Death Penalty for Child Rapers?

[strummer8526]

I am indeed one of the anti-abortion, anti-death penalty folk. But in a little twist, I'm very much in the middle politically. I have certainly not ruled out a McCain vote in November, etc. Not only that, but I could give a darn what religions have to say about the "sanctity" of life. (As an aside, if most religious institutions were most concerned with the sanctity of life, they would spend more time worried about the poor guy struggling to eat than the gay guy who wants to get married.)

My logic behind the abortion stance is that in purely practical terms, the existence of a person is better than not. I sort of think that while we all dislike certain people--even hate certain people--those negative interactions with others are far more fleeting and less life-altering than the positive role that another person can play in the lives of others. The homeless guy on the corner of 5th St outside my apartment has a friend. I see him and his homeless friends playing cards together. It's not the lap of luxury. They're not giving anyting back to society. But each is making the other happy. Regardless of whether there is "sanctity" in that life (whatever "sanctity" means in this context), he is contributing to the life of another person. It is better than he's alive than aborted. (Sure, we can say that there are people who are a net negative for humanity, ie Hitler. Yes, true. I'd prefer we not wholesale abort thousands of average people who would live average lives w/ meaningful relationships just so we can hopefully dodge some bullets on the murderers and genocidal dictators.)

As far as the death penalty, I just don't trust the justice system to ever be 100% right. I don't trust ANYTHING to be 100% right. Hell, I want to be a prosecutor, but at the end of the day, I know it's possible in that one-in-a-million case that I convict an innocent person. And while there's no way to repay time spent in jail, there's no way to even rectify a death sentence. When you're dead, you're dead.

As far as what to do w/ child rapists, I think there need to be gradations in the prison system. You're tax evader should probably get some TV time and some reading material, etc. Your child offender should spend every waking minute thinking about what landed him in a cold, dark, lonely cell. Don't hurt him. Don't deprive him of life's essentials. But let him waste away for a good long time.

Finally, the European notion that life in prison is cruel and unusual is a complete joke. I can see how some would fear that that becomes a political position in the United States, but really, we're just not socially even CLOSE to that. We're still freely arming the people of DC. We're not going to say that 5 consecutive life sentences can only result in 25 years in prison. It's just not going to happen.

[Boz]

Jun 26, 2008 12:41:24 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

(As an aside, if most religious institutions were most concerned with the sanctity of life, they would spend more time worried about the poor guy struggling to eat than the gay guy who wants to get married.)

Not to nitipick or distract from the main topic, but this is not really that fair.

Most religious groups and orders do spend A LOT more time thinking about the guy who is struggling to eat than the gay guys getting married.

Just because MSNBC and Fox don't cover it doesn't mean that it's not happening.

And now for my own political slant....

As far as what to do w/ child rapists, I think there need to be gradations in the prison system. You're tax evader should probably get some TV time and some reading material, etc. Your child offender should spend every waking minute thinking about what landed him in a cold, dark, lonely cell. Don't hurt him. Don't deprive him of life's essentials. But let him waste away for a good long time.

The ACLU and some human rights organizations would NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS allow this.

Just my opinion.

[strummer8526]

Jun 26, 2008 12:54:50 GMT -5 Boz said:

Jun 26, 2008 12:41:24 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

(As an aside, if most religious institutions were most concerned with the sanctity of life, they would spend more time worried about the poor guy struggling to eat than the gay guy who wants to get married.)

Not to nitipick or distract from the main topic, but this is not really that fair.

Most religious groups and orders do spend A LOT more time thinking about the guy who is struggling to eat than the gay guys getting married.

Just because MSNBC and Fox don't cover it doesn't mean that it's not happening.

And now for my own political slant....

As far as what to do w/ child rapists, I think there need to be gradations in the prison system. You're tax evader should probably get some TV time and some reading material, etc. Your child offender should spend every waking minute thinking about what landed him in a cold, dark, lonely cell. Don't hurt him. Don't deprive him of life's essentials. But let him waste away for a good long time.

The ACLU and some human rights organizations would NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS allow this.

Just my opinion.

