Supreme Court rejects Louisiana "Death to Child Rapists" law

Chase

Chase

CAGiversary!
Feedback
8 (100%)
After a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court voted that the law allowing the death penalty to be imposed in cases of child rape violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion, "The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child."

I must say I wholeheartedly disagree with the majority decision. Child rapists kill a child's childhood. Sometimes, those children never mentally recover, so that part of them is also dead. Even worse, there are instances where the child's reproductive organs are permanently damaged. Leaving them unable to conceive children. Quite frankly, this decision pisses me off.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I don't really like the death penalty so.....yeah[/quote]

Pray tell, what sort of punishment do you feel is appropriate for child rapists?
 
1. All sex is rape

2. Some if not most people here is born of rape

3. Some cases of rape is where the boy is younger then the girl and he is convicted of the crime with adult charges.

4. This is stupid since I was nine people have been having sex ( people my age at the time ) or talking and thinking about it. )

5. Nobody over 18 is doable. Most sex is had in ther youth. Sex is something that only you can enjoy young, and is apart of your life.

DO YOU KNOW HOW SCREWED UP SOMEBODY WILL BE IN LIFE WITHOUT APRECIATING SEX IN THERE YOUTH?

May it be by want or by force. Personally it makes them more normal then the people I knew who had sex in there later years and they are not right. Sex is also like exersize the better you get at it, the more healthier you are.

6.The only reason why somebody would come up with a law is dew to religious pratice. I am not going to tell you about the world but I will tell you this. The idea of not having sex untill your married is crap in most cases.

7. Only in the US rape is something like battery, that and Religion. They make a big deal of it to the point of starting marches and riots. All sex is rape and you know how gay it is to know you could have been having sex with that slut then all the men she has been collecting pay from her.

I know for a fact that somebody on this website is or was having sex with people who is less then 14 years old right now, or at some point in there lives just for being in another country.

WAKE UP AMERICANS. SEX IS A CHILDISH THING TO BEGIN WITH.

Child rapists kill a child's childhood.
Click to expand...
So I put my penis into Mrs. Robbinsons bird makes my childhood less exciting?

Or telling the police my teacher who has been giving me oral is a bad thing?

The who child thing is about the catlick churches scandal. Nothing more. It has to do with homosexuals more then people having sex period.

Sometimes, those children never mentally recover,
Click to expand...
hey guess what? Telling people that it is bad thing and comforting them like a virgin bitch who had a big giant dog on her and mending to her wounded vessel is the most dumbest thing to do.

I will tell you this I knew this girl who was rapped by another family member but then guess what? She got ( or was being rapped ) in the same place that she was sappose to be getting help. There was even pictures of her on the internet.

What is even sadder is how they tried to kidnapp her, and she went missing, and the police found out and broke into the house where she was being rapped again.

Another girl I knew was being fucked ( raped ) by her father and brother. The father would just roll off the mother and on to the daughter. Then the brother would do things to her even when the father was there.

She had a boyfreind who even abused her in front of her parents.

fuck that law....all sex is rape. The only diffrence is the person you are with does not turn you in.

Ohhh Nooesss!!!!! He put his dingaling into me and he is a man
Click to expand...

dumb

Ohh noes she inserted my urine stick into her roof canal. Help..rappee rapee save me from the fishy splishy
Click to expand...
gay
 
[quote name='chasemurata']Pray tell, what sort of punishment do you feel is appropriate for child rapists?[/quote]

Prison and hope against hope for rehabilitation? That's what pretty much every crime should get, imo.
 
[quote name='chasemurata']Pray tell, what sort of punishment do you feel is appropriate for child rapists?[/QUOTE]

Life in prison for the worst cases.

I don't support the death penalty at all, but especially not in cases where the victim didn't die--as then even the stupid "eye for an eye" rationale doesn't fit.
 
[quote name='chasemurata']Pray tell, what sort of punishment do you feel is appropriate for child rapists?[/quote]


Prison for life.... duh. That should be for any rape.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Prison and hope against hope for rehabilitation? That's what pretty much every crime should get, imo.[/QUOTE]

Sadly, in the case of many hardened "worst of the worst" criminals, 3 square meals a day, tv, free education, and a bed - is quite a step up from what their pre-prison life.

