Death Penalty for rape

[goaliemn]

Originally Posted by sloth2946

PS: The reason the governments have never done anything about the people of the Westboro Baptist Church is because it is their Constitutional right to do it. I don't agree with them, nor does probably 99% of the population(their 'church' only has a couple hundred members right? And they're all from essentially the same family).

Many states passed laws that require them to stay so many feet away from the funeral procession and a federal law was passed requiring them to stay so many feet away from federal cemetery entrances. This wasn't done until they started picketing soldier funerals.

The Constitution does not and should not protect people who deprive helpless children of their Constitutional rights, willfully and consciously.

I'm going to get flamed for this I'm sure, but I don't see any constitutional right being violated by a rape.. Possibly the 14th amendment, but that would be a stretch.

Finally...your last sentence is the stuff of the tinfoil hat brigade...seriously.

Look at amendment 18. Prohibition. It was passed because of a very vocal minority opposed to drinking. It was repealed 14 years later, but it did pass. You can't tell me that didn't make life hard on a lot of people, plus helped bring the organized crime families to power.

[sloth2946]

Originally Posted by goaliemn

Many states passed laws that require them to stay so many feet away from the funeral procession and a federal law was passed requiring them to stay so many feet away from federal cemetery entrances. This wasn't done until they started picketing soldier funerals.

I'm going to get flamed for this I'm sure, but I don't see any constitutional right being violated by a rape.. Possibly the 14th amendment, but that would be a stretch.

Look at amendment 18. Prohibition. It was passed because of a very vocal minority opposed to drinking. It was repealed 14 years later, but it did pass. You can't tell me that didn't make life hard on a lot of people, plus helped bring the organized crime families to power.

Prohibition was what....almost 90 years ago?

We've evolved/matured since then. Give up that line of argument because it leads no where.

You're right...no direct Constitutional right is deprived of someone when they are raped. So yes, I did sort of mis-state that. Because the Constitution's only power is to protect the people from the government. However the laws and punishments of rape have been upheld by the Constitution and the case before the Supreme Court is just that. I expect that they will find in favor of Louisiana.

The 8th Amendment is what is in question here:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

If you know of anyone who has been a victim of child/sexual abuse/rape you know that in essence they fight their whole life to deal with the mental scars that it brought upon them. I know a few of these people. I for one, and expect that the court will find that capital punishment for such a crime wouldn't constitute 'cruel and unusual punishment'.

[goaliemn]

Originally Posted by sloth2946

We've evolved/matured since then. Give up that line of argument because it leads no where.

I won't give it up. Many states amended their constitution to ban gay marriage in the last 3-5 years. There are still people who will push the issue to that point on the federal level. Heck, the DOMA act was passed in 1996 at the federal level, which basically made it illegal for the federal government to recognize any marriage, other than that of a man and a woman.

The 8th Amendment is what is in question here:
If you know of anyone who has been a victim of child/sexual abuse/rape you know that in essence they fight their whole life to deal with the mental scars that it brought upon them. I know a few of these people. I for one, and expect that the court will find that capital punishment for such a crime wouldn't constitute 'cruel and unusual punishment'.

if you're saying the victims 8th amendment rights were violated, they were not. The government didn't inflict the act. A private person did and the constitution only applies to the government and its actions.

I don't know how a court would rule on some of the punishments talked about on here. I know, in the past, some states have thought about using inmates as medical guinea pigs and it always has been shot down by the courts. They can't say one punishment is cruel and unusual for one class of criminal, but ok for another. That could be a 14th amendment violation. Of course IANAL.

Part of me likes the exile idea. Find an island out aways, drop off food and supplies every now and then, and they rule themselves. They have proven they can't live in society, and we would provide the basics for survival. They would have their own society and pecking order to deal with.

[sloth2946]

Originally Posted by goaliemn

I won't give it up. Many states amended their constitution to ban gay marriage in the last 3-5 years. There are still people who will push the issue to that point on the federal level. Heck, the DOMA act was passed in 1996 at the federal level, which basically made it illegal for the federal government to recognize any marriage, other than that of a man and a woman.

if you're saying the victims 8th amendment rights were violated, they were not. The government didn't inflict the act. A private person did and the constitution only applies to the government and its actions.