Agreed on both counts. Sometimes I'm quick to jump on religion because of what has become the sort of characterization of religion in the media. I'm honestly amazed that more rank and file deeply religious people don't lash out against the portrayal of "religion" as being equated with "pro-life, anti-gay, end of story." That portrayal of rank-and-file religious people and groups is I'm sure unfair. What I meant was that my pro-life position isn't coming from the stereotypical kind of blind faith, God loves us perspective. Not that I disagree or belittle that view, but then it gets into all the separation of Church and state ugliness. I just like a rationale for being pro-life that doesn't hinge on religion.

Also very much agree with your second point. Those on the side the push for more resort-like prisons, I think actually do harm to the anti-death penalty cause because you end up with people saying "Either we kill them, or they'll be playing Playstation for the rest of their lives." If prisons were entirely focused on punishment (and in the case of non-life sentences, rehabilitation), then I think there would be less urgency to just kill the bastards. People in jail shouldn't get to spend more time reading for entertainment or watching TV than a law student.

[SoCalHoya]

Jun 26, 2008 10:42:19 GMT -5 tgo said:

i am sure the lawyers on board here have taken classes that discussed this at length, not being a lawyer - this is my very simple interpretation.

if the goal is to remove criminals from the population for the protection of the population for enough time to either
1-discourage criminals from returning to crime because the potential cost of being caught is too high and or
2-to allow time for criminals to mature, mend and reform their ways so they can become productive positive members of society upon their return.
then

Just so we're clear, our criminal justice system's aim is not to rehabilitate. Studies show that it probably should, but I faintly remember that there was a big policy decision in the early 80s to scuttle that. Don't know why.

Generally, our criminal justice system aims to:

1) Deter criminals
2) Protect the public
3) Provide some retribution/recompense for victims

Someone said they are anti-death penalty due to religious reasons, but that the beliefs of such individuals should not affect our governments policy on it. I think divorcing the public's moral compass from policy is very difficult, but I think it would be a good idea generally to try. On 1), from what I have read, the death penalty does very little (to nothing) to deter criminals from committing crimes. We like to think it does, because for the most part we are not murderous criminals and would be deterred from doing things if we were killed, but murderous criminals apparently don't even think of that sort of thing (I'm purposefully simplifying this for brevity's sake, for those playing at home).

On 2) protecting the public, certainly the death penalty takes care of this angle. If you're dead, you can't escape and recommit crimes. However, putting someone to death is very expensive and as others have pointed out, are you ever sure you got the decision right? Death is binary. And how many criminals, especially death row types, escape from jail? Maybe our press doesn't cover this very well, but I hear of maybe one every five years or so? Most times I hear escapees were car thieves, etc. So, on protecting the public, the difference between life in prison and death, not that different. The cost argument is a decent one, but like I said, death penalty is an expensive endeavor as it goes already.

Good ol' 3) Retribution/Recompense. So, we've long departed from the days where we stood around fires and allowed victims to take direct retribution against criminals (you maimed my sister, I take your arm; you stole my sheep, I take your horse, etc.). Our modern system empowers the government to do this on our behalf, and in a manner that is less emotionally involved. Direct retribution was a very messy and emotional thing, so over time this seems to work better for everyone (though less satisfying, for sure, to victims). So, on death penalty, I think in many cases it gives the victims' families tremendous relief, as the ordeal in some cosmic way is finally in repose. In some cases, I've read, the day the death penalty is given is almost as unsettling on the victims' families as the day of their loss. But I digress, I think here we have to focus on the families who would benefit. The question is, is this one factor enough to justify the continued use of the DP considering all the other counterbalancing factors? I'm still somewhat on the fence. I'm against it morally, as a Catholic, and because I don't think it necessarily works for reasons 1) and 2), but it is certainly difficult to argue against it when 3) is important to many, and human nature does crave this sort of thing. Anyhow, just wanted to throw this out there.

