Supreme Court Rejects Death Penalty for Child Rape

[Homyrrh]

(from The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Scotus-Child-Rape.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin))
June 25, 2008
Supreme Court Rejects Death Penalty for Child Rape
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 10:23 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a law that allows the execution of people convicted of a raping a child.

In a 5-4 vote, the court said the Louisiana law allowing the death penalty to be imposed in such cases violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

''The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child,'' Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion. His four liberal colleagues joined him, while the four more conservative justices dissented.

There has not been an execution in the United States for a crime that did not also involve the death of the victim in 44 years.

Patrick Kennedy, 43, was sentenced to death for the rape of his 8-year-old stepdaughter in Louisiana. He is one of two people in the United States, both in Louisiana, who have been condemned to death for a rape that was not also accompanied by a killing.

The Supreme Court banned executions for rape in 1977 in a case in which the victim was an adult woman.

Forty-five states ban the death penalty for any kind of rape, and the other five states allow it for child rapists. Kennedy's case is the only time a state has sought to execute someone. Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas allow executions in such cases if the defendant had previously been convicted of raping a child.

Also, in my email this morning (NY Times News Alert):

The Supreme Court struck down a law that allows execution for
raping a child, ruling that it would violate the
Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. In
another ruling, the justices cut the $2.5 billion punitive
damages award in the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster to $500
million.
Lunch money...

[MISFITS_Fiend]

I'm on the fence on this one...on the one hand, execution is an extreme punishment for rape. However, the effects of rape on a child are extremely damaging and in some cases last for the rest of their lives...and sometimes they end up as rapists themselves because of it.

Fuck it; child rapists usually get murdered in prison anyway.

[Homyrrh]

I'm on the fence on this one...on the one hand, execution is an extreme punishment for rape. However, the effects of rape on a child are extremely damaging and in some cases last for the rest of their lives...and sometimes they end up as rapists themselves because of it.

Fuck it; child rapists usually get murdered in prison anyway.
In respnse to your last statement, I feel a fitting punishment for chld rapists, especially those non-statutory, violent, and recurring, is life imprisonment without the oppurtunity for parole.

I feel the justice system shouldn't necessarily put the to death by penalty, but to put a child rapist away in a max lockup is about the worst punishment he could receive, unless, of course, he enjoys both receiving and giving...as a warm-up for what will ultimately be, as MISFITS mentioned, his death.

A counselor at my boarding school formerly worked as a prison guard in a federal lockup in west MD. She saw on a new inmate's file that he was in one for child molestation and, against all legal and duty restrictions, mentioned it to a few of the inmates. She then refused to tell us what happened to the guy, but assured us all it rivaled death AND was only essentially a hosuewarming gift.

[The Heart Collector]

The death penalty is inhuman bullshit.

[SpoonMan999]

So is raping children.

[Edit] So is rape in general for that matter.

[cuddleworthy]

While I'm on the fence with the death penalty, the problem I have is that the asshole who rapes a child, or rapes in general, gets thrown in prison with free room and board. Free electricity, water, food, air conditioning. They should pay for their keep. Put them to work. I don't want my tax dollars funding human scum.

[countchocula]

Here we go.

A murderer is a monster. A child rapist is a monster. I don't see how a child rapist doesn't deserve to die. This "cruel and unusual" bullshit has got to stop. What is cruel and unusual anyway? Is child rape cruel and unusual? What about raping a mentally and/or physically handicapped child? If the death penalty is cruel and unusual, then what is a life sentence full of torture and sodomy? Uncruel and usual?

Child rapists deserve inhuman treatment for acting in an inhuman way. Death is too kind, but I would rather pay to kill a child rapist, as opposed to paying for that child rapist's food and water. Any and all "human rights" that The Heart Collector enjoys bringing up are waived as soon as a person decides to defile an innocent child.

[QUENTIN]

So is raping children.

[Edit] So is rape in general for that matter.


Which is why the government shouldn't rape children, just like they shouldn't put people to death.

Using the argument that "since vile sons of bitches will do it, the government should too" is logic on the order of kindergarten.

Besides, if you want a child rapist to really suffer in your bloodlust, you won't want to quickly lethally inject him. He will face frequent, horrible torture in prison at the hands of people who aren't agents of the government we should expect more from than brutality.

[Homyrrh]

Hmm, while I agree, you've enacted a rather ambiguous discussion.

With the subprimitive treatment a child rapist is to receive while in lockup kept in mind, should the factors of life imprisonment-- sodomy, torture, disgrace, and ultimately death--be incorporated into, and be considered as part of, the ruling? Is life imprisonment considered a worse fate for a child molester than the deat penalty? Hell, I hear the guards turn a blind eye to what happens to child molestors in any case.

[QUENTIN]

Hmm, while I agree, you've enacted a rather ambiguous discussion.