I don't know how a court would rule on some of the punishments talked about on here. I know, in the past, some states have thought about using inmates as medical guinea pigs and it always has been shot down by the courts. They can't say one punishment is cruel and unusual for one class of criminal, but ok for another. That could be a 14th amendment violation. Of course IANAL.

Part of me likes the exile idea. Find an island out aways, drop off food and supplies every now and then, and they rule themselves. They have proven they can't live in society, and we would provide the basics for survival. They would have their own society and pecking order to deal with.

I'm not opposed to your solution. In so much as medical experiments, make it voluntary. They get to choose to give something back to this world, or either Survivor Island or a 9mm slug to the brain stem.

I figure the ultra liberals would claim that survivor island would be deemed cruel and unusual.

Oh and I wasn't saying that a victim's 8th Amendment rights are violated, rather that the violator should be subject to just about any punishment imaginable that is deemed fit.

The gay marriage laws are again, a red herring. I disagree with them, but you still have the option to go to places where they don't have them or don't enforce them.

[goaliemn]

Originally Posted by sloth2946

Oh and I wasn't saying that a victim's 8th Amendment rights are violated, rather that the violator should be subject to just about any punishment imaginable that is deemed fit.

there's the rub.. most punishments that people consider fit would run into court challenges.

The gay marriage laws are again, a red herring. I disagree with them, but you still have the option to go to places where they don't have them or don't enforce them.

At a state level, I agree 100%. If a state you're in passes a law you don't like, move to another state. Its not an easy choice, but its something you can do, logistically, easily. At the federal level, I don't agree. If its passed at the federal level, its much harder to move to another country. It may open up some asylum options, but still much more difficult.

I was using the state examples mainly to show that even tho prohibition was 70+ years ago, stuff still does happen today. Its happened to state constitutions, there was the DOMA act passed a few years ago, and US constitutional amendments have been brought up, but haven't had enough votes to move forward.

[Grizz Goal]

From what ive heard, child pornographers and child rapists or anything to do with assaulting children, these guys when they go to jail catch hell for their crimes. Just look at the guy from Golden Earring, from what i heard, his butthole was sore for his entire stay there. So needless to say, i think just putting these guys in prison would probably serve them better than to make it punishable by the death penalty.

[MrMikeEMike]

Originally Posted by Grizz Goal

From what ive heard, child pornographers and child rapists or anything to do with assaulting children, these guys when they go to jail catch hell for their crimes. Just look at the guy from Golden Earring, from what i heard, his butthole was sore for his entire stay there. So needless to say, i think just putting these guys in prison would probably serve them better than to make it punishable by the death penalty.

Leads to my other point of the adapted 'scarlett letter' for child-related criminals being labeled to make them stand out in prison.

[gophergirl]

Originally Posted by soulpatch

yes we should. Becuase you were a victim at one time does not give you a get out of jail free card.



be interested to see the number of victims who then commit an act later......

In general, the research has shown that about 1/3 of victims report no "adverse affects" from the abuse, 1/3 report mild to moderate affects of the abuse, and 1/3 of those report major life adjustment issues due to the abuse.

What research is finding out that a lot of the effects of abuse really has to the child's reporting of the the abuse.

In general, the number that goes on to become abusers is relatively small- and there really isn't a consensus as to what the real number is.

One interesting note is that only about 40% of offenders actually report being sexually abused as children. This could also be to an unwillingness to report being a victim. Or, it could be that the perpetrator has experienced extensive abuse, but not necessarily that of a sexual nature.

In addition, about 1/3 of all perpetrators are minors- under the age of 18. While this group has far fewer victims than an adult perpetrator, how do you propose to deal with this group? Do you go with a treatment approach (affective for juveniles), or do you just lump them in with the rest of them?

Child abuse and perpetrators are not a homogeneous group- there is no "one stop shopping" for the answers to this one.

And after working with both juvenile and adult sex offenders, many have fantasies about killing their victims but stop due to the potential murder charge. Knowing that children often do not reveal that they have been abused, most are willing to just let their victim go. In addition, many victims are abused several times by the same offender.

Truthfully, