Death Penalty for Child rape

[mathlete]

Originally Posted by Ruffy_spice

That said, It should be for open and shut cases, clear cut evidence, 10 and under = Death.

Where will you choose to draw the line? If he climaxed? If there was insertion? What if he just used his fingers? What if she was very developed? Or was nine and half? Ten and a half?

I can't see rape ever being enough to warrant the death penalty personally.

[Redsniper]

Originally Posted by Ruffy_spice

sad thing is, no they wouldnt. They'd be put in special prisons and get out early and be babied because of "fear for their life in the prison system"

That said, It should be for open and shut cases, clear cut evidence, 10 and under = Death.

It should also be televised on all channels. If you have small children or don't want to see it turn off your TV.

[Escaped Gorilla Genitals]

There is no point in execution beyond a sense of morbid satisfaction for the victim/victims relatives. That's not enough to convince me that the State should be killing someone even if the perpetrators guilt is completely assured. Life in prison safely removes any threat to society that individual might have posed and if a mistake was made in their conviction then at least they have a chance to reclaim part of their life.

[bingstudent]

Originally Posted by Jim Morrison

There is no point in execution beyond a sense of morbid satisfaction for the victim/victims relatives. That's not enough to convince me that the State should be killing someone even if the perpetrators guilt is completely assured. Life in prison safely removes any threat to society that individual might have posed and if a mistake was made in their conviction then at least they have a chance to reclaim part of their life.

QTF

The deterrent effective of capital punishment is a well-known failure so there's no utilitarian value to using it. Combine that with the slew of cases that have recently been called into question by DNA evidence and I'm not sure how anyone more than a barbarian could support this form of punishment. It's time we caught up to Europe on this one.

[Tom Kazansky]

Originally Posted by bingstudent

QTF

The deterrent effective of capital punishment is a well-known failure so there's no utilitarian value to using it. Combine that with the slew of cases that have recently been called into question by DNA evidence and I'm not sure how anyone more than a barbarian could support this form of punishment. It's time we caught up to Europe on this one.

To say the death penalty is not a deterrant would be in error. Societies with stiffer penalties for criminals have less crime, this you can't deny. I think in cases where the evidence is obvious it's not a problem. In cases where circumstantial evidence is the only evidence then it should not be employed.

[rizla]

Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky

To say the death penalty is not a deterrant would be in error. Societies with stiffer penalties for criminals have less crime, this you can't deny. I think in cases where the evidence is obvious it's not a problem. In cases where circumstantial evidence is the only evidence then it should not be employed.

Thats bullshit conventional wisdom based on decades old findings. Numerous recent studies have shown that is not the case and that previous findings were flawed. EX:

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/216548.pdf
http://www.law.columbia.edu/law_scho.../capitalpunish
http://www.tcask.org/fact-sheets/Fac...Deterrence.pdf

those are oviously mostly summery articles, if you have a subscription to jstor there are dozens of others

[Allnighte]

isnt life in prison still worse than a quick painless death?

[Straw Man]

Originally Posted by Allnighte

isnt life in prison still worse than a quick painless death?

"Which is worse" has nothing to do with it, or at least shouldn't have

[Tom Kazansky]

Originally Posted by rizla

Thats conventional wisdom based on decades old findings. Numerous recent studies have shown that is not the case and that previous findings were flawed. EX:

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/216548.pdf
http://www.law.columbia.edu/law_scho.../capitalpunish
http://www.tcask.org/fact-sheets/Fac...Deterrence.pdf

those are oviously mostly summery articles, if you have a subscription to jstor there are dozens of others

Yeah, maybe in the US since the law gives you a lot of outs for the death penalty. The appeals process is long and drawn out. Some people spend upwards of 30 years on death row. Go to Saudi Arabia and drop a bag of money in the middle of Mecca. I'll bet it'll still be there for you in the afternoon. Why would that be?

Edit: I should clarify my statement. I think it's probably pretty clear that the death penalty in the US is not particularly effective, however in other societies where it's implemented more aggressively it would be stupid to say it's not a deterrent. I was speaking in a general sense, not just the US.

