Supreme Court rejects death penalty for raping children

[RougeUnderoos]

What is the point of all this torture that so many of us are advocating? What good comes of it?

What about the Human Resources problem? Who would be hired to do these awful things?

The only people alive who would be willing to break someone on the rack, bury someone in a hole, impale them for birds to pick at or abuse a human being in such manners as have been described in this thread would have to be a deranged criminal himself. The lunatics would be dishing out the "justice". Who dishes out the justice to the justice-dishers after that?

You certainly couldn't hire someone to do these things and then let them out on the street afterwards.

I know there is a certain amount of "internet tough guy" bravado going on here and some people are just trying to amp up the "I can think of something more cruel to do than the last guy", but come on now, this is crazy talk.

And what about the dreaded "NIMBY" problem?

"I appreciate that we need penitentiaries, but my family has been farming this land for nearly a hundred yards. My granddad would roll over in his grave if we allowed the province to build a sexual-assault bunker on Johnson's quarter section. That is prime farm land".

[icarus]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I'm in favour of the death penalty for both murder and rape. The standard for proof in such circumstances should be high; Of course.

There are times when people should lose the privilege of life. It's as simple as that. If you commit certain crimes you lose the right to share my air. You don't deserve food or comfort. You don't deserve hope and where there is life there is always hope.

I understand there will be mistakes. Mistakes like accidents can take lives. You do the best you can to minimalize them and live with those few mistakes you make.

I thought you were a born again Christian? So much for mercy...

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I'm in favour of the death penalty for both murder and rape. The standard for proof in such circumstances should be high; Of course.

There are times when people should lose the privilege of life. It's as simple as that. If you commit certain crimes you lose the right to share my air. You don't deserve food or comfort. You don't deserve hope and where there is life there is always hope.

I understand there will be mistakes. Mistakes like accidents can take lives. You do the best you can to minimalize them and live with those few mistakes you make.

Interesting choice of colloquialism.

Hmmm...somehow this post doesn't surprise me.

I believe that some rights are unassailable. Obviously you do not. Good to know that to you our fundamental rights and freedoms can be taken away given the correct situation. Fortunately, there are enough people on the other side of the ledger in this country that believe that our most fundamental freedoms should be unassailable.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by evman150

Interesting choice of colloquialism.

Hmmm...somehow this post doesn't surprise me.

I believe that some rights are unassailable. Obviously you do not. Good to know that to you our fundamental rights and freedoms can be taken away given the correct situation. Fortunately, there are enough people on the other side of the ledger in this country that believe that our most fundamental freedoms should be unassailable.

Clearly Freedom of thought is not one that you believe is unassailable.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Clearly Freedom of thought is not one that you believe is unassailable.

Blatant straw man.

The fallacies are rolling now!

It's so funny, nobody can rebut me without resorting to logical fallacies. Geez, I wonder if there's a correlation around here somewhere...

[Antithesis]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I'm in favour of the death penalty for both murder and rape. The standard for proof in such circumstances should be high; Of course.

There are times when people should lose the privilege of life. It's as simple as that. If you commit certain crimes you lose the right to share my air. You don't deserve food or comfort. You don't deserve hope and where there is life there is always hope.

I understand there will be mistakes. Mistakes like accidents can take lives. You do the best you can to minimalize them and live with those few mistakes you make.

Wow ... um ... aren't you a born-again Christian? What happened to "do unto others"? What happened to mercy? I mean, really? If an error is made, oh well? Do you want the job of going to that wrongfully executed person's widow(er) or child and tell them, "oops"?

[Save Us Sutter]

I think, part of the problem, is that people equate these criminals with a normal human being and think "how can he do that, off with his head!"

Someone who rapes a child, is not like you and me. They don't think like you and me. They have severe mental deficiencies which make them unable to fully appreciate the wrongness of their actions or their urges are just too strong to control. People don't wake up in the morning and make a rational decision to go out and commit these crimes. I guess this is why I don't get the "you're bad, we're going to kill you" side.

I'm not even saying that they can be rehabilitated as a lot can't. But they do not deserve to die. No one does. No one "waives" their human rights, under any circumstances.

