DescentBB

So the decision from on high has been rendered, much like the processing of a dead animal carcass by the knacker man. The death penalty is too harsh for a convicted child rapist so sayeth the Supremes.
They find that since murder was not committed, execution is not allowed. Pity

Pity more that the Supremes in their infinite judicial wisdom overlooked the mental death of the child. Gone forever is the trust the child may have had toward older people. Innocence, once a child's right, is now murdered by the horrors in her mind and dreams of the reality's life has lurking about. Nice job Justices. Child rape is now akin to the maltreatment of a animal.
I wonder if PETA applauds the decisions?

So, when yet again, a child rapist is let loose and commits his hideous crime, sleep well Mr Justice for you have done your job well.

Can you give us a link, Woodchip?

Is there a chance this guy could get out of prison at some point, or something?

Justice is about the punishment fitting the crime. Therefore the punishment should not be more severe than the crime.

OH IT GETS EVEN WORSE!!!!!

Regarding Jessica law in Massachusetts

so now not ONLY do they NOT get the death penalty, we are going to mentaly abuse the children that have been raped

Rep. James Fagan, a Democrat, made the comments during debate last month on the state House floor.

\"I'm gonna rip them apart,\" Fagan said of young victims during his testimony on the bill. \"I'm going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined, that when they’re 8 years old, they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep; when they’re 19 years old, they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody.”

Fagan said as a defense attorney it would be his duty to do that in order to keep his clients free from a \"mandatory sentence of those draconian proportions.\"

quality individual this guy is

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,371344,00.html

Shakespear was correct when he said kill all the Lawyers.

Child rapists are the LOWEST form of animal. However, you must remember that execution is not a reversible punishment if the wrong person is convicted. It has happened before. That's why I don't believe in capital punishment. Lock them up forever so that they're no longer a risk to society. They WILL attack children again, there is no doubt. It's an incurable sickness.

Spidey wrote:Justice is about the punishment fitting the crime. Therefore the punishment should not be more severe than the crime.

so "IF" a guy is convicted of rape are when then allowed to take him to the nearest prison and have him raped by the inmates??

it seems fitting if the punishment should fit the crime.

I got a Mauser that will solve this. Opps, cant say that the Dems will get all bent out of shape.

I've got a Sig Sauer that will solve the problem too, but only if I caught him in the act.

CUDA wrote:

Spidey wrote:Justice is about the punishment fitting the crime. Therefore the punishment should not be more severe than the crime.

so "IF" a guy is convicted of rape are when then allowed to take him to the nearest prison and have him raped by the inmates??

it seems fitting if the punishment should fit the crime.

If you want revenge instead of justice, then yes I suppose you could do that, but it would also be double punishment.

I’m pretty sure the US constitution prohibits that.

If you want a system of revenge instead of justice, then you should just say that.

Spidey wrote:

CUDA wrote:

Spidey wrote:Justice is about the punishment fitting the crime. Therefore the punishment should not be more severe than the crime.

so "IF" a guy is convicted of rape are when then allowed to take him to the nearest prison and have him raped by the inmates??

it seems fitting if the punishment should fit the crime.

If you want revenge instead of justice, then yes I suppose you could do that, but it would also be double punishment.

I’m pretty sure the US constitution prohibits that.

If you want a system of revenge instead of justice, then you should just say that.

Justice would be served when he was convicted.

Punishment is what is due as a consequnce of his actions

Revenge is what would happen if I chose to punish him myself.

I'm not calling for revenge just appropriate punishment.



as for "double" punishment I dont follow. if he is convicted and taken to the nearest prison to be raped by the inmates, that is not "double" punishment. I didnt advocate locking him up. I just want an Eye for and Eye. he raped a young girl. and he gets raped in return. seems fair to me

Oh, I see where you are going, take him to prison, rape him, and then let him go free.

But what if he likes it?

People like this need to be removed from society, not killed or raped.

Taking away their freedom is the punishment.

Spidey wrote:
But what if he likes it?

then were not doing it right. bring in Ron Jeremy with out lube

by the way I am being just abit facetious.

but honestly, I would not have a personal problem stringing them up by their Nads till the fell off. people who abuse children have no rights IMHO they are the lowest form of predator, they prey on weak, innocent, defensless, children. and should be treated accordingly

Although I would like to see child rapists dead, the decision by the court was fair. A man who rapes a young girl but lets her go, is mentally ill. If he rapes and then kills her, he's nothing but a murderer and should get the death penalty...not life in prison.

I want the rapist to know that if he lets her go, he gets to stay alive.

Bee

The court doesn't make law they interpret law that the legislature makes and applies the constitution to it. So if the legislature wants to execute rapists, or only pedophile rapists (kind of redundant I guess) then they need to make that the law..if they did then the court would have a different opinion.
As for the lawyer who said he would do all those terrible things to the victim in court, please tell me he was playing devils advocate trying to illustrate what will happen in a case like that! Trying to get the lawmakers to protect the victims from his hypothetical defense strategy!! If not, I hope karma is a particularly mean biatch when she meets up with him!