With the subprimitive treatment a child rapist is to receive while in lockup kept in mind, should the factors of life imprisonment-- sodomy, torture, disgrace, and ultimately death--be incorporated into, and be considered as part of, the ruling? Is life imprisonment considered a worse fate for a child molester than the deat penalty? Hell, I hear the guards turn a blind eye to what happens to child molestors in any case.

They do, I toured a few maximum security prisons and met a lot of people in the CJS for a class on prisons in this country and absolutely no one has it worse than pederasts. The thing is, I don't have a problem with child rapists being tortured, raped, and murdered by fellow inmates. They are truly despicable people and it won't keep me up at night if they're crucified by the guys on their cell block.

But the GOVERNMENT executing anyone, especially as a form of punishment, is just wrong. If those with the authority to punish commit the same acts as those they punish (murder), they lose any legal or moral authority. The death penalty should have been done away with around the Age of Enlightenment. It does no good, serves no purpose, is barbaric and hypocritical, and only the most primitive thinking people can support it, and even then their support is devoid of logic and filled with emotion.

[countchocula]

So it's not barbaric to hand child rapists over to depraved felons and say, "Have fun with him, boys!" How is that any different than dumping a person in a snake pit teeming with the deadliest serpents known to man? Seems cruel and unusual to me. You're essentially passing the dirty work off to other people, which isn't righteous at all.

[SpoonMan999]

So it's not barbaric to hand child rapists over to depraved felons and say, "Have fun with him, boys!" How is that any different than dumping a person in a snake pit teeming with the deadliest serpents known to man? Seems cruel and unusual to me. You're essentially passing the dirty work off to other people, which isn't righteous at all.

Agreed, that post was extremely hypocritical.

And Quentin, why is it that anyone who doesn't see things your way is "primitive." Personaly, I think anyone that rapes children should not receive any basic human rights and I can't honestly see them as human.

[QUENTIN]

I'm not saying I SUPPORT child rapists being tortured, but it doesn't keep me up at night. Thugs in prison target people to harass, and I don't see a target I could have less sympathy for than child rapists. And since you totalitarians have this bloodlust that needs to be quenched, I point out that child rapists will have it WORSE if we don't execute them. They'll actually be punished more, so you can be happy that they're miserable.

My government murdering people because they murdered someone (or in this case, didn't even murder anyone) however, I have a huge problem with. It goes outside what the law can and should do, makes no sense, and reduces those who are supposed to have high moral and legal ground to the level of our lowest criminals.

[QUENTIN]

And Quentin, why is it that anyone who doesn't see things your way is "primitive." Personaly, I think anyone that rapes children should not receive any basic human rights and I can't honestly see them as human.

Right, you strip a human being of their humanity in your mind so that you can murder them. That is the pinnacle of primitive thinking. It's caveman brutality. Your thinking isn't primitive because it's different than mine, it's primitive because it's at the level of animals or pre-society humans. "Revenge" is an immature concept and it serves no purpose in a free society.

[countchocula]

Oh, he didn't even murder anyone!

Excuse me, but your government turns a lot of these pedophiles into repeat offenders. Your government doesn't give a fuck about you. Yeah, they should have high morals, but they don't.

[Homyrrh]

Oh, he didn't even murder anyone!

Excuse me, but your government turns a lot of these pedophiles into repeat offenders. Your government doesn't give a fuck about you. Yeah, they should have high morals, but they don't.
I don't understand this post...

[countchocula]

Right, you strip a human being of their humanity in your mind so that you can murder them. That is the pinnacle of primitive thinking. It's caveman brutality.

But he isn't murdering them; he's telling someone else to murder them, kinda like what you're doing.

[QUENTIN]

But he isn't murdering them; he's telling someone else to murder them, kinda like what you're doing.

That is just inaccurate. I'm not telling inmates to kill fellow inmates, in fact I wish it didn't happen. I just figured it would appease you and SpoonMan's need for brutal punishment to know that not executing them is not "letting them off the hook". And yes, a cold-blooded killer raping or shanking a child rapist in maximum security prison just isn't gonna be a major concern of mine. Any more than, while I don't like it, one gang banger killing another gang banger won't make me weep for the loss. No one in that equation has any high legal or moral standing and none are granted the authority, based on the assumption that they will use rational and fair thinking in line with the law, to dole out punishment to anyone accused of a crime. The judicial system has been granted too much authority to be acting on base emotions like a common thug. That, among many other reasons, is why the death penalty is wrong. It's also "inhuman bullshit."

[countchocula]

I'm not using any emotions to formulate my opinions. Child rapists should die. Period. I wasn't raped as a child, I don't know anyone who was raped as a child...it has nothing to do with base emotions. I do not value the life of a child rapist. I also do not value the integrity of the law. The government IS NOT above the death penalty.

[QUENTIN]

I also do not value the integrity of the law.

Well, there we go. That would have sufficed as your whole argument.

[countchocula]

I just don't see how the government is above reproach. Since when is capital punishment too brutal for congress? This is the same country that likes dead brown people, right?

