Supreme Court decision on punishment for Child Rape

[MikeC]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080625/ap_ ... scotus_rdp

Me personally, I'm all for killing off someone who rapes a child. I wouldn't waste anymore good oxygen on them...

What do you guys think? Discuss

[edededed]

I guess I would go with the conservative judges here... (We have no need for the despicable.)

[Dmitri]

Outta gene pool with them.

These are the kind of crimes where there's no ambiguity, ulterior motives, etc. You did it -- you die.

[Darthwing Teorist]

What about wrongful accusations?

Cases where there is DNA evidence are one thing. What about parents blaming someone else? What if the parents rape the child and then blame the babysitter?

[Dmitri]

Obviously I'm talking about "well-established" cases, with plenty of evidence, etc.

I'm not talking about the accusation/trial/etc., I'm talking about the "what to do with the guilty" part, after the guilt has been established.

[Darthwing Teorist]

Yes, but the problem is that someone can be wrongfully declared guilty. There are cases where false memories have been implanted in kids. Someone can be declared guilty even if DNA evidence is lacking.

[Dmitri]

But that's an inherent problem with the legal system that's probably never going away, and is not related to the subject at hand IMO.
There have been plenty of wrongfully accused, in all judicial systems around the world, who were executed or are serving long sentences.

If you were wrongfully accused beyond any hope of getting the truth out and the sentence reversed, would you really rather choose life sentence instead of execution?
I dunno man, with that kind'a life in perspective, I think I'd rather not have it. (Can't really answer that of course, without direct personal experience, so I'm of course just speculating, I realize that. It may well be that I'd rather live with futile hope that maybe, one sunny day... Maybe. God I hope I never have to face a choice like that in reality.)

[edededed]

Well... sometimes the system is just a system... For example, if you (and a hundred other people, reporters, and photographers) see the crime, why is there even a trial at all? Should the obviously guilty be given a quick execution onsite, or should the government and people waste money, time, and tears on the whole gamut?

[Darthwing Teorist]

Execution is a one way street. A life sentence can always be reversed or you can break out of prison. Imagine! The possibilities are limitless.

[mixjourneyman]

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.

[MikeC]

rehabilitation of murderers and rapists? Yeah right, that's high on my priority list...

[Darthwing Teorist]

rehabilitation of murderers and rapists? Yeah right, that's high on my priority list...

I have the feeling that MikeC is Bruce Wayne.

[Dmitri]

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.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the bible -- i.e. not any more than it has to do with tora, koran, dao de jing, etc.
(Besides, there's that other side of "biblical", where Jesus was saying something about the other cheek and all that... remember? )

But "eye for an eye" is a very old and very basic idea; I don't think Bible was where it started. This is "normal" society's response to certain types of extreme behavior. It exists and will exist in EVERY culture on this planet, religious or atheist, all the other animals do it -- why not humans? It's a simple matter of survival (as a society).

But, all that aside -- mix, are you really sure that a life sentence is a more "humane" way than death sentence? Aside from basic metabolism and interaction with inmates, is that really "life"?

[Darthwing Teorist]

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.

Our society has moved from that to other standards, that tend to be more reasonable and understanting. I think that this is the same debate: what part of a punishment is to avenge the wrong and what part is to rehabilitate the criminal. Should criminals be given the chance to change? What about wrongful sentences? How about justice vs mercy? I am not saying that we should let rapists go away with a tap on the wrist and a kiss on the cheek, but there are questions that are not easy to answer for any society. Also, they are ages old.

[qiphlow]

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.