US Supreme Court to Decide if Child Rapists May Be Executed

[Landiskan]

Make them break rocks in the desert with a wooden mallet.

[Enoch]

A related case decision, Baze v. Rees, was announced today. The SCOTUS has upheld the state of Kentucky's lethal-injection method for administering the death penalty. Not a surprising result-- the petitioners' argument (that the risk that maladministration of the procedure could cause intense pain made the method "cruel and unusual") was pretty weak.

[walkerguy]

Cruel and Unusual? Nah. I would rather be shot than injected, though. If I murdered nick_i_am or something you know.

[Brdavs]

Funnly enough Sand is the prime torch carrier when it comes to anti China discusions lol...

 

 

But back to topic, if I were a citizen of a country in the elite club of practicisng legalised murder (counting 95% of totalitarian and hard line religious regimes) I`d take a hint heh... for Christs sake even the "commie bastards" in Moscow haven`t executed anyone in 15 odd years heh. Death is all too second nature and a reflex response in some areas of the world... This day and age there`s something seriously wrong with that im(vh)o.

[Gorgon]

The provision against cruel and unusual punishment is rather odd, I mean wouldn't you rather take a whipping or be branded with iron than be killed.

[walkerguy]

Whipping or branded with an iron is not the same as being killed.

[Gorgon]

Thats the point, that one can be considered immoral and the other perfectly acceptable, and that the less extreme and final is the immoral punishment.

[Nick_i_am]

It's a good point eh?

 

Immoral is also keeping people on deaths row for 15 years.

[mkreku]

I don't particularly care what the US does in these cases. I mean, you got your guns and your shootings and you're happy with that. But I would never want the kind of social climate that state legislated murder brings with it in Sweden.

[Gorgon]

Criminality is just one part of the binary of criminality and legality which helps society distinguish 'right' from 'wrong'. That conception of right and wrong can be accompanied by an extreme ostracisation as in the leepers of the dark ages, where they are no longer though of as human, in that mode it becomes easier to accept the death penalty, since you no longer equate it as something that could possibly happen to yourself or to someone you would compare yourself with.

[Sand]

Funnly enough Sand is the prime torch carrier when it comes to anti China discusions lol...

 

 

But back to topic, if I were a citizen of a country in the elite club of practicisng legalised murder (counting 95% of totalitarian and hard line religious regimes) I`d take a hint heh... for Christs sake even the "commie bastards" in Moscow haven`t executed anyone in 15 odd years heh. Death is all too second nature and a reflex response in some areas of the world... This day and age there`s something seriously wrong with that im(vh)o.

 

There is a difference here. In China, people are being imprisoned and killed for speaking against the government. Here, we are discussing people who should get executed for raping minors and who have commited premeditated murder. If you can't see the difference then something is seriously wrong with you.

[Moatilliatta]

I'm always against death penalty for the reason Gorgon alluded to in his recent post, I believe humanity isn't something that can be stripped away and as such the killing of humans is always immoral.

 

Also, anyone know whether pedophilia is a mental disease? No matter what, such laws should always distinguish between the likely motivation behind the rape, is the subject an insane sadist or a pedophile? Can either of them be treated?

 

As you guys may be able to read, I'm very pro-rehabilitation as both imprisonent and execution is inhumane.

[Gorgon]

Pedophilia can be treated with chemical castration, but it doesn't arrest the psychological and sexual makeup of the individual, some pedophiles released under observation of continuing drug treatment re-offend anyway.

 

Other than that there is psychotherapy but it is notoriously hard to document success. Are they 'crazy' or is it merely a question of sexual preference, I don't know, but we have to safeguard children in either case.

 

All in all they constitute a much greater risk than criminals who have merely financial motives.

[Guard Dog]

I'm always against death penalty for the reason Gorgon alluded to in his recent post, I believe humanity isn't something that can be stripped away and as such the killing of humans is always immoral.

 

Also, anyone know whether pedophilia is a mental disease? No matter what, such laws should always distinguish between the likely motivation behind the rape, is the subject an insane sadist or a pedophile? Can either of them be treated?

 

As you guys may be able to read, I'm very pro-rehabilitation as both imprisonent and execution is inhumane.

 

Given that the recidivisim rate for sex offenders is around 70% would you want a convicted child rapist living next to you if you had kids? Rehabilitation of child predators is a fools errand. I don't believe they should be killed but they do need to spend the rest of their lives in a dark nasty place with high walls and a lot of razor wire guarded by men with guns. At least that way they won't hurt anyone else.