[MISFITS_Fiend]

They do, I toured a few maximum security prisons and met a lot of people in the CJS for a class on prisons in this country and absolutely no one has it worse than pederasts.

I totally agree, and I have no problem with their troubles. My cousin used to be a prison guard. She told me the guards use to take bets on how long incoming child rapists would last. No one ever bet over 1 week and they rarely lost that bet.

It does no good, serves no purpose, is barbaric and hypocritical, and only the most primitive thinking people can support it, and even then their support is devoid of logic and filled with emotion.

Devoid of logic? How about the logic that the fuckers won't be hurting or killing anyone again?

ME AM NOT PRIMITIF ME AM MAD NOW.

Whatever, dude. Tell us how you really feel, especially if (God Forbid!) someone's opinion is different than your own.

[Homyrrh]

Look Quentin, I very much understand your line of think that others may not, or else have communicated they do not. In fact, as a Christian, I feel individuals should follow the path of He who "turned the other cheek". However, as I've also made clear in the gay marriage thread last month, I am also a constitutionalist and a conservative American. I support the death penalty in certain cases of murder-in-the-first and high treason (i.e.--a cabinet member selling nuclear secrets to terrorist groups; an easy arguments that his actions will ultimately lead to American lives).

In terms of the issue of child rape and execution, my moral conviction is that death is too merciful a fate for the most base of humans. However, outside of your thoughts on the diplomacy and bureaucracy and judicial system, recognize that noting you have no problem with them being murdered in prison shows little dissimilarity, on a moral level, to what the other argument is.

To say capital punishment is "inhuman bullshit" then "But a cold-blooded killer raping or shanking a child rapist in maximum security prison just isn't gonna be a major concern of mine. Any more than, while I don't like it, one gang banger killing another gang banger won't make me weep for the loss" does seem contradictory.

[Scarfather]

I don't suffer the delusion that humanity is "above" anything, including the death penalty, but I fail to see how death is an equal punishment for what the rapist does to his victim.

I think castration without anesthesia is a far more fitting and logical punishment.

[Homyrrh]

I don't suffer the delusion that humanity is "above" anything, including the death penalty, but I fail to see how death is an equal punishment for what the rapist does to his victim.

I think castration without anesthesia is a far more fitting and logical punishment.
A less babbaric, less primitive consequence than the death penalty? That seems to fit the "cruel and unusual" glove a lot better than lethal injection.

Fitting, perhaps. But logical in the context of the SC's decision?

[SpoonMan999]

I don't suffer the delusion that humanity is "above" anything, including the death penalty, but I fail to see how death is an equal punishment for what the rapist does to his victim.

I think castration without anesthesia is a far more fitting and logical punishment.

You think we can appoint you to head a special committe just for developing new punishments?

Quentin, whenever someone has disagreed with you've declared them "un-American" or "primitive" and seem to get angry at the sheer fact that they don't see eye to eye with you. I recall this being against the rules of this forum, you know where we're supposed to debate these topic in a respectful manner, but I may be mistaken I guess.

Personaly, I feel taking the life of one monster is completely acceptable when you could save lives and not just from death but from some little girl being scarred for the rest of her life because one of these bastards made parole.

[Scarfather]

A less babbaric, less primitive consequence than the death penalty? That seems to fit the "cruel and unusual" glove a lot better than lethal injection.

Fitting, perhaps. But logical in the context of the SC's decision?

Cruel and Unusual?

Cruel - He raped a kid. He doesn't have the right to his pecker anymore.

Unusual - We're not going to dress up in bear suits and play "Like a Virgin" while we do it. He raped a kid. He doesn't have the right to his pecker anymore.

Where do you schmoes draw the line in "punishment"? I'm trying to play your game here. I'm about as minimalist as you can get when it comes to government, my only personal philosophy is: "Do what ever you want given that doesn't hurt anyone else."

Raping a kid hurts them physically, emotionally, and fucking existentially for that matter. And if you're an advocate of "punishment", where do you draw the line?

You're really content with just tossing them into prison so that fellow prisoners may or may not do anything? Or if not that, just tossing him into a prison. Whoopee. He's still a worthless human being, and castrating him will at least take away the one thing he obviously cares about, if was willing to by all means sacrifice another human being to gratify it.

P.S./Editor's Note: Quentin, I respect the hell out of you, but you're talking about the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. You're acting as if it ever had a moral compass of any kind.

[QUENTIN]

Quentin, whenever someone has disagreed with you've declared them "un-American" or "primitive" and seem to get angry at the sheer fact that they don't see eye to eye with you. I recall this being against the rules of this forum, you know where we're supposed to debate these topic in a respectful manner, but I may be mistaken I guess.

Personaly, I feel taking the life of one monster is completely acceptable when you could save lives and not just from death but from some little girl being scarred for the rest of her life because one of these bastards made parole.

