Capitol Hill Blue Forums Life and Moral Issues Crime & Punishment Court rejects death penalty for raping children

Certainly, but is it a crime that needs the death penalty? At age 10 I too experienced some sexual exploitation and exposure to other family member's incestuous relationship, but I don't think anybody needed to be executed for it.

I acknowledge your feelings and I am sure they are justified. But how do the offenders feel about it? That is the important question, since a lesser penalty for non-murder could possibly save some victims from being killed. Isn't that a worthwhile goal?

But then we would be convicting and punishing them for crimes they have not yet committed! There has to be an approach that respects due process.

For example, I rather like the idea of getting life-time supervised parole after a decade or two in prison if he volunteers to have all his man-parts removed. (That would include blood testing to make sure the parolee was not taking any steroids or male hormones.) That removes the drive AND the rewards for additional sexual offenses. I think this kind of penalty would be a good fit to the child rapist who DIDN'T kill his victim.

In cases where a violent assault of any type ended in death and there is absolutely no doubt, then I have no problem at all with execution. But I would never want to see anybody executed solely on the eyewitness testimony of a person who did not know them well. Way too many "looked like him" ids have been turned into invalid convictions.

It would be hard to accept, but so is being molested or having your child, niece, nephew cousin or other young relative molested. John Wayne Gacy or Richard Davis first started out "just' molesting or raping and then turned to more violent acts(torture and murder) to satisfy their predilections. They were/are also somebody's father/son/brother/cousin. Certain crimes deserve the death penalty. These acts are/were planned-not mistakes or accidents.

Most pedophiles harm more than one child. So yes, I think it is warranted. These perpetrators have no feeling for others, just their own gratification and they use any means to get that gratification.


I think that what the offenders think about has very little value. I don't believe that it would save any victims. On the contrary, the offender would be more likely to kill any future victims, to avoid going back to jail-especially since pedophiles are so hated amongst the prison population.


No, they would be executed for crimes already committed.



And what about what's a "good fit" for the victim? "Sorry, we know that you were raped and tortured, but your safety and other children's safety is not nearly as important as trying to save a pedophile who deliberately plans and sets out to lure and hurt children." This is exactly what a lot of victims and families would be afraid of. Sexual desire is not just genitals and hormones. The brain has a lot to do with it. And short of lobotomy, these pedophiles will continue to committ these kinds of crimes. The solution posted above would force the victims to be in fear that the perpetrator will come back to finish the job-now that the perp was surgically and permanently maimed and that the perp would still target other children, putting them in their own private Hell.


So not only is the child a victim of a heinous crime, but under suspicion of being a liar, too? Isn't that a form of torture for the victim? To hell with the victim, we must save the poor misunderstood criminal?

Let's send them to basic training and if they survive that to the front lines in Iraq or Afghanistan. If they aren't well suited to a comabt role, they can certainly be medics or body baggers.

Scoutgal, I am sorry to keep pressing the issue because I know it is one on which you have very strong opinions. But reading through your posts it seems you justify the death penalty on two primary bases: (1) that the crime has such a horrible impact on the victim and (2) that the perpetrators will commit more crimes if not killed by the state.

There are many crimes with even more horrible impacts on the victim than child rape. None currently result in the death penalty for the perpetrator. Why single this out for such a penalty apart from the emotions you have in this instance? I am not suggesting the emotions are not warranted, but we disagree on whether laws should be based upon emotional reactions. I think emotions and justice are always incompatible.

Two, the statistics I have quoted show that less than half of sexual offenders re-commit crimes. You claim they are permanently and compulsively going to be re-offenders. Show me the facts to support that, please. If even one person who commits the crime is not going to re-offend, why kill all who commit the crime? If not all, how would you decide which ones to kill?

Medical science has very imperfect tools to predict the future. I think it bad enough they are currently given the power to decide if an offender can be held indefinitely in a mental facility or prison because of a likelihood of re-offending.

While I respect the feelings of those who have suffered at the hands of a sexual predator, those emotions cannot be the only factor in deciding public policy. To do so would reduce the criminal justice system to revenge and blood lust levels. That may be tempting for the victims, but a disaster for the culture.

just on this point and the incapability of a proper public discussion on the matter, our efforts here nothwithstanding.

an english comedian during the 90s had a show called "Brass Eye". it was a fake news show, much more hard hitting than Daily show etc. one programme was based on media sensationalism of paedophiles. he was making mockery of the sensationalism, and the vulturism of the media, and how it played on peoples fears, blowing everyhting out of all proportion.

can you guess how the media reacted - he was eviscerated and the show taken off air. i did see it before and im sure its available through the magic of goodle. it was quite funny and quite pointed.

That the offender will commit another crime is not my only basis for wanting the death penalty. That is only a fringe benefit. The death penalty would only be applied for crimes already committed. Putting to death an offender of violent sexual crimes is not blood lust and/or revenge. It is accountability/consequences for actions committed by said offender. You think that I give too much credence to the feelings of the victims and their families. I say that you do not give enough.

Phil, your links show that, while not all offenders re-offend, a higher percentage do so than with other crimes, and the percentage gets larger as time goes on.

I agree with all of the above. What I find objectionable is finding a Constitutional bar to a state deciding the issue dispassionately and establishing criteria for when it may and may not apply the death penalty to a particular crime.