Supreme Court rules against Death Penalty for child rape....

[earthbrown]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25367455/

I think they should have ruled this constitutional punishment based on certain criteria....

It should have been on a case by case basis, this case certainly has merit for killing the sick bastard.


K

[IMSlacker]

I guess Stalker Patti's foster father is breathing a sigh of relief.

[earthbrown]

I guess Stalker Patti's foster father is breathing a sigh of relief.

surely...

It is not appropriate in every case, but if there is DNA and PHYSICAL evidence why not....too many rape, do 10 years and get out to rape again...

K

[booster11373]

I am against the Death penealty for 1 reason only, uneaqual enforcement, only the poor are killed, change that and I will be for it................so I will never be for it

[scottinnj]

Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority, reasoning that the "evolving" attitude about the death penalty is the primary reason for the decision.

Screw the constitutionality of anything, we just feel like it should be outlawed.


He was the worst decision Reagan ever made. Fuck this douchebag, I hate when "theoretical" discussions between elite pointy-headed assholes become policy and get forced down our throats.

I guess the 10th Amendment doesn't apply anymore.

[earthbrown]

ahhh, rich people benefit in every aspect of life.....but the percentage of people who can afford a a++++ defense and commit crimes of this nature are few and far between...

With your logic, we should not bother prosecuting any crime cause it is not fair that a poor guy gets 20 to life when a rich guy can afford a lawyer and get 8 years....

I would be fine with the few rich child rapists get life, while the poor guys get dead....

You could rape a kid tomorrow, and in most states you will be out in 8 years.

K

[earthbrown]

holy fuck I agree with obama...


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_el_pr/obama_child_rape_case


K

[K.C.]

I guess they sighted it under the 'cruel and unusual punishment' clause.

Rape is a horrible crime, but there really is no precedent for giving the death penalty outside of murder (and maybe treason...although that one hasn't been brought out in a while).


So it constitutionally makes sense. Conservatives bitch about 'activist judges' ruling from the bench, but wouldn't it be the 'activist judge' thing to do to arbitrarily decide new crimes for which the death penalty is applicable?

At the end of the day, it's going to be an easy target of a decision, because nobody looks good being pigeon-holed into looking like they're defending the rights of brutal rapists (which will be the spin).

But I think it's constitutionally the right call.

[scottinnj]

holy fuck I agree with obama...


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_el_pr/obama_child_rape_case


K

Good find Earthbrown! Just further proof of the stupidity of this decision. If both liberals and conservatives disagree w/the Supreme Court's decision, this "evolving" attitude argument really is a crock of shit.


Quote:
"I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes," Obama said at a news conference. "I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our Constitution

[scottinnj]

But I think it's constitutionally the right call.

I disagree (respectfully of course)

It is not the "activist" courts making up new punishments for crimes. This was a law in Louisiana passed by its legistlature, not a judge to allow the death penalty for child rape.

Secondly, the decision was based on research that showed a reduction of death sentences being carried out in America since 1964. Kennedy explains this as a change in American citizens' attitude about the death penalty. The LIE in this argument is a major cause in the reduction of death sentences being carried out lies with the SCOTUS in the first place, because for about 10 years the death penalty was ruled unconstitutional by Kennedy's predecessors.

He also cites individual states abandoning the death penalty as this "attitude" change as well. Big deal. Just because the northeast wants to get rid of the death penalty, that doesn't mean magically it's unconstitutional everywhere else. It's a 10th Amendment issue, and if Louisiana wants to execute child rapists while Mississippi wants to coddle them in a mental hospital for the rest of their miserable lives, so be it.

"cruel and unusual" goes to the method of execution, not to the sentencing of the death penalty. If the crime is heinous enough, the death penalty is perfectly acceptable, even if the victim did not die.

Kennedy is wrong here, and he is about as wrong as wrong can be.

[HBox]

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/6067/mhandnl9.gif

[scottinnj]

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/6067/mhandnl9.gif

I don't get it. But I'm a dummy anyway to this "hip" thing called the internetz.

[booster11373]

There is absoulutly nothing about the "Death Penelty" in the constituition

[earthbrown]

There is absoulutly nothing about the "Death Penelty" in the constituition



yeah, but the federal government hung allot of people, same with state and local.


K

[IMSlacker]

So, where's the age cut-off between child rape and regular rape?

[EliSnow]

"cruel and unusual" goes to the method of execution, not to the sentencing of the death penalty.



Sorry, but historically, for the 8th Amendment, it goes to both. Over the years, the Supreme Court has applied the 8th Amendment to rule that the death penalty cannot be used to punish for rape, or when the murderer is a minor or mentally handicapped. And if a state decided that death was appropriate for kidnapping or other crimes, the 8th Amendment would be used to say such sentencing was unconstitutional under the 8th Amendment because it was excessive in light of the crime committed.

If the crime is heinous enough, the death penalty is perfectly acceptable, even if the victim did not die.

Really? Because not every state has the death penalty, and of those that do, only two had statutes permitting death where murder wasn't committed.

So are you saying that it's acceptable to you?


Also, I read an interesting practical reason for not sentencing the death penalty for child rape. It may make the bastards engaged in such activity more likely to kill the child so that he/she doesn't get caught and be subject to the death penalty. Now however, there may be some deterrant to killing the victim which would make the murderer eligible for the death penalty.

[earthbrown]

So, where's the age cut-off between child rape and regular rape?

not sure, but I think it should be applied to all violent rape. This is kinda a strange area, as many rapes go un reported for sometime and many times the physical and dna evidence is destroyed by the actions of the victim. There are also a lot of false accusations of rape...so it is a grey area, but certainly there are a set of circumstances where this could be applied in a just way.