No, it's not "whenever someone has disagreed with me" and I don't just throw out those labels, they're related to specific arguments made where they were appropriate. Being opposed to the Constitution of the U.S. is by definition being anti-U.S. or "un-American". Wanting to murder someone as revenge for their murdering someone is primitive reasoning. I'm not arguing that, it's a fact, like 2+2=4. It doesn't matter how you feel on the subject, it will remain true. It is not disrespectful to state the factually accurate. Calling someone an asshole would break the rules of the board, saying those guilty of bloodlust are thinking primitively is just true.

My best friend/roommate, girlfriend of 3 years, and mother were all victims of child rape/molestation, I have a strong disgust for the motherfuckers. The recidivism rate is also such that second chances don't make sense. First-degree murder and rape, of a child or otherwise, I think should carry a life sentence. No chance of parole, no chance to rape or kill an innocent civilian again. But killing them doesn't protect a child anymore, it just puts the criminal justice system on the same level as the murderers that they claim the moral and legal authority to punish. And though I assure you I hate them as much as you do, they're not "monsters," they're human beings. You're dehumanizing them which the classical first step in justifying murdering someone, but murdering people is still wrong and no matter what you call or classify them, their actions don't suddenly make them a different species.

Homyrrh, I don't see how a Christian, whatever their political leanings, could ever support capital punishment (or war for that matter). "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty straight forward. If what they did is awful and deserves awful punishment, I'm sure hell will more than suffice.

Killing people is always wrong, but I'd be lying if I said my heart goes out to child rapists who get killed. For the same emotional reasons anyone else here wants them to be killed, it's basically impossible to feel sympathy for them. But I feel no sympathy for the KKK or Neo-Nazis either, that doesn't mean they don't have the right to free speech, the right to peaceably assemble, the right to have hate speech on websites, etc. Just because a group is easy to despise doesn't mean we should throw out rational thinking, fairness, and the just application of law when it comes to them.


P.S./Editor's Note: Quentin, I respect the hell out of you, but you're talking about the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. You're acting as if it ever had a moral compass of any kind.

Oh, the U.S. Government is worse than all the child rapists in the world combined for the amount of harm they do and their pure amorality. But that doesn't mean we don't need to hold them to a higher standard and expect the courts to act in a reasoned, just way in accordance with the law. I'm talking about what the CJS is expected to do and what they need to do, what is legal, fair, and rational, what their responsibility is when granted with such high authority. But I'd never expect most of the assholes who run it to actually follow that.

[countchocula]

This is just a difference of core values. Personally, I want all child rapists DEAD. Fucking DEAD. I don't care how they die. I just want them DEAD. At the end of the day, I know I'm not on the same level as a pedophile. Or a serial killer. We all have inner beasts. The difference between you and a psychopath is the way in which this inner beast is expressed. All of us are on the same level, and all of us are intrinsically distinct.

[Homyrrh]

Scarfather-- I questioned your rhetoric hypothetically. To castrate a male seems more barbaric than the death penalty that THC and Quentin have condemned as being cruel and unusual, and more importantly, the Supreme Court said in its ruling that, in the context of child rape, capital punishment is cruel and unusual.

So if a clean-kill death penalty is "cruel and unusual", what is castration? I can't disagree that making him a eunuch is a permanent, and infinitely fitting reward, but kind of upends the SC's decision.

Homyrrh, I don't see how a Christian, whatever their political leanings, could ever support capital punishment (or war for that matter). "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty straight forward. If what they did is awful and deserves awful punishment, I'm sure hell will more than suffice.
I was embattled with this previously, until relatively recently. I don't think it's appropriate or entirely fair to introduce a topic like Hell, or even its argued existence, in the Politics forum (though you is DA MOD). I will say that while he would receive his eternal damnation, all he need do to avoid that, by Biblical theology (John 14:6) is repent and ultimately devote his life and soul to Christ. This why my biblical convictions should play no part in my judicial convictions. I don't think it'd be reasonable to rule the child molester will be set free on the condition of eternal hell upon earthly death. This no theocracy.

With that established, I keep my justice in my mind and my faith in my heart. Is it fair to have the serial killer give a Catholic repentance of a million-and-a-half Hail MArys? Need I answer? Is it fair not to put a convicted serial murderer to death because the Bible tells me, as an individual, not to kill and to instead turn my cheek? It's actually a mirrored version of your own argument in this very thread. THe establishment will put to death he who has murdered, but I, as a follower of both Christian and state laws, have no jurisdiction." Basically, the institution's rule must be followed. THIS principle is clearly established in scripture. Otherwise, I choose not to further discuss matters of faith on this level.

[SpoonMan999]

No, it's not "whenever someone has disagreed with me" and I don't just throw out those labels, they're related to specific arguments made where they were appropriate. Being opposed to the Constitution of the U.S. is by definition being anti-U.S. or "un-American". Wanting to murder someone as revenge for their murdering someone is primitive reasoning. I'm not arguing that, it's a fact, like 2+2=4. It doesn't matter how you feel on the subject, it will remain true. It is not disrespectful to state the factually accurate. Calling someone an asshole would break the rules of the board, saying those guilty of bloodlust are thinking primitively is just true.


