Court upholds death sentence for child rape

[LadyCrimson]

I think in most cases, particuarly in forum discussions such as these, it isn't empathy with the perpetrator so much as a desire to maintain a certain level of ethic (?) as a whole - whatever that may be to the individual; the possibility of wrongful conviction, the possiblity of reform/redemption, the thought for such to be a highlyeffective deterrant it's possible it could get out of hand, and so on.

 

For me, if I was absolutely certain evidence wasn't only circumstantial and the case wasn't a 'showboat' of hurried conviction to please the voting masses, I have no objection to a death penalty with extreme crimes. I'm not for it in general, but there are certainly cases where I'd deem it ... appropriate. I'm not sure I think it's appropriate for this case in particular, tho ... not from reading one little article, anyway.

[Brdavs]

To be honest I have a very difficult time mustering any empathy for a rapist or murderer. And I'll admit I have a VERY hard time understanding those who can (including many people here). I just cannot get past the recidivism rate for rapists (particularly child rapists) and violent offenders.

 

When I was in high school a former girlfriend of mine was murdered while delivering a pizza. She was shot in the back of the head without warning and her car and cash bag stolen. She was 17 years old. The animal who murdered her for $74.00 was released from state prison just two weeks earlier. He served 22 months of an 8 year sentence for armed robbery. He is now on death row. Can any one of you convince me that despicable S.O.B. does not deserve to die? No. If he had been kept in for the 8 years he was sentenced to she would have gone on to college and who knows where from there.

 

I simply do not understand how any of you would feel any empathy for him. Or could possibly think he should spend the rest of his life in air conditioned comfort watching cable TV and eating meals I pay for with my tax dollars.

 

Your experience,tragic as it may be, is completley irrelevant. We`re talking about a system. Like I said before, you project your case onto it some1 else will project the opposite one. But when deciding on it one must strive to be as objective as possible.

To see DP as a systematic solution that you may face one day (as opposed to this one SOB) that a)opposes the foundation of the system its conclusion it is b)has virtually no prevention effect and is irreversible c)is in conflict with one of the core modern western values (sanctity of life).

 

I on the other hand do not understand how any of you would fundamentally differentiate form a murderer/rapist and yourself, putting some1 into a cell, telling him when he is going to die and then execute him in cold blood. Not all things "wrong" are written in penall codes, imo.

 

Death penalty IS legalised murder...

technically, no. murder is, by definition, unlawful killing. so, actually, you have that "death penalty is lawful killing" and "murder is unlawful killing."

 

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.

[Brdavs]

Rapists should be put to death. There is no point in allowing such filthy creatures to continue living.

 

Perhaps you should say the same thing about all killers. Like the guys who condemn other people to death, for example.

 

Indeed.

 

It`s not about your subjective feelins. It`s about a systemic solution that indorces the taking of a life, wich is supposed to be the fundamental value of our modern society. We`re better than that so to speak lol...

So, the US considers freedom to be a fundamental value of its society. Does that mean we shouldn't take freedom away from offenders? The US actually considers freedom more important that death.

 

 

There is a universal "ladder" of values and "legal goods", you know. And life is above personal freedom on that ladder, no question about it. If it werent you`d execute on sight with no incarseration, detention etc. whatsoever. US may be special but you`re not that special lol. It`s now just a question weahter or not that final step of the ladder is off limits not only for an induvidual citizen but for the whole state aparatus aswell. I say it should be.

There is no universal "ladder." Just because we value freedom over life doesn't mean we're going to go around killing everyone who commits an offense over incarceration. But, it does mean that if we find it reasonable to remove freedom, it is reasonable to remove life. Two of the major concepts behind our revolutionary war were liberty and representation which lead to them as founding principles of the country. Two specific things we take away from felons.

 

Like it or not the ladder exist. Despite all the fancy rhetorics dissed out about freedom. Btw I would imagine that that liberty was liberty of opression and oversees government, not the personall freedom as it is concieved in the penal codes. I`m reasonably cofident that like in euorope you do not have the "right" to blow the brains out of a guy cos he impaired your personall freedom by locking you in a room, wich would imply a sort of equality of legal notion of life and freedom. That alone is case in point. Thoe I can`t be 100% sure but that`s how it works here. You can defend your legal goods but not at any price. If you "overdo" (that is defend your tier 2 right by violating a tier 1 right you yourself commited a type of crime.)

[Tale]

That's because you're ascribing government rights to civilians. Civilians don't have the right to restrain anyone, for any reason, barring prevention of a crime.

However, we do have a legal right to take life if necessary to protect life or even property. Which puts civilian rights as equal towards prevention of crime using either the deprivation of freedom (restraint) or life.

Edited May 23, 2007 by Tale

[Dark_Raven]

I believe the punishment should fit the crime. Since the US is against torture, gang rape his ass in prison daily, I would go with the death penality.

[Guard Dog]

Your experience,tragic as it may be, is completley irrelevant. We`re talking about a system. Like I said before, you project your case onto it some1 else will project the opposite one. But when deciding on it one must strive to be as objective as possible.

To see DP as a systematic solution that you may face one day (as opposed to this one SOB) that a)opposes the foundation of the system its conclusion it is b)has virtually no prevention effect and is irreversible c)is in conflict with one of the core modern western values (sanctity of life).

 

I on the other hand do not understand how any of you would fundamentally differentiate form a murderer/rapist and yourself, putting some1 into a cell, telling him when he is going to die and then execute him in cold blood. Not all things "wrong" are written in penall codes, imo.

To be fair, the tragedy of my story was not mine so much as her family and close friends. Objectively speaking in my opinion a child rapist or a murderer (as in a cold blooded or sociopathic killer, not a heat-of-the-moment type) senteced to death is not being punished. They are being disposed of. These people represent a fundamental threat to other innocent people and I do believe rehabilitation is a fools errand at best. At worst it is reckless and irresponsible to ever release these types. Excecution is no more than irradiating a cancer cell. Or stepping on a venomous spider. As to your first point the entire purpose of the justice system is to protect the citizens from criminals. Excecuting the worst and most dangerous types accomplishes it's purpose, not opposes it. As to your second point it is irreversable but it is also a prevention. If it does nothing else it prevents that one individual from harming anyone else. I'll agree with your third point it is against one of the core western values but it supports it in another light by protecting the lives of other people who may one day cross the path of one of these individuals. That includes prison guards and fellow inmates.

[Enoch]

I find it a little odd that Guard Dog, who generally trusts government to do absolutely nothing right, believes that the government should be in the business of deciding which of its citizens should be "disposed of." You keep using that turn of phrase and it gives me the willies-- talking about "disposing of" criminals makes me think of a Stalinist approach to enforcing a social order.

 

 

And where'd Aram go? This thread needs more pictures.

 

Judge Dredd will dispose of the lawbreakers!!!

[Pop]

Doesn't make much sense from a retributive justice standpoint, but it makes perfect sense from an emotional standpoint.

[Azarkon]

Life experience has a way of getting to a person. I'm sure that if I lived in a crime-heavy area where innocents die each day to people who just don't care, I'd feel the same way: a murderer is not a person, just a disease to be eradicated. It's easy to feel this way - after all, we all want to protect ourselves, and those who threaten us and those around us, should be given no quarter whatsoever. It's the same at an individual level, as it is on a national level.

 

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. As people have pointed out, for every ancedote in favor of the DP, there is one not in favor, and when pro-DP people pull out the old "well I'm only in favor of DP if the evidence was absolutely clear, damning, and there was no doubt whatsoever" card, it usually means that they're thinking in an idealistic sense. The real world doesn't operate by idealism - while there are definitely irredeemable sickos out there for whom the only solution possible would be either death or life in prison without parole, most criminals fall somewhere in-between. Worse, while morality has certain absolutes, there are also gray areas for which precedents are dangerous. For example, China currently has the death penalty for fiscal corruption. Fiscal corruption can easily be argued, from Guard Dog's point of view, to be a plague upon society, and it's easy to come up with an anecdote for why corrupt politicians should be executed (ie if the money stolen could've saved lives). Yet, would we accept such a rationale in the West? Would you condemn people to death because they stole money from the government?

 

Would something like executing the top echelon of Enron for the suffering that they caused ever fly in the US? I don't know, but I suspect that the answer is no - there are limits to what Christian morality allows for fiscal corruption.

 

Finally, if no criminal can ever be redeemed, the answer would seem simple: off with their heads, or at least imprison them for life. But redemption, alas, is a deal breaker, and forces us to think about the question in broader terms than what would be best for society. That's when issues such as deterrence and payback take center stage.

Edited May 24, 2007 by Azarkon

[Azarkon]

One last complication in this whole affair is the status of statutory rape. I have no idea whether, in people's minds, this should factor into the decision of whether a child rapist should be executed or not, but it's something to think about.

Edited May 24, 2007 by Azarkon

[metadigital]

I have no problem removing those individuals from a society who refuse to live by the laws agreed by everyone in it. As to HOW they are disposed of, that can be exile to a desert island, or just anywhere outside the society. I think that's fair.

[Azarkon]

Ah, but that way we'll run out of room on earth. The moon is, however, a fine place... Tanstaafl

[Guard Dog]

I find it a little odd that Guard Dog, who generally trusts government to do absolutely nothing right, believes that the government should be in the business of deciding which of its citizens should be "disposed of." You keep using that turn of phrase and it gives me the willies-- talking about "disposing of" criminals makes me think of a Stalinist approach to enforcing a social order.

 

C'mon Enoch were are talking about child rapists (of the John Lee Couey type), and cold blooded murderes. In every state that has the DP it is only applied if the crime is heinious enough to warrant it. In my example, ordering a pizza then lying in wait to murder the deliver girl qualifies. A Stalinist approach would make no distinctions between animals like that and petty felons such as car thieves or con artists. Or even political dissidents if you take a literal historical example of Stalinist justice. I did qualify my argument by stating I'm talking about child rapists and cold blooded killers.

 

That said I am also very much in favor of truth in sentencing laws. If a prisioner is sentenced to five years they will do five years.

[Gorth]

There is always Guantanamo bay...

 

On a more serious note, I've always felt uncomfortable with the death penalty for the simple reason that the system is not perfect and innocent people sometimes gets convicted falsely. Sometimes they get released again when proven innocent after all. Very hard to even partially apologise to/recompensate a dead man.

 

Accepting the killing of a few innocents here and there as collateral damage just to "get back" at serious offenders is not good civilised behaviour in my book.

 

As for the actual case, I would like to say that castration and a tattoo on the forehead would do, if it wasn't for the fact that is just as permanent damage to a man as the death sentence. Separating him indefinitely from society does seems like the best solution, but thats just an (my) oppinion from somebody whose only encounter with the legal system is a speeding ticket.

 

Since speeding sometimes is putting other peoples lives at risk, somebody out there would probably also think that it is worthy of the death sentence :ninja10:

[Gorgon]

No it's not appropriate to sentence anyone to death, regardless of whether you think they deserve it or not. It's easy ebough to find one of these monsters to hold up as an example, the trouble is that allongside these monsters which everyone believes deserv death there are infinite shades of gray, and unquestionably the odd innocent man.

[Guard Dog]

Fiscal corruption can easily be argued, from Guard Dog's point of view, to be a plague upon society, and it's easy to come up with an anecdote for why corrupt politicians should be executed (ie if the money stolen could've saved lives). Yet, would we accept such a rationale in the West? Would you condemn people to death because they stole money from the government?

 

Would something like executing the top echelon of Enron for the suffering that they caused ever fly in the US? I don't know, but I suspect that the answer is no - there are limits to what Christian morality allows for fiscal corruption.

 

Finally, if no criminal can ever be redeemed, the answer would seem simple: off with their heads, or at least imprison them for life. But redemption, alas, is a deal breaker, and forces us to think about the question in broader terms than what would be best for society. That's when issues such as deterrence and payback take center stage.

 

First of all, I disagree completely that anything I stated could be used as an arguemnt to execute people for fiscal corruption, or any other non violent crime. I put a pretty strong qualifier on my argument so what you wrote here is non sequitur. Also I did not say that no criminal could be redeemed. What I said was in the cases of super-violent offenders (child rapists, cold blooded murderers) rehabilitation was a fools errand. Based on recidivism rates for both I believe I am right. And believing one of these offenders to be rehabilitated and releasing them puts everyone near them at risk. In my opinion, you rape a child (I'm not talking about statutory rape here, you know better than that) then you have forfeited your right to live among the rest of society. If you had a young daughter and you learned a convicted and paroled child rapist has moved in next door would you be concerned? With a recidivism rate of almost 60% (according to CSOM ) you should be.