Maybe the panel thought that rape being a capitol crime, would cause rapes to be escalated to murder as a result of the criminal attempting to cover his tracks and elude detection.


K

[Dirtybird12]

another reason for this - was to prevent the rapist from killing the child.
If a child molester / rapist knows he is going to get the death penalty for raping a child, he may be motivated to murder the kid and erase da proof - keep them from testifying or being identified.

[EliSnow]

not sure, but I think it should be applied to all violent rape. This is kinda a strange area, as many rapes go un reported for sometime and many times the physical and dna evidence is destroyed by the actions of the victim. There are also a lot of false accusations of rape...so it is a grey area, but certainly there are a set of circumstances where this could be applied in a just way.


K

There's a previous case by the Supreme Court in 1977 I believe holding that the use of the death penalty to punish someone for rape was unconstitutional under the 8th Amendment.

That case was distinguished because it dealt with the rape of an adult woman.

[sailor]

i think they got this one right. death for rape doesn't seem appropriate.

[A.J.]

Since we can't do the logical thing and rid the world of this worthless piece of shit, I hope prison officials will do the right thing and throw this scumbag into general population so he can experience rape for himself.

[Thebazile78]

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/6067/mhandnl9.gif

Yeah, but that was for akindermorder not a rapist.

And he was "tried" and "convicted" by the other criminals in the neighborhood.

They had their own interests at heart when they beat the living daylights out of him.

(This is effectively A.J.'s scenario, but on the outside.)

[foodcourtdruide]

Though I'm anti-death penalty I totally see both sides of the issue here in regards to whether or not the supreme court was out of bounds in this ruling. What annoys me though is people who act like just because you may not advocate the death penalty in these cases you somehow don't care about the welfare of children. See McCain quote below:

Obama's Republican rival, John McCain, also criticized the court's decision, calling it "an assault on law enforcement's efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime."

"That there is a judge anywhere in America who does not believe that the rape of a child represents the most heinous of crimes, which is deserving of the most serious of punishments, is profoundly disturbing," McCain said in a statement.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_el_pr/obama_child_rape_case

So because a judge doesn't advocate the death penalty, he doesn't think child rape is heinous? Ok.

[Thebazile78]

Though I'm anti-death penalty I totally see both sides of the issue here in regards to whether or not the supreme court was out of bounds in this ruling. What annoys me though is people who act like just because you may not advocate the death penalty in these cases you somehow don't care about the welfare of children. See McCain quote below:

Obama's Republican rival, John McCain, also criticized the court's decision, calling it "an assault on law enforcement's efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime."

"That there is a judge anywhere in America who does not believe that the rape of a child represents the most heinous of crimes, which is deserving of the most serious of punishments, is profoundly disturbing," McCain said in a statement.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_el_pr/obama_child_rape_case

So because a judge doesn't advocate the death penalty, he doesn't think child rape is heinous? Ok.

John McCain is campaigning right now against the intervention of the judicial branch in a lot of things.

I think that he'll say anything to continue to plow that point across.

As for saying that because a heinous crime isn't adjudicated a capital offense means the judge thinks that it's not heinous, well, that's a passionate remark which is totally wrong-footed.

You may be strongly anti-death penalty, but if it were your kid, you know that you'd want to kill the bastard who did that to your baby. (Hence the empathy for pro-death penalty in non-murder cases, like kiddie-rape.)

HOWEVER, using the "cruel and unusual punishment" standard, I feel the Supreme Court ruled appropriately. The punishment (death) does not fit the crime (rape, as heinous an act as that is, especially when it involves children) ... however, isolation sentencing is too good for the sick bastards who commit these crimes. So, I'm with A.J. on throwing the sons of bitches into the general population and letting nature take its course.

(Just look at the accomodations that the state of NJ had to make for Jesse Timmendequas, the sick fuck who raped and murdered Meghan Kanka, after they eliminated the death penalty. The son of a bitch isn't in the general population. He should be. I'd love to hear that he was bludgeoned or shanked within minutes of releasing him to the rest of the prison population.)

[Jujubees2]

[QUOTE=earthbrown;1772015]not sure, but I think it should be applied to all violent rape. /QUOTE]

What kind of rape isn't violent?

[EliSnow]

not sure, but I think it should be applied to all violent rape.

What kind of rape isn't violent?

If a rapist used a drug to render his victim unconscious or rapes a sleeping/unconscious woman, that's not violent.

[foodcourtdruide]

John McCain is campaigning right now against the intervention of the judicial branch in a lot of things.

I think that he'll say anything to continue to plow that point across.

As for saying that because a heinous crime isn't adjudicated a capital offense means the judge thinks that it's not heinous, well, that's a passionate remark which is totally wrong-footed.

You may be strongly anti-death penalty, but if it were your kid, you know that you'd want to kill the bastard who did that to your baby. (Hence the empathy for pro-death penalty in non-murder cases, like kiddie-rape.)

HOWEVER, using the "cruel and unusual punishment" standard, I feel the Supreme Court ruled appropriately. The punishment (death) does not fit the crime (rape, as heinous an act as that is, especially when it involves children) ... however, isolation sentencing is too good for the sick bastards who commit these crimes. So, I'm with A.J. on throwing the sons of bitches into the general population and letting nature take its course.