Firstly, questioning authority and voicing your opinion is in fact very American. Secondly, these are your opinions and this is more a moral issue so do not state them as fact. Thirdly, to accuse someone of being primitive or barbaric is a direct insult. I fully understand your position on nobody deserving death, I just feel diferently. You seriously need to calm down and stop jumping down everyone's throats, right now I can't honestly see how you're a mod. Maybe you're good at keeping your emotions out of modding decisions, I don't know I haven't seen anyone banned or warned yet, but in this forum you have not displayed a "level head." You need to accept that some people disagree and that you are not infallible.

[QUENTIN]

Firstly, questioning authority and voicing your opinion is in fact very American. Secondly, these are your opinions and this is more a moral issue so do not state them as fact. Thirdly, to accuse someone of being primitive or barbaric is a direct insult. I fully understand your position on nobody deserving death, I just feel diferently. You seriously need to calm down and stop jumping down everyone's throats, right now I can't honestly see how you're a mod. Maybe you're good at keeping your emotions out of modding decisions, I don't know I haven't seen anyone banned or warned yet, but in this forum you have not displayed a "level head." You need to accept that some people disagree and that you are not infallible.

That first statement of yours is obviously true, but skirts the issue. I wasn't using the phrase "anti-American" like a talk show pundit to slander anyone. I am extremely anti-American myself. I was only pointing out to someone claiming patriotism that disrespecting or being opposed to the Constitution is very directly and by definition anti-American, the Constitution being what makes America America. I've gone over this a few times and it's getting redundant.

As for this thread, it is my opinion that the death penalty is wrong, "inhuman bullshit". That is certainly a moral issue and concerns one's feelings on the sanctity of human life. So when countchocula says "This is just a difference of core values" I'm inclined to agree. Where facts come into play is that it is primitive thinking to desire the death of someone as punishment for a crime. Many of us are guilty of it and it's not an uncommon emotional response, but it is very primitive. It is not a rational, logical, and does not benefit society or provide anything but a satisfaction of bloodlust and revenge. If you find this to be untrue, I implore you to explain the rationale behind your support of the death penalty and what you see as its benefits.

And I've been here since the board's inception, been a mod for almost 8 years now, I'm very familiar with the rules and I haven't broken them. Just because I find your thinking deplorable doesn't mean I haven't been calm and level headed. I never called you barbaric or primitive, only wrote that your line of thinking is, which it is.

[countchocula]

A lethal injection is less barbaric than tossing a convict into a bed of certain atrocities. Prison is barbaric. Life sentence, death sentence...it's all fairly barbaric. As for the sanctity of life, a child rapist cannot be afforded such a lofty ideal that would put him in the same category as any other human being.

[SpoonMan999]

That first statement of yours is obviously true, but skirts the issue. I wasn't using the phrase "anti-American" like a talk show pundit to slander anyone. I am extremely anti-American myself. I was only pointing out to someone claiming patriotism that disrespecting or being opposed to the Constitution is very directly and by definition anti-American, the Constitution being what makes America America. I've gone over this a few times and it's getting redundant.

As for this thread, it is my opinion that the death penalty is wrong, "inhuman bullshit". That is certainly a moral issue and concerns one's feelings on the sanctity of human life. So when countchocula says "This is just a difference of core values" I'm inclined to agree. Where facts come into play is that it is primitive thinking to desire the death of someone as punishment for a crime. Many of us are guilty of it and it's not an uncommon emotional response, but it is very primitive. It is not a rational, logical, and does not benefit society or provide anything but a satisfaction of bloodlust and revenge. If you find this to be untrue, I implore you to explain the rationale behind your support of the death penalty and what you see as its benefits.


It's not raitonal to you, just like people supporting Obama so completely is to me. As I stated you need to accept that some people just have a diferent moral stand point and stop putting down their opinions in this way. By saying my line of thinking is barbaric and primitive puts down my opinion and quite frankly is insulting that you dismiss it on those grounds.

On your argument, what does letting them rot in prison do to benefit society? As stated above letting them live in prison, where child rapists are targeted by other inmates, is more barbaric than a lethal injection.

[QUENTIN]

Is there a reason you're not just providing a well-reasoned argument for the death penalty? If it isn't emotional, if it isn't base and primitive and about revenge, then what is it? Explain.

[SpoonMan999]

Is there a reason you're not just providing a well-reasoned argument for the death penalty? If it isn't emotional, if it isn't base and primitive and about revenge, then what is it? Explain.

I never said it wasn't emotional, I already stated it is a moral stand point. Stop trying to ignore my question.

[QUENTIN]

Are you serious here? You can't accuse me of belittling your opinion as primitive, irrational thinking and then refuse to offer a rational and logical reasoning for it. You also shouldn't ignore a direct question twice, and in skirting it ask a question that you accuse me of ignoring while I'm just trying to get you to provide your reasoning already.

The sanctity of human life is a moral issue, but whether or not advocating the death penalty is based on primitive-minded rationale has nothing to do with morality. If you take umbrage with my statements, again I implore you to prove me wrong. Make a case for the death penalty, but if you can't or won't then what are you doing but submitting that there isn't one?

The answer to your question is obvious. Putting them away in prison for life benefits society by protecting society from the rapists. A child rapist cannot rape children if he is locked behind bars for the rest of his life. That's why prisons exist. And the state does not execute him, because that would make the state a murderer and a fundamental hypocrisy like that would strip the courts of any legal or moral authority they have to judge.

[Homyrrh]

Is there a reason you're not just providing a well-reasoned argument for the death penalty? If it isn't emotional, if it isn't base and primitive and about revenge, then what is it? Explain.
A consequence. I don't think you're comprehending the entire point ofthe judicial system. JUDICIAL system...not RECUPERATION system. Punishment. I don't believe death is necessarily the appropriate punishment for a child rapist, but at least for convicted serial killer.

[Vong]

A consequence. I don't think you're comprehending the entire point ofthe judicial system. JUDICIAL system...not RECUPERATION system. Punishment. I don't believe death is necessarily the appropriate punishment for a child rapist, but at least for convicted serial killer.

When did "justice" become associated with "punishment"?
Justice is to uphold the laws that keep society stable. This does not require punishment.

[Homyrrh]

When did "justice" become associated with "punishment"?
Justice is to uphold the laws that keep society stable. This does not require punishment.
Eh, yeah, not necessarily. But it seems to be that people believe the justice system is some base, immoral institution for doing so--punishing criminals as a consequence for base, immoral behavior.

[QUENTIN]

I don't think you're comprehending the point of the judicial system. It is there to prevent crime, not to avenge it. I don't think we can expect hardened murderers or child rapists to be rehabilitated (though rehabilitation is the primary objective of the prison system), which is why I think those crimes should carry a life-sentence. But it's been proven time and time again that the death penalty does not prevent crime. It doesn't deter anything, and a prisoner locked away for the rest of his life is just as unable to murder innocent people as a dead one is. A live serial killer we can learn a lot from to PREVENT and CATCH other serial killers, a dead one is just dead. There is no benefit to executing someone except revenge, which is an immature and primitive reactionary concept.

It is cheaper not to execute people. No one innocent is murdered if we don't execute people. We don't face the issue of the vast disparity in the application of the death penalty, that blacks and hispanics are several hundred times more likely than whites to receive it. There is the possibility of finding some benefit in the study of a live prisoner, and none from a dead one. The court can maintain a justified authority if it does not submit itself to the level of those it punished by becoming a murderer. And for a constitutonalist, how can you argue that murdering someone against their will isn't a cruel punishment?

[QUENTIN]

Eh, yeah, not necessarily. But it seems to be that people believe the justice system is some base, immoral institution for doing so--punishing criminals as a consequence for base, immoral behavior.

Nope, totally for punishing criminals. Spending the rest of your life in a cage is an awful punishment that really sucks. A real consequence for base, immoral behavior. Execution isn't punishment, it's murder. The executed learns no lesson and no one benefits.

[Vong]

Eh, yeah, not necessarily. But it seems to be that people believe the justice system is some base, immoral institution for doing so--punishing criminals as a consequence for base, immoral behavior.

When someone screams "justice" after a close relative is murdered, "justice" to them is whatever punishment they wish to see on the criminal. "Justice" to some is not "justice" to others. The word itself, however, has/had proper meaning that dates back to Ancient Greece. Subjective views have tarnished this meaning and now the word has become synonymous with punishment to the dismay of many...including myself.

[SpoonMan999]

Are you serious here? You can't accuse me of belittling your opinion as primitive, irrational thinking and then refuse to offer a rational and logical reasoning for it. You also shouldn't ignore a direct question twice, and in skirting it ask a question that you accuse me of ignoring while I'm just trying to get you to provide your reasoning already.

The sanctity of human life is a moral issue, but whether or not advocating the death penalty is based on primitive-minded rationale has nothing to do with morality. If you take umbrage with my statements, again I implore you to prove me wrong. Make a case for the death penalty, but if you can't or won't then what are you doing but submitting that there isn't one?

The answer to your question is obvious. Putting them away in prison for life benefits society by protecting society from the rapists. A child rapist cannot rape children if he is locked behind bars for the rest of his life. That's why prisons exist. And the state does not execute him, because that would make the state a murderer and a fundamental hypocrisy like that would strip the courts of any legal or moral authority they have to judge.

Advocating the death penalty is not a moral issue? I'm sorry but what's considered cruel depends on one's moralty does it not? The entire issue is one of morals and where our courts and people stand on that moral ground. How you can dismiss as not being a moral issue is beyond my comprehension.

Also, where is this study saying it's cheaper to keep them in prison for life? I find this extremely hard to believe.

