Supreme Court decision on punishment for Child Rape

[Dmitri]

In my understanding, "an eye for an eye" was rule to curb the revenge for a wrongdoing. So, if someone pulled your eye out, instead of burning his village, killing the men, raping the women and enslaving the children, as much fun as that may sound, you simply got to pull his out. More boring, but also a more fair punishment.

...which also means, if someone kills someone, then he should be killed.

But no, I don't think it was meant to be taken that literally, obviously -- e.g. what, if he raped a child, the child's parents should rape the offender's child and then all is settled?


Definitely a very sensitive and complex subject though, of course. Will probably remain so forever, like the abortion thing, etc.
Bottom line I think should always be not as much about revenge but about potential danger to society. And smaller things like costs, etc.

[MikeC]

if one of my children was raped, most probably i'd be enraged and go and beat the living shit out of the rapist until i was too exhausted to move. but however satisfying that may be, it doesn't undo the act, and it doesn't make the kid feel any better, and it only makes the parent feel better temporarily. i suppose we as a society have to find a happy medium between our sense of compassion and our sense of revenge.

Moreso responsibility than revenge. If a murderer/rapist is dead then they can't harm any more people ever again.

[qiphlow]

that's true, but then the society is engaging in murder of it's own. maybe the thunderdome is what we need. 2 men enter! one man leaves!

[bigphatwong]

that's true, but then the society is engaging in murder of it's own.

Not at all.. murder is defined by the dictionary as the UNLAWFUL taking of another human life with malicious intent. The death penalty is a lawful form of punishment. Physically they are the same, but morally way different.

[bigphatwong]

You Merkin's are fucking crazy.
The death penalty should not even exist.
If they can't be rehabilitated they should just be locked up in solitary for life.
All this biblical slaying of criminals is just nuts.

Saying that hardened thugs and criminals who indiscriminately snuff out human lives to satisfy their sick whims should be afforded humane treatment (while they afford their victims none)and lifetime accomodations on the public dime is what's nuts. As is saying that the life of a child rapist or other such predator is equal to that of a law-abiding mom or dad who goes to work and takes care of their kids. They are not. Physically they are both human, but that's where the similarities end.

[Steve James]

If child rape merits the death penalty, then "rape" merits the death penalty. To decide that child rapists deserve to die is purely emotional. We don't like child rapists more than other criminals, so we want to give them a harsher punishment. Of course, you can only execute a person (successfully) once. So, actually, giving them the death penalty would seem to argue that the crime was a bad as murder.

Well, I think the argument falls apart on many levels. For ex., if age is a criteria, then should those who commit "hate crimes" also get the death penalty? Most of them, the convicted, have not received the death penalty --even after they've been convicted. Anyway, does anyone think that someone who rapes 80 year olds is somehow less of a criminal?

The one viable reason I've heard for killing child rapists/abusers (and those definitions differ from state to state) is that sexual predators are psychologically incorrigible --i.e., they can't be rehabilitated. And, many of them will admit it. So, the states have to decide how long to incarcerate them. Unfortunately, if we know that they won't change, only a life sentence will stop them from returning to their habits. That's why execution was suggested. Chemical and physical castration were also suggested; but they were considered either ineffective or excessive.

If "we" were sure that justice were distributed equally (without respect to the person), there wouldn't be an issue. However, "we" really do care, and so there is also the possiblity of injustice. Anyway, if you're interested in the history of the death penalty, read Dickens or Defoe. But, in this case, I don't think it's about the death penalty, it's a matter of "punishment fitting the crime." The SC wasn't willing to go that far --in this case. The issue can always come up again.

Otoh, the death penalty process is long and expensive. I'd bet that even if the law were upheld there would be very very few executions. There are cop killers who haven't been executed --in states with the death penalty. Not that I would cry over child rapists, but I think that child murderers are much worse.... because murder is worse than rape.

I don't know whether I'd rather get the death penalty of get a life sentence. I guess it depends partly on whether I'm innocent or not. But, there's also a saying, "Nobody wants to be 90, until one's 89." If I were innocent, however, I think I'd choose life. (S'jus me).

[Dmitri]

To decide that child rapists deserve to die is purely emotional. We don't like child rapists more than other criminals, so we want to give them a harsher punishment.

There's a good reason we don't like them; it's very basic stuff, at the "fight or flight" kind'a level.

But regardless -- I wouldn't mind killing off rapists as well (at least the most violent and especially serial ones, i.e. if someone did it more than once, he should go.) Reasoning here is not only rehabilitation problems, but taking them out of gene pool so that they don't procreate. Although I'd probably settle for castration (+ prison) for those guys.

[Steve James]

"There's a good reason we don't like them; it's very basic stuff, at the "fight or flight" kind'a level."

Well, actually, there are many cultures that marry girls at ages which we would consider rape. So, it's not genetic or instinctual. It's enough to point out that incest isn't unheard of. Besides, if the subject is "rape" in general, then there are too many legal and state by state differences to make any attempt to institute capital punishment unconstitutional. That's what the Supreme Court is supposed to decide, especially when people dislike the criminal or the crime.

Anyway, nobody's arguing for child rapists or pedophiles.

[edededed]

The thing is, many cultures are just WRONG - yes, sometimes cultures can be wrong... Ya gotta draw a line somewhere...

