Supreme Court ruling against death penalty for child rapists

[Anonymous]

Show me the case where the child was more traumatized by the execution. I'm throwing the BS flag on that one.

As for "If a guy rapes a kid, he has no incentive to spare the kids life"...gimme a break. Using that same logic, if a guy knows he's going to die, then he has no incentive to rape a kid. Yeah, makes sense to me.

[Anonymous]

The unfortunate reality is that the sentences for crimes of violence against children are often far LESS severe than those for PROPERTY crimes.

Signed, btdt mom who used to do investigations for Child Protective Services

[Anonymous]

That's horrible but not surprising, PP. I've heard of ludricously short sentences for rapes, but didn't realize that's a problem w/ even child rapists too.

[Anonymous]

As to the argument of the death penalty option encouraging the rapist to kill the child...well, there are a handfull of states that have this law. Has that theory been proven to be the case by statistically comparing similar communities in those states w/ the statute to those in states that reserve the death penalty for murder? We already have the "test case" available - no need for conjecture. I didn't read the text of the SC ruling, but most commentary makes it sound like people are saying this "COULD" happen - well, there's a way to see if it HAS happened and if that were the case, I would think people would have been making that argument loud and clear in such definitive terms.

[Anonymous]

It's very easy to argue against the death penalty from the safety and comfort of your home, untouched by homicide or violence against your child. I say ask a parent whose child was raped for their opinion on an appropriate punishment.

As an aside, there was an interesting article recently in the New Yorker about the psychological benefits of revenge killing (profiled a tribe in New Guinea where this is part of the culture), and I think helps to clarify why the U.S. still has capital punishment (which has never been shown to be a deterrent).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think some people would be changing their tune if this touched them personally, but that's the case with a lot of things...

I'm the 8:20 anti-death penalty poster, and I have no doubt that what you wrote above is true. But that is exactly why these issues go to a group of justices who are supposed to exercise their judgment dispassionately. Its about the "big picture", not the rage one might feel in an individual case.

And, for the record, a large part of my anti-death penalty conviction comes from the fact that, to date, we have sentenced over 100 INNOCENT men to death, only to find out later that they were in fact innocent. For some, that discovery came too late. If we're going to be putting people to death, we'd better have a near perfect record of "getting it right". Right now, we're not even close.

[Anonymous]

LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE. EVER.

Not just in these cases - but in all potential death penalty cases. I am troubled by the harm of the death penalty not on those who are put to death but on those who must do the killing. It is harmful to us as a society to put people to death, imho.

[Anonymous]

OP
I can understand the PP's view. If you're anti-death penalty in all situations, then I can understand being in support of this SC ruling since it's a small step towards achieving the overall goal of getting rid of the death penalty altogether.
However, if you think that the death penalty should remain legal and be used in some cases, I just have such a hard time seeing as how the hideous crime of child rape does not warrant the ultimate punishment we have available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE. EVER.

Not just in these cases - but in all potential death penalty cases. I am troubled by the harm of the death penalty not on those who are put to death but on those who must do the killing. It is harmful to us as a society to put people to death, imho.

No, it is harmful to the victims to keep these people alive. Life without parole does not even happen all the time.

I posted this story on another thread about guns. Long story short, my good friend was brutalized in her home. She was raped for HOURS (I think it was an 18hr ordeal) by 2 men. She was raped in her vagina, mouth, and anus. The brutal rape caused her much internal injuries and I can't even imagine what that would have done to a 5yr old girl. She was then shot in the neck and left for dead. She is alive and doing well years later. However, she has a special number she can call at any time to make sure these 2 guys stay behind bars and will be notified when they are up for parole (yes, the could walk our streets again, like may brutal criminals do in this country-thank you liberals!). Even though these guys are locked up, she does live in fear that they could somehow get her again and she also has a legitimate fear that they could one day be released. They should be dead, just the way they thought they left her. One of the rapists even got to get married in jail to his sweetheart pen pal-how charming

[Anonymous]

PP - so sorry for your friend. The idea that people like those men are even eligible for parole sickens me. Aren't there some crimes bad enough that we can agree we need to throw away the key?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. To the PP who suggested mere touching might qualify - I think that's absurd and surely even you recognize there's a world of difference between inappropriate touchign and RAPE of a child. The jury would still be the ones to decide if the punishment's warranted, though.