(Just look at the accomodations that the state of NJ had to make for Jesse Timmendequas, the sick fuck who raped and murdered Meghan Kanka, after they eliminated the death penalty. The son of a bitch isn't in the general population. He should be. I'd love to hear that he was bludgeoned or shanked within minutes of releasing him to the rest of the prison population.)

I can't even comprehend the sadness and anger someone must have when a loved one (whether it be child, spouse, parent, brother, sister) is taken away from them through violence. And I have ABSOLUTELY thought about this before when being against the death penalty. My biggest reason for being against the death penalty is because we can never be 100% certain that every single person we execute was guilty. And if we only murder ONE innocent person then we are all guilty of inflicting that sadness and anger on someone else. To be blunt, we become a society of murderers. Look at all the people who have been exonerated through DNA over the past few years. What if they had been killed prior to their exoneration? Wouldn't that have been murder? How is one form of murder worse than another?

[foodcourtdruide]

If a rapist used a drug to render his victim unconscious or rapes a sleeping/unconscious woman, that's not violent.

Violent

1: marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity <a violent attack>
2 a: notably furious or vehement <a violent denunciation> b: extreme, intense <violent pain> <violent colors>
3: caused by force : not natural <a violent death>
4 a: emotionally agitated to the point of loss of self-control <became violent after an insult> b: prone to commit acts of violence <violent prison inmates>
— vi·o·lent·ly adverb

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violent

I disagree.

[A.J.]

And this is why these animals should be killed: they already committed a violent act (or acts), they cannot be rehabilitated to be of any value to society and they pose a threat to corrections officers and other less violent prisoners:

An inmate at the Tomoka Correctional Institution was quickly transfered to the Florida State Prison on Thursday after officials said he raped and killed a prison guard (http://www.wesh.com/news/16713238/detail.html).

[Thebazile78]

I can't even comprehend the sadness and anger someone must have when a loved one (whether it be child, spouse, parent, brother, sister) is taken away from them through violence. And I have ABSOLUTELY thought about this before when being against the death penalty. My biggest reason for being against the death penalty is because we can never be 100% certain that every single person we execute was guilty. And if we only murder ONE innocent person then we are all guilty of inflicting that sadness and anger on someone else. To be blunt, we become a society of murderers. Look at all the people who have been exonerated through DNA over the past few years. What if they had been killed prior to their exoneration? Wouldn't that have been murder? How is one form of murder worse than another?

I never explicitly said I was pro-death penalty, but I could see how someone might read my last posting as pro-penalty.

I'm actually anti-death penalty, but I get really riled up in cases that involve victims like children and the mentally disabled, so the claws come out. Empathy for a suffering parent is not the same as condoning the death penalty. I think it's not the strongest deterrent for capital crimes, especially with the continual moral/ethical pendulum swings imposing moratoria on the penalty until it can be decided by someone else.

It's kind of like my stance on torture ... if we're supposed to be the "good guys" why is it OK for us to do things normally associated with the "bad guys"?

Or my insistence that "because I'm the mommy, that's why" wasn't a good enough reason for my mother to justify her corporal punishment of me (or my siblings) for hitting one another.

Really, it boils down to two wrongs don't make a right.

[Fezticle98]

What's the penalty for hosing sand out of your son's ass?

[Thebazile78]

And this is why these animals should be killed: they already committed a violent act (or acts), they cannot be rehabilitated to be of any value to society and they pose a threat to corrections officers and other less violent prisoners...

Agreed that they can't be rehabilitated.

But I'm more willing to have the prison yard stomp them to death than I am to have the state pay for a lethal injection.

It's times like these when I wish they'd reinstitute drawing and quartering (http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/83400).

Brutal.
Slow.
Public.
Messy.

How is that not a deterrent?

[foodcourtdruide]

I never explicitly said I was pro-death penalty, but I could see how someone might read my last posting as pro-penalty.

I'm actually anti-death penalty, but I get really riled up in cases that involve victims like children and the mentally disabled, so the claws come out. Empathy for a suffering parent is not the same as condoning the death penalty. I think it's not the strongest deterrent for capital crimes, especially with the continual moral/ethical pendulum swings imposing moratoria on the penalty until it can be decided by someone else.

It's kind of like my stance on torture ... if we're supposed to be the "good guys" why is it OK for us to do things normally associated with the "bad guys"?

Or my insistence that "because I'm the mommy, that's why" wasn't a good enough reason for my mother to justify her corporal punishment of me (or my siblings) for hitting one another.

Really, it boils down to two wrongs don't make a right.

I agree with everything you posted above. My wife and I are Buddhist, and she'd probably give the reason you gave above before my reason.

[EliSnow]

Violent

1: marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity <a violent attack>
2 a: notably furious or vehement <a violent denunciation> b: extreme, intense <violent pain> <violent colors>
3: caused by force : not natural <a violent death>
4 a: emotionally agitated to the point of loss of self-control <became violent after an insult> b: prone to commit acts of violence <violent prison inmates>
— vi·o·lent·ly adverb

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violent

I disagree.

Which one of these does the rape of an unconscious woman fall under? If you're saying 3, I don't see what "force" is used that isn't "force" used in regular consensual sex.

[EliSnow]

Agreed that they can't be rehabilitated.

But I'm more willing to have the prison yard stomp them to death than I am to have the state pay for a lethal injection.

It's times like these when I wish they'd reinstitute drawing and quartering (http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/83400).

Brutal.
Slow.
Public.
Messy.

How is that not a deterrent?

Because when it was actually a punishment for certain acts, people still engaged in such acts?