[QUENTIN]

Advocating the death penalty is not a moral issue? I'm sorry but what's considered cruel depends on one's moralty does it not? The entire issue is one of morals and where our courts and people stand on that moral ground. How you can dismiss as not being a moral issue is beyond my comprehension.

Also, where is this study saying it's cheaper to keep them in prison for life? I find this extremely hard to believe.

Lynn? Whether or not advocating the death penalty only comes from primitive thinking, which is what you are taking me to task on, has nothing to do with morality.

So I guess you're NOT going to provide any rational, logical argument in support of the death penalty despite the three times now that I've asked you to in a thread about it?

And it's not "a study", it's any prisons budget. It is considerably more expensive to execute a prisoner than it is to jail them for 75 years.

[SpoonMan999]

Lynn? Whether or not advocating the death penalty only comes from primitive thinking, which is what you are taking me to task on, has nothing to do with morality.

So I guess you're NOT going to provide any rational, logical argument in support of the death penalty despite the three times now that I've asked you to in a thread about it?

And it's not "a study", it's any prisons budget. It is considerably more expensive to execute a prisoner than it is to jail them for 75 years.

Show me proof then? Because I had never heard this till I came to this forum, and honestly if it's the case then I would support taking the death penalty away as I'd like as little of my taxes to go toward these people than necessary.

[QUENTIN]

Well then it's obvious your support for the death penalty is also out of ignorance. It's a pretty basic fact that it costs more. Do your own research to find the most reliable sources, but I'll provide you with a few links I could find quickly on the first page of a yahoo search:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070517235405AAqZ8zp

http://www.ndsn.org/june93/executing.html

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~werbe20c/classweb/costs.html

[MadsenOMC]

I thought it was common knowledge by now that the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison, due to the lengthy appeals process and what not.

[countchocula]

I still don't care how much it costs. I haven't heard a rational, logical argument to keep child rapists alive. It's almost primitive to pay for their rent and their groceries, isn't it? Death is what they deserve.

[SpoonMan999]

Well then it's obvious your support for the death penalty is also out of ignorance. It's a pretty basic fact that it costs more. Do your own research to find the most reliable sources, but I'll provide you with a few links I could find quickly on the first page of a yahoo search:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070517235405AAqZ8zp

http://www.ndsn.org/june93/executing.html

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~werbe20c/classweb/costs.html

Well, then I concede to abolishing it, though not on a moral standing but a financial one.

[The Postmaster General]

That's fucked up Exxon got off so easy.

[Vong]

That's fucked up Exxon got off so easy.

Feel like executing them? I'm with ya...

[Homyrrh]

Feel like executing them? I'm with ya...
Come on, you know some corporate rat or ten has gotten the boot and the shoot for threatening to reveal price gouging...

Otherwise, Quentin's proven me a murderer:

Death Penalty has Cost New Jersey Taxpayers $253 Million

[countchocula]

In related news, no one noticed.

:D

[QUENTIN]

So Spoon, you actually do REFUSE to offer any backing for why you support(ed?) the death penalty. Why even bother professing an opinion if you won't explain it even when asked multiple times to? "I feel this way...just cause."

You can't get all insulted and cry foul when I call your thinking primitive if you won't even attempt to explain how it's anything but primitive.

[SpoonMan999]

So Spoon, you actually do REFUSE to offer any backing for why you support(ed?) the death penalty. Why even bother professing an opinion if you won't explain it even when asked multiple times to? "I feel this way...just cause."

You can't get all insulted and cry foul when I call your thinking primitive if you won't even attempt to explain how it's anything but primitive.

So, I concede that we should do away with the death penalty and you're still after me. I told you, for me it's an issue of morality and the fact that these people do not deserve any freedom at all. They are quite frankly monsters and society is better off without them existing at all. Now please, get off my back as I've said this a million times now.

[QUENTIN]

A rationale or argument for the death penalty would sound something like this:

The death penalty is an effective deterrent against the most egregious of our violent crimes. The murder rate has dropped significantly since the re-institution of the death penalty after it saw a steady rise during its brief outlaw in the U.S. Many criminal case studies and profiles have shown that violent criminals think of the possible consequences before committing their crimes and that the fear of being put to death frequently prevents them from killing where it would otherwise be convenient or desirable for them to do so. States without the death penalty have lower murder rates across the board and Texas, which executed far more people than any other state, has the lowest violent crime rate in the nation. With the amount of prisoners who escape from death row every year to go on killing sprees, it is also the only manner in which the state can assure protection to society from these murderers.

If any of that were true, which none of it is. But that's what an argument looks like Spoon, it's drawing well-reasoned logical conclusions from the facts that support a position. "I support it because I FEEL that these people are really awful and so they deserve to die" isn't an argument, it's not a rationale, it's devoid of logic. It is kindergarten reasoning, primitive thinking based purely on emotion. Now those are cornerstones of the conservative platform, so I understand. But next time, don't call me out claiming I'm using insulting and inacurate descriptions if you cannot provide ANY evidence or argument for how they are anything but totally accurate.