The difference between "you" and "them" isn't much more than a few faulty neural connections. That doesn't make "you" better than "them" and it certainly doesn't give "you" the right to kill "them".

Let me put it this way. Say you're having twins. Due to some birth complications you're two babies are born with reduced mental faculties. One ends up with autism which is diagnosed and treated from childhood. The other one appears normal but starts to exhibit psychopathic behaviour and at the age of 23 rapes a child.

Why is it ok to kill one of them?

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Save Us Sutter

Someone who rapes a child, is not like you and me. They don't think like you and me. They have severe mental deficiencies which make them unable to fully appreciate the wrongness of their actions or their urges are just too strong to control. People don't wake up in the morning and make a rational decision to go out and commit these crimes.

This is an argument for and against. If they could be rehabilitated then I would be against execution. If we know that this man will be a child-rapist for the rest of his life - we have an obligation to potential victims to ensure he will never repeat his actions.

Now, it happens that I agree with Jammies that death should not be permitted by society under any circumstances - but that is not the ruling the court made. The court ruled raping children isn't as bad as murder. I disagree with that.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

http://www.newsweek.com/id/143256

A well-parsed response, but one that is consistent with his support of the death penalty in general, I guess. I don't really agree--mostly I don't think that general U.S. jurisprudence leads to "narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances" very often.

No, no it doesn't.

I had no idea that Obama had any support for capital punishment at all. It is very intersting that someone who has been labeled as the most liberal Senator is showing that he really is not. This isn't the first issue he's come out way to the right of where I expected either.

As for me, my beliefs tend to lie where yours do IFF. Over the years I've moved closer and closer to being a full fledged opponent. I just don't think our system is full proof enough.

I say life in prison with zero chance for parole for all rapists and child molestors. It is very clear that these type of criminals do not rehabilitate and often escalate to murder as en endgame to their fantasies. Start protecting people from them. There are plenty of murderers who would likely never hurt anyone again that are locked away for life. The sentences that these low lifes get for sex crimes against kids are insulting.

[mykalberta]

This is one of the many reasons why sometimes you cannot trust the law to do the right thing and matters must be taken so that prick never sees the light of day again.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by evman150

Blatant straw man.

The fallacies are rolling now!

It's so funny, nobody can rebut me without resorting to logical fallacies. Geez, I wonder if there's a correlation around here somewhere...

Why don't you just spit out your correlation! You've done it in the past, why not now? Go on, tell us how unintelligent we all are! Tell us what an intellecutally superior person you are! That's your gig man!

Nobody will rebut you because you have disqualified opposing arguments in every post you've made in this thread with some sarcastic line of bs.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Save Us Sutter

I think, part of the problem, is that people equate these criminals with a normal human being and think "how can he do that, off with his head!"

Someone who rapes a child, is not like you and me. They don't think like you and me. They have severe mental deficiencies which make them unable to fully appreciate the wrongness of their actions or their urges are just too strong to control. People don't wake up in the morning and make a rational decision to go out and commit these crimes. I guess this is why I don't get the "you're bad, we're going to kill you" side.

I'm not even saying that they can be rehabilitated as a lot can't. But they do not deserve to die. No one does. No one "waives" their human rights, under any circumstances.

The difference between "you" and "them" isn't much more than a few faulty neural connections. That doesn't make "you" better than "them" and it certainly doesn't give "you" the right to kill "them".

Let me put it this way. Say you're having twins. Due to some birth complications you're two babies are born with reduced mental faculties. One ends up with autism which is diagnosed and treated from childhood. The other one appears normal but starts to exhibit psychopathic behaviour and at the age of 23 rapes a child.

Why is it ok to kill one of them?

I don't disagree with the theme of your post but I think the two highlighted sentences are extremely far from the truth in many cases.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

That's rather presumptuous. One of my ex-girlfriends was sexually abused as a child by her uncle (not raped however), but now she's a perfectly well-adjusted adult.

Anytime I hear someone say that crimes committed against children are worse than the same crimes committed against adult victims, I roll my eyes and imagine Maude Flanders screaming, "Won't someone please think of the children!!!11" If someone walks into the palliative care unit at Foothills Hospital and smothers all the patients there with a pillow, is that a lesser crime than murdering everyone in the physiotherapy and rehab wing? Is killing all the newborns in the nursery worse?