I think the "deterrence" factor of any punishment, regardless of severity, is pretty limited. For the most part, when violent crimes are committed, it's not based upon a reasonable assessment of the risk and consequences. It's usually based upon irrational emotions or reactions or the criminal doesn't think about the consequences because they don't think it will happen to them.

[booster11373]

It seems like Sharia law would make a few of you very happy

[foodcourtdruide]

Which one of these does the rape of an unconscious woman fall under? If you're saying 3, I don't see what "force" is used that isn't "force" used in regular consensual sex.

Not necessarily, during consensual sex both parties are conscious and consending. Maybe it's just a matter of semantics, I dunno.

[EliSnow]

Not necessarily, during consensual sex both parties are conscious and consending. Maybe it's just a matter of semantics, I dunno.

Yes, per the above, but the definition of "violent" doesn't take into account whether the object of the force is consenting to the exertion of force or not. You can have violent or "rough" consensual sex.

[foodcourtdruide]

Yes, per the above, but the definition of "violent" doesn't take into account whether the object of the force is consenting to the exertion of force or not. You can have violent or "rough" consensual sex.

The question was what kind of rape isn't violent. You said rape upon an unconscious person could be considered non-violent, but part of the definition of violence is "caused by force : not natural". I don't disagree that there can be violence in consensual sex, but wouldn't you say that raping an unconscious person would be something that is caused by force and unnatural?

[Furtherman]

Ehhh. I still can't go within a 100 yards of a playground.

[EliSnow]

The question was what kind of rape isn't violent. You said rape upon an unconscious person could be considered non-violent, but part of the definition of violence is "caused by force : not natural". I don't disagree that there can be violence in consensual sex, but wouldn't you say that raping an unconscious person would be something that is caused by force and unnatural?

Yes, but you brought up consent, which has nothing to do with violence. You can have violence with consent or without.

I guess my problem is with the definition itself. If anything caused by force is "violent" then all sex could be seen as "violent" because a degree of "force" is used in penetration and other acts. The amount of force used in raping an unconscious person is pretty much the same force used (and sometimes less) than the force used in consensual sex.

And I think there is some internal inconsistency in the definition. The first part of the definition discuss "extreme force" as being violent, but then doesn't apply the same qualifier on the third definition. I see violent sex or violent rape having a certain higher level of force not used in other forms of the activity.

[A.J.]

It seems like Sharia law would make a few of you very happy

It's one of the few things I give the Saudis credit for. As I have mentioned before, the first thing you see when you land in King Khalid Airport in Riyadh is a sign that says "Death for Drug Traffickers". Sounds like that would be a pretty effective deterrent to smuggling drugs, no? Yet every Friday there is a drug dealer, murderer or rapist getting beheaded down at Chop Chop Square.

You are not going to deter certain worthless people from committing crimes. You should however be prepared to punish them. And for the most violent and despicable of them all that should be death.

[Jujubees2]

Ehhh. I still can't go within a 100 yards of a playground.


Those damn restraining orders!

[Thebazile78]

Because when it was actually a punishment for certain acts, people still engaged in such acts?

I think the "deterrence" factor of any punishment, regardless of severity, is pretty limited. For the most part, when violent crimes are committed, it's not based upon a reasonable assessment of the risk and consequences. It's usually based upon irrational emotions or reactions or the criminal doesn't think about the consequences because they don't think it will happen to them.

Agreed. Which is why it's pretty ludicrous of anyone (especially me in my posting) to declare something like drawing & quartering (which is one of my "favorite" archaic sentences) to be a perfect deterrent.

[Jujubees2]

I think it was posted in another death penalty thread but it's interesting to see a list of countries which still have the death penalty.

Link to list of countries with death penalty (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html)

It's enlightening to see what kind of company the U.S. keeps with its view on the death penalty.

[Earlshog]

[QUOTE=earthbrown;1772015]not sure, but I think it should be applied to all violent rape. /QUOTE]

What kind of rape isn't violent?

statutory

[foodcourtdruide]

[QUOTE=Jujubees2;1772112]

statutory

lol i'm not having this conversation again.

[Earlshog]

[QUOTE=Earlshog;1772552]

lol i'm not having this conversation again.

why it couldn't be any more awkward then the one I had with Chirs Hanen

[JimBeam]

I think the decision takes into consideration the welfare of the accused far more than it does that of the victim.

The Supreme Court can decide, consitutionally, whether the death penalty itself is cruel and unusual.

Since they have done so they shouldn't also be involved in each of it's applications.

This is clearly something that should've been left to the rights of the states.

Couldn't you argue that taking a guy and putting him in an 8 X 8 celll for 23 hours a day is cruel and unusual ?

Well we have no problem sending people to the Super Max prisons.

And to say that " well other states aren't doing it " is ridiculous.

Why should states seperated by thousands of miles be expected to share the same, non-Federal law, opinion ?

Shouldn't we then apply a Federal definition of murder and no longer allow each state to use their own interpretation ?

I think the whole " treason " thing could be replaced with this law.

I'd much rather have a spy spend his life in a shoebox, alive, and have a child rapist put to death.

[Friday]

Which one of these does the rape of an unconscious woman fall under? If you're saying 3, I don't see what "force" is used that isn't "force" used in regular consensual sex.

the next time you have your vagina ripped into while you are unconscious and not physically ready, be sure to let me know if you don't feel a level of pain that could only be caused by a significant amount of FORCE.

http://www.wackbag.com/images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif

[EliSnow]

I think the decision takes into consideration the welfare of the accused far more than it does that of the victim.

