[split] Death penalty for child molestors?

[Desdinova]

I'm ambivalent on the decision, as, from what I hear, it's just in keeping with what the Court has been saying for the past three decades--you need to kill someone, at minimum, to get the death penalty. The most convincing practical reason I've heard for the decision was along the lines of the following:

1) Most child rapes supposedly happen from a close family member.
2) Most child rapes as is are not reported, as with most rapes in general.
3) Most families who report these things are generally unwilling to put a close family member up for death. This includes the children themselves.
4) Therefore, if you have the death penalty hovering over everyone's head with regard to reporting a child rape, then even fewer child rapes will be reported than before.

The false conviction aspect is also a very dangerous thing in this kind of situation. Children's testimony is notoriously fickle, particularly after something this traumatic. IIRC, the girl in the case above gave two different stories, separated by a few years: one in which two boys she didn't know raped her, and one in which it was her step-father. A question, because I genuinely don't know: how often is there direct physical evidence in these cases? I was under the impression most are reported well after the fact...

[General Zod]

The false conviction aspect is also a very dangerous thing in this kind of situation. Children's testimony is notoriously fickle, particularly after something this traumatic. IIRC, the girl in the case above gave two different stories, separated by a few years: one in which two boys she didn't know raped her, and one in which it was her step-father. A question, because I genuinely don't know: how often is there direct physical evidence in these cases? I was under the impression most are reported well after the fact...

A false conviction is always a serious concern for any death penalty case, which somewhat goes without saying in this instance (I'm conceding the death-penalty as deterrent thing for now). The only real issue I can see that I mentioned earlier is why do violent pedophiles deserve the death penalty more than other child-abusers? Especially ones who actually let their children die due to neglect or negligence?

[Kanastrous]

The only real issue I can see that I mentioned earlier is why do violent pedophiles deserve the death penalty more than other child-abusers? Especially ones who actually let their children die due to neglect or negligence?

I think gut-level revulsion has a lot to do, with it.

Considering the other despicable crimes people have mentioned, it's difficult to see what makes violent pedophilia worse, save that it combines features of the others.

[Master of Ossus]

A false conviction is always a serious concern for any death penalty case, which somewhat goes without saying in this instance (I'm conceding the death-penalty as deterrent thing for now). The only real issue I can see that I mentioned earlier is why do violent pedophiles deserve the death penalty more than other child-abusers? Especially ones who actually let their children die due to neglect or negligence?

I'm not clear on what you mean by "other child abusers [...] who actually let their children die due to neglect or negligence," but a violent pedophile is motivated by the objective of personal pleasure at the expense of the child (or simply by hurting the child). In either case, I find that even more reprehensible than those morons who don't let their kids get inoculated because they're afraid of autism (or whatever)--at least those people are trying to do the right thing for their kids. The violent pedophile is totally disregarding the health, safety, and well-being of the child for no legitimate purpose. I think that's worthy of its own little circle of hell.

[General Zod]

I'm not clear on what you mean by "other child abusers [...] who actually let their children die due to neglect or negligence," but a violent pedophile is motivated by the objective of personal pleasure at the expense of the child (or simply by hurting the child). In either case, I find that even more reprehensible than those morons who don't let their kids get inoculated because they're afraid of autism (or whatever)--at least those people are trying to do the right thing for their kids. The violent pedophile is totally disregarding the health, safety, and well-being of the child for no legitimate purpose. I think that's worthy of its own little circle of hell.

Idiots who deny their children blood transfusions or even simple surgeries that could save their life but which results in their death are the biggest example I can think of off the top of my head. As far as I know they meet exactly the same criteria you labeled for violent pedophiles.

[The Spartan]

Idiots who deny their children blood transfusions or even simple surgeries that could save their life but which results in their death are the biggest example I can think of off the top of my head. As far as I know they meet exactly the same criteria you labeled for violent pedophiles.

Would someone who "punishes" a child by starving or caging them fit with what you're thinking of?