Will Robinson wrote:The court doesn't make law they interpret law that the legislature makes and applies the constitution to it.

I would refer you Will to the recent court ruling about gay marriages in California and let you re-think your supposition (even tho I agree that is the way it is supposed to be). In the topic at hand, SCOTUS has ruled away Louisiana's legislated laws regarding pediophiles.

Oh and Bet, if child rapist are mentally ill then they belong in a institution until they are 100% cured or they die of old age.

Bet51987 wrote: I want the rapist to know that if he lets her go, he gets to stay alive.

Good point, if the creep is going to hang anyway, why not just kill the victim, and avoid any witness.

woodchip wrote:Oh and Bet, if child rapist are mentally ill then they belong in a institution until they are 100% cured or they die of old age.

Even though we need pedophiles to be evil so that we schmucks in society can feel morally better than someone else, I don't think that that is the critical difference between us and pedophiles, that they are eviler than us. They are wired in a way that makes them incompatible with society. Unfortunately, the only thing that we can do is permanently remove them from society until we can come up with a better solution.

Has anyone here ever considered what it is like to be a pedophile? Or do pedophiles just choose to be interested in children like gays choose to be interested in the same sex. I don't pretend to know what it's like either. But it must be horrible.

In these cases, there's a lot of tragedy to go around. This may not atone anyone's sins. But perhaps we should give some pause before coming to hasty judgments about people we know relatively little about. There's no need to show off our moral bravado by advertising who we will personally torture for doing which things.

It’s one thing to be attracted to a child, and another to force yourself on them. I cannot believe what I just read.

Bet51987 wrote:Although I would like to see child rapists dead, the decision by the court was fair. A man who rapes a young girl but lets her go, is mentally ill. If he rapes and then kills her, he's nothing but a murderer and should get the death penalty...not life in prison.

I want the rapist to know that if he lets her go, he gets to stay alive.

Bee

This is exactly why I am against it.

This guy will spend about a month in prison as the target of every other inmate's wrath.. and wish he WAS dead.

so there's really nothing to worry about.

Spidey wrote:It’s one thing to be attracted to a child, and another to force yourself on them. I cannot believe what I just read.

In no way is what they're doing justifiable. But if you're already having pedophilic compulsions, then there's already something defective with you. And if you can't do anything about it, then you need to be removed from society. But I'm not going to celebrate doing that, or torturing anyone, etc. There's nothing to celebrate. No one is a winner here.

Jeff250 wrote:There's nothing to celebrate. No one is a winner here.

There is a winner. The child that may be the target of the pervs attack when the pedophile is locked away.
I wonder if physical castration would cure the peds "affliction"?

Thanks...

Fixed it Spidey

tunnelcat wrote:However, you must remember that execution is not a reversible punishment if the wrong person is convicted. It has happened before.

It happens quite a lot, actually, because there's no way to prove if someone has been sexually assaulted without video or sound evidence.

CUDA wrote:but honestly, I would not have a personal problem stringing them up by their Nads till the fell off.

Yeah, a lot of people's problems could be solved if human neutering was made legal...

Jeff250 wrote:Unfortunately, the only thing that we can do is permanently remove them from society until we can come up with a better solution.

Psychologists? Therapy? Paedophilia is treatable, y'know.

Jeff250 wrote:Has anyone here ever considered what it is like to be a pedophile?

Go to 4Chan and ask people there. Apparently, paedophilia isn't as rare as most people would like to think it is.

Jeff250 wrote:Or do pedophiles just choose to be interested in children like gays choose to be interested in the same sex.

That's about it, actually. Well, more like bisexuals choose to be interested in the same sex, as it's rare for a paedophile to be interested in underage people only.
Although Paedophile Rapists are sort of different. They'd be either rapists who are interested in children, or rapists who the only people they can make victims of are children (which I think is what it is in most cases). The reverse, that some people become rapists because they're paedophiles, is as rare as a regular person not being able to go out with a crush; in other words, paedophilia itself is hardly a problem.

the basics of the case are this: if an adult rapes another adult in Louisiana before this ruling, he is ineligible for the death penalty.

TIGERassault wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:However, you must remember that execution is not a reversible punishment if the wrong person is convicted. It has happened before.

It happens quite a lot, actually, because there's no way to prove if someone has been sexually assaulted without video or sound evidence.

Rape is one of the easier crime to prove as the rapist usually leaves his sperm in or on the victim. Think before you post.

woodchip wrote:Rape is one of the easier crime to prove as the rapist usually leaves his sperm in or on the victim. Think before you post.

ahh, the CSI effect.