The Supreme Court can decide, consitutionally, whether the death penalty itself is cruel and unusual.

Since they have done so they shouldn't also be involved in each of it's applications.

This is clearly something that should've been left to the rights of the states.

How can you say clearly? The Supreme Court has decided whether the death penalty is not cruel and unsual punishment for murder. That doesn't mean it's consitutional as punishment for other crimes. Indeed, it ruled 30 years ago that it wasn't constitutional to use it for rape.

But that doesn't mean it may not be cruel and unusual if applied to other crimes. Under your theory, if a state decided to execute drug traffickers, pimps, ets. it could. A big part of the analysis is the determination of whether a punishment is cruel and unusual in light of the crime committed. That's what they did.

So its not something that "clearly" should have been left to the states.

[EliSnow]

the next time you have your vagina ripped into while you are unconscious and not physically ready, be sure to let me know if you don't feel a level of pain that could only be caused by a significant amount of FORCE.

http://www.wackbag.com/images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif

If that happens during a rape,then use I think you have a violent action.



And on a side note, what's wrong with our rolled eyes smilie that you have to use a wackbag one?

[Friday]

And on a side note, what's wrong with our rolled eyes smilie that you have to use a wackbag one?



we don't have a rolly eye smiley.
just an "innocent" smiley.

i need more variety than .net is prepared to offer :bye:

[DarkHippie]

Can we have some sort of morality in this country please? There is nothing more immoral than the government executing people. It doesn't matter what horrible crime they did, it is still the government splashing blood on every single one of us. If you are so willing to execute someone, you better be willing to take that human being, shave off his hair, strap him in, look him in the fucking eye, and kill him. Take that life and put it on your head, remember the look in his eye and life floats from his body, and remember for the rest of your life that you killed someone, and your soul is forfeit.

I doubt anyone on this board has little enough respect for life to do that, and if you do, I don't wanna know you.

[Fezticle98]

Can we have some sort of morality in this country please? There is nothing more immoral than the government executing people. It doesn't matter what horrible crime they did, it is still the government splashing blood on every single one of us. If you are so willing to execute someone, you better be willing to take that human being, shave off his hair, strap him in, look him in the fucking eye, and kill him. Take that life and put it on your head, remember the look in his eye and life floats from his body, and remember for the rest of your life that you killed someone, and your soul is forfeit.

I doubt anyone on this board has little enough respect for life to do that, and if you do, I don't wanna know you.

I don't support the death penalty, but I don't think you can say that it's the most immoral thing that can be done.

I guarantee that you will have some people replying that they'd love to be the executioner.

It doesn't work for what it is supposed to do. There is no deterrent effect. And if the sole purpose was vengeance, why not execute someone in the most brutal way possible?

[EliSnow]

we don't have a rolly eye smiley.
just an "innocent" smiley.

i need more variety than .net is prepared to offer :bye:

Ah but we do have one:


:rolleyes:

[scottinnj]

Also, I read an interesting practical reason for not sentencing the death penalty for child rape. It may make the bastards engaged in such activity more likely to kill the child so that he/she doesn't get caught and be subject to the death penalty. Now however, there may be some deterrant to killing the victim which would make the murderer eligible for the death penalty.


In my state that argument is moot. There is no death penalty at all anymore, so these scumbags can rape and kill without any worry of the death penalty, just years and years of jail time, separated from the general population for their protection and never have to worry about being fed or sheltered ever again.

If I were a pedophile, I'd come here to Jersey and do my thing until I got caught. It's the smart thing to do.

[scottinnj]

Can we have some sort of morality in this country please? There is nothing more immoral than the government executing people. It doesn't matter what horrible crime they did, it is still the government splashing blood on every single one of us. If you are so willing to execute someone, you better be willing to take that human being, shave off his hair, strap him in, look him in the fucking eye, and kill him. Take that life and put it on your head, remember the look in his eye and life floats from his body, and remember for the rest of your life that you killed someone, and your soul is forfeit.

I doubt anyone on this board has little enough respect for life to do that, and if you do, I don't wanna know you.

Get ready to set my profile to "ignore" then. Because I feel the exact opposite you do. Not only is it moral to rid a lawful society of those that wish to do these things on their fellow citizens, it is the government's duty to do so, to keep the law-abiding members of society safe.

As for the dramatics, about looking them in the eye, I'm all for it. Televise the execution, and while the scum is writhing in the chair while 10,000 volts is passed through him, have at the bottom of the TV screen a sign that says "We will do this to you if you do the same thing he did" and list whatever the crime he was convicted of that got him the death penalty.

[DarkHippie]

I don't support the death penalty, but I don't think you can say that it's the most immoral thing that can be done.

I guarantee that you will have some people replying that they'd love to be the executioner.

It doesn't work for what it is supposed to do. There is no deterrent effect. And if the sole purpose was vengeance, why not execute someone in the most brutal way possible?

What's more immoral that murder? There is nothing more sacred than a human life.

[booster11373]

Get ready to set my profile to "ignore" then. Because I feel the exact opposite you do. Not only is it moral to rid a lawful society of those that wish to do these things on their fellow citizens, it is the government's duty to do so, to keep the law-abiding members of society safe.

As for the dramatics, about looking them in the eye, I'm all for it. Televise the execution, and while the scum is writhing in the chair while 10,000 volts is passed through him, have at the bottom of the TV screen a sign that says "We will do this to you if you do the same thing he did" and list whatever the crime he was convicted of that got him the death penalty.