Or what about someone who beats a toddler to "toughen" them up or in an attempt to prevent them being gay. (There was a story posted about this very thing in this forum; kid died from his injuries I'm afraid.)

[General Zod]

Would someone who "punishes" a child by starving or caging them fit with what you're thinking of?

Or what about someone who beats a toddler to "toughen" them up or in an attempt to prevent them being gay. (There was a story posted about this very thing in this forum; kid died from his injuries I'm afraid.)

Both of them fall under what I'm shooting at. If you're going to demand a death-penalty for violent pedophiles, it makes no sense to let other crimes that could be arguably worse get off with only a life-sentence or just a few years, since they actually resulted in the death of a child.

[Master of Ossus]

Would someone who "punishes" a child by starving or caging them fit with what you're thinking of?

Or what about someone who beats a toddler to "toughen" them up or in an attempt to prevent them being gay. (There was a story posted about this very thing in this forum; kid died from his injuries I'm afraid.)

Both of them fall under what I'm shooting at. If you're going to demand a death-penalty for violent pedophiles, it makes no sense to let other crimes that could be arguably worse get off with only a life-sentence or just a few years, since they actually resulted in the death of a child.

With those people I agree, but can't they already be convicted of murder and sentenced to death?

[General Zod]

With those people I agree, but can't they already be convicted of murder and sentenced to death?

Usually they get something like "negligent homicide" or "manslaughter". Or in some of the blood transfusion cases, nothing at all. Which is why to me, it makes no sense to slap violent pedophiles with the death sentence while there's arguably much worse out there.

[Master of Ossus]

Usually they get something like "negligent homicide" or "manslaughter". Or in some of the blood transfusion cases, nothing at all. Which is why to me, it makes no sense to slap violent pedophiles with the death sentence while there's arguably much worse out there.

Well, fair enough. States should be able to pass statutes that say "negligent homicide of toddlers" makes the felon eligible for capital punishment. I have no problem with that.

[Coyote]

I would apply higher standards of evidence for death penalty cases accross the board, actually, not just in child rape cases. There's been a lot of overturned convictions in murder cases lately, and I believe there was (is?) a moratorium on death penalties in general across the US lately due to the accidental conviction rates. I think the death penalty should be rare, used when evidence is indeed irrefutable (ie, DNA)... and an option in the case of violent child rape.

That said, one thing I admit I did not think of is the unwillingness of families to turn over a family member to a potential death penalty. That would, indeed, encourage the 'veil of silence' in many cases.

However, I should clarify my own position, that I woudn't consider "run of the mill" child molestation (huh) to be an automatic candidate for the death penalty, I'm thinking more along the lines of the violent child rapes like the one described WRT the stepfather mentioned in the OP. Vicious trauma needing things like reconstructive surgeries and the like.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Look, if the death penalty is guaranteed for child rape, then sure, there's no reason not to kill the witness/victim and put her in a wood chipper. But if the death penalty is not guaranteed, then it has the same potential deterrent effect as it does on any other perpatrator: anywhere from "a lot" to admittedly "none at all" for true sociopaths.

Is there any proof at all that the death penalty is an effective deterrent? The problem here is you think people who commit these acts will be concerned with the consequences at all in the first place. I'm not against the death penalty if the crime is heinous enough, but I have to really question how useful it is as a form of deterrence when crime trends seem to suggest otherwise.

Deterrence is a secondary objective of the criminal justice system. The primary objective is protection of society.

[18-Till-I-Die]

So basically we've all decided that we should put obtruse, Kafka-like laws on the books, painfully easy to exploit or corrupt, and kill everyone we convict under them and to hell with the consequences. We'll just gloss over the idea of false conviction with a few pitiable rebutles and keep on truckin' down that road towards the rain-slick slope of faulty, knee-jerk logic yeah?

Christ, this must be how the Judge System started in MegaCity One.