The presence of ejaculate only indicates unprotected intercourse - and you need to collect it soon after the actually event occurred.

Regardless, the rate of false conviction has no bearing on this issue. The issue the SCOTUS was ruling is this: Rape a child's mother in Louisiana, the worse you'd get is life, rape the child, you'd can get death. SCOTUS had previously ruled against the application of the death penalty for rape, and now it says no death penalty for child rapists, to remain consistent with its previous ruling.

In short: if there is no death penalty for a class of crime, that prohibition applies to all subsets of that class of crime.

fliptw, I doubt many rapist bother to use a condom unless one can show me otherwise.

Edit add:
How about the rape subset where the rapist has HIV and transmits the disease to the victim?

woodchip wrote:fliptw, I doubt many rapist bother to use a condom unless one can show me otherwise.

Be that as it may, the presence of ejaculate by itself isn't enough for conviction, its the circumstances of how it got there that need to addressed.

woodchip wrote: How about the rape subset where the rapist has HIV and transmits the disease to the victim?

As it stands now, a longer sentence, if states have that as recommendation for sentencing guidelines. Most rape convictions rarely involve life sentences last time I checked, I think most around 5-15 years with sex offender registration. The standard of conviction for child rape, and rape with HIV is the same as rape for anyone else, and thusly subject to the same set of punishments.

Bettina wrote:I want the rapist to know that if he lets her go, he gets to stay alive.

My only argument would be that if death were the penalty, maybe he wouldn't do it in the first place. There are a lot of choices leading up to that kind of an end, and death has a way of gripping the mind.

Right off the bat, Bettina, I would tend to agree with you, and the reason is that I wouldn't want the child to be killed. I think the best way to express my reservation is that it is akin to bargaining with terrorists. It sets a dangerous precedent in an attempt to help the victim, and may well end up creating more victims as a result. In fact, I strongly suspect that's the case. The best of intentions, but unwise.

CUDA wrote:but honestly, I would not have a personal problem stringing them up by their Nads till the fell off. people who abuse children have no rights IMHO they are the lowest form of predator, they prey on weak, innocent, defensless, children. and should be treated accordingly

I think you're right, and I feel the same way.

I think to state one way or another with the argument that the punishment must be equal to the crime is to assume a complete understanding of the crime and all of its effects: effects on the victim, effects on society, future effects? If it's a habitual crime--if the perpetrator cannot be expected to turn around, then why not the death penalty? Lock them away forever, or kill them, what's the difference (well, if we had prisons instead of extended stay hotels)? Maybe some people are just too weak to face that kind of reality?

fliptw, woodchip:
I think the point that you're missing is that it makes little difference whether it is consensual or not, because we are talking about children. Maybe someone could talk a child into something like that, but I don't think that should change the sentence, ultimately.

TIGERassault wrote:The reverse, that some people become rapists because they're paedophiles, is as rare as a regular person not being able to go out with a crush; in other words, paedophilia itself is hardly a problem.

Perhaps this sort of thing has been exaggerated in the media.

I think proponents of the death sentence in this case overestimate its value as a punishment. The trick is to make people like these wish they weren't alive.

Or to put it more succinctly, fear is the mind killer.

The death penalty has no value as a punishment. It's an ultimatum.

I agree with that 100%, but it brings up the following question:

If the death penality has no value as a punishment, and little or no value as a threat, ie: deterrent.

Then why kill someone that commits a crime, wouldn’t it be more logical to punish them?

Spidey wrote:I agree with that 100%, but it brings up the following question:

If the death penality has no value as a punishment, and little or no value as a threat, ie: deterrent.

Then why kill someone that commits a crime, wouldn’t it be more logical to punish them?

I'd agree with that 100%

Spidey wrote:If the death penality has no value as a punishment, and little or no value as a threat, ie: deterrent. Then why kill someone that commits a crime, wouldn’t it be more logical to punish them?

Not to me.

In addition to the deterrent value - no matter how small - there is a much better chance that another person could die because of him. A child killer, for example, has a legal right to be on the national kidney register and could be next in line to receive a kidney that would have gone to the father of another little girl if the killer was already executed.

Bettina

Bettina, I believe the topic was rape.

And as far as murder goes, that’s a different subject.

Sorry, maybe I should have said rape instead of “crime”.

Sorry Spidey, you're right. I thought the topic was changing.

Bee

Spidey wrote:I agree with that 100%, but it brings up the following question:

If the death penality has no value as a punishment, and little or no value as a threat, ie: deterrent.

Then why kill someone that commits a crime, wouldn’t it be more logical to punish them?

The death penalty with the resultant solitary confinement on death row where the convicted criminal can dwell upon his crime.....is the punishment.
As to the death penalty not being a deterrent, I would counter that even with no death penalty, child rapist still kill their victims just to prevent the child from identifying them. Executing them guarandamtee's that they will never ever do it again.