Anyway,
I was listening to a radio show this morning talking about this. A lady called in, saying she was raped by 3 different people in her family by the age of 12. She went on to describe how she had failed at suicide 6 times and now makes a 100 mile drive to a councilor every week.

She then burst out into tears, sobbing. She said when she heard about the ruling by the supreme court she had to pull her car over on the freeway and she threw up. She kept saying "They obviously don't know that what is done to these children is far worse than killing them".

The host asked her if the people in her family could be put to death, if she would have turned them in. She answered "I wish them dead every day".

By this time, I had tears in my eyes, I was quite moved. She was really upset and you could tell the host was uncomfortable and not sure how to handle it. She concluded by saying "All I know is if someone raped my child, I would kill them. I would go to prison for it. I would gladly give up my freedom to see justice served, if that's how it has to be done".

I, nor anyone, can possibly understand what she, and countless kids have been through. I really didn't know what to think, and still don't. But something tells me that if the supreme court continues down this path, it might only breed vigilantism.

Oh and the "eye for an eye" excuse for this ruling is horse shit. If that had anything to do with this justice, we'd make sure rapists got raped in prison as part of their punishment. Instead, we give them Christmas dinner, let them lift weights, and earn degrees.
 
I can see that....I just don't think the government should have the power to kill it's citizens.

I also think the worst of the worst who have life with no chance of parole shouldn't be given educations etc. Put them in super max where they're in their cells 23 hours or so a day and in shackles anytime they are out.

I'm a strong supporter of rehabilitation in general, but for the worst of the worst who warrant life in prison with no chance of getting out there's not point in wasting resources on treating them when they're never going to be releaed into society. Books, TV etc. I can deal with. Being locked up and kept in your cell for 22-23 hours a day for the rest of your life is more than enough punishment for even the most heinous crimes IMO.
 
I don't really think that the goal of imprisonment should be to treat criminals like shit. That won't change what they did nor will it improve society in any way to prevent someone else from doing what they did. I think the point of imprisonment should be to remove the criminal from society (so that they can't do it again) and try to rehabilitate them. Not that every criminal can necessarily be rehabilitated, but I think there should be an effort made with the goal that the person can re-enter society after their sentence is over less likely to do what they did to get in prison. I don't think we should treat criminals like kings, but we shouldn't treat them like animals.

I don't agree with the death penalty in this case because I don't in any case. It's not that I don't think that some criminals deserve to die, it's just that I don't think the state should be able to take someone's life and there's no way to correct an error in conviction if the person is dead.

Of course the best action would be to reduce whatever environments produce criminals in the first place in whatever ways possible. In this case I have no idea what it is that leads people to rape children, but I'm sure whatever it is won't be fixed by killing somebody who does it.

EDIT: If I repeat anything dmaul said, sorry, but I hadn't read his post before I started writing this.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I don't really think that the goal of imprisonment should be to treat criminals like shit. That won't change what they did nor will it improve society in any way to prevent someone else from doing what they did. I think the point of imprisonment should be to remove the criminal from society (so that they can't do it again) and try to rehabilitate them. Not that every criminal can necessarily be rehabilitated, but I think there should be an effort made with the goal that the person can re-enter society after their sentence is over less likely to do what they did to get in prison. I don't think we should treat criminals like kings, but we shouldn't treat them like animals.

I don't agree with the death penalty in this case because I don't in any case. It's not that I don't think that some criminals deserve to die, it's just that I don't think the state should be able to take someone's life and there's no way to correct an error in conviction if the person is dead.

Of course the best action would be to reduce whatever environments produce criminals in the first place in whatever ways possible. In this case I have no idea what it is that leads people to rape children, but I'm sure whatever it is won't be fixed by killing somebody who does it.

EDIT: If I repeat anything dmaul said, sorry, but I hadn't read his post before I started writing this.[/quote]


+1

Contrarily, I don't think offenders need to be "removed from society" per-se. I feel they should be removed from society to comply with the means of the rehabilitation, but removing them from a functioning society and surrounding them with nothing but people who have broken that society's rules, only further breeds the criminal mind set.

Removing freedom from someone isn't the best way to make them appreciate it. After all, didn't most of us sneak out for certain things when we were grounded? Obviously we didn't get the entire message our parents wanted us to, because simply grounding a child isn't the most effective means to communicate why their behavior was wrong.

Of course, this presents the problem of what to do with people who commit serious offenses. If someone goes crazy and kills several people, is that something that can not only be rehabilitated, but prevented? As serious as the first offense was, how do you know you're not risking the behavior repeating? It's not something you can readily gamble.

Rape is another one that's tough to rehab; the nature of the crime was based of the offender's desire for his or her tastes. In the case of child rape, how do you make the offender no longer desire children (as statutory rape views are sketchy, even in current society)?

As it stands, it's definitely not effective to throw someone who was driving with a suspended license in the same environment as someone who just raped a child, etc. There are also many things that need to be decriminalized, as the nature of the offense generally doesn't present any sort of threat to society.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I don't really think that the goal of imprisonment should be to treat criminals like shit. That won't change what they did nor will it improve society in any way to prevent someone else from doing what they did. I think the point of imprisonment should be to remove the criminal from society (so that they can't do it again) and try to rehabilitate them. Not that every criminal can necessarily be rehabilitated, but I think there should be an effort made with the goal that the person can re-enter society after their sentence is over less likely to do what they did to get in prison. I don't think we should treat criminals like kings, but we shouldn't treat them like animals.

I don't agree with the death penalty in this case because I don't in any case. It's not that I don't think that some criminals deserve to die, it's just that I don't think the state should be able to take someone's life and there's no way to correct an error in conviction if the person is dead.

Of course the best action would be to reduce whatever environments produce criminals in the first place in whatever ways possible. In this case I have no idea what it is that leads people to rape children, but I'm sure whatever it is won't be fixed by killing somebody who does it.

EDIT: If I repeat anything dmaul said, sorry, but I hadn't read his post before I started writing this.[/QUOTE]


So then what do y'all think of that controversial Sheriff in Phoenix, Joe Arapaio?
 
I'm not a huge fan of the death penalty... but I do think it should be used in very extreme cases of murder, and in some (even more extreme) cases rape and child rape. But were talking repeat offenders, the kind of people that commit crimes that make you sick to your stomach after hearing them. I do think there is room for rehabilitation and/or very lengthy imprisonment. On a somewhat related note, I wholeheartedly agree with castration and hormone suppression therapies for rapists and child rapists as punishment for crimes.

On a less related note. One drunken night we were talking about prisons, over crowding, etc and I came up with the ultimate solution. The ball kicking punishment. Instead of putting people away for years they get chained up and kick in the balls... over and over and over. When I asked my friends, "Would you rather go to prison for a year or get kicked in the balls repeatedly over a month?" All of them answered jail for a year. So there it is, scientific proof that would be a better deterrent than prison.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Oh and the "eye for an eye" excuse for this ruling is horse shit. If that had anything to do with this justice, we'd make sure rapists got raped in prison as part of their punishment. Instead, we give them Christmas dinner, let them lift weights, and earn degrees.[/QUOTE]

Actually, we long ago established that it's better to let a guilty man go free than to punish an innocent one wrongly. That's the basic problem with the death penalty -- you can always let someone out of prison, but you can't bring them back to life. To be sure, there are people who've proven themselves so dangerous that there seems little alternative, but that's the point: there must be NO other option for the State to take a life. To do otherwise is to deal in revenge, not justice.

[quote name='thrustbucket']So then what do y'all think of that controversial Sheriff in Phoenix, Joe Arapaio?[/QUOTE]

Let's see... some high points from the career of The World's Toughest Sheriff?

Charles Agster, a mentally handicapped man, was killed in the County Jail shortly after being arrested on misdemeanor loitering charges.
Click to expand...

Scott Norberg ... who died while in custody of the Sheriff's office ... Despite vowing to never settle, the case quickly closed after it was disclosed the Sheriff's office had destroyed key evidence in the case.
Click to expand...

Richard Post was a paraplegic inmate arrested in 1996 for possession of marijuana and criminal trespass. Post was placed in a restraint chair by guards and his neck was broken in the process. The event, caught on video, shows guards smiling and laughing while Post is being injured. Because of his injuries, Post has lost much of the use of his arms.
Click to expand...

Starting in July 2000, the Maricopa County Sheriff's website hosted images broadcast from cameras installed in the Madison Street Jail, which housed only pretrial detainees.
Click to expand...

But I'm sure he's got a crime-free territory, right?

Furthermore, in a 1998 Arpaio commissioned study, Arizona State University Criminal Justice professor Marie L. Griffin found that Arpaio's policies did nothing to reduce recidivism in the Maricopa County facilities compared to his predecessor: "there was no significant difference in recidivism observed between those offenders released in 1989-1990 and those released in 1994-1995."
Click to expand...

Huh. Well, I'm sure he's man of his word, at least.

In 1992, Arpaio signed a notarized document, stating he would only serve one term as sheriff. He is now in his fourth term.
Click to expand...

Oh.
 
[quote name='trq']


Let's see... some high points from the career of The World's Toughest Sheriff?



But I'm sure he's got a crime-free territory, right?



Huh. Well, I'm sure he's man of his word, at least.



Oh.[/QUOTE]

Interesting. I honestly didn't know much about him, just heard him in a radio interview the other day and had heard about him through others.

Do you mind posting the source of that info so I can read more?
 
[quote name='chasemurata']I must say I wholeheartedly disagree with the majority decision. Child rapists kill a child's childhood. Sometimes, those children never mentally recover, so that part of them is also dead. Even worse, there are instances where the child's reproductive organs are permanently damaged. Leaving them unable to conceive children. Quite frankly, this decision pisses me off.[/quote]

:roll: There is a difference between literal and symbolic. You can't literally kill somebody for causing the symbolic death of innocence.

Intense therapy can repair a lot of mental damage.

Plastic surgery can fix the cosmetic damage.

Lab work and surrogates can create zygotes and process them into full term babies. Adoption is always available.

Yes. There is damage, but it isn't enough for a neutral party (the government) to put somebody to death over. A biased party (the victim or a parent), perhaps.
 
I'd like to point out something I don't think has been touched on yet:

A lot of people that ARE pro-capital punishment, are so because of a firm belief in an after-life.

I've always found it interesting that atheistic types are almost uniformly against capital punishment. Which makes sense. If you believe this life is all there is, then it changes the whole mindset. Nothing CAN be worse than death.

Conversely, after-lifers tend to think it's a big deal to kill someone, but not as big of a deal as the atheistic do. A lot of them also tend to think there are things a lot worse than death. And to them, capital punishment actually IS just another punishment, since they believe they still get to live with their actions after death.

This, I believe, is the crux of differences when discussing this stuff.

Whichever side of the fence you fall on, it's interesting to at least try and put yourself in the others shoes, it almost makes it possible to understand each other. I'm not taking either stance, just pointing it out.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Interesting. I honestly didn't know much about him, just heard him in a radio interview the other day and had heard about him through others.

Do you mind posting the source of that info so I can read more?[/QUOTE]

Actually, I'd just be posting your own link -- I got all that from the Wiki, though they, of course, cite their sources, and I didn't bother to do that here.

[quote name='thrustbucket']I'd like to point out something I don't think has been touched on yet:

A lot of people that ARE pro-capital punishment, are so because of a firm belief in an after-life.

I've always found it interesting that atheistic types are almost uniformly against capital punishment. Which makes sense. If you believe this life is all there is, then it changes the whole mindset. Nothing CAN be worse than death.

Conversely, after-lifers tend to think it's a big deal to kill someone, but not as big of a deal as the atheistic do. A lot of them also tend to think there are things a lot worse than death. And to them, capital punishment actually IS just another punishment, since they believe they still get to live with their actions after death.

This, I believe, is the crux of differences when discussing this stuff.

Whichever side of the fence you fall on, it's interesting to at least try and put yourself in the others shoes, it almost makes it possible to understand each other. I'm not taking either stance, just pointing it out.[/QUOTE]

You know, I've seen what you're talking about to some degree, but there are some very large exceptions, like the Catholic church. Obviously they believe in an afterlife, and they maintain a strong position against the death penalty.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']There is a difference between literal and symbolic. You can't literally kill somebody for causing the symbolic death of innocence.[/quote]

Too bad. I'd love to see Kanye on trial for what he did to that Kraftwerks song.
 
I certainly understand the why of someone supporting the death penalty. I just don't see how can be reasonably married to the principles of American justice, as mentioned earlier regarding the innocent and what not.