[Enoch]

I find it a little odd that Guard Dog, who generally trusts government to do absolutely nothing right, believes that the government should be in the business of deciding which of its citizens should be "disposed of." You keep using that turn of phrase and it gives me the willies-- talking about "disposing of" criminals makes me think of a Stalinist approach to enforcing a social order.

 

C'mon Enoch were are talking about child rapists (of the John Lee Couey type), and cold blooded murderes. In every state that has the DP it is only applied if the crime is heinious enough to warrant it. In my example, ordering a pizza then lying in wait to murder the deliver girl qualifies. A Stalinist approach would make no distinctions between animals like that and petty felons such as car thieves or con artists. Or even political dissidents if you take a literal historical example of Stalinist justice. I did qualify my argument by stating I'm talking about child rapists and cold blooded killers.

 

That said I am also very much in favor of truth in sentencing laws. If a prisioner is sentenced to five years they will do five years.

Oh, I know that's not the case you're referring to-- I was just reacting to the particular phrase you used. It made me squirm a bit.

 

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.

 

I have no problem removing those individuals from a society who refuse to live by the laws agreed by everyone in it. As to HOW they are disposed of, that can be exile to a desert island, or just anywhere outside the society. I think that's fair.

But then what happens when the President is kidnapped and taken there? It's gonna take some bad d00d to go in and rescue him...

 

Edited May 24, 2007 by Enoch

[metadigital]

No it's not appropriate to sentence anyone to death, regardless of whether you think they deserve it or not. It's easy ebough to find one of these monsters to hold up as an example, the trouble is that allongside these monsters which everyone believes deserv death there are infinite shades of gray, and unquestionably the odd innocent man.

Slippery slope?

 

The British used to have the death penalty for almost everything: steal an apple, hang from Tyburn gallows. They changed the penalty because juries were increasingly reluctant to convict.

[Hell Kitty]

If that was your daughter would you feel the same way?

 

I'd want to kill the guy myself, but it wouldn't have anything to do with justice.

 

I can never support the death penalty due to the the flaws in the legal system. I don't have a problem with the deaths of rapists or paedophiles, but that's purely an emotional response.

[Guard Dog]

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.

[theslug]

So if you don't believe in the death penalty what do you think is a better solution, they should get life imprisonment [with no possibility of parole]? If you ask me, that's both cruel and unusual not to mention expensive as all hell and leaves the jails filled to the brim. People who don't believe in the death penalty in my experience are just naive and don't have a firm grasp on efficiency or justice in the least. There are people who will never, ever change there ways. In many places there are a majority or close to, of repeat offenders in jail. A lot of these people will never conform to society, do they deserve the death penalty, well that depends. That's why I like the 3 strikes rule especially in cases like that, and I think it's completely justified to kill someone who consistently drops the ball. However, it should only be reserved for violent crimes or cases involving narcotics/guns/real serious stuff.

[Gorth]

You could learn something from Singapore then.

 

They have the death penalty for arms possession, drug possession, kidnapping etc. I don't know the numbers, but I would guess they have very few repeat offenders.

[Aram]

Death penalty for being bourgeoisie IMO.

 

[Sand]

I am and always will be for the death penalty.

 

Death penalty should be for convicted felons that cause premeditated murder with a sound mind. The death penalty should be used against those convicted of aggravated rape, such as in this case. Death penalty should be used against those who have no redeeming qualities that can be used by a civilized society. However those who seek to do crime such as these are not deterred by the possibility of the death penalty nor extended time in prison. Permanently removing such individuals from society is not an act of revenge nor justice. It is an act of weeding out those who cannot live a civilized life, to discard the human waste of our civilization.

 

Also I don't believe in parole. Parole needs to be abolished. If you are sentenced for 25 years you serve that 25 years. If you are sentenced for 5 years you serve that 5 years. 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.

Edited May 24, 2007 by Sand

[Arkan]

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

Wait, what?