Pedophilia, slavery, etc. were (accepted) world cultures in medieval times - but they are wrong.

Marriage age is a bit grayer - Koreans used to marry 12-year old boys to 16-year old girls (or so)... consummation of the marriage happened after the boy aged a few more years, though. Obviously early pregnancies and such are a health risk, which is where the idea of waiting may come from.

Marriage form is gray as well - polygamy happens, but if it is consensual/wanted by both parties, well... (Tibet apparently has the rare "reverse" form of polygamy (one female, several males (all brothers))...)

[qiphlow]

that's true, but then the society is engaging in murder of it's own.

Not at all.. murder is defined by the dictionary as the UNLAWFUL taking of another human life with malicious intent. The death penalty is a lawful form of punishment. Physically they are the same, but morally way different.

semantics aside, the action is the same. i don't know that i could intentionally kill someone unless they were in the act of trying to kill me or my family.

[Steve James]

Well, my point was that considering it "wrong" is not genetic. That's not to say that it's "right" or acceptable.

Afa cultures being "wrong," it's easy to say; but, it's hard to explain why, for ex., consensual sex at 17 is "rape" and consensual sex at 18 is not. I'm willing to hear your argument why one should get the death penalty and the other should not. If, otoh, a particular society thinks that 15 is a legitimate age of consent, it may be "wrong", but, imo, still not a capital offense.

Btw, I'm starting from the position that capital offense for some crimes is ok. I'm against capital punishment, actually. But, I'm not unhappy when serial killers get their comeuppance on a table or in a chair. I guess my argument would be that rape is a form of assault, and should be treated similarly to other forms of assault. Sure, having a more severe or different form of punishment depending on the victim or the number of victims is reasonable. However, the question is whether the death penalty is appropriate.

As I said, there are serial killers who have not gotten the death penalty --some because they've pleaded out or cooperated with authorities to find the bodies of people they've murdered. If they can get off without the death penalty, then I think it'd be strange to have a child rapist --not even a murderer-- get the death penalty.

[Muad'dib]

To decide that child rapists deserve to die is purely emotional

Regardless of pretensions of logic, ALL decisions are ultimately emotional decisions.

As for sexual predator recidivism, study have shown that it's near 100% except under certain circumstances, where its only about 5%. Those circumstances are that the individual successfully gets a fairly well paying job, housing, and is not ostracized. For the record, I didn't see the stats of the study myself, so I don't know how skewed they are, but I can tell you that since my entry into the legal field, I've never met a judge who would hesitate for a second to throw the book, or an entire building at a child molester.

The other thing to bear in mind was the the Louisiana law that allowed execution was limited to individuals who had done time, been released and re-offended.

Finally, DNA evidence is not the ultimate arbiter of guilt or innocence. Imagine you are in a bar, its sweaty, you are standing next to some woman, and accidentally rub against her blouse. Later that night she gets raped. The only DNA they find, for whatever reason is yours. Ooops. (This hypo assumes you didn't do it.)

[Steve James]

The law is not about emotion. People are emotional. As for the rest of your arguments (?), I'm not sure how they relate to what I wrote. I'm not even sure which side you're arguing. But, if all decisions are emotional, then the SC's decision was emotional. Clearly, they don't share the emotions of many. Maybe they used another standard. I'm not saying they were right (though I believe they were); I'm just arguing that they weren't being "emotional." I have kids, and so do some of them. I know what my emotional response would be.

But, I don't really care about child molesters. I care about the application of the death penalty.

[edededed]

I do want to think that most of "wrong" is not genetic (or inherent/intrinsic) - but then again, I do feel that people have a "feeling" that dictates to us what is "right" or "wrong" (i.e., we usually know if we are doing something wrong). But, I don't know.

I was assuming obvious children (i.e. age 6-12, for example) - the "age border" is a bit strange, of course, although people have to put a line somewhere; it is not quite as heinous to molest a 17-year old as it is to molest a 7-year old (if one accepts degrees here).

But I thought the thread was about leaving the possibility of capital punishment for this kind of thing - of course, each case will have its own characteristics (how sure we are of what happened, how heinous the crime was, etc.)... It does help to have capital punishment available if necessary (and to deter others from doing the crime beforehand).

[Steve James]

"It does help to have capital punishment available if necessary (and to deter others from doing the crime beforehand"

That's the oppostie of a emotional argument, (and I know you didn't use the term). However, the deterrence value of capital punishment can not be demonstrated. The argument in this thread is purely reactionary and punitive: i.e., it's about what we can do to convicts. The assumption is that they are guilty.

Should we leave the possibility of capital punishment open for certain crimes? As I wrote before, even convicted murderers do not always receive the death penalty, even in states where there is a death penalty.

By the same token, the definition of "child" is not the same in all states. Take the age for marriage and driver's licenses in some states. But, okay, say "baby rape", which disgustingly does happen. If we'd electrocute someone who raped a 5 year old, what should we do to a baby rapist? He should get a harsher punishment? Does that mean that someone who raped a 100 year old should get a lighter sentence... because of the age of the victims?

I agree that some things are unacceptable, in this culture. But, you'd be surprised how many 13 year old brides there still are in the US.