Supreme Court rejects death penalty for raping children

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by driveway

Interesting.... makes him go down a little in my estimation. I like the decision, myself.

I don't know.... I'm not that familiar with the legal aspects here, but it seems to me that the court is basically saying raping a child is "not as bad" as "killing an adult." I disagree. To me, raping a child is one of the worst things a person can do.

So--in principle I oppose the death penalty--but if you have the death penalty anyway, I'm not sure I understand why it's cruel and unusual for a child rapist but not for a murderer.

[Antithesis]

That's a good point, IFF. If the argument here is which is 'worse' than the other, I'd have to believe (hope?) that a vast majority of people would consider raping a child would be at least the same level as killing an adult.

[Save Us Sutter]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I don't know.... I'm not that familiar with the legal aspects here, but it seems to me that the court is basically saying raping a child is "not as bad" as "killing an adult." I disagree. To me, raping a child is one of the worst things a person can do.

So--in principle I oppose the death penalty--but if you have the death penalty anyway, I'm not sure I understand why it's cruel and unusual for a child rapist but not for a murderer.

I think, when it comes down to it, the age of a victim is irrelevant. They are weighing "rape" vs "death" are they not? That is what Gozer's link seemed to say.

Originally Posted by Gozer

Precedent cited:
"Rape is without doubt deserving of serious punishment; but in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public, it does not compare with murder, which does involve the unjustified taking of human life.

I've gotta say I agree with evman. It is never right to kill another person.

There's also something about a legal precedent that "rates" moral depravity that makes me uncomfortable. I can't quite word it right though so I think I better wait on that one.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Child molesters and rapists shouldn't be put to death. They should be threatened with being put to death in the middle of the night every night. A hang man comes in, escorts them down, gets everything ready, and scares them. Exactly the way some of their victims were scared every night for many years.

Yes, they should be toyed with. Yes I'm an when it comes to child molesters. Yes it's a double standard as I wouldn't think about something like that for any of type of criminals. But screw it, they hurt a child. Do what you want with them, when they did what they did they forfeit their right as a human being IMO.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I don't know.... I'm not that familiar with the legal aspects here, but it seems to me that the court is basically saying raping a child is "not as bad" as "killing an adult." I disagree. To me, raping a child is one of the worst things a person can do.

So--in principle I oppose the death penalty--but if you have the death penalty anyway, I'm not sure I understand why it's cruel and unusual for a child rapist but not for a murderer.

I didn't read EXACTLY what he said....just noticed that he disagreed with the belief that a child rapist couldn't be put to death.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

I didn't read EXACTLY what he said....just noticed that he disagreed with the belief that a child rapist couldn't be put to death.

"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."

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.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Child molesters and rapists shouldn't be put to death. They should be threatened with being put to death in the middle of the night every night. A hang man comes in, escorts them down, gets everything ready, and scares them. Exactly the way some of their victims were scared every night for many years.

Yes, they should be toyed with. Yes I'm an when it comes to child molesters. Yes it's a double standard as I wouldn't think about something like that for any of type of criminals. But screw it, they hurt a child. Do what you want with them, when they did what they did they forfeit their right as a human being IMO.

Why exactly are crimes worse when the victim is a child as opposed to an adult, in your view? If someone raped my wife, are you saying that's a "lesser" crime than if someone raped my 5-year old niece? Both are equally reprehensible, IMO.

Anyway, I agree with the judge who stated that punishment should fit the crime (even though I'm still opposed to capital punishment). As awful as rape is, it doesn't deprive anyone of their life, whereas murder does.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Why exactly are crimes worse when the victim is a child as opposed to an adult, in your view? If someone raped my wife, are you saying that's a "lesser" crime than if someone raped my 5-year old niece? Both are equally reprehensible, IMO.

Anyway, I agree with the judge who stated that punishment should fit the crime (even though I'm still opposed to capital punishment). As awful as rape is, it doesn't deprive anyone of their life, whereas murder does.

One is more mentally equipped to handle it. The other will likely be scarred for life and the action will have an adverse affect on them growing to their potential.

*Edited to add*

IMO, the rape of a child may very well deprive that child of their life. They certainly won't lead the life they might have otherwise.

[CaptainCrunch]

I've always thought that the old punishments were the best punishments for rapists and murderers.

Break em on the wheel, impale them and leave their bodies for the crows to pluck at.

Tie piano wire around their genitals ,and tie the piano wire to a metal slab. Then sit the convicted on the slab and start heating it up. One of two things is going to happen, he's either going to sit there and burn, or he's going to stand up quickly.

I also like the punishment in Eastern North America that the settlers used. they gave you a short sentence. On the first day, you got a shovel and started to dig. At sunsetyou got into the hole that you made and they put bars on it. They gave you one bucket. You pissed in it, you pooped in it, you bailed like crazy when it rained, and they served you your soup in it. the longest sentence was 60 days, and nobody wanted to go back. That would be perfect for rapists and pedophiles.

[jammies]

Barbaric punishments don't just affect the criminal, they also set an example of barbarism for the rest of society to emulate. That's why back in the halcyon days of old, bear baiting, dog-fighting, lynching and other cruelties were accepted as nothing out of the ordinary.

