Supreme Court rejects death penalty for raping children

[Vicious]

Do you have an alternative solution that protects society without emburdening tax payers by asking them to support the child rapists life behind bars?

Actually, it costs more to put someone to death than life in prison strangely enough. Though there are conflicting numbers on it. It also costs more and more each year to house a prisoner each year. Then again you don't get to kill someone for about 15 years and it costs more to keep someone on death row then in a normal jail cell.

[Bang]

Why would you murder a child rapist? A child rapist in prison is living in pure hell.

Yeah, it won't take long before the job is done anyway.

For the record, I'm pro-death penalty. I understand the arguments against it, but it's not bloodthirst or vengeance for me, and it's not the deterrent factor.. No matter what the executed guy can't ever do it again, guaranteed. As an enlightened society, folks say we should be beyond execution. I can see that, but by the same token, as an enlightened society we have the ability to decide when a person is so heinous as to be permanently removed from our midst.

BUT, they better be sure they got the right guy. Every opportunity should be given to prove innocence in these cases. They better have indisputable hard evidence to back up a capital conviction

~Bang

[Special K]

I see it this way: If I guy kills someone knowing that he will get the death penalty b/c he commits the crime, then they are too stupid to live.

As for child rapists - they should be executed b/c they are sick F's - there is no "curing" them.

Terrible decision IMO.

First of all, death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment for child rapists but ceases to be so for murderers? That makes absolutely no sense to me.

Second of all, it is my firm belief that anyone who rapes a child and messes that kid up for life is a monster who can never successfully be rehabbed. They need to turn in their 'life" card and be put to death.

The only problem I have with the death penalty is that it is so damn expensive. Otherwise, I have no qualms with it.

[kubstix]

I have my own beliefs....other countries do the eye-for-an-eye. Let some sick **** in prison take care of business on child rapists with no lube. If you murder someone by slitting their throat, your throat should be slit as well. If you shoot someone in the head, you should executed by being shot in the head. Really crazy to see people commit murder and sit in jail only to live. But thats just me.

[Major Harris]

death penalty is tricky. but i do know if it happened to my kid, the death penalty would be served, no appeals necessary.

[Kilmer17]

It's not hard for me to seperate my personal anger and quest for revenge and action and my beliefs that the Govt shouldnt be in that business.

We dont need to kill people as punishment. But we do need to change our penal system to make it much much harsher.

[Thiebear]

A mediocre reason for not:

If you know you rape a child you will die if they live or die, why not kill them.

If you know you rape a child and they live you live if caught.. saves lives..

[Kilmer17]

A mediocre reason for not:

If you know you rape a child you will die if they live or die, why not kill them.

If you know you rape a child and they live you live if caught.. saves lives..

ummmmm what?

[19Skins72]

Actually, it costs more to put someone to death than life in prison strangely enough. Though there are conflicting numbers on it. It also costs more and more each year to house a prisoner each year. Then again you don't get to kill someone for about 15 years and it costs more to keep someone on death row then in a normal jail cell.

Yeah, Larry brought that up, and I'm aware of it.

The short version of my reply to him;

The process need not be expensive or time consuming. Maybe it should be expensive and/or time consuming, but that's a discussion for a different thead imo.

[dcnativenerd]

These are the worst sort of people...but let's face it, their life in prison is just a mild prelude to the hell that awaits them later.

[dwbiggs]

Second of all, it is my firm belief that anyone who rapes a child and messes that kid up for life is a monster who can never successfully be rehabbed. They need to turn in their 'life" card and be put to death.

I agree! And another positive aspect is that if there is a pedophile gene we will getting rid of it and any possibility of offspring contracting it.

Enlightened my a##...take away our technology and modern conveniences and lets see how enlightened and civilized we stay. "Enlightenment" is only an illusion.

[DCSaints_fan]

ummmmm what?

If the penalty for child rape is death, I do see an increased likelihood that the criminal would kill the victim. Because after the rape they have nothing to lose, and killing the victim would decrease the likelihood of being caught and convicted since there would be no eyewitness to the actual crime in most cases.

[GibbsFactor]

....................

[Kilmer17]

If the penalty for child rape is death, I do see an increased likelihood that the criminal would kill the victim. Because after the rape they have nothing to lose, and killing the victim would decrease the likelihood of being caught and convicted since there would be no eyewitness to the actual crime in most cases.

Got it now. And that's an excellent observation.

[Larry]

If the penalty for child rape is death, I do see an increased likelihood that the criminal would kill the victim. Because after the rape they have nothing to lose, and killing the victim would decrease the likelihood of being caught and convicted since there would be no eyewitness to the actual crime in most cases.

Actually, I've seen someone making the claim that the primary reason why a lot of child molesters now kill their victim is because society is now so gung-ho to prosecute child molesters.

The reasoning was that 10-15 years ago, when a pedophile kidnapped a child, he told the child that he'd been adopted. That "your parents don't want you any more, and I'm your Daddy now". The rapist would take the child to a different state, give him a new name, register him in school, and molest him for 10 years.

(IIR, Steven Walsh was treated that way. The kidnapper convinced him that he'd been adopted, and so forth. The kid didn't actually leave his kidnapper until he got so old that the rapist didn't like him any more, and the rapist went out and, with Steven's help, kidnapped a new toy. And Steven saw that the rapist was doing the same things he'd been doing to Steven.)

In short, in those days, when a kid got kidnapped, he'd have a (relatively) normal life until he grew up.

But now, we've got Amber alerts. Wanted posters all over the place. TV shows with the kidnapped kid's face on it. You can't register a kid in a new school without ID, so the kidnapper can't just take the kid to Texas and put him in school. Kids are taught to complain to teachers and cops.

In short, thanks to much more enthusiastic law enforcement, now it's too dangerous for a rapist to keep the child alive.

Therefore, in the new, improved, world, kidnapped kids get raped for a day or so, then killed and dumped. And a week later, the rapist is looking for a new victim.

-----

No, I'm not saying that the world would be better if we just didn't prosecute people for raping children. I'm saying that the person did make a logical point that better enforcement doesn't automatically make things better.

Yes, there is a Law of Unintended Consequences.