I'm agnostic and I think the worst thing you could do to someone is make them sit in a box for 60 years. Makes a shot and a snooze seem blissful by comparison.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I'd like to point out something I don't think has been touched on yet:

A lot of people that ARE pro-capital punishment, are so because of a firm belief in an after-life.

I've always found it interesting that atheistic types are almost uniformly against capital punishment. Which makes sense. If you believe this life is all there is, then it changes the whole mindset. Nothing CAN be worse than death.

Conversely, after-lifers tend to think it's a big deal to kill someone, but not as big of a deal as the atheistic do. A lot of them also tend to think there are things a lot worse than death. And to them, capital punishment actually IS just another punishment, since they believe they still get to live with their actions after death.

This, I believe, is the crux of differences when discussing this stuff.

Whichever side of the fence you fall on, it's interesting to at least try and put yourself in the others shoes, it almost makes it possible to understand each other. I'm not taking either stance, just pointing it out.[/QUOTE]

I'm an atheist, but I wouldn't say that there is nothing worse than death. Death is just death. Like any sane person I want to see rapists punished for their crimes. I don't oppose the death penalty because it's the worst thing that you can do to a person but because from my perspective it prevents any just punishment. Obviously I can only speak for myself, but I doubt many atheists view this situation in the way you imagine they would. I can't be sure though, I haven't heard much from this perspective. Thoughts from anyone else?
 
I am for the death penalty, but it should really only be reserved for pre-mediated murder, felony murder and treason. Life imprisonment for child rape, especially in put in the general population, I think is a suitable punishment that would have a certain poetic justice to it.
 
[quote name='StealthNinjaScyther']I'm an atheist, but I wouldn't say that there is nothing worse than death. Death is just death. Like any sane person I want to see rapists punished for their crimes. I don't oppose the death penalty because it's the worst thing that you can do to a person but because from my perspective it prevents any just punishment. Obviously I can only speak for myself, but I doubt many atheists view this situation in the way you imagine they would. I can't be sure though, I haven't heard much from this perspective. Thoughts from anyone else?[/quote]


I'm not an atheist, but as human beings we know that life will inevitably end. The death penalty simply fast forewards a person's life to their final day, and has no real bearing on teaching a lesson, or compensating the victim.
 
[quote name='speedracer']
I'm agnostic and I think the worst thing you could do to someone is make them sit in a box for 60 years. Makes a shot and a snooze seem blissful by comparison.[/QUOTE]

I'd agree with that. Unfortunately that doesn't describe the modern American penal system.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I'd agree with that. Unfortunately that doesn't describe the modern American penal system.[/QUOTE]
Thankfully, I've never been. I can't decide if I think the penal system is a party where everyone just dresses the same, reads Faust and gets degrees, and get three balance meals a day..

or if it's a cesspool of drugs, rape, murder, beatings (by people on both sides of the bars), and the like.

I'm a Texan now though, which pretty much means we like it as miserable as the law allows. Can't say it doesn't have its benefits..

/ex-Californian... we all just need to hold hands, and stuff. :D

[quote name='Methadon']I'm not an atheist, but as human beings we know that life will inevitably end. The death penalty simply fast forewards a person's life to their final day, and has no real bearing on teaching a lesson, or compensating the victim.[/QUOTE]
I'm curious as to which you think is "worse"?

[quote name='dopa345']I am for the death penalty, but it should really only be reserved for pre-mediated murder, felony murder and treason.[/quote]
Generally, I agree. Treason is an interesting pick though, isn't it? How treasonous must one be? I've always wondered that. It's the only crime specifically mentioned in the Constitution... I think.

Also, John Walker Lindh didn't get charged with treason, so what would it take?
 
Super Max and Maximum security prisons are a miserable place to be.

People that think criminals are rewarded by being put in such a prison have never been in one, or have just seen medium and minimum security prisons (and I wouldn't want to spend a day in one fo those even).

Ignore all the violence, rape etc. that goes on in the worst prisons, just having your liberty taken from you is enough punishment for any crime IMO. Especially in a supermax where you're in your cell 22-23 hours a day and in shackles any time you're out of it.
 
Good for the Lousisana SC. They did the right thing here. Not only does the punishment not fit the crime (their main reason) but who the fuck would report a child rapist they know (step-dad, dad, uncle, etc.) when doing so is effectively killing them? This would create vast enforcement/reporting problems.