Has anyone read the Kennedy opinion? I haven't had time, but from the excerpts I've heard he makes good points that if the DP were applied to child rapists, there would be an incentive for said rapists to kill their victims, and that it could scar a child because their testimony would be critical to a conviction and execution. On his first point, I find this a little strange, only because criminals (again) don't exactly think logically, though I think you could certainly argue that a child rapist would probably find it easier to kill his victim as a way to silence them and thus protect themselves. On the scarring of the child, I am not a child psych, but he sounds like he's on the right track here.

[Bando]

I completely agree with everything Ed says. Furthermore, I think it's in our best interest to limit the power of the state to kill above what's absolutely necessary (i.e. police and the military). If we wrongly convict a man who's sentenced to life, we can't give him the years back but we can offer some sort of remedy. If the man's dead, we can do no such thing. As long as justice is imperfect, as it always will be, we're best off not making the mistakes that can't be undone.

Also, Rossyln's ridiculous hyperbole is quite amusing. Be comforted, sir, that there exists no such Democrat party in this country, so we should be safe. For your own benefit, the two major parties in this country are called the Democratic party and the Republican party. The more you know...

[theexorcist]

Responding to SoCal. For the record, as I'm writing this, I sort of wish that this topic would be locked - it's just so abhorrent.

1. On religion and it not affecting policy. Not sure about this. I'm Catholic (yes, I'm pro-death penalty, and I believe that I'm going to have to answer to God for that when I die) and I'm pro-life. My logic for this has been that, if you're not sure if what you're going to abort is living, it's probably a good idea to assume it is. Catholicism provided a way for me to get my hands around the problem, but is it the sine qua non of my rationale? No. Catholicism, in its passionate opposition to abortion and the death penalty, provides a lot more of a rationale than "God doesn't like it", even though it's the final argument.

2. The Kennedy dissent. Haven't read it, but I find his approach faulty. If most rapes are committed by those who know the victim, then the rape isn't a one-time violation - it's continuous. In those cases, someone who's going to enjoy raping children isn't going to kill the victim, because they're going to want to rape the same person again.

But let's move on. From everything that I've read, if you're sent to prison for anything involving hurting little kids, you're almost guaranteed to have very few friends. I honestly can't involve someone plotting "well, if I do this, I'm going to get killed anyway - might as well kill the kid, too". I see very little difference between spending twenty years in a prison where every murderer and thief who has kids wants to make your life a living hell and getting a sentence where you'll be killed by the state in five years - Mikey the Ice Pick Bandit with five-year old twins probably isn't going to care if stabbing you in the kidney with a shiv is cruel and unusual punishment.

The scarring of a child also seems inconsequential here. Rosslynhoya's post of Joe Dirtbag Defense Attorney's threat seems a hollow threat - if the kid is going to send a relative or family friend to prison for decades, there seems to be little difference between that and sending them to death in five years (there's also the little matter that what the perpetrator did SCARRED THE KID FOR LIFE ALREADY), and the defense attorney's going to be just as vicious. Prosecutors will also usually take the wishes of the victim into account in determining what to push for.

[hifigator]

Jun 26, 2008 13:21:54 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

Jun 26, 2008 12:54:50 GMT -5 Boz said:

Not to nitipick or distract from the main topic, but this is not really that fair.

Most religious groups and orders do spend A LOT more time thinking about the guy who is struggling to eat than the gay guys getting married.

Just because MSNBC and Fox don't cover it doesn't mean that it's not happening.

And now for my own political slant....



The ACLU and some human rights organizations would NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS allow this.

Just my opinion.

Agreed on both counts. Sometimes I'm quick to jump on religion because of what has become the sort of characterization of religion in the media. I'm honestly amazed that more rank and file deeply religious people don't lash out against the portrayal of "religion" as being equated with "pro-life, anti-gay, end of story." That portrayal of rank-and-file religious people and groups is I'm sure unfair. What I meant was that my pro-life position isn't coming from the stereotypical kind of blind faith, God loves us perspective. Not that I disagree or belittle that view, but then it gets into all the separation of Church and state ugliness. I just like a rationale for being pro-life that doesn't hinge on religion.