[random n00b]

I'm always against death penalty for the reason Gorgon alluded to in his recent post, I believe humanity isn't something that can be stripped away and as such the killing of humans is always immoral.

 

Also, anyone know whether pedophilia is a mental disease? No matter what, such laws should always distinguish between the likely motivation behind the rape, is the subject an insane sadist or a pedophile? Can either of them be treated?

 

As you guys may be able to read, I'm very pro-rehabilitation as both imprisonent and execution is inhumane.

I agree that you can't strip humanity. But I also believe that certain acts prove that some people aren't better than dogs (no offense intended GD, ) and therefore warrant no better treatment. No one is stripping them of humanity, they are rejecting it themselves.

 

The mental disease excuse is the easy way out, but I simply don't buy it. Unless one's grip on reality has been completely lost (raving madmen, not quite your usual sex offender), it's that person's responsibility to keep their urges in check and seek help. Or not. But they should pay for it, or it's chaos.

 

For good or ill, the state is to protect the majority first, and the minority second. In this case, the minority are sex offenders. It might not be "humane" to imprison them for life, but the welfare and protection of the majority take precedence.

 

Bottom line, don't go around molesting children and you should be ok.

[Nick_i_am]

There should be a distinction between those who are predatory and those who are simply weak willed (and I

[Walsingham]

I'm confused a little here, chaps. Several of you talk about abusers being abused. Surely abuse is something that is foul whichever way you slice it?

 

On the other hand, a quick read about Marc Dutroux (et al) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3522367.stm does make one reconsider. I mean, what do you do with someone like that? How could any psychologist really take responsibility for turning him loose, even after twenty years?

 

BTW, how many here have seen Oz?

[Walsingham]

Actually, reviewing the details of the DuTroux case, I am struck by three points:

 

1) Rape of minors should be taken seriously.

 

2) In this case, and in many other cases, the offender has beeen guilty of a string of other offences over a long epriod of time, all of which point to severe mental disturbance and a danger to the public. Nothing effective appears to have been done to deal with this danger.

 

3) I put it to you that our efforts would be better applied to effectively handling known habitual violent offenders of all kinds. If we fail to do that then all this talk of exacting terrible revenge is more or less an attempt to assuage our own guilt for standing idly by!

[random n00b]

3) I put it to you that our efforts would be better applied to effectively handling known habitual violent offenders of all kinds. If we fail to do that then all this talk of exacting terrible revenge is more or less an attempt to assuage our own guilt for standing idly by!

Agree.

 

Preventive measures > punitive measures.

[Laozi]

If only there was only some way to identify these individuals as children and weed them out before they become a danger to anyone, like if they had an extra Y chromosome or something.

[Gfted1]

^Careful there Laozi. We start weeding out "undesirables" at birth and its not too long before only "perfect" people are allowed to be born.

[Laozi]

as cool as I am, it would be pretty boring if everyone was like me.

 

 

 

I dunno, there is a side of me that feels a little like these people are simply products of man's past. Being predisposed to rape is also being somewhat predisposed to passing on your genetic material. Our past is one inwhich the most vicious have ruled and become the most prosperous and I don't see it as unreasonable to think these people the product of that sort of selected breeding.

[Moatilliatta]

For good or ill, the state is to protect the majority first, and the minority second. In this case, the minority are sex offenders. It might not be "humane" to imprison them for life, but the welfare and protection of the majority take precedence.

If only there was only some way to identify these individuals as children and weed them out before they become a danger to anyone, like if they had an extra Y chromosome or something.

Helooooooo slippery slope.

As Gfted1 pointed out towards the second quote, these kinds of statements should be rethought or phrased in a very restrictive way. Modern ethics have moved beyond simple utilitarianism.

 

I should also mention that people who are being rehabilitated should obviously be restricted, I'm just very annoyed by people who talk of imprisonment as an answer to anything.

My belief is just that any society which is presumptious enough to take on the job that is law and order, should also try to do so in the most humane way possible, and not falling for silly "greater good", revenge or even arguments to imhumanity, towards the people that is is concerned.

 

Edit: Also, I do realize that rehabilitation isn't a switch and we can't perfectly rehabilitate everyone yet, but we can only become better if we start caring for it and move towards systems that are humane first and foremost.

 

Edit2: Changed basic utilitarianism to simple utilitarianism to reflect the fact that their arguments don't even contain the weighing of everyones case equally, which is an inherent attribute of utilitarianism.