While your at it why not make it an electric couch that way they can get'r'done (is that hay the hayseeds say/write it?)

[scottinnj]

is that hay the hayseeds say/write it?


No. Hayseeds don't know how to hit shift in order to type the proper symbols like ' and "

Therefore they spell it git er done

Besides your the one in hayseed country. Go ask your neighbor.

[KnoxHarrington]

You know, I have a feeling that spending the rest of your life in prison, where everyone knows you're a kid toucher, isn't quite that good a deal anyway.

Your time would probably be far more pleasant on Death Row.

[scottinnj]

You know, I have a feeling that spending the rest of your life in prison, where everyone knows you're a kid toucher, isn't quite that good a deal anyway.

Your time would probably be far more pleasant on Death Row.


Maybe in Kentucky, but up here in Jersey, kid touchers are given "special treatment"-separated from general and given extra supervision by guards so the criminals in prison don't hurt the real monsters.

[TheMojoPin]

Maybe in Kentucky, but up here in Jersey, kid touchers are given "special treatment"-separated from general and given extra supervision by guards so the criminals in prison don't hurt the real monsters.

It's sad that prisons being able to stop violence among inmates is the exception and not the rule.

But that's OK, keep packin' 'em in!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOH!!! Bullshit drug and immigration cases, but who cares? Basically turning our prisons ino overcrowded crime schools, drug dens and murder factories...AWESOME.

Our prisons are an embarassment, and the death penalty is an extension of that. Like it's been pointed out, look at all the shitty countries that have the death penalty...plus the United States. It's basically a list of countries that we love to "look down on" and think are so "savage"...plus us. And hey, amazingly, THERE'S STILL TONS OF CRIME IN THOSE COUNTIRES. Even crazier, throughout history, when mankind has had countless brutal public executions, IT DIDN'T DETER SHIT. Amazing! But if we put it on TV, and talk all scary, it's gonna set THIS era straight, y'know, despite the fact we're an incredibly violent culture that thrives on and demands more and more explicit violence in our popular media.

Scott, the sassiness of my post is frustration at the situation in general, and not directed at you.

[Thebazile78]

It's sad that prisons being able to stop violence among inmates is the exception and not the rule.

But that's OK, keep packin' 'em in!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOH!!! Bullshit drug and immigration cases, but who cares? Basically turning our prisons ino overcrowded crime schools, drug dens and murder factories...AWESOME.

Our prisons are an embarassment, and the death penalty is an extension of that. Like it's been pointed out, look at all the shitty countries that have the death penalty...plus the United States. It's basically a list of countries that we love to "look down on" and think are so "savage"...plus us. And hey, amazingly, THERE'S STILL TONS OF CRIME IN THOSE COUNTIRES. Even crazier, throughout history, when mankind has had countless brutal public executions, IT DIDN'T DETER SHIT. Amazing! But if we put it on TV, and tlak all scary, it's gonna set THIS era straight, y'know, despite the fact we're an incredibly violent culture that thrives on and demands more and more explicit violence in our popular media.

Scott, the sassiness of my post is frustration at the situation in general, and not directed at you.

Dude, weren't executions historically an excuse for a picnic? Diarists throughout history, from Pepys on down, have described the carnival-like atmosphere of executions ... haven't they? It's always been a form of entertainment and public spectacle ... whether it's royalty (just ask the Yeomen Warders at the Tower of London ... they have tons of great execution stories, the sick bastards) or the scum down the block, public executions have been morality as entertainment.

It's not a symptom of modern life; it's a symptom of human life.

[EliSnow]

As for the dramatics, about looking them in the eye, I'm all for it. Televise the execution, and while the scum is writhing in the chair while 10,000 volts is passed through him, have at the bottom of the TV screen a sign that says "We will do this to you if you do the same thing he did" and list whatever the crime he was convicted of that got him the death penalty.

Because that's worked so well in the past. As Liz points out, history shows that public government executions are more the norm than not, and when they did, the bodies were left out with signs essentially saying the same thing you are suggesting.

And that did nothing to reduce crime, murder, violence, etc. because the death penalty and other forms of punishment are not real deterrents, and never have been. While type of punishment may serve other purposes, they don't act as deterrence.

[booster11373]

No. Hayseeds don't know how to hit shift in order to type the proper symbols like ' and "

Therefore they spell it git er done

Besides your the one in hayseed country. Go ask your neighbor.


Hayseed is a State of mind

[DarkHippie]

Maybe in Kentucky, but up here in Jersey, kid touchers are given "special treatment"-separated from general and given extra supervision by guards so the criminals in prison don't hurt the real monsters.

Probably because ass rape qualifies as 'cruel and unusual punishment'

[Fezticle98]

What's more immoral that murder? There is nothing more sacred than a human life.

Murder - 1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Your view of execution as "murder" is far outside of what society's definition is. Sorry if society doesn't put your morals ahead of the law.

Are you anti-abortion? Do you feel that all soldiers who kill during time of war are murderers? Would you not defend yourself with lethal force, if necessary?

[DarkHippie]

Murder - 1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought



the only thing that seperates the two is the word 'unlawfully.' Execution is only exempt because we want it to be.

Do I believe that abortion is murder? No, a fetus is not a person.

As for soldiers . .. I've posted about this before. i'm very torn in my opinion of them. I know that we are supposed to support them, but I honestly believe that killing a person damages your soul (or psyche, whatever you believe in), no matter what the reason is, and it takes a lot of contrition to make up for those actions. In some cases, maybe the greater good makes up for those acts of violence, but how much, I don't know.