Also, regarding your sources, one of them is incredibly biased. Go compare NRA stats against Micheal Moore and you'll notice both make use of statistics to prove opposite positions on the same issue. Studies are not always immune from bias. Not saying that's necessarily the case here, but I'm not saying it's impossible for a group pushing a certain agenda to skew things in their favour. It's been done before.

[Tom Kazansky]

Originally Posted by Allnighte

isnt life in prison still worse than a quick painless death?

In some ways yes, in some ways no. Watch how defendents react when they're slapped with a death sentence vs a life in prison sentence, and then watch how hard they fight in the appeals process to get their sentences commutted. Even Charles Manson, someone who preach to his "family" that death was even better than life in a lot of ways was shaking when the sentencing was set.

Further, some people prefer the prison life and often commit small crimes just to get back in. One of my housemates two years ago worked at a place that dealt with teens that had this kind of characteristic. Charles Manson is another example of this.

[rizla]

Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky

Yeah, maybe in the US since the law gives you a lot of outs for the death penalty. The appeals process is long and drawn out. Some people spend upwards of 30 years on death row. Go to Saudi Arabia and drop a bag of money in the middle of Mecca. I'll bet it'll still be there for you in the afternoon. Why would that be?

Edit: I should clarify my statement. I think it's probably pretty clear that the death penalty in the US is not particularly effective, however in other societies where it's implemented more aggressively it would be stupid to say it's not a deterrent. I was speaking in a general sense, not just the US.

Also, regarding your sources, one of them is incredibly biased. Go compare NRA stats against Micheal Moore and you'll notice both make use of statistics to prove opposite positions on the same issue. Studies are not always immune from bias. Not saying that's necessarily the case here, but I'm not saying it's impossible for a group pushing a certain agenda to skew things in their favour. It's been done before.

The death penalty when implemented in a country with the rule of law is not a deterrent. You can backtrack all you want by saying you only meant fucking saudi arabia, even when the argument is obviously centered around western countries and that is what the OP deals with, whatever. I'm suppressing laughter.

[mathlete]

Originally Posted by RuHo

"Which is worse" has nothing to do with it, or at least shouldn't have

Well hell, we might as well give them hugs and cupcakes in prison, because we shouldn't concern ourselves with quantifying their punishment.

[Straw Man]

Originally Posted by mathlete

Well hell, we might as well give them hugs and cupcakes in prison, because we shouldn't concern ourselves with quantifying their punishment.

Well I didn't say that, or even imply it.

[rizla]

Originally Posted by mathlete

Well hell, we might as well give them hugs and cupcakes in prison, because we shouldn't concern ourselves with quantifying their punishment.

I don't think you can argue for the death penalty by "quantifying" punishment. It's fundamentally different in nature from imprisonment.

To use an analogy, it is a bit like comparing torture and imprisonment. It's a different method of punishment, one focuses on pain, the other on removal of liberty. In the same way, the death penalty punishes by removal of life.

The only valid argument for death is on moral grounds, based on values.

[Tom Kazansky]

Originally Posted by rizla

The death penalty when implemented in a country with the rule of law is not a deterrent. You can backtrack all you want by saying you only meant fucking saudi arabia, even when the argument is obviously centered around western countries and that is what the OP deals with, whatever. I'm suppressing laughter.

How am I backtracking? I was discussing the death penalty in general as a concept, and in places where the legal system is more aggressive it clearly has an impact on violent crime. Did you notice how I said "societies with stiffer penalties", meaning I'm not just discussing the US, or did you just read my first sentance and get an ultra-huge, anti-death penalty boner? Obviously there's still a relatively high murder rate in the US, but that doesn't mean the death penalty as a concept is ineffective.

I follow politics, I've watched debates on this topic where people claim it's not a deterrent at all, that's not news to me. You want to play your stupid little "let me show you a study game"? Ok, I'll play that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061100406.html

Ooooo, look at me! I found a study that proves the opposite end of the argument so I must be correct! And it only took 5 seconds of searching on Google to pull it off!