[quote name='dopa345']Life imprisonment for child rape, especially in put in the general population, I think is a suitable punishment that would have a certain poetic justice to it.[/QUOTE]

"I can't take pity of men of his kind, even though he now takes it in the behind. DATE RAPE!"
 
[quote name='dopa345']Life imprisonment for child rape, especially in put in the general population, I think is a suitable punishment that would have a certain poetic justice to it.[/QUOTE]

"I can't take pity of men of his kind, even though he now takes it in the behind. DATE RAPE!"
 
To be quite honest I'm not sure how this thread kept going after "nobody over 18 is doable." I mean, check and mate, seriously.

But on the record I'm with speedracer on death being a lesser punishment than life in prison, especially considering how inmates treat child molesters...
 
No way Koggit. Anyone who beleives this (Koggit, Speedracer, and ALOT of other people) need to read Papillon (an autobiography about an inmate in the French penal system).

Here is the gist of my point: death is permanent. It cannot be undone. It is forever. There is no coming back. Thats it. You're done. Dead. Permanent. FOREVER!!!

Judges and Juries make mistakes. Lifers do get out due to confessions/DNA etc. Shit happnes. the CJ system is not perfect and mistakes are made. The death penalty mistake cannot be undone. This alone is enough for me to know that life in prison is still better.

I'm a public defender. MANY of my clients live in prisons. My mom is a max securty prison nurse. My uncle was a prioson guard all his life (after nam) and was in one of the worst prison riots in the history of our country. I know a thing or two about jails and have seen the inside of many.

They suck, they're awful, they're small, cramped, and you live convicts, yet IT IS STILL LIFE. Life goes on, the instinct to survive trumps all.

Still suicide is rampant. Especially among the truly innocent.
 
What's so bad about death?

I could type more, make my response longer, but I'd end up reiterating that first sentence.
 
It's permanent. Some people don't want to do it...that is "die."

Our government forces them to sometimes. When they do it unjustly, it is bad b/c the permanency prevents that wrong from ever being righted.

On a more philosophical level, it is life's enemy. In a normal healthy animal/plant/being, it is the last thing we want. Our main motivation, and most primal instinct is to avoid it. So even instinctually, it's bad.

If you're making the argument (I'm not saying you are, but it seems you may be posturing to) that "We can't know what death entails, so it is silly to assume it is bad" save your fucking breath b/c that is a stupid ass point. By that logic, we might as well kill all criminals, and non-criminals too. fuck it! Kill everybody b/c it might be fucking great!

fuck!
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Good for the Lousisana SC. They did the right thing here. Not only does the punishment not fit the crime (their main reason) but who the fuck would report a child rapist they know (step-dad, dad, uncle, etc.) when doing so is effectively killing them? This would create vast enforcement/reporting problems.[/quote]

Actually, it's very common for abused children to grow up wishing their family members dead. I have heard a few say that. Even when asked "Would you turn them in knowing they could die for it" They replied "hell yes".

[quote name='Koggit']What's so bad about death?[/quote]
This is the point I brought up earlier (maybe in another thread). The people that seem to feel certain there is nothing after death usually oppose capital punishment (imo).



[quote name='pittpizza']It's permanent. Some people don't want to do it...that is "die." [/quote]
Well then, that makes it a damn good deterrent, doesn't it?
And since when do we give a rats ass about what convicts want?

Our government forces them to sometimes. When they do it unjustly, it is bad b/c the permanency prevents that wrong from ever being righted.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but some wrongs can never be righted. Especially in premeditated murder. In those cases, only justice counts, so it better be good.

On a more philosophical level, it is life's enemy. In a normal healthy animal/plant/being, it is the last thing we want. Our main motivation, and most primal instinct is to avoid it. So even instinctually, it's bad.
Click to expand...
Holy smokes, is pp becoming a pro-lifer? ;)

If you're making the argument (I'm not saying you are, but it seems you may be posturing to) that "We can't know what death entails, so it is silly to assume it is bad" save your fucking breath b/c that is a stupid ass point. By that logic, we might as well kill all criminals, and non-criminals too. fuck it! Kill everybody b/c it might be fucking great!

fuck!
Click to expand...
Wow you really love the F-word, don't you.