The problem with justice is that it cannot make such crimes as if they never were. That should not, however, be licence to indulge in revenge instead.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by FireFly

One is more mentally equipped to handle it. The other will likely be scarred for life and the action will have an adverse affect on them growing to their potential.

*Edited to add*

IMO, the rape of a child may very well deprive that child of their life. They certainly won't lead the life they might have otherwise.

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?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Why exactly are crimes worse when the victim is a child as opposed to an adult, in your view? If someone raped my wife, are you saying that's a "lesser" crime than if someone raped my 5-year old niece? Both are equally reprehensible, IMO..

Both are horrible, raping a child is worse. Yes I'm saying it's a lesser crime. No I am not saying that raping an adult is not horrible in its own right.

. As awful as rape is, it doesn't deprive anyone of their life, whereas murder does

In many cases yes it does deprive the victim of a life. While a murdered might physically take a person's life, someone who rapes a child takes that persons ability to have a normal healthy life. All before the age of puberty, sometimes earlier. Are the victims dead, no, are they "living" in most cases, no.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

In my opinion...

Killing the offender will neither A: prevent abuse from occuring B: help the victims or C: Make our society a better place to live

So other than satisfying some peoples bloodlust I don't see the point...especially if an innocent person or two goes to death row.

And while rape (and other forms of abuse) are vile and despicable, and arguably moreso when the victim is a child (or otherwise helpless)...I just can't consider the crime comparable to slaughtering another person...nor do I think that offenders should be slaughtered themselves

A life sentence with no chance of parole...period is what I want

And maybe someday we can figure out a way to figure out who is susceptible to these crimes and intervene/help before ANY victims are created

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

In my opinion...

Killing the offender will neither A: prevent abuse from occuring B: help the victims or C: Make our society a better place to live

So other than satisfying some peoples bloodlust I don't see the point...especially if an innocent person or two goes to death row.

And while rape (and other forms of abuse) are vile and despicable, and arguably moreso when the victim is a child (or otherwise helpless)...I just can't consider the crime comparable to slaughtering another person...nor do I think that offenders should be slaughtered themselves

A life sentence with no chance of parole...period is what I want

And maybe someday we can figure out a way to figure out who is susceptible to these crimes and intervene/help before ANY victims are created

Isn't that an ethical argument though. You can't force treatment or punishment on someone before they commit the crime.

Or if we start seeing the causes or what we think are the causes and either start tinkering with their genes, or we abort the fetus. At that point aren't we into the whole eugenics argument that ended up costing Alberta a lot of money due to law suits, and made the Nazi's reviled.

[The Yen Man]

The problem with the death sentence is, what do you do if you put this guy to death for his initial crime? Tell his family, sorry, I guess we got the wrong guy?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/08062...maayer_hearing

I agree that ideally if there was a way to determine 100% guilt that the death penalty would work. The problem is wrongfully executing an innocent person by mistake.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by jammies

Barbaric punishments don't just affect the criminal, they also set an example of barbarism for the rest of society to emulate. That's why back in the halcyon days of old, bear baiting, dog-fighting, lynching and other cruelties were accepted as nothing out of the ordinary.

The problem with justice is that it cannot make such crimes as if they never were. That should not, however, be licence to indulge in revenge instead.

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

*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.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I agree that ideally if there was a way to determine 100% guilt that the death penalty would work. The problem is wrongfully executing an innocent person by mistake.

Question begging in that assumes killing people is ok if the ends justify the means.

Big assumption IMO.

Ends justifying means is only a prima facie reasonable argument when you are talking about quantities that aren't fundamental rights or freedoms. The moment you start talking about people's right to free speech, fair trial, life, the utilitarian perspective has to go out the window unless you want to run into horrific and morally revolting situations. I would argue that the death penalty is one of these horrific situations, the result of a misapplication of the means and ends argument.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Isn't that an ethical argument though. You can't force treatment or punishment on someone before they commit the crime.

Or if we start seeing the causes or what we think are the causes and either start tinkering with their genes, or we abort the fetus. At that point aren't we into the whole eugenics argument that ended up costing Alberta a lot of money due to law suits, and made the Nazi's reviled.

I suppose I see the merit in your first point a la Minority Report

...but imagine if you saw a kid who had demonstrated disturbing behavior, killing small animals, wearing canucks gear etc. Would it not be prudent to get that kid into treatment with child psychologists etc to prevent them from possibly making a poor choice in the future and harming someone....they haven't committed a crime, but the warning signs are enough of a reason to intervene...

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I've always thought that the old punishments were the best punishments for rapists and murderers.

Break em on the wheel, impale them and leave their bodies for the crows to pluck at.

Tie piano wire around their genitals ,and tie the piano wire to a metal slab. Then sit the convicted on the slab and start heating it up. One of two things is going to happen, he's either going to sit there and burn, or he's going to stand up quickly.

I also like the punishment in Eastern North America that the settlers used. they gave you a short sentence. On the first day, you got a shovel and started to dig. At sunsetyou got into the hole that you made and they put bars on it. They gave you one bucket. You pissed in it, you pooped in it, you bailed like crazy when it rained, and they served you your soup in it. the longest sentence was 60 days, and nobody wanted to go back. That would be perfect for rapists and pedophiles.

A man after my own heart, excellent post. You have my vote!

[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.