have to agree here. They rape a child; fry 'em all! I am from Texas and in the words of Ron White, "In Texas we have the death penalty and we use it! If you come to Texas and kill somebody, we will kill you back. Other states are trying to abolish the death penalty; my state's putting in an express lane."
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
Gah! Bad bad bad bad.

Death penalty bad.

I mean, trust me, I have absolute contempt and scorn for sexual predators, but the death penalty?

No. I don't care if it's for molesting children or not. The death penalty isn't the way to go.

-pH
 
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 
quote:
No. I don't care if it's for molesting children or not. The death penalty isn't the way to go.
Why?
 
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
 
Yes, yes it is. [Frown]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:
I'm all for the death penalty, but I don't think you should get it unless you killed someone.
Can you qualify this further? By your logic, manslaughter perpetrators deserve to die more than serial rapists do.

Edit: perpetrators, not victims.

His logic doesn't necessarily lead to that conclusion.

It just means that death is necessary to justify capital punishment. Not that death is sufficient.

If all we know about two crimes under someones ranking scheme is that neither deserve the death penalty, we don't know which is considered worse.
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
quote:
I'm against the death penalty, but I approve of equally severe punishments for murder and for rape of children.
My goodness I agree with King of Men. [Eek!]
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:
No. I don't care if it's for molesting children or not. The death penalty isn't the way to go.
Why?
I oppose the death penalty, period. Under all circumstances.

-pH
 
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
 
Agreed. No has the right to decide who lives or dies.
 
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
 
I rather agree with the capital punishment. I believe it should also be used for repeat rapists in which the victims are older than 14 as well though. Now...if we can just lower the cost of the process for capital punishment...
 
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:
Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:
I'm all for the death penalty, but I don't think you should get it unless you killed someone.
Can you qualify this further? By your logic, manslaughter perpetrators deserve to die more than serial rapists do.

Edit: perpetrators, not victims.

His logic doesn't necessarily lead to that conclusion.

It just means that death is necessary to justify capital punishment. Not that death is sufficient.

If all we know about two crimes under someones ranking scheme is that neither deserve the death penalty, we don't know which is considered worse.

I misspoke. We DO know that with the information given, manslaughter could justify the death penalty, and child rape could not.
 
Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
 
I agree with King of Men. (Wow, I never thought I would say that sentence.) The death penalty isn't the way to go, but there should be a severe punishment for rape.
 
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
 
re: Deciding who lives and dies

I'd say that as long as you're up front about the fact they're going to die for it before hand, from there the decision was pretty much up to them.
 
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
 
What would be a severe punishment? Going to jail? Getting 3 square meals a day? Getting free cable and an exercise room? Granted you get paid 42 cents a day for chores, but still. It's pretty much here's 10/20 years of free loading for you.

Granted one thing: Child rapists would not survive jail/prison anyway. The other inmates will take care of the death penalty for you.
 
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stan the man:
What would be a severe punishment? Going to jail? Getting 3 square meals a day? Getting free cable and an exercise room? Granted you get paid 42 cents a day for chores, but still. It's pretty much here's 10/20 years of free loading for you.

Granted one thing: Child rapists would not survive jail/prison anyway. The other inmates will take care of the death penalty for you.

That, I imagine, depends on the level of security in the prison. Frankly, I think the emotional damage done to a child victim in these cases can sometimes be considered a fate worse than death.
 
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by docmagik:
re: Deciding who lives and dies

I'd say that as long as you're up front about the fact they're going to die for it before hand, from there the decision was pretty much up to them.

Just a question to clarify: are you saying that any punishment is just as long as the punishments for actions are public knowledge?
 
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
 
Sodomy? I thought sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional in Lawrence vs. Texas.
 
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
 
quote:
That, I imagine, depends on the level of security in the prison. Frankly, I think the emotional damage done to a child victim in these cases can sometimes be considered a fate worse than death.
Which is why I support capital punishment for this.
 
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I don't believe in the death penalty, but perhaps being jailed for life and never getting paroled ever is a better solution.
Molesters should never be allowed to walk free.
 
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 
quote:
I don't believe in the death penalty, but perhaps being jailed for life and never getting paroled ever is a better solution.
Molesters should never be allowed to walk free.

I'm inclined to agree only because I view life in prison as a fate much, much worse than death.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:
Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:
I'm all for the death penalty, but I don't think you should get it unless you killed someone.
Can you qualify this further? By your logic, manslaughter perpetrators deserve to die more than serial rapists do.

Edit: perpetrators, not victims.

His logic doesn't necessarily lead to that conclusion.

It just means that death is necessary to justify capital punishment. Not that death is sufficient.

If all we know about two crimes under someones ranking scheme is that neither deserve the death penalty, we don't know which is considered worse.

I misspoke. We DO know that with the information given, manslaughter could justify the death penalty, and child rape could not.
No, we don't. He hasn't listed all the conditions necessary. He did not say that all people who kill someone should receive it.
 
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
 
quote:
Just a question to clarify: are you saying that any punishment is just as long as the punishments for actions are public knowledge?
Ooh, you were so close.

Not public knowledge--public consent.

If society publically recognizes that the person who commits an act is worthy of _________, then the person who commits the act has decided they're willing to run the risk of __________.

Fill it in with whatever punishment you like, and feel free to make your own judgements about what crimes society would deem worthy of that, if any.
 
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
 
quote:
I'm inclined to agree only because I view life in prison as a fate much, much worse than death.
Where I started growing up people on the street would kill you just so they could go to jail. It's a roof over their head and food at taxpayer expense. Fate worse than death? Hardly.

My whole thing is based on getting and keeping people like rapists off the streets. Out of society. An' not be a burden on the taxpayer.
 