Sounds like my own case. However it took me a LONG time to get where I am today and who knows the course my life would have taken had I not been abused. I would say I'm well adjusted, however I also, at 27, have yet to come even close to my full potential as a human. Do I blame my uncle? Well he's not innocent in the matter. Not only was I ill-equipped to deal with what happened, so was my family. As a child trying to deal with it, with a lack of family support it took longer than it should have. Were I to be raped right now, I would not have the same issues.

The point is that a child's mind is still forming. A 6 year old doesn't know what is acceptable in a lot of cases. A 20 year old does. The 6 year old who experiences rape may grow up thinking it's acceptable, the 20 year old already knows it isn't. To believe that the rape of a child wouldn not have a greater impact on the mental development of a child than it would on an adult is quite a fallacy.

That said, it depends on the mind of the adult as well. Many adults who've been raped end up committing suicide. Each case is different.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

There are times when people should lose the privilege of life.

Disagree

If you have the power to afford a privilege THEN you have the right to take it away...IMO

So unless you are

We ethically don't have that right

Taking away their ability to cause harm and removing them from public society (=life with no parole) is the best option

And life in prison for a pedophile will be especially tough...

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Nobody will rebut you because you have disqualified opposing arguments in every post you've made in this thread with some sarcastic line of bs.

This is not true at all. I have actually formulated very good defences of my position in several posts in this thread. There has yet to be a rebuttal to one of these defences that has not been a logical fallacy.

But of course it's much easier to just say "you're a ######bag", than to actually come up with an intelligent response to an intelligent argument.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by evman150

This is not true at all. I have actually formulated very good defences of my position in several posts in this thread. There has yet to be a rebuttal to one of these defences that has not been a logical fallacy.

But of course it's much easier to just say "you're a ######bag", than to actually come up with an intelligent response to an intelligent argument.

If suggested what you believe - that is about it - far from any intelligent response - then proceeded to ignorantly bull down anyone who doesn't share they same belief...religious like!

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by evman150

you're a ######bag

That is easy!

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by evman150

*Cue the people piling on me for defending child molesters. Although this too would of course miss the point. But I've learned to expect that.

You sure called that one.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

If suggested what you believe - that is about it - far from any intelligent response - then proceeded to ignorantly bull down anyone who doesn't share they same belief...religious like!

"Clearly Freedom of thought is not one that you believe is unassailable."

Did I "bull down" that response of yours to me?

It deserves to be "bulled down" because it's a hopeless response appealing to fallacy to make any kind of impact. Some people will look at it and say "Good for him, standing up to the opinionated young ***hole". Fewer people will look at it and say "You know what, that's a really poor response meant to misguide and distract away from the fact that the poster can't formulate a decent argument."

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by evman150

This is not true at all. I have actually formulated very good defences of my position in several posts in this thread. There has yet to be a rebuttal to one of these defences that has not been a logical fallacy.

But of course it's much easier to just say "you're a ######bag", than to actually come up with an intelligent response to an intelligent argument.

From post #43

"This is so obvious to me I wonder how people think any differently.

It's because people tend to be blinded by their emotions and are unable to think critically when faced with things like child rapists. It's that same weak-mindedness and inability to think critically that manifests itself as the plague of organized religion, superstition and mass credulity."

and...

From post #50

"The truth can't be called arrogance." (the truth being your opinion)



From post #78

"As usual with your posts in threads like this, a candle in the darkness that is this hatred-filled message board."

Nice melodramatic metaphor...wow.

From post #87

"It's so funny, nobody can rebut me without resorting to logical fallacies. Geez, I wonder if there's a correlation around here somewhere..."


Now you will throw out some BS about how I am trying to create distraction from your brilliant argument but can you honestly look at these quotes and tell me that you haven't disqualified arguments yet to be made against your own by questioning the intelligence of everyone that doesn't agree with you, the 'persona' of the messageboard itself and by declaring the supreme correctness of your own opinion?

For the record, I haven't rebutted you because I don't disagree wtih your final outcome. I disagree with how you get there and I vehmently disagree with the way you present it.