Hey i know, lets try the death penalty for internet tough guys, i would support that.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

One thing that would be acceptable, I would submit, is that Rape + Murder of a child = Mandatory Death Sentence if convicted, regardless of the conditions under which the murder happened (i.e. if the child was accidentally suffocated while being raped, the guy gets the chair, even though by a strict reading of the law that would only be Murder 2).

[18-Till-I-Die]

I would submit that if all we want to do is make sur ethey dont rape anyone or murder anyone again--as i hear, this is supposed to be the point of the law--then maybe, oh i dont know...life in prison?

But wait i forget , last time we had this discussion it was "decided" that life in prison is "worse" than the death penalty. Cuase you know, dying is not nearly as bad as being in a prison LOL i knoe rite!

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I would submit that if all we want to do is make sur ethey dont rape anyone or murder anyone again--as i hear, this is supposed to be the point of the law--then maybe, oh i dont know...life in prison?

But wait i forget :roll: , last time we had this discussion it was "decided" that life in prison is "worse" than the death penalty. Cuase you know, dying is not nearly as bad as being in a prison LOL i knoe rite! :wanker:

Life in prison is indeed worse than dying; it's systematic isolation from all human society, and humans are social creatures. I would prefer the most painful death imaginable over living 50 - 70 years never being able to hug someone, never knowing anything except the clipped commands of guards coming by the cell. Humans are SOCIAL animals, and you expect that putting someone into a maximum security prison as a murderer where they will, if they're lucky, interact only with hardened criminals and then only 1 hour a day is better than dying?

Isolation brings about the systematic destruction of the human psyche. It damn well is worse than dying.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The death penalty, at least, is just the quick and efficient act of taking out the trash, in comparison with torturing someone by isolation in a maximum security prison for decades upon decades until they die, friendless, abandoned, and alone.

For those people who cannot function in society, seeing as we are social animals, the next best possible thing that can happen to them is that they die.

[Singular Intellect]

So basically we've all decided that we should put obtruse, Kafka-like laws on the books, painfully easy to exploit or corrupt, and kill everyone we convict under them and to hell with the consequences. We'll just gloss over the idea of false conviction with a few pitiable rebutles and keep on truckin' down that road towards the rain-slick slope of faulty, knee-jerk logic yeah?

So in other words unless a system is absolutely perfect, you won't support it?

Clearly you don't support anything then.

Personally, I'm all for executing dangerous humans who are irrefuteably guilty of such heinous crimes.

For fuck's sake, we kill dogs just for biting a kid, but if a human brutally assaults a child inflicting permanent physical and mental damage, we get all squeamish and upset about killing them?

And don't feed me this "we might kill innocents" bullshit...I'm talking about human predators who are irrefuteably guilty to a degree no rational person could question. And the same goes for the deterrence bullshit...no one gives a fuck about dogs being deterred, we are removing a threat to society, not making a political or moral statement to dogs.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Fuck see this is what i'm talking about.

If we honestly want to tread down THAT logic, Riddle Me This: why not execute EVERYONE we arrest? Srsly guise! Being isolated is so horrible, why put someone in jail for even a second lets just kill them.

I'm being sarcastic, you're being serious. Which is more hilarious.

So in other words unless a system is absolutely perfect, you won't support it?

If it involves killing someone...uh, yeah?

For fuck's sake, we kill dogs just for biting a kid

I'm against that too, since a lot of times it comes from the owner being a douchebag and training the dog to attack people, or abusing them. But yeah hey, it's precisley the same thing right?

[Singular Intellect]

The death penalty, at least, is just the quick and efficient act of taking out the trash, in comparison with torturing someone by isolation in a maximum security prison for decades upon decades until they die, friendless, abandoned, and alone.

For those people who cannot function in society, seeing as we are social animals, the next best possible thing that can happen to them is that they die.

I agree. I think the ideal system is one where the irrefuteably guilty are executed with as little fuss as possible. It's not a revenge scheme or something we should take pride in, anymore than when we kill a dangerous non human animal that's a threat to people.

The ones who we suspect are guilty but we aren't completely certain should be humanely detained until proven guilty, or released.