It doesn't matter that you conceded your support of the death penalty for financial reasons here. I'm not trying to "win" an argument (whatever that means), I'm only trying to HEAR an argument, any reason for WHY you feel the way you do and can't even coax that out of you. Which is more than a little annoying when you're trying to have a debate.

[Homyrrh]

A rationale or argument for the death penalty would sound something like this:

The death penalty is an effective deterrent against the most egregious of our violent crimes. The murder rate has dropped significantly since the re-institution of the death penalty after it saw a steady rise during its brief outlaw in the U.S. Many criminal case studies and profiles have shown that violent criminals think of the possible consequences before committing their crimes and that the fear of being put to death frequently prevents them from killing where it would otherwise be convenient or desirable for them to do so. States without the death penalty have lower murder rates across the board and Texas, which executed far more people than any other state, has the lowest violent crime rate in the nation. With the amount of prisoners who escape from death row every year to go on killing sprees, it is also the only manner in which the state can assure protection to society from these murderers.

If any of that were true, which none of it is. But that's what an argument looks like Spoon, it's drawing well-reasoned logical conclusions from the facts that support a position. "I support it because I FEEL that these people are really awful and so they deserve to die" isn't an argument, it's not a rationale, it's devoid of logic. It is kindergarten reasoning, primitive thinking based purely on emotion. Now those are cornerstones of the conservative platform, so I understand. But next time, don't call me out claiming I'm using insulting and inacurate descriptions if you cannot provide ANY evidence or argument for how they are anything but totally accurate.

It doesn't matter that you conceded your support of the death penalty for financial reasons here. I'm not trying to "win" an argument (whatever that means), I'm only trying to HEAR an argument, any reason for WHY you feel the way you do and can't even coax that out of you. Which is more than a little annoying when you're trying to have a debate.
I nearly idolize logic and rationale, but it's difficult not to realize morality in matter of such life and death.

[SpoonMan999]

I nearly idolize logic and rationale, but it's difficult not to realize morality in matter of such life and death.

I'm glad someone here can understand my reasoning.

A rationale or argument for the death penalty would sound something like this:

The death penalty is an effective deterrent against the most egregious of our violent crimes. The murder rate has dropped significantly since the re-institution of the death penalty after it saw a steady rise during its brief outlaw in the U.S. Many criminal case studies and profiles have shown that violent criminals think of the possible consequences before committing their crimes and that the fear of being put to death frequently prevents them from killing where it would otherwise be convenient or desirable for them to do so. States without the death penalty have lower murder rates across the board and Texas, which executed far more people than any other state, has the lowest violent crime rate in the nation. With the amount of prisoners who escape from death row every year to go on killing sprees, it is also the only manner in which the state can assure protection to society from these murderers.

If any of that were true, which none of it is. But that's what an argument looks like Spoon, it's drawing well-reasoned logical conclusions from the facts that support a position. "I support it because I FEEL that these people are really awful and so they deserve to die" isn't an argument, it's not a rationale, it's devoid of logic. It is kindergarten reasoning, primitive thinking based purely on emotion. Now those are cornerstones of the conservative platform, so I understand. But next time, don't call me out claiming I'm using insulting and inacurate descriptions if you cannot provide ANY evidence or argument for how they are anything but totally accurate.

It doesn't matter that you conceded your support of the death penalty for financial reasons here. I'm not trying to "win" an argument (whatever that means), I'm only trying to HEAR an argument, any reason for WHY you feel the way you do and can't even coax that out of you. Which is more than a little annoying when you're trying to have a debate.

What's funny is I actually never said, not even once, that we should kill them. I said taking the life of a morally devoid individual was acceptable to protect people. Acceptable, does not mean I think it's the best way but it means what happens to these people is their own doing and I really don't see any value in them for society. And if you weren't trying to "win" you wouldn't be constantly trying to contradict what everyone says, that is indeed competitive. You wont hear my argument anymore in this thread than you have in any other Hom and I have opposed your statements in. Talking to me in the manner that you do is down right insulting to me, which is more than a little annoying when I've tried my damnedest to be respectful to all of you. If my responses to you are short or I fail to read a full post of your's it's because I hate being talked down to.

And to call my moral stand point "primitive" or "kindergarten" is again downright insulting to me.

Because I simply don't want to be a part of this particular argument anymore, more specifically because I don't want to be treated as an inferior anymore, I'm done in this thread. Go ahead and mock me once I post this claiming, "he couldn't answer so he left!" Just be assured it was your attitude, as I feel I answered your question based upon my personal standing.

[The Heart Collector]

It's almost primitive to pay for their rent and their groceries, isn't it?


Actually, it's civilized, honorable, and shows incredible moral strength. Much like not beating the crap out of people you dislike is civilized.

[countchocula]

Yeah, the pedophile and the child that is violated deserve the exact same treatment. I'm not a very civilized person. I think certain people need to die. I do not honor those that do not honor life itself. Being a human being does not grant you automatic privileges if you go and do something like rape or murder.