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
 
I'm sorry but I look at my beautiful sleeping child in the next room and think if someone were to violate her, I would want them to die. Period. Not just for revenge, although that is certainly part of it, but also because prison is not the deterrent it was designed to be and I don't believe that child molesters get it worse in prision. There are too many of them in there now. Look at docmagik's fill in the blanks. Fill it in with life in prison and you will see plenty of people sitting in jail who "chose" that path. I don't think that is a good enough punishment for emotionally and physically ruining a child. In our society, we just don't have anything other than prison or death. If my daughter were hurt and the choices were jail for a while, jail forever (unless they overturn the verdict or give a pardon or the prison is too overcrowded or some other reason for letting the guy out) or death, then I pick death. Sorry folks but that's my kid! And if it were my kid doing the violating, I would feel the same way.
 
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
 
I am opposed to the death penalty, so overall I am against this. However, from what I understand pedophiliacs are one of the hardest groups to reform, even harder than murder. So, if I could get over my issues with the death penalty, I would probably support killing child rapist more than I would murderers.
 
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 
quote:
No, we don't. He hasn't listed all the conditions necessary. He did not say that all people who kill someone should receive it.
I said could, not should.

quote:
Where I started growing up people on the street would kill you just so they could go to jail. It's a roof over their head and food at taxpayer expense. Fate worse than death? Hardly.
I'm sure there are people that way. There are also people like me, who view imprisonment, especially prolonged imprisonment, as a fate worse than death.

quote:


My whole thing is based on getting and keeping people like rapists off the streets. Out of society. An' not be a burden on the taxpayer.

I agree - which is a small part of why I am in favor of the death penalty.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Ten or twenty years of freeloading, possibly, but ye gods, what's the point of such a life? No books, no sex (and no, I do not consider anal rape an acceptable substitute), nothing to create. I think I'd almost rather be dead.
 
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
 
I guess that death penalty is so utterly anarchic, that it only leaves one option for 12 year old gawkers:

1. Surivive by any means necessary.

and of course, the ever important:

2. Never be taken in by OK Police alive.

On another topic, I'd be all for that death penalty for the rape of underage children so long as the parent's victims themselves did the killing.

Otherwise it's just too tempting to attract sadists to the police force and keep them there.

That way, the parent can decide if murder is a fair wage for rape.
 
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Miro:
Sodomy? I thought sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional in Lawrence vs. Texas.

You're absolutely correct, but those were laws against sodomy between two consenting adults. This, as Joldo said, has nothing to do with two consenting adults.
 
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
Bravo. I hope this becomes federal law.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Robin,

To correct some more of your ignorance, it is not the police force which executes sentence on criminals. Not in the sense most people mean when they say 'police force'. Furthermore, the death penalty is not of itself 'anarchic'.

Societies throughout the world have had it for millenia without being anarchic.

---------------

While I am opposed to the death penalty, I am not opposed to it unconditionially and I think it is foolish and selfish to say that no one has the right to decide who lives and who dies. For example, I certainly have that right if someone attacks me with lethal force and the only way I can stop them is by returning lethal force.
 
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boris:
Frankly, I think the emotional damage done to a child victim in these cases can sometimes be considered a fate worse than death.

I will categorically disagree with that. You can heal from sexual abuse. You can't heal from death. [Smile]

more in a bit.
 
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
 
Jim-Me, ya don't heal at all from sexual abuse. You just learn to hide it better. One of my priests left the church due to this. Suprisingly it was because he was sexually abused as a child by his baby-sitter. This priest was at least 35. He just couldn't stand up front the church anymore. I haven't seen or heard from him in about 17 years.

Oh, KoM, there is a library in prison. In fact, quite a few prisoners will study during the time they have.

Prison:
Library
3 meals
cable
exercise
basketball court
big lounge to talk or play cards
job placement workshops
conjugal visits

Death:
None of the above except maybe the conjugal visits, but they are really just visits that you can't see, hear, feel, or acknowledge. Mainly because you are dead.

edit to add: I am not basing my prison stuff off of tv or movies. I have been through the county prison back home a few times. My friend was a county sherrif and gave a tour here and there.
 
Posted by Kyvin (Member # 9141) on :
 
good job, oklahoma! pedophiles are pure evil. they deserve death. it's nice to know the united states has some sense of sexual morality.

i never realized it was legal under federal laws to execute for any crime other than murder...
 
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
 
There's a few more out ther, but they deal with military and such. Rarely ever done, but they are there.
 
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stan the man:
Jim-Me, ya don't heal at all from sexual abuse. You just learn to hide it better.

Stan, if I recall, you've read and commented on my landmarks. I'm neither hiding nor continuing to suffer.
 
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
 
My problem with the death penalty is that our justice system isn't perfect, and it won't ever be perfect. There are always factors that can screw up trials, and innocent people do sometimes receive convictions. And the death penalty. So just on that basis I am against it.
 
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
 
As far as prison being a cushy time, try committing a crime in AZ during summer. No AC, limited water, green meat, no tv and of course the infamous pink underwear. Of course, I moved a few years ago and haven't heard much since then.
 
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
I'm against the death penalty, but I approve of equally severe punishments for murder and for rape of children.

KoM said what I was thinking! It must be a sign of the apocolypse.
 
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stan the man:
Jim-Me, ya don't heal at all from sexual abuse. You just learn to hide it better.


I really, really have to disagree with this. Who are you to say another person can't heal from anything? I was sexually abused by my father for most of my childhood, in addition to whole other lot of shit that happened to me, and you know what? I'm OK, I've dealt with it, I'm sane and whole.YOU do not get to tell ME I'm not healed, and can't be healed.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scholar:
As far as prison being a cushy time, try committing a crime in AZ during summer. No AC, limited water, green meat, no tv and of course the infamous pink underwear. Of course, I moved a few years ago and haven't heard much since then.

Pink underwear?
 