Lesser crimes would get the people transferred to facilities intent on rehabilitating them.

[Singular Intellect]

Fuck see this is what i'm talking about.

If we honestly want to tread down THAT logic, Riddle Me This: why not execute EVERYONE we arrest?
Srsly guise! Being isolated is so horrible, why put someone in jail for even a second lets just kill them.

I'm being sarcastic, you're being serious. Which is more hilarious.

Since when is sarcasm an arguement?

So in other words unless a system is absolutely perfect, you won't support it?

If it involves killing someone...uh, yeah?

So in other words, let everyone run free because we wouldn't want to accidently punish someone?

For fuck's sake, we kill dogs just for biting a kid

I'm against that too, since a lot of times it comes from the owner being a douchebag and training the dog to attack people, or abusing them. But yeah hey, it's precisley the same thing right?

Who gives a shit? One can blame the danger of a sociopath on the parents or mental disease, the danger of a rabid dog on living conditions or abuse...it doesn't fucking matter.

Both are a threat, and must be removed. I prefer the method of humanely killing such threats, not locking them up in isolation for the rest of their lives, using valueable resources better spent on things like starving people.

[Surlethe]

If we honestly want to tread down THAT logic, Riddle Me This: why not execute EVERYONE we arrest? Srsly guise! Being isolated is so horrible, why put someone in jail for even a second lets just kill them.

The comparison is between life in maximum-security isolation and death. A term of several years, or even life in a jail community, is not comparable.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Are you honestly listening to yourself?

Since when is sarcasm an arguement?

When the other side has none other than a knee-jerk reaction that barely justifies a response. This whole line of thought is based on pure gut-reaction and repulsion not weather or not it's ethical or logical or even economical (if you're a libertarian).

So in other words, let everyone run free because we wouldn't want to accidently punish someone INNOCENT?

Fixed that for you, Judge Bubble Boy.

Heard about those guys let out of prison after twenty years for rapes they didnt commit? Guess they'd be dead if you had you way, eh big man?

Who gives a shit? One can blame the danger of a sociopath on the parents or mental disease, the danger of a rabid dog on living conditions or abuse...it doesn't fucking matter.

A rabbid dog has a disease that is communicable. A dog that is abused and mistreated does not, first off. Secondly sociopaths can be controlled...by locking them up where they cant escape. And yeah i'm sure it's the same thing, killing a dog and killing a person, that's perfectly logical. Cause one isnt more intelligent and self-aware than the other or anything right?

Both are a threat, and must be removed. I prefer the method of humanely killing such threats, not locking them up in isolation for the rest of their lives, using valueable resources better spent on things like starving people

Have you ever read about lethal injection? It's not humane. It just LOOKS like it...it paralyzes the guy, and he basically dies of suffocation. Electricution is even worse, and hanging is...fun, i guess, if you're a psychopath. Don't get me started on the gas chamber.

Secondly, there have been studies done which show it costs more or about the same to execute them then to simply lock them up.

Thirdly, you're argument is at best that we should treat them humanely and be cheap about it. That's it. You cant even come up with a reason why locking them up is "bad" other than "LOL isolation!", and weather or not it's cheaper to kill them is stilla big question mark.

[18-Till-I-Die]

If we honestly want to tread down THAT logic, Riddle Me This: why not execute EVERYONE we arrest? Srsly guise! Being isolated is so horrible, why put someone in jail for even a second lets just kill them.

The comparison is between life in maximum-security isolation and death. A term of several years, or even life in a jail community, is not comparable.

You're aboslutely right, my mistake.

Ok then, why not kill everyone in prison right now for life? "Transfer" every life sentence to the death penalty. Same question, more accurate.

[Terralthra]

So in other words unless a system is absolutely perfect, you won't support it?

If it involves killing someone...uh, yeah?

So in other words, let everyone run free because we wouldn't want to accidently punish someone?

Wow, you really do like strawmen, don't you? He said nothing of the sort. He said he is against killing, not punishment. Stop being a twat and using massive strawmen and black/white fallacies.