Edited April 18, 2008 by Moatilliatta

[random n00b]

Helooooooo slippery slope.

How is that a slippery slope? Do you even know what that is? I'm not saying that protecting the majority necessarily implies mistreating sex offenders. But, as things are right now, and from a realistic approach, the only solution is imprisonment. I haven't seen you come up with something better, either.

 

In fact, your implying that imprisonment -> mistreatment *is* a rather gleaming example of a slippery slope.

 

 

I should also mention that people who are being rehabilitated should obviously be restricted, I'm just very annoyed by people who talk of imprisonment as an answer to anything.

My belief is just that any society which is presumptious enough to take on the job that is law and order, should also try to do so in the most humane way possible, and not falling for silly "greater good", revenge or even arguments to imhumanity, towards the people that is is concerned.

What about those that *don't* want rehabilitated? Sure, they all want out on parole, but how many of them really want to change?

 

It's not a matter of "greater good", either. Misrepresenting the stances of others isn't going to make your discourse any stronger. The deal is, resources are limited. And I'd much rather have my taxes be spent on roads, dams, or nuclear power plants, than in rehabilitating sex offenders. You are purposefully ignoring the crucial fact that most child rapists are adults, and that entails taking responsibility for one's actions. The state isn't anyone's babysitter.

 

You see, law isn't as much a means of delivering justice or attaining the high moral ground as it is a tool for maintaining the status quo. Whatever lies are invented to disguise this fact serve only to help people sleep better at night.

 

 

Edit: Also, I do realize that rehabilitation isn't a switch and we can't perfectly rehabilitate everyone yet, but we can only become better if we start caring for it and move towards systems that are humane first and foremost.

I see you throwing this "humane" word around quite a bit, but without any concretion. Would you mind elaborating on how the current penal system isn't "humane" enough, and why? Feasible alternatives? Edited April 18, 2008 by random n00b

[Moatilliatta]

How is that a slippery slope? Do you even know what that is? I'm not saying that protecting the majority necessarily implies mistreating sex offenders. But, as things are right now, and from a realistic approach, the only solution is imprisonment. I haven't seen you come up with something better, either.

Because it is a very simplistic argument that since it is forumulated in a not very strict manner can easily lead to things that wasn't intended by the original argument and which will be potentially very unpleasant.

 

In fact, your implying that imprisonment -> mistreatment *is* a rather gleaming example of a slippery slope.

I actually don't think I ever wrote mistreatment. Instead I wrote that imprisonment is inhumane/immoral and that could be seen as a slippery slope but really isn't. It isn't because as I wrote in my last post I don't think that rehabilitation should be done with criminals running around in the open and being able to commit crimes, instead rehabilitation is an answer to the question that most people only answers with imprisonment and death penalty. As such the inhumane/immoral part must come to mean something along the lines of possibility but should be avoided if it doesn't create increased human suffering by avoiding it.

 

The deal is, resources are limited. And I'd much rather have my taxes be spent on roads, dams, or nuclear power plants, than in rehabilitating sex offenders.

That's a funny argument considering how much money is already spent on prisons. I can only answer it with the fact that a succesfull rehabiliation should lead to the person becoming a boon to society instead of a detriment and unless the person is physically broken to such a degree that he can't even commit crimes, it seems to me that it will always lead to a better economical situation than prisons which are really just a black hole for money.

 

You are purposefully ignoring the crucial fact that most child rapists are adults, and that entails taking responsibility for one's actions. The state isn't anyone's babysitter.

They are adults, but most legal systems take mental dieseases and insanity into account if relevant. The state is indeed everyones babysitter since it started having a monopoly on non-defensive violence, I do agree that the state in general should try no9t to babysit, but there are cases where there is little choice.

 

You see, law isn't as much a means of delivering justice or attaining the high moral ground as it is a tool for maintaining the status quo. Whatever lies are invented to disguise this fact serve only to help people sleep better at night.

Law is there for the good of society and not just the ones that are capable of living by its rules. I applaud your bravery in trying to enforce your view of law upon me, but must disagree.

 

I see you throwing this "humane" word around quite a bit, but without any concretion. Would you mind elaborating on how the current penal system isn't "humane" enough, and why? Feasible alternatives?

The current penal system is inhuman because it is a human right in my point of view for any human to not be detained if other options are open. This is because I wouldn't want to be detained if other options were open and I view anything that I wouldn't want to be subjected to as a human right. I'm a bit perplexed at your asking for alternatives as I have done little except flaunt my support for an alternative.