And if i had to kill in self defense, or the defense of another, I would never forgive myself.

[TheMojoPin]

Dude, weren't executions historically an excuse for a picnic? Diarists throughout history, from Pepys on down, have described the carnival-like atmosphere of executions ... haven't they? It's always been a form of entertainment and public spectacle ... whether it's royalty (just ask the Yeomen Warders at the Tower of London ... they have tons of great execution stories, the sick bastards) or the scum down the block, public executions have been morality as entertainment.

It's not a symptom of modern life; it's a symptom of human life.

The bottom line, as already pointed out, is the crimes that we typically think are the most horrible punishible by death aren't really all that "planned out" and are usually spontaneous, at least relatively spur-of-the-moment acts based on extreme emotions and desires. There's no punishment that's going to deter such actions.

[A.J.]

It's sad that prisons being able to stop violence among inmates is the exception and not the rule.

But that's OK, keep packin' 'em in!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOH!!! Bullshit drug and immigration cases, but who cares? Basically turning our prisons ino overcrowded crime schools, drug dens and murder factories...AWESOME.

Our prisons are an embarassment, and the death penalty is an extension of that. Like it's been pointed out, look at all the shitty countries that have the death penalty...plus the United States. It's basically a list of countries that we love to "look down on" and think are so "savage"...plus us. And hey, amazingly, THERE'S STILL TONS OF CRIME IN THOSE COUNTIRES. Even crazier, throughout history, when mankind has had countless brutal public executions, IT DIDN'T DETER SHIT. Amazing! But if we put it on TV, and talk all scary, it's gonna set THIS era straight, y'know, despite the fact we're an incredibly violent culture that thrives on and demands more and more explicit violence in our popular media.

Name one "tough law" that has deterred crime. Gun control? Nope. "Aggressive drivers"? Nope? Drugs? Nope. Robbery? Nope. Hate crimes? Nope.

It's not a deterrent, it's a punishment.

I agree with you Mojo that our prisons suck. Everytime I watch one of those MSNBC lockup specials, I wish I could send in execution squads to reduce the overcrowding.

[Fezticle98]

Name one "tough law" that has deterred crime. Gun control? Nope. "Aggressive drivers"? Nope? Drugs? Nope. Robbery? Nope. Hate crimes? Nope.

It's not a deterrent, it's a punishment.

I agree with you Mojo that our prisons suck. Everytime I watch one of those MSNBC lockup specials, I wish I could send in execution squads to reduce the overcrowding.

So, if the sole purpose of execution is punishment, why not make the method of execution as brutal as possible? That would maximize the amount of punishment that is doled out.

I think it's pretty clear that one of the intended results of execution is deterrence. I don't think that deterrence has been accomplished in any measure.

[EliSnow]

So, if the sole purpose of execution is punishment, why not make the method of execution as brutal as possible? That would maximize the amount of punishment that is doled out.

I think it's pretty clear that one of the intended results of execution is deterrence. I don't think that deterrence has been accomplished in any measure.


Because our constitution, amongst other things, forbids us from using "cruel" punishment.

[A.J.]

So, if the sole purpose of execution is punishment, why not make the method of execution as brutal as possible? That would maximize the amount of punishment that is doled out.

I think it's pretty clear that one of the intended results of execution is deterrence. I don't think that deterrence has been accomplished in any measure.

And it never will be because no matter how "tough" you make laws/punishments, some jackass is going to commit the crime. And if it's a serious crime like murder, rape or child molestation, he or she should be prepared to die.

[sailor]

the only thing that seperates the two is the word 'unlawfully.' Execution is only exempt because we want it to be.

Do I believe that abortion is murder? No, a fetus is not a person.

using that argument we shouldn't have prisons since it's wrong to hold someone against their will and a prison doing that "is only exempt because we want it to be."

and at what point does the fetus become a person? who are you to say that your definition of a person is correct?

[DarkHippie]

using that argument we shouldn't have prisons since it's wrong to hold someone against their will and a prison doing that "is only exempt because we want it to be."

and at what point does the fetus become a person? who are you to say that your definition of a person is correct?

I hope you're not comparing prisons to murder. You have to see the difference. Remember, prisons are there to rehabilitate those that can be rehabilitated and keep those that cant away from society.

I would say that life begins when a fetus could be born premature and still survive, probably the third trimester. That's why I believe that a thrid trimester abortion should only be allowed when the life of the mother is in danger. I mean, you've had 6 months to decide already.

[sailor]

I hope you're not comparing prisons to murder. You have to see the difference. Remember, prisons are there to rehabilitate those that can be rehabilitated and keep those that cant away from society.

I would say that life begins when a fetus could be born premature and still survive, probably the third trimester. That's why I believe that a thrid trimester abortion should only be allowed when the life of the mother is in danger. I mean, you've had 6 months to decide already.

of couse i'm comparing them. they're inter-related. i'm not even saying i support the death penalty (i do, but it's irrelevant). i'm just saying you can't say that because we don't allow the regular person to do something isn't automatically a justification for not allowing the government to do it. yes, they're different, but still you go try to lock someone up in your basement to rehabilitate them against their will and see what happens to you.

[earthbrown]

the only thing that seperates the two is the word 'unlawfully.' Execution is only exempt because we want it to be.

Do I believe that abortion is murder? No, a fetus is not a person.