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
 
Sherif Joe thought pink underwear would add an element of humiliation to the prison experience. The public seemed to like it and thought it was funny, so he sold them as a fundraiser about ten years ago. Though as far as I am aware, the prisoners still get only pink underwear. (But again, I haven't lived in AZ for four years so policies could have changed)
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
What bothers me about Sheriff Joe is that a lot of people being in held in jail haven't been convicted yet. Purely punitive measures for people who are being confined not for punishment but to ensure appearance at trial is antithetical to our system.

It all sounds great, but unless his jail is unlike every one I've ever heard of and only has convicted criminals serving their sentence, his policies ignore half his job function.
 
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
 
Rakeesh..

If you fail to see that the world is and has been historically in a state of anarchy, then pointing out 'my' ignorance..

Well..

As for the police. If you carry a badge and a gun, you are a law onto yourself. In a dark alley, on any given Sunday, there is no real law except that law that you can muster as an officer by the force of your weapon and your badge. Cops have always known this, in fact, I think it's part of their training. Civilians probably don't want to know it.

My friend Louie calls it: 'the Awful Truth'.

Truth might be awful, but I belive it can set you free.

My point: if people want to kill each other to get a sense of 'justice' let them. But let the victim's survivors be the killers, not 3rd parties, and MOST ESPECIALLY NOT THE GOVERNMENT. If a Government gets in the business of killing, then the best route would be to literaly 'kill em all' and let got sort them out.
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
....decyphering that post makes my brain hurt.

-pH
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Robin,

If you fail to use words according to their actual definitions and instead distort and twist meaning unti everything you say was right no matter what, then yes, I'm going to point out your ignorance.

You could try actual evidence instead of making statements as though you already proved yourself. But you won't do that. It's more fun to sneer and smugly sound smarter than everyone else.

Anarchy:
1. Absence of any form of political authority.

2.Political disorder and confusion.

3.Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

The world does have some political authority, the world is not in political disorder, and there are several cohesive standards and purposes which nations cling to.

I don't care what your friend Louie calls it, it doesn't change the fact that the statement you made was wrong. Police officers sometimes go over the line and execute sentence. This is not commonplace, and in any case how about some hint of evidence it's happening in Oklahoma?

You know, to set met free and all.
 
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
 
Fine I detract said comment that people seem to be getting pissed off at me for . No more generalizations from me. Even though I get those every day from everyone and get caught in all the stereotypes as well.

*exits thread*
 
Posted by Sergeant (Member # 8749) on :
 
Dag will have to weigh in on this, but if I am not mistaken, the US Supreme Court ruled at some point that the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment as per the 8th Amendment when applied to rape and was thus unconstitutional. Of course we have a different court now and who knows how they will see this law.

I'm perfectly fine with the Oklahoma law as I understand it from reading the thread. One heinous crime probably doesn't always merit the death penalty, but do it twice . . . [No No] [No No]

Sergeant
 
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
Lynch mobs always seem more legitimate when they are the government.
 
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergeant:
Dag will have to weigh in on this, but if I am not mistaken, the US Supreme Court ruled at some point that the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment as per the 8th Amendment when applied to rape and was thus unconstitutional. Of course we have a different court now and who knows how they will see this law.

I think that's Coker v. Georgia.
 
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
 
Rak.. Rak... Rak...

Your naivitee befuddles me. I use very precise words, child-like, so that any child can understand them. Is English your first language? Not mine.

Your little coocoon of reality is so flawed, so utterly devoid of ... clarity... that it is impossible to argue a point with you because you simply do not 'see' what is really happening out there, nor will you be interested in 'seeing' if it contradicts your eroded version of reality.

Gary Davis (whose life I turned into a never-released screenplay) was the one who more or less explained to me best why we really do live in a state of international anarchy.

But bloody hells, man! There is a bloody war in Irak at this instant to pave the way for 'our' Oil-Cowboys to dominate the middle east's supply of oil. The war, be it a just or unjust war, clearly demonstrates our lack as humans to govern ourselves wisely.

Wether it's cowboys or shieks it's of little difference, since global warming will kill us all anyhow.

My suspicion is that the US of A is preparing for WWIII and Bush knows he needs those oil fields in his hands to keep them away from his adversaries.

Is that not anarchic? Bloody hell! What else would you like to see? Rioting in downtown Salt Lake City?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Thank you for confirming my opinion that you are a trollish ass, Robin. Now I need not waste further time discussing anything except acid trips with you.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergeant:
Dag will have to weigh in on this, but if I am not mistaken, the US Supreme Court ruled at some point that the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment as per the 8th Amendment when applied to rape and was thus unconstitutional. Of course we have a different court now and who knows how they will see this law.

I'm perfectly fine with the Oklahoma law as I understand it from reading the thread. One heinous crime probably doesn't always merit the death penalty, but do it twice . . . [No No] [No No]

Sergeant

I can't claim to understand the 8th amendment death penalty jurisprudence. I do know that the death penalty requires "aggravating" circumstances be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury, and that the defendant have an almost unlimited right to present mitigating circumstances to the jury prior to sentencing. Without a jury imposition, no death penalty is possible. I'm not sure if a judge must be able to convert the death penalty to life imprisonment, but many states allow that whether it's required or not.

I do know that juries do not constitutionally have to be told that there is no chance of parole if a life sentence is given, leading many to speculate that some juries in some states give death sentences out of fear that the defendant will be released.

As to the specifics of the crime, though, I'm not up on that at all. 8th amendment jurisprudence is very confusing with almost no hard and fast rules, only standards.
 