The death penalty, if legal, should only be used in cases where it's known 100% that the person is guilty (security cameras, multiple witnesses, etc.). Even still, capital punishment is a pretty good deterrent, if it's actually used enough for everyone to know that carrying out a murder can very likely result in their own.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Even still, capital punishment is a pretty good deterrent, if it's actually used enough for everyone to know that carrying out a murder can very likely result in their own.[/QUOTE]

Actually, the research evidence is very mixed on that. The best studies were done in Oklahoma looking at the impact of reinstating the death penalty on murder rates. It's a way to see if death has any deterrent effect above and beyond life in prison.

The most recent study I saw there was by Cochran and Chamlin (2000). They found it did have a deterrent effect for instrumental non-stranger murders (murders were the offender new the victim, and planned the murder for a certain reason).

But they found it increased expressive, stranger murders. Random murders where someone just gets pissed or whatever and kills someone in the heat of the moment more or less.

They found that this "brutalization" effect more than offset the deterrent effect for the instrumental, non-stranger murders--thus the end result was a slight increase in homicides due to reinstating the death penalty.

Other studies have found neither a deterrent effect nor a brutalization effect. In short, there's not good evidence in the literature that the death penalty has much of a deterrent effect beyond life in prison.

This shouldn't be suprising, most murders aren't rational. Most involve little or no planning, and even the ones that are planned the person probably isn't weighing the potential costs--i.e. they just think they'll get away with it so they don't care, or they just don't give a shit what the costs are etc.
 
I don't want to die, but I couldn't care if I did. A dead person cannot care about being dead. They're just being permanently removed from the game -- which is the same thing a life sentence accomplishes.

The whole reversible thing is moot for a couple different reasons. I'm willing to bet, seriously willing to put money down right now, that more people die from false convictions in prison (murder by inmates, suicide) than injection. I'm also willing to bet false convictions cause more people to spend their entire lives in jail than they do die from injection.

If anything, I think a person on death row is less likely to be innocent because of the high profile nature of the cases.

[quote name='thrustbucket']This is the point I brought up earlier (maybe in another thread). The people that seem to feel certain there is nothing after death usually oppose capital punishment (imo).[/QUOTE]

Really? I would expect people who believe in a heaven/hell to oppose it more. I don't know much about religion belief of afterlives, but hell definitely seems worse than nothingness.
 
[quote name='Koggit']
The whole reversible thing is moot for a couple different reasons. I'm willing to bet, seriously willing to put money down right now, that more people die from false convictions in prison (murder by inmates, suicide) than injection. I'm also willing to bet false convictions cause more people to spend their entire lives in jail than they do die from injection.
[/QUOTE]

True, but I can't agree it makes it moot. The state killing an innocent person is simply worse than sticking them in prison. But I don't think the state should have the power to kill it's citizens period, so that probably skews my view of it. It's just not in the social contract (see Beccaria, 1764).
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']The death penalty, if legal, should only be used in cases where it's known 100% that the person is guilty (security cameras, multiple witnesses, etc.). Even still, capital punishment is a pretty good deterrent, if it's actually used enough for everyone to know that carrying out a murder can very likely result in their own.[/quote]


I agree with this. The death penalty is a punishment that can't be changed after the fact if someone is innocent and need to be used with high scrutiny to make sure you get it right.


If a state wants a law like that fine, my only real question is this...

If you have passed the death penalty for child rapists, why not for rapists of those over 18? That doesn't make any sense at all unless the state is willing to go on recording saying raping a 17 year old is worse than raping an 18 year old. They are equally horrible.

The whole "deterrent" argument is ridiculous. Most people are decent and respect another person's liberty. If someone wants to hurt someone, they will. Death penalties have been on the books for murder for a long time, yet people still commit them. They often have mental issues in which consequences never come into their minds. Look at the Virginia Tech shootings. Deterrents are irrelevant to those who aren't capable of rational thought. Death penalties in the case of rape is about revenge, and while I understand why people would feel that way, if you open up the death penalty for something other than murder or treason you are opening a can of worms for other things.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Actually, the research evidence is very mixed on that. The best studies were done in Oklahoma looking at the impact of reinstating the death penalty on murder rates. It's a way to see if death has any deterrent effect above and beyond life in prison.
[/QUOTE]

dmaul, I don't think I made myself clear enough in that post...