Also very much agree with your second point. Those on the side the push for more resort-like prisons, I think actually do harm to the anti-death penalty cause because you end up with people saying "Either we kill them, or they'll be playing Playstation for the rest of their lives." If prisons were entirely focused on punishment (and in the case of non-life sentences, rehabilitation), then I think there would be less urgency to just kill the bastards. People in jail shouldn't get to spend more time reading for entertainment or watching TV than a law student.

Well said for the most part, but I have one small quibble. The punishment for non-life sentences IS structured towards rehabilitation and arguably too much. Not that the rehab/training itself is a bad thing, but just to say that sometimes being in prison just isn't quite the deterant that it should be. But with regards to rehabilitation, some argue that it is too much of a focus rather than too little. IMO, if the results justify it ... which is to say that the recendiary rate goes down and the contribution to society from the average ex-con goes up, then I am all for it.

One last note, not really directed towards anyone .... I constantly hear how expensive it is to pay for inmates on death row. Then at other times you hear about the high costs of housing inmates. IMO, it certainly shouldn't be that expensive to execute people. In all seriousness, once you get to that point, it should cost next to nothing. I'm guessing that when people talk about the high costs of inmates on death row, they are talking primarily about legal costs for appeals etc...
On the grander scale, I've read where it costs $16,000 per inmate a year. I just don't see how that is. Someone is wasting too much money somewhere. As scary a thought as it sounds right off the bat, if that's the case we might need to privatize prisons.

[hifigator]

socal wrote:

On 1), from what I have read, the death penalty does very little (to nothing) to deter criminals from committing crimes. We like to think it does, because for the most part we are not murderous criminals and would be deterred from doing things if we were killed, but murderous criminals apparently don't even think of that sort of thing (I'm purposefully simplifying this for brevity's sake, for those playing at home).


I have read studies to the contrary. Additionally, here in Florida we have "Ten-Twenty-Life" which is a state mandated prison scale for felonies involving a firearm. I think if you pull the gun then you are looking at 10 years minimum. If you fire the gun then it's 20 minimum and if you kill someone it is 25 years to life -- thus the "Ten-Twenty-Life" slogan. The early statistics have shown a fairly significant drop in such crimes.

Incidentally, there is still pre-trial intervention and the sort, so a first time offender who "simply" pulls a gun during a robbery isn't necessarily going to get the 10 years. They can still plea down as I understand it. But for the most part, the deterance seems to be working.

[SoCalHoya]

On costs for people in jails. I think $16,000 sounds a lot, too. But then I realize how much it costs to feed, school and clothe a child, even one that goes to public school. Certainly not too far off, and kids generally don't need armed guards supervising them. I'm sure there is waste, but I don't think private jails are the answer. Have you ever seen a bill from a private contractor to a state/local government? It's not pretty. The waste doesn't go away, in fact it often gets worse because there is less oversight over incremental costs. Privatization is the way to go for many things, when done correctly, like power, water, etc., but I don't think it will work for our prison system.

[Elvado]

Just so I'm clear. In today's America, we protect the lives of those who rape children, but children who survive late term abortions are left to die in Barack Obama's Illinois.

[hifigator]

Jun 26, 2008 15:35:55 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Just so I'm clear. In today's America, we protect the lives of those who rape children, but children who survive late term abortions are left to die in Barack Obama's Illinois.

Yep, you've pretty much got it figured out.

[strummer8526]

I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with what the "children who survive late term abortions" thing is referring to. What's the story there?

[Elvado]

See Obama's voting record in the Illinois State Senate on a bill which would protect children who survive late term abortions. After you vomit, you'll understand.

[EasyEd]

Here's one commentary on Obama's Illinois State stand:

www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200801/COM20080109b.html

[AustinHoya03]

Apologies for being a bit late to this thread, but to respond to ed's original question:

I am for abolishing the death penalty.

I am against the death penalty for child rapists.

Yet I am also not sure that the 8th Amendment restricts capital punishment to the degree that the Supreme Court of the United States believes it does. I would rather that the death penalty be abolished through the democratic process than whittled away at by Supreme Court decisions which cite "evolving standards of decency." If the voters of Louisiana (and yes, Texas) want laws permitting the execution of child rapists, let them have them, and let those of us who oppose those laws fight against them. This opinion is a victory for proponents of a "living constitution," and I am sure Justice Brennan is smiling somewhere in hell.