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
 
I am actually a little fuzzy on the law. It says convicted twice. So, let's say someone rapes two kids before getting caught. Is he then eligible for the death penalty? Or does he need to rape two kids, serve time, and then show he can't be rehabilitated by raping another kid?
On the giving death penalty for fear of the guy getting out, TX I think reenforced those fears last year. Some guy who killed like ten people was given a deal, life in prison in exchange for details on all the crimes (he was good and left no evidence so they could only get him on one crime). For any crime he committed in TX that he gave full disclosure on, he could never be charged with. Then, TX changed the rules and the guy became eligible for parole. So, there was this really fun rush to find some other crime he had committed that he hadn't disclosed and charge him with it. I forget which state managed to find a crime. The other state really had sketchy evidence, but they got the judge to admit his confession to the other ten murders and the fact that otherwise he would be let free, so the jury voted guilty, though it seemed like no one was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he had killed that particular woman. They just really didn't want him out.
 
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
 
Sorry, tried to post this last night but Hatrack was down. The thread has move in a new direction, but I think this is still relevant.
- - - - - - - - - - -

I'm kind of in the gray area when it comes to the death penalty, I see it as a failing of mankind in general, just as I see war as a failing of mankind. But sometime your opponent leaves you no choice but to war, and sometimes a criminal leave you no choice but the death penalty.

But I think we reach for that solution, both in war and in crime, much much to quickly. It should be reserved for criminal who are so feral, so anti-social, so void of any conscience or capacity to understand right and wrong, that they simply can be allowed to live in any society. When people have crossed the line into animals, then I think the death penalty should be considered.

Now, all crimes of rape and murder are terrible horrible unforgivable crimes, but it becomes much too easy to be swayed by a slick talking lawyer that any one particular crime is death penalty worthy. When that slick talking lawyer lowers the bar and make the death penalty easier, then the irredeemable nature of crime becomes lower, next thing you know we are sending little kids to the Death Chamber.

I think a crime can't just be particularly brutal, but must show a true pattern of lack of conscience and irredeemability.

I'm reminded of the 'Three Strikes' law, in some states it was enacted with the intent to included crimes of violence and other extreme felonies, but it gradually was soften until it included any three felonies.

In the case in question, I can see the death penalty for VIOLENT rape but two strikes doesn't quite seem enough, and Life In Prison should be considered before death. The implication of this law seems to indicate that any two strikes and your dead. Without excessive violence, without a clear lack of conscience, and with repentance or remorse, I don't think the death penatly is justified. If they indicate habitial but non-violent behavior, then at some point, total life long isolation from society is the preferred method.

To rape a child is a terrible terrible thing, but to kill a man is also terrible. I think the circumstances of the event in question needs to be looked at. Sadly, some kids are seduced through a gradual process. In a sense, they engage willingly. However, it is still a crime, because willing or not, kids simply don't have the knowledge or experience to understand the full implications of their actions.

Further, the seduction is a form of misinformation. Kids trust adults to guide them with a sense of right and wrong, and the seducer is quiding them with a false and warped sense of right. It is still rape. However, insidious as it may be, it is not violent, and while it shows complusive desires, it doesn't show a lack of conscience.

We need to be extremely careful with the death penalty, and make sure that we don't allow the emotions of the moment to override our deeper sense of humanity and compassion.

Certainly sentences should be punishment, but I don't think it should be vindictive.

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/BlueWizard
 
Posted by Shepherd (Member # 7380) on :
 
Go Oklahoma.
 
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stan the man:
Fine I detract said comment that people seem to be getting pissed off at me for . No more generalizations from me. Even though I get those every day from everyone and get caught in all the stereotypes as well.

*exits thread*

Stan, sorry to see you go over this. I wasn't at all mad, but I vehemently and personally disagreed with what you said. I don't see why this had to be a big deal. Romany didn't seem too bent out of shape, either, but I shouldn't speak for her.

Certainly what you said had the potential to be more offensive than anything which was said to you... and what you said is certainly something that I, personally, could not let go unchallenged.
 
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
Ok, I'm posting without reading the whole thread so chastise me if I'm repeating what someone else said...

I'm pro-death penalty.

I think killing child molesters would do everyone a world of good.

However!

I'm against the death penalty for anything other than murder! Because if you expand it to crimes where the perp *really* deserves to die but hasn't actually killed anyone, it will make it more likely for a molester, kidnapper, name-your-crime to kill the person they're violating.

I'd rather child come back severely traumatised than in a box.

Pix
 
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
 
Pix, that's a great arguement.

I think I still disagree, but that's an aspect I hadn't given much thought to, and now have to. Thanks.
 
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
Personally, I'd much rathered see a thread titled, "Oklahoma can now cure repeat rapists, recidivism declines sharply." I'm ashamed to see all the joy in this thread over the fact that it's now easier for our government to kill more human beings, no matter what they've done. We're still more punatively minded than we are focused on rehabilitation. That's sad to me.
 
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
Because if you expand it to crimes where the perp *really* deserves to die but hasn't actually killed anyone, it will make it more likely for a molester, kidnapper, name-your-crime to kill the person they're violating.

I'd rather child come back severely traumatised than in a box.

I had this thought too. I don't know how true this is, but I've heard of cases where if the perpetrator would have killed the kidnapping victim, they actually would have gotten less jail time than for the kidnapping conviction.

[ June 12, 2006, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: BaoQingTian ]
 
Posted by Mazer (Member # 192) on :
 
quote:
Agreed. No has the right to decide who lives or dies.
Does that mean you do not believe in self-defense?

What about suicide?
 
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
Personally, I'd much rathered see a thread titled, "Oklahoma can now cure repeat rapists, recidivism declines sharply." I'm ashamed to see all the joy in this thread over the fact that it's now easier for our government to kill more human beings, no matter what they've done. We're still more punatively minded than we are focused on rehabilitation. That's sad to me.

Bao, every time you write something like this, I remember why I like to read forums.

Mazer, I wrestle a great deal with this one myself. In fact, one of my proposals was to give children martail arts training across the board. Turn them into little warriors for peace. But wouldn't it be better to turn them into choir boys?
 