I was trying to say that if capital punishment were handled in a different way than it is in this country, it COULD be a deterrent.

As it is now, and has been the past 80 years, I don't think most people can view it as a deterrent. Because of the mountain of evidence needed and decades of appeals granted. I don't think it crosses any criminals mind that they might get the death penalty for their nefarious actions.

[quote name='Koggit']
Really? I wouldn't expect people who believe in a heaven/hell to oppose it more. I don't know much about religion belief of afterlives, but hell definitely seems worse than nothingness.[/QUOTE]

That's assuming people that believe there is more after death also believe in a heaven/hell.
More and more people that do, don't.

And that's just my opinion, not based on any study. Most of the people I talk to that believe in life after death, don't see death as a big deal, so they don't see capital punishment as that big of a deal compared to others.

[quote name='dmaul1114']True, but I can't agree it makes it moot. The state killing an innocent person is simply worse than sticking them in prison. But I don't think the state should have the power to kill it's citizens period, so that probably skews my view of it. It's just not in the social contract (see Beccaria, 1764).[/QUOTE]

Let me clear something up. I am not really FOR the death penalty. I am simply in this discussion to argue and understand both sides. I've been on the "fence" with it for a while. I have very mixed feelings about it.

So when it sounds like I'm arguing FOR the death penalty, really I am just more playing devils advocate to learn more about the opposition.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']dmaul, I don't think I made myself clear enough in that post...

I was trying to say that if capital punishment were handled in a different way than it is in this country, it COULD be a deterrent.

As it is now, and has been the past 80 years, I don't think most people can view it as a deterrent. Because of the mountain of evidence needed and decades of appeals granted. I don't think it crosses any criminals mind that they might get the death penalty for their nefarious actions.
[/quote]

Not really. The study I cited tested the effects of actual executions (the media exposure of them) on homicide rates. So it kind of gets around all those issues with how the death penalty is imposed.

But you're missing the main point. Murder's are generally not rational, planned out crimes. Any punishment can only have a deterrent effect if the offenders are rationally weighing the costs and benefits of committing a crime before they do it.

The research on deterrence in general is not very supportive of that idea, especially for violent crimes as they tend to happen in the heat of the moment.

Deterrence has more support for minor crimes. Shit like speeding. I'd drive much faster if there were no speed limit or fines. Just not much support for violent crimes as so many are in the heat of the moment, or people just don't give a shit, or they over-estimate their chances of getting away with it. Most serious criminals just aren't very rational.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']That's assuming people that believe there is more after death also believe in a heaven/hell.
More and more people that do, don't.

And that's just my opinion, not based on any study. Most of the people I talk to that believe in life after death, don't see death as a big deal, so they don't see capital punishment as that big of a deal compared to others.[/QUOTE]

I guess I just didn't consider those who believe in an afterlife without believing in Heaven/Hell. Isn't the belief of an afterlife rooted in Biblical (or other legend, for other religions) teachings? It seems sort of odd to accept the teaching of an afterlife and reject the teaching of Heaven/Hell.
 
[quote name='Koggit']I guess I just didn't consider those who believe in an afterlife without believing in Heaven/Hell. Isn't the belief of an afterlife rooted in Biblical (or other legend, for other religions) teachings? It seems sort of odd to accept the teaching of an afterlife and reject the teaching of Heaven/Hell.[/QUOTE]

This might go way OT, but I'd love to discuss it with you as it's one of my favorite topics.

I think there are lots of people brought up on classical religions that have branched out or even "new aged" a little bit. Myself included.

What I was referring to, though, is that I think many people "feel" there is something more to life than what you see is what you get. I think many people also feel like they instinctively know that death isn't the end. They feel the lines blurring between this world and the metaphysical.

However, the details of what exactly happens after death or what we become is really anyone's guess. Theories on that are a dime a dozen and the heaven/hell theory is just one.

In other words, I think the people that just outright buy everything said by a church leader about death and after-life are dwindling.
 
I gotta say I agree with them, that law was simply cruel and unusual punishment, and we cannot start making exceptions. besides the death penalty is an archaic and heavily flawed thing anyway, so I'm happy to see it going away anywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top