Court upholds death sentence for child rape

[Guard Dog]

Actually, a no-longer-with-us poster named alanschu

Wait, what?

I think he's still around.

[Enoch]

And you're still trusting the government to get a lot right. Wouldn't it be more protective of individual liberties if the punishment were something less final? It's been a while since I've looked at any studies, but I seem to recall that the difference in deterrent effect between the death penalty and life without the possibility of parole being statistically insignificant.

Heh, I'm not an anarchist Enoch . Politically I believe local, federal, and state governments should operate only within the limits of their constitutions and charters. Which I believed should be read through a filter of strict constructionism. That is my idea of protecting individual liberties. If the government does only what it is allowed to, the rest takes care of itself.

 

Is DP a bigger deterrent than Life without parole? Dunno. How would such a metric even be tracked? But life without parole is a rare sentence in the justice system.

 

BTW what kind of law do you practice? If you ever told me I don't remember.

I'm not suggesting that you don't believe in law enforcement. Merely that allowing the government to take a citizen's life is a step opens up the possibility for some pretty big mistakes, and that libertarians and strict constructionists aren't known for trusting that the government will get these kind of things right.

 

I think that most of the studies involving deterrence effects are either comparative studies between demographically similar jurisdictions (one with a DP, one where life without parole is the harshest penalty allowed), or studies comparing effects on crime rates before and after the DP was authorized or outlawed. Of course, all manner of complicated statistical techniques are used to try to filter out the other inputs like demographics, enforcement levels, etc. When I was an undergrad, I took a course on the Economics of Crime that covered some of these studies.

 

I work for the Feds-- most of my work deals with federal financial management statutes and appropriations law. Basically, this means looking at where agencies get their money, how they manage it, and what they can use it for.

[Aram]

 

Rarrr.

[Aram]

Anyone want to see how modern Punisher would handle this situation? It's kind of not worksafe.

In fact, he makes Dolph look like my grandmother.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Personally, I think the punishment should fit the crime.

 

*understandably vindictive, but unnecessarily graphic description of what the honourable member would chose to do to rapists*

 

Really, who would do it again?

 

*Edited by Walsingham*

[Aram]

A perverted baseball fan?

[Gfted1]

Also they need to implement the 3 strikes rule in every state and on the federal level. If you are convicted a third time on a felony charge then life without parole.

 

IMO, that casts too wide a net (see California). Not all "felonies" are created equally and what you wind up with many times is overkill. Oh, and you think there is a prison overpopulation problem now....

[Walsingham]

I've read through the whole thread just now and have mixed feelings.

 

Firstly, rather like GD I'm familiar with actual cases of aggravated rape. Cases which I couldn't begin to describe without violating board guidelines. The perpetrators of these crimes go in my box marked 'surplus to requirements' and should be shuffled off quite quietly and with minimum fuss. I feel that way partly because I am repulsed by them, but also because I find the notion of devoting time and effort to their rehabilitation a farce when we don't look after folks who have a bad start in life but soldier on as best they can.

 

However, I draw a distinction between the fact that SOMEONE has committed the crime and the notion that the man in custody has committed the crime. The case quoted here illustrates quite well the often rather ropey evidence in rape cases. Hence I would be reluctant at present to send a man to death for rape. However, the solution in my opinion is to improve the scientific and forensic methods for proving rape has occurred. If that can be done I see no reason why the death penalty should not be employed.

 

I think in general there are some crimes where (to misquote PST) the question is not what right we have to kill the perpetrator, but what right we have to let them live. What right we have to receive the undeniable joy of clemency and mercy when it is not us who have suffered at their hands.

 

If anyone disagrees with this I will be interested to hear the rejoinder PROVIDED you have taken the trouble to - for example - acquaint yourself with the actions of Marc DuTroux et al.

[Sand]

DNA testing and forensics have become more and more reliable in proving guilt ad well as innocence.

[Walsingham]

DNA testing and forensics have become more and more reliable in proving guilt ad well as innocence.

 

They are becoming more reliable, certainly, but they are far from infallible.

[taks]

Such is the definition of murder in the US/countries with DP. Elsewhere *all* killing is unlawfull ergo from that perspective DP is what ammounts to a legalised illegal act.

in those countries then, since there is no death penalty, there is no such thing as legalized killing, ergo, it is still not legalized murder. the phrase "legalized illegal killing" does not even make sense, even in your context, because there is no legal killing.

 

the term "legalized murder" is often used as a hyperbolic phrase by those that are vehemently against the death penalty to stir emotion in those that are not. it is nothing more than a ploy, using a rather illogical statement.

 

i agree with gorth, btw, on why the death penalty should be removed from the US. that does not excuse illogical statements, however.

 

taks

[Musopticon?]

How do you know the actual crime rate in China? Are there any reliable statistics on the subject?

 

Pure gold.

[Azarkon]

I've read through the whole thread just now and have mixed feelings.

 

Firstly, rather like GD I'm familiar with actual cases of aggravated rape. Cases which I couldn't begin to describe without violating board guidelines. The perpetrators of these crimes go in my box marked 'surplus to requirements' and should be shuffled off quite quietly and with minimum fuss. I feel that way partly because I am repulsed by them, but also because I find the notion of devoting time and effort to their rehabilitation a farce when we don't look after folks who have a bad start in life but soldier on as best they can.

 

However, I draw a distinction between the fact that SOMEONE has committed the crime and the notion that the man in custody has committed the crime. The case quoted here illustrates quite well the often rather ropey evidence in rape cases. Hence I would be reluctant at present to send a man to death for rape. However, the solution in my opinion is to improve the scientific and forensic methods for proving rape has occurred. If that can be done I see no reason why the death penalty should not be employed.

 

I think in general there are some crimes where (to misquote PST) the question is not what right we have to kill the perpetrator, but what right we have to let them live. What right we have to receive the undeniable joy of clemency and mercy when it is not us who have suffered at their hands.

 

If anyone disagrees with this I will be interested to hear the rejoinder PROVIDED you have taken the trouble to - for example - acquaint yourself with the actions of Marc DuTroux et al.

 

Not a rejoinder, but a question: how do you feel about the death penalty for aggravated assault in general?

 

I ask because the basis for your argument relies on two factors: repulsiveness (a highly subjective and therefore suspicious motivation) and the wastefulness of rehabilitation. I won't say much about the former, but the latter can really be argued for any criminal act. Thieves, by your argument, should also be executed, if a certain degree of "repulsiveness" can be argued. Furthermore, the notion that society has not the right to mercy because we have not suffered at the criminal's hands seems to imply that the basis for mercy should depend on the victim. In other words, vengeance is the best form of justice - a notion I find quite chililng given how vengeful some people can be.

 

At any case, it's this "unsaid" criteria of severity that most interests me: most of us would agree that there are people in the world who, as best as we can tell, "deserves" death because of repeated violations, irredeemability, etc. But is the criteria we use objective or subjective, emotional or rational? Does it matter? That's what's hard for me to distinguish.

Edited May 24, 2007 by Azarkon

[Cantousent]

Azarkon is such a rat bastard. I only say this because he's always the most eloquent person in every thread. However, I disagree with his points in this case.

 

Laws are highly subjective in the first place. For example, killing, even consensual and for the purpose of ending suffering, is illegal. However, removing a feeding tube is not. Aren't those the same thing. In some countries, the age of consent for sexual intercourse is lower than in others. If there were a state (country) in which the age of consent were eight years old, and there were reasonable doubt that the man had secured consent for engaging in sex with an eight year old, there would be no crime. The crime carries the weight it does in this particular case because there is an overwhelming understanding, subjective though it may be, that the criminal has crossed a "repulsive" line. The country that creates the law also has the right to designate punishment. How did Saddam Hussein reign for years even though he allegedly committed attrocities on his own people? Because other nations recognized the boundaries of his country and recognized the legitimacy of his government. Even after defeat in the first Gulf war, Saddam continued to rule.

 

So, a country has the right not only to create these laws and decide on punishment but also to enforce them. That seems unquestionably true no matter how many "OMG we're all citizens of the world" folks pop out of the shaodws.

 

With that in mind, and this is where Azarkon shows his wiley ways, I agree with him entirely in this statement: "In other words, vegeance is the best form of justice - a notion I find quite chilling given how vengeful some people can be."

 

I would do away with the death penatly altogether, not because it is unlawful or breaks some pie in the sky natural order, but because it is surpassingly random. Justice is not perfect and never will be, but anything so randomly enforced as the death penalty cannot be justice. Vengeance may be capricious. Justice cannot.

[Sand]

DNA testing and forensics have become more and more reliable in proving guilt ad well as innocence.

 

They are becoming more reliable, certainly, but they are far from infallible.

Anything of human invention will never be perfect, Walsh, because human beings are not perfect. That's a given.

[Walsingham]

DNA testing and forensics have become more and more reliable in proving guilt ad well as innocence.

 

They are becoming more reliable, certainly, but they are far from infallible.

Anything of human invention will never be perfect, Walsh, because human beings are not perfect. That's a given.

 

Oh, very clever. The fact is that juries have either an exagerrated faith in DNA evidence or an exagerrated LACK of faith in it.

[Sand]

That is the fault of the jury. I say DNA evidence weigh moderately on a case but there is other factors that need to be considered as well. Good jurors, as few and far in between they are, would see that.

[metadigital]

wait what

[astr0creep]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

 

Leave the rapist's fate into the hands of the victim's family.

Let them decide what to do with the bastards.

Slavery, torture, death, whatever. They all deserve it.

 

Screw barbarisms and political correctness.

[Walsingham]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

 

Leave the rapist's fate into the hands of the victim's family.

Let them decide what to do with the bastards.

Slavery, torture, death, whatever. They all deserve it.

 

Screw barbarisms and political correctness.

 

Ah except of course that in the United States that would be unconstitutional. Cruel and unusual, you know.

[metadigital]

Or, more correctly, cruel and far too usual.

[Walsingham]

I've often wondered whether the wording implies it has to be BOTH cruel and unusual or cruel OR unusual. My favourite recollection on this point is the psychological conditioning used on inmates in the seventies which actually WORKED in stopping violent behaviour.* Lawyers succesfully challenged it on grounds of being cruel, for denying people the option to be violent. But I thought it could equally have been challenged as unusual.

 

* I can't be bothered to reference this point, so if you think it unlikely feel free to ignore it.

[Volourn]

"Leave the rapist's fate into the hands of the victim's family.

Let them decide what to do with the bastards.

Slavery, torture, death, whatever. They all deserve it."

 

Worst. idea. ever.

[Gorth]

I've often wondered whether the wording implies it has to be BOTH cruel and unusual or cruel OR unusual. My favourite recollection on this point is the psychological conditioning used on inmates in the seventies which actually WORKED in stopping violent behaviour.* Lawyers succesfully challenged it on grounds of being cruel, for denying people the option to be violent. But I thought it could equally have been challenged as unusual.

 

* I can't be bothered to reference this point, so if you think it unlikely feel free to ignore it.

Been seeing too much Clockwork Orange again, have we?

[Sand]

wait what

Eh?