[strummer8526]

Jun 26, 2008 18:33:36 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Here's one commentary on Obama's Illinois State stand:

www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200801/COM20080109b.html

Admittedly, I've been a bit busy w/ some work tonight, so I haven't completely read the editorial you link to or this response, but it's worth noting this piece if we're also going to have yours. tinyurl.com/5few46

Not advocating either side until I read them, but there it is.

[moe09]

Jun 26, 2008 9:47:33 GMT -5 rosslynhoya said:

Jun 26, 2008 9:36:45 GMT -5 Jack said:

When life imprisonment is a viable option, there is no need for a death penalty. It's just that simple.

When the death penalty is abolished, its opponents will switch their attention to abolishing life imprisonment. It's just that simple.

Wow. This is laughable.

[Bando]

Jun 26, 2008 15:35:55 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Just so I'm clear. In today's America, we protect the lives of those who rape children, but children who survive late term abortions are left to die in Barack Obama's Illinois.

Yes. Just like in John McCain's America, we kill everyone who looks at us cross-eyed, and keep women in the kitchen where they belong.

[Bando]

Jun 26, 2008 15:28:31 GMT -5 hifigator said:

socal wrote:

On 1), from what I have read, the death penalty does very little (to nothing) to deter criminals from committing crimes. We like to think it does, because for the most part we are not murderous criminals and would be deterred from doing things if we were killed, but murderous criminals apparently don't even think of that sort of thing (I'm purposefully simplifying this for brevity's sake, for those playing at home).


I have read studies to the contrary. Additionally, here in Florida we have "Ten-Twenty-Life" which is a state mandated prison scale for felonies involving a firearm. I think if you pull the gun then you are looking at 10 years minimum. If you fire the gun then it's 20 minimum and if you kill someone it is 25 years to life -- thus the "Ten-Twenty-Life" slogan. The early statistics have shown a fairly significant drop in such crimes.

Incidentally, there is still pre-trial intervention and the sort, so a first time offender who "simply" pulls a gun during a robbery isn't necessarily going to get the 10 years. They can still plea down as I understand it. But for the most part, the deterance seems to be working.

If we're going to accept that the death penalty deters crime, we have to necessarily applaud this decision. Death is the line you cannot cross, then. The deterrent for a criminal is thus: no matter what you do, not killing your victim will keep you alive. Killing them will incur the ultimate penalty. Getting rid of that distinction by expanding capital punishment to crimes other than murder weakens the deterrent effect.

[theexorcist]

Jun 26, 2008 20:53:29 GMT -5 Bando said:

Jun 26, 2008 15:28:31 GMT -5 hifigator said:

socal wrote:

On 1), from what I have read, the death penalty does very little (to nothing) to deter criminals from committing crimes. We like to think it does, because for the most part we are not murderous criminals and would be deterred from doing things if we were killed, but murderous criminals apparently don't even think of that sort of thing (I'm purposefully simplifying this for brevity's sake, for those playing at home).


I have read studies to the contrary. Additionally, here in Florida we have "Ten-Twenty-Life" which is a state mandated prison scale for felonies involving a firearm. I think if you pull the gun then you are looking at 10 years minimum. If you fire the gun then it's 20 minimum and if you kill someone it is 25 years to life -- thus the "Ten-Twenty-Life" slogan. The early statistics have shown a fairly significant drop in such crimes.

Incidentally, there is still pre-trial intervention and the sort, so a first time offender who "simply" pulls a gun during a robbery isn't necessarily going to get the 10 years. They can still plea down as I understand it. But for the most part, the deterance seems to be working.

If we're going to accept that the death penalty deters crime, we have to necessarily applaud this decision. Death is the line you cannot cross, then. The deterrent for a criminal is thus: no matter what you do, not killing your victim will keep you alive. Killing them will incur the ultimate penalty. Getting rid of that distinction by expanding capital punishment to crimes other than murder weakens the deterrent effect.

Based on your logic, not raping your victim will keep you alive, right?