I have heard the arguments about this encouraging the rapist to kill the child. If they're inclined to commit murder, I just don't see as how the prospect of a very lengthy prison term would serve as zero disincentive but the threat of death would change these completely. yes, death is worse than a very long imprisonment, but no one wants to go to jail for decades either. I still don't think it's convincing enough an argument to warrant saying that this horrible crime does not deserve the absolute worst punishment we can give out.

Don't underestimate. In the South many a black boy would have been whipped and sometimes killed for any slight gesture that seemed sexual towards a white female. Emmit Till.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, come on! That decision was the best one.
When a child finds out that his/her uncle or cousin could be killed if he reports the crime, what kind of burden is placed on that child?
It is NUTTY to execute someone for that type of crime. I wouldn't put it past some States to put 16 year old boys on death row for touching their 11 year old girl/boy friend, if given the right to do so.
Thank goodness for people like Kennedy, Breyer, Souter, Ginsberg, and Stevens.

These are good policy arguments but totally irrelevant to the decision that was before the Supreme Court, which was whether it was *constitutional* for states to have this punishment. If it is constitutional, under the cruel and unusual language of the Constitution, then we could all argue about the policy to our state legislatures and ask them not to have it, if that is your policy position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some people would be changing their tune if this touched them personally, but that's the case with a lot of things...

YUP. Death to child rapists. A slow one too, in the electric chair for a few hours at a low voltage.

Can you visualize your little boy being sodomized and having internal injuries and hemmoraging, resulting in colon removal never being able to take a proper BM? How about your little girl being brutalized so bad that her uterus and ovaries are completely destroyed to the point that she has to have a hysterectomy before she even gets her first period?

This is not SEX, this is brutal rape. The little girl that is the center of this case had irreparable damage done to her body and mind. These people need to be killed like the vermin they are. If cockroaches invade your house, do you trap them and set them free? No you KILL them.

These bastards should be castrated, either physical or chemical. There's something terribly wrong with these monsters who brutally rape vulnerable children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE. EVER.

Not just in these cases - but in all potential death penalty cases. I am troubled by the harm of the death penalty not on those who are put to death but on those who must do the killing. It is harmful to us as a society to put people to death, imho.

No, it is harmful to the victims to keep these people alive. Life without parole does not even happen all the time.

I posted this story on another thread about guns. Long story short, my good friend was brutalized in her home. She was raped for HOURS (I think it was an 18hr ordeal) by 2 men. She was raped in her vagina, mouth, and anus. The brutal rape caused her much internal injuries and I can't even imagine what that would have done to a 5yr old girl. She was then shot in the neck and left for dead. She is alive and doing well years later. However, she has a special number she can call at any time to make sure these 2 guys stay behind bars and will be notified when they are up for parole (yes, the could walk our streets again, like may brutal criminals do in this country-thank you liberals!). Even though these guys are locked up, she does live in fear that they could somehow get her again and she also has a legitimate fear that they could one day be released. They should be dead, just the way they thought they left her. One of the rapists even got to get married in jail to his sweetheart pen pal-how charming

I read your post and f/u post about your friend on the guns in house thread. Your friend sounds like such an amazing person -- wow. Can you give her a hug for me? The resiliency of the human spirit is inspiring.

[Anonymous]

nobody's mentioned the cost or long timeline of killing a death row inmate. even though a person could be sentenced to death, they would have room for multiple appeals and would still be jailed and alive for years before being killed. the government spends tons of money fighting the appeals and keeping them jailed that it turns out to be cheaper to do life without parole. so given the dragged out process of actually killing a person does it really give the victim that much healing then?