As for soldiers . .. I've posted about this before. i'm very torn in my opinion of them. I know that we are supposed to support them, but I honestly believe that killing a person damages your soul (or psyche, whatever you believe in), no matter what the reason is, and it takes a lot of contrition to make up for those actions. In some cases, maybe the greater good makes up for those acts of violence, but how much, I don't know.

And if i had to kill in self defense, or the defense of another, I would never forgive myself.


Ok so by your weird justification, abortion is ok, but murdering someone who kills or rapes someone is wrong???

IDK, I still call myself pro-choice, but after my wife gave birth i really think I would have a problem with facilitating an abortion....

Here is another justification that a fetus is a life....if a woman is pregnant and you murder her even before the end of the 2nd trimester you can be charged with the murder of the unborn child...

I personally feel abortion is murder, but would not stop you from having an abortion....

Capitol punishment is murder too, but it is deserved if you murder or rape someone.


K

[DarkHippie]

Ok so by your weird justification, abortion is ok, but murdering someone who kills or rapes someone is wrong???

Here is another justification that a fetus is a life....if a woman is pregnant and you murder her even before the end of the 2nd trimester you can be charged with the murder of the unborn child...

K

I think I stated my reasoning pretty well before. A fetus is not alive, and the rights of the woman to decide what to do which her body supercede.

That second part was railroaded through Congress a couple years ago, and will probably be overturned once Bush is out of power.

[sailor]

I think I stated my reasoning pretty well before. A fetus is not alive, and the rights of the woman to decide what to do which her body supercede.

That second part was railroaded through Congress a couple years ago, and will probably be overturned once Bush is out of power.

your argument before was that a fetus wasn't a person. there's no way you can argue it's not alive.

[scottinnj]

Hayseed is a State of mind

I got it the first time you said it. Hence the saracastic dig at the end of my response.

[scottinnj]

And if i had to kill in self defense, or the defense of another, I would never forgive myself.

Why? You saved a loved one or yourself from being killed by scum. And the added bonus is you have rid society of someone who does not deserve to live.

I'd give you a medal.

[Epschtein]

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080701/NEWS01/80630028&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL

if this child rape "club" crap turns out to be true i would have no problem with them all being sentenced to death, most likely the uncle in this case killed the girl, if he didnt do it himself then im sure he knows who did.

the most damning thing is that he is the one that "found" her clothes by a pond/lake, if the details that have come out are true then i wouldnt doubt if he set her up thru myspace and basically sold her or allowed her to be kidnapped.

i have no problem with violent sexual assault of a minor being punishable by death, 100% for it.

[A.J.]

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080701/NEWS01/80630028&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL

if this child rape "club" crap turns out to be true i would have no problem with them all being sentenced to death, most likely the uncle in this case killed the girl, if he didnt do it himself then im sure he knows who did.

the most damning thing is that he is the one that "found" her clothes by a pond/lake, if the details that have come out are true then i wouldnt doubt if he set her up thru myspace and basically sold her or allowed her to be kidnapped.

i have no problem with violent sexual assault of a minor being punishable by death, 100% for it.

The surprise developments in the case of Brooke Bennett were disclosed by police Monday afternoon after the uncle, Michael S. Jacques, 42, of Randolph Center, was charged in Vermont District Court in Chelsea with the aggravated sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl related to the missing girl.

Jacques, a registered sex offender, pleaded not guilty and was held on $250,000 bail while police searched his home for clues into Brooke’s disappearance. He remained jailed Monday night at Southern State Correctional Facility in Springfield.

Shocker...a possible repeat offender. These animals cannot be rehabilitated. Kill them.

[Epschtein]

yeah, i really hope those parents and the aunt didnt know about that fucker's background. if they did, and they let him be alone with their 12 year old daughter then, well i cant imagine trying to live with that . (assuming what happened is what it obviously looks like happened)

[TheMojoPin]

Jacques, a registered sex offender

http://tvmedia.ign.com/tv/image/article/730/730566/thesimpsons-lifeonthefastlane-jacques-albertbrooks_1157493872.jpg

[A.J.]

Damn you for remembering that before I did.

[Thebazile78]

Shocker...a possible repeat offender. These animals cannot be rehabilitated. Kill them.

Apparently the military agrees with you:

In Court Ruling on Rape, a Factual Flaw (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/washington/02scotus.html?hp) (NY Times, 2 July 2008)

And a posting on a military law blog:

The Supremes Dis the Military Justice System (http://caaflog.blogspot.com/2008/06/supremes-dis-military-justice-system.html) (Posted 28 June 2008, one day after the current Supreme Court session closed.)

Writing for the four dissenters, Justice Alito countered: "The Court notes that Congress has not enacted a law permitting the death penalty for the rape of a child, ante, at 12–13, but due to the territorial limits of the relevant federal statutes, very few rape cases, not to mention child-rape cases, are prosecuted in federal court." Kennedy, dissent slip op. at 13 (Alito, J., dissenting). Justice Alito continued, "Congress' failure to enact a death penalty statute for this tiny set of cases is hardly evidence of Congress' assessment of our society's values." Id.

But just two years ago, Congress did enact a law permitting the death penalty for the rape of a child, which makes the number of authorizing jurisdictions seven (Louisiana, Georgia, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and the military), not six.

Section 552(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, 119 Stat. 3136, 3264 (2006), provides that "[u]ntil the President otherwise provides pursuant to" UCMJ article 56, "the punishment which a court-martial may direct for an offense under" the amended UCMJ article 120 "may not exceed the following limits: . . . For an offense under subsection (a) (rape) or subsection (b) (rape of a child), death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct."

[Epschtein]

they just found her body, poor kid.

sickening.