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
Hmmmm, time for me to recalibrate the sarcasm meter...cause I really am clueless on this one.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
Ok, I'm posting without reading the whole thread so chastise me if I'm repeating what someone else said...

I'm pro-death penalty.

I think killing child molesters would do everyone a world of good.

However!

I'm against the death penalty for anything other than murder! Because if you expand it to crimes where the perp *really* deserves to die but hasn't actually killed anyone, it will make it more likely for a molester, kidnapper, name-your-crime to kill the person they're violating.

I'd rather child come back severely traumatised than in a box.

Pix

And yet there are also cases where a child has been abused so severely that he is unable to cope with it all and commits suicide after years of trying to endure the effects of that abuse. But I am willing to conceded that the cases where the child could be rehabilitated probably outnumber the "Lost causes."

I think there is still merit to the arguement that people abuse children because its so hard to prosecute and because sentencing is relatively light that the risk seems worth it. Do you have any knowledge what the typical sentence time is for rape and for sexually molesting a child Dag? Is there a range?
 
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
BB: Oh, if we're going to put them in prison for life, yeah, I'd vote for that in a heart beat. But let's fix THAT problem. And save Death for the murderers.
 
Posted by JenniK (Member # 3939) on :
 
I have a rather interesting perspective on this one. My cousin was kidnapped when she was 13. She was beaten, drugged, and repeatedly raped before being left for dead, naked, in the middle of the woods in Massachusetts - in October (aka it was damn cold).
She has grown up and now has a family of her own. She is a relatively normal person, and someone who I respect because she has gone through hell. They caught the man that did this to her, and she faced him in a court of law; in Massachusetts and in Wisconsin! He had kidnapped, beaten, drugged, and repeatedly raped another girl there, but he killed her. She looked eerily similar to my cousin. He even had newspaper clippings about the dead girl in his wallet when he was captured. To this day my cousin is terrified of going to see a doctor. When they took her to the hospital after they found her (an off-duty cop walking in the woods found her) they ran all sorts of tests and poked and prodded her. Now she will cry for a week if she knows she has an appointment coming up. Other than that, she is pretty much ok.

So my thoughts on the death penalty:
1. I hate the idea that "killing someone is wrong - you killed someone , so now we will kill you"

2. I also hate the idea of someone sitting in prison and earning a college degree on my tax dollars when I had to work my butt off to go to college ( and yes it does happen).

3. I think that to punish a convicted child molester or rapist, that person should be chained in a chair, with their feet chained to the floor. Then I think they should let the mother of the victim into the room (the only other person in the room) with a rusty spoon with a nick in it.... and let her mete out a just punishment!
 
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
quote:
Personally, I'd much rathered see a thread titled, "Oklahoma can now cure repeat rapists, recidivism declines sharply."
You know, one could read the thread title that way as it stands now, depending on how sardonic one's feeling.

Just sayin'.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
JenniK I can appreciate the indignation directed at a person who certainly deserves it, but to be honest, creating elaborate punishments for these crimes while self consolatory really does not produce useful conclusions.

If any of you have LOTS of time I would refer you to this circumstance:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/sex_slave/index.html

*warning* it is extremely graphic and descriptive as Crime Library is a very matter of fact website about crimes that are commited.

Granted today, our understanding of the psychology of captivity is much better, so the difficulty in handing out a guilty verdict is a bit lower. Remember though that this guy is still eligible for parole and early release.

Murderers often commit their terrible acts within just a few seconds-several days. This man carefully calculated his acts of cruelty over a period of 7 years and exacted them as best he could. He had every intention of increasing the number of victims, but he was caught. Is he really less deserving of death when compared to a man who in a fit of rage reaches for a gun and shoots somebody?

I really do not know the answer to those questions.

[ June 15, 2006, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
 
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
Nor do I, but right now we're killing people anyway. I hope somebody somewhere knows good answers to these questions.
 
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 
quote:
Murderers often commit their terrible acts within just a few seconds-several days. This man carefully calculated his acts of cruelty over a period of 7 years and exacted them as best he could. He had every intention of increasing the number of victims, but he was caught. Is he really less deserving of death when compared to a man who in a fit of rage reaches for a gun and shoots somebody?
No.

It's the attitude that murder is the only crime worthy of the death penalty that continues to boggle my mind.
 
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
 
I wonder..

Has any of you here actually killed someone before?
 
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk:
quote:
Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
Personally, I'd much rathered see a thread titled, "Oklahoma can now cure repeat rapists, recidivism declines sharply." I'm ashamed to see all the joy in this thread over the fact that it's now easier for our government to kill more human beings, no matter what they've done. We're still more punatively minded than we are focused on rehabilitation. That's sad to me.

Bao, every time you write something like this, I remember why I like to read forums.

What do you mean?
 
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
 
quote:
Personally, I'd much rathered see a thread titled, "Oklahoma can now cure repeat rapists, recidivism declines sharply." I'm ashamed to see all the joy in this thread over the fact that it's now easier for our government to kill more human beings, no matter what they've done. We're still more punatively minded than we are focused on rehabilitation. That's sad to me.
Ding ding ding, winner.
 
Posted by Mazer (Member # 192) on :
 
quote:
Mazer, I wrestle a great deal with this one myself.
Absolute Pacifists are Eloi, only fit to be eaten. But, obviously you do recognize the need to defend life, otherwise you wouldn't even be able to concieve of "Warriors for peace."

So what is the struggle? In attempting to take the life of another, you surrender your own right to life, (If that person was to end your life in the process of defending themselves.) Now that doesn't necessarily justify capital punishment, but clearly there are circumstances where one may have the right to choose life or death for another.

Although you could argue that someone who dies while attacking another has made that choice for themself. Certainly that would appear to be the position of the Dalai Lama who apparently has made pro-self-defense comments.
 
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mazer:
Absolute Pacifists are Eloi, only fit to be eaten.

Dang, Mazer's already staked out the moral high ground. What's the point in my joining this thread now? [Frown]
 
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
 
As a member of a family who is reeling from the recent knowledge that a sexual offender in our family is being released from prison, I would much rather have him penalized by Oklahoma's new law then to have to deal with the fear and myriad of emotions knowing that even after 13 years in jail he still doesn't think what he did was wrong and will very likely continue his heinous behavior. We also live in fear of him stalking our children and trying to insinuate himself back into the family. Putting him to death 13 years ago would have been a much better sentence than the state giving him 4 - 20 year sentences to be served concurrently. Whats the point of that?
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Might I introduce an interesting dynamic to this capital punishment thread.

Person A: Does not believe in an afterlife and has put all their efforts into enjoying their life as much as possible on a day to day basis.

Person B: Believes in an afterlife and remains quite stoical about the sting of death. Finding joy in the possibilities that still remain after one is dead, yet enjoying the now in his/her own way.

If both people are shot and killed, who has had more harm done to them?

Just a thought

As an afterlife is not legally recognized nor has any method been developed to prove the existance of one. Is it unfair for the government to assume that this life is all that a man or woman has and use that to weigh the punishments they mete out to murderers?

It seems that a victims belief in an afterlife might alter how serious a murder ought to be taken. I don't know I have just been thinking about that alot.

Heck what views a murderer holds for the afterlife might effect how he handles the death sentence. Ought that to be taken into consideration?
 
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 
quote:
It seems that a victims belief in an afterlife might alter how serious a murder ought to be taken. I don't know I have just been thinking about that alot.
You raise an interesting question, but given that sentencing in a murder case is more about punishing the criminal and protecting the interests of the populace than it is about the victim, I don't think the victim's beliefs should (or will) be a factor in judgement.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:
It seems that a victims belief in an afterlife might alter how serious a murder ought to be taken. I don't know I have just been thinking about that alot.
You raise an interesting question, but given that sentencing in a murder case is more about punishing the criminal and protecting the interests of the populace than it is about the victim, I don't think the victim's beliefs should (or will) be a factor in judgement.
But we factor in "Suffering" within the context of just about every court case that ever reaches the bench of a judge. Monetary compensation is often based on "Suffering." A person who tortures THEN kills his victims is often more likely to be given a harsher sentence then somebody who is (forgive my use of this adjective) more humane in how he kills.

In cases of physical abuse, the amount of suffering inflicted is the only measure that we can use to formulate a punishment.
 
Posted by Mazer (Member # 192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Morbo:
Dang, Mazer's already staked out the moral high ground. What's the point in my joining this thread now? [Frown]

While I certainly believe what I said, I am not so sure that is the moral high ground.

Also, I said Absolute Pacifists. That does not include people who merely make an attempt to avoid violence.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
It seems that a victims belief in an afterlife might alter how serious a murder ought to be taken. I don't know I have just been thinking about that alot.
I don't see why it would. If someone believes in an eternal afterlife, then what's available in the afterlife doesn't change based on when someone dies - infinity is infinity.

The loss caused by killing someone is just as great - something absolutely irreplaceable and precious is destroyed.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:
It seems that a victims belief in an afterlife might alter how serious a murder ought to be taken. I don't know I have just been thinking about that alot.
I don't see why it would. If someone believes in an eternal afterlife, then what's available in the afterlife doesn't change based on when someone dies - infinity is infinity.

The loss caused by killing someone is just as great - something absolutely irreplaceable and precious is destroyed.

I think I misunderstood you, it seems to me that you are disagreeing that a person who believes in an afterlife loses no more no less than a person who does not.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I am saying that if an afterlife exists, a person loses no more or less than if an afterlife doesn't exist.
 
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 
quote:
But we factor in "Suffering" within the context of just about every court case that ever reaches the bench of a judge. Monetary compensation is often based on "Suffering."
Yes, but how does this apply to murder cases?

quote:
A person who tortures THEN kills his victims is often more likely to be given a harsher sentence then somebody who is (forgive my use of this adjective) more humane in how he kills.
Torture is universal; beliefs regarding afterlife are not. Torture is concrete; beliefs regarding afterlife are abstract.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
I disagree

If an afterlife exists then a person can still continue existing in some capacity after they are murdered.

If an afterlife does not exist you have taken away any possibility that person can feel anything when you kill them.
 
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 
Black, I've been hesitating to take your words to their logical conclusion, but I'm going to have to ask:

Do you basically believe that atheist lives are more valuable than religious ones, and that the law should legislate this?
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I disagree

If an afterlife exists then a person can still continue existing in some capacity after they are murdered.

If an afterlife does not exist you have taken away any possibility that person can feel anything when you kill them.

But the one life out of all eternity is still ended.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by erosomniac:
Black, I've been hesitating to take your words to their logical conclusion, but I'm going to have to ask:

Do you basically believe that atheist lives are more valuable than religious ones, and that the law should legislate this?

POSSIBLY. Not so much that they are more valuable from MY perspective. But from the individuals perspective an atheist has more to fear from death (typically not ALWAYS) then somebody who believes in an afterlife.

Therefore the suffering of an atheist could be argued as greater then a believer.
 
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
I'm all for the death penalty, but I don't think you should get it unless you killed someone.

Can you qualify this further? By your logic, manslaughter perpetrators deserve to die more than serial rapists do.

Edit: perpetrators, not victims.

His logic doesn't necessarily lead to that conclusion.

It just means that death is necessary to justify capital punishment. Not that death is sufficient.

If all we know about two crimes under someones ranking scheme is that neither deserve the death penalty, we don't know which is considered worse.

I misspoke. We DO know that with the information given, manslaughter could justify the death penalty, and child rape could not.
No, we don't. He hasn't listed all the conditions necessary. He did not say that all people who kill someone should receive it.
I know both parties have dropped this, but I didn't see Dagonee admit that he misread erosomniac's last post. According to the original statement, manslaughter could justify the death penalty, and child rape could not. As many times as I've seen Dag make people say uncle over nuances such as these, I feel morally obligated to do the same to him.

-----

Whoever said that this law should be extended to rapists whose victims are over 14 -- I disagree with that sentiment strenuously. Punishing repeat child rapists with the death penalty is quite a different thing than punishing repeat statutory or date rapists with the death penalty.
 
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 
quote:
POSSIBLY. Not so much that they are more valuable from MY perspective. But from the individuals perspective an atheist has more to fear from death (typically not ALWAYS) then somebody who believes in an afterlife.

Therefore the suffering of an atheist could be argued as greater then a believer.

Ok. I really, really disagree with this, but now at least I feel like I have a firm grasp of exactly what you're trying to say.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
I know both parties have dropped this, but I didn't see Dagonee admit that he misread erosomniac's last post. According to the original statement, manslaughter could justify the death penalty, and child rape could not. As many times as I've seen Dag make people say uncle over nuances such as these, I feel morally obligated to do the same to him.
JT, you are wrong. I've already explained it am not sure if explaining again will matter, but here goes:

Original statement: "I'm all for the death penalty, but I don't think you should get it unless you killed someone."

Consider two possible facts:

X: the defendant killed someone.
Y: the defendant should get the death penalty.

The original statement says If not X then not Y.

Given If not X then not Y, we know the following:

If Y then X.

We cannot say If X then Y based solely on the original statement. It's not the same statement.

It's true that child rape absent death (not X) could not result in the death penalty according to the original proposition.

It is not true that manslaughter could justify the death penalty. It is merely true that if manslaughter does not justify the death penalty, the reason for lack of justification is different than the reason for lack of justification in child rape.

Nuance is my bag, man.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:
POSSIBLY. Not so much that they are more valuable from MY perspective. But from the individuals perspective an atheist has more to fear from death (typically not ALWAYS) then somebody who believes in an afterlife.

Therefore the suffering of an atheist could be argued as greater then a believer.

Ok. I really, really disagree with this, but now at least I feel like I have a firm grasp of exactly what you're trying to say.
Remember I am merely presenting an idea that I am considering. Not stating an opinion or any sort of belief.
 
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
I'm referring to eros's last statement:
quote:
I misspoke. We DO know that with the information given, manslaughter could justify the death penalty, and child rape could not.
and your response to it:
quote:
No, we don't. He hasn't listed all the conditions necessary. He did not say that all people who kill someone should receive it.
How can you say that "it's not true that manslaughter could justify the death penalty"? The only sufficient condition we're given is that killing is necessary for the death penalty. Manslaughter meets that condition, does it not? Manslaughter does not have to result in the death penalty, by the original statement, but it certainly could, right?
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
The only sufficient condition we're given is that killing is necessary for the death penalty.
We are not given any sufficient conditions. That's the whole point.

Death of the victim is necessary to justify the death penalty. There's no indication that it is sufficient to justify the death penalty.

If someone says, "He came on my land without my permission so I want you to charge him with robbery," a perfectly accurate response would be to state that the actor must enter your dwelling to be guilty of burglary.

It does not mean that entering a house justifies a burglary conviction. The actor must also intend to commit a felony therein at the time of entry. However, the original contention (he came on my land - charge him with burglary) can be dismissed entirely by mentioning only the dwelling entry requirement. Therefore, when someone has dismissed the contention in that manner, it is not accurate to assume that all the things that disqualify a burglary conviction were mentioned.

quote:
Manslaughter does not have to result in the death penalty, by the original statement, but it certainly could, right?
No. We don't know that. Suppose the three requirements for the death penalty are:

1.) death of the victim
2.) intentionally caused by the perpetrator
3.) and involving unusual cruelty.

Back to the original proposition, he was rejecting the contention that rape could justify execution. The only thing we know from this statement is that death is necessary. It's possible this person has the three requirements I listed above. It's possible this person has no other requirements. It's also possible that he has 8 other requirements. We don't know from the context of the post.

It was clearly relevant to the purpose of the communication - to oppose the contention that rape justifies execution - without being a complete list of things needed to justify the death penalty. Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that according to that principle, manslaughter could justify the death penalty.

It is accurate to say that the principle doesn't disqualify manslaughter from the death penalty. A different nuanced meaning altogether.
 
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
All an atheist has to fear from death is the same thing they had to fear before they were born. a lack of anything. If you didn't suffer before you were born, why would you suffer after you died?

To an atheist (or at least THIS atheist) the tragedy of death is the end of joy. Not that I'll notice, of course.

Pix
 
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 
Dag,

To try and be as clear about this as possible, here's exactly how I'm reading this:

Original statement: "I'm all for the death penalty, but I don't think you should get it unless you killed someone."

Assuming the statement "You cannot get the death penalty unless you kill someone,"

1) You cannot get the death penalty for repeatedly raping children.

2) You CAN get the death penalty for manslaughter. I am not saying that the given statement alone is enough to draw a conclusion, I'm saying that manslaughter is in the pool of crimes that are NOT precluded by the original statement.

Edit to add: now that I read the bottom of your last post, I see that we're more or less on the same page, I'm probably just not being as rigorous.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
My entire point is that "You CAN get the death penalty for manslaughter" and "manslaughter is in the pool of crimes that are NOT precluded by the original statement" are two entirely different statements.

The latter is supported by the original statement.

The former is not supported by the original statement. It is simply not contradicted by the original statement. But the original statement doesn't contradict the statement, "You can get life in prison for stealing a loaf of bread," either. Unless a statement purports to be a comprehensive treatment of the subject, you can't assume that it supports all statements that it does not contradict.
 
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 
quote:
you can't assume that it supports all statements that it does not contradict.
Right, this is where we went wrong: I read the original statement and immediately generated in my head a subjective bubble of "crimes which should be included in this context," and my entire problem was my subjective bubble being completely different than yours, or the OP's.

Hehehe. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
quote:
quote:
Manslaughter does not have to result in the death penalty, by the original statement, but it certainly could, right?
No. We don't know that.
Are you saying that manslaughter could not result in the death penalty?

Me: It could, right?
You: No.

I understand what you're saying. What erosomniac and I are saying is that it could, but it doesn't have to. That's what 'could' means. It's possible, but not definite.
 
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
quote:
It is accurate to say that the principle doesn't disqualify manslaughter from the death penalty.
Which is what I was saying with "Manslaughter could result in the death penalty."

Not 'should' or 'will', but 'could'.

Edit: I see what you mean about it being a sufficient condition, that was poor wording on my part.

Further edit: I see what you're getting at. I see the difference in our two statements at the top of this post.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
That's what 'could' means. It's possible, but not definite.
And I'm saying we don't know if it's possible under the original poster's schema for justifying the death penalty.

The "information given" was incomplete. We know a little about what's impossible, but nothing about what is possible.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Which is what I was saying with "Manslaughter could result in the death penalty."
If you say "Manslaughter could result in the death penalty" then you are saying if someone commits manslaughter, it would be possible to try them and seek the death penalty.

It is absolutely consistent with the original poster's statement that it is not possible to try someone for manslaughter and seek the death penalty.

Therefore we don't know if manslaughter could result in the death penalty or not.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
OK, let me know when you're done editing. [Smile]
 
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
*points at edit above*

"The former is not supported by the original statement. It is simply not contradicted by the original statement. But the original statement doesn't contradict the statement, "You can get life in prison for stealing a loaf of bread," either. Unless a statement purports to be a comprehensive treatment of the subject, you can't assume that it supports all statements that it does not contradict."

This cleared it up.

Return to your regularly scheduled death penalty thread.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Ah, OK.
 
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
 
If the death penalty were televised, it would disappear in a few days.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlueWizard:
Now, all crimes of rape and murder are terrible horrible unforgivable crimes, but it becomes much too easy to be swayed by a slick talking lawyer that any one particular crime is death penalty worthy. When that slick talking lawyer lowers the bar and make the death penalty easier, then the irredeemable nature of crime becomes lower, next thing you know we are sending little kids to the Death Chamber.

That's one hell of a slippery slope there. Also, usually it's not the DAs who are accused of being "slick."

quote:
Originally posted by BlueWizard:
I'm reminded of the 'Three Strikes' law, in some states it was enacted with the intent to included crimes of violence and other extreme felonies, but it gradually was soften until it included any three felonies.

::scratches head::

The word "soften" seems to have a different meaning when you use it than when I do . . .

quote:
Originally posted by BlueWizard:
In the case in question, I can see the death penalty for VIOLENT rape . . . Without excessive violence, without a clear lack of conscience, and with repentance or remorse, I don't think the death penatly is justified. If they indicate habitial but non-violent behavior, then at some point, total life long isolation from society is the preferred method.

To rape a child is a terrible terrible thing, but to kill a man is also terrible. I think the circumstances of the event in question needs to be looked at. Sadly, some kids are seduced through a gradual process. In a sense, they engage willingly. However, it is still a crime, because willing or not, kids simply don't have the knowledge or experience to understand the full implications of their actions.

Further, the seduction is a form of misinformation. Kids trust adults to guide them with a sense of right and wrong, and the seducer is quiding them with a false and warped sense of right. It is still rape. However, insidious as it may be, it is not violent, and while it shows complusive desires, it doesn't show a lack of conscience.

You seem to be going back and forth here . . . so I can't reply without being clearer on where you stand, but I have a real hard time with the notion that non-violent child rape is not damaging, compared to violent child-rape.

[ June 16, 2006, 12:55 AM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
The word "soften" seems to have a different meaning when you use it than when I do . . .
I think he meant the boundaries between 3-strike eligible laws and non-3-strike eligible laws were softened.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
I got that it was something like that, but I think "soften" is a deliberately charged word, as it has connotations of weakness, and so I dispute it on rhetorical grounds. [Smile]
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boris:
Frankly, I think the emotional damage done to a child victim in these cases can sometimes be considered a fate worse than death.

I don't disagree with this original statement. Note that he did say sometimes. I do disagree with the later assertion that nobody does heal, though. I would not say that I am completely healed, though, and I would say that many people don't make it as far as I have.

I am in favor of this law, insofar as I favor the death penalty at all--I'm somewhat lukewarm in my support of it, but I still lean in that direction. I wouldn't go so far as to say that you never heal, but I would say that child rapists do a lifetime of damage. And we're not talking about death penalty for all child rapists here, but for those who are repeatedly convicted. I would venture to guess that most cases of child rape go unconvicted. If you manage to catch, prosecute, and convict somebody twice, you can pretty much bet that they have left more than a dozen deeply damaged kids in their wake. And the impression I get of current sentencing is that convicted pedophiles don't stay in prison for all that long, in the larger scheme of things.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk:
If the death penalty were televised, it would disappear in a few days.

I doubt it. It might make a few people cry, have knotted throats, but eventually people would just get used it.

The Romans whenever they crucified people invited the populace to come and watch. It was supposed to have deterent effect on would be criminals but it didnt.

How many women would get abortions if they had to hold a jar of an aborted fetus while doing it?

Thats a stupid question, because emotionalizing the issue does not really make a very good statement.

BTW I am NOT trying to shift this thread into an abortion debate.
 
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
 
Are you all arguing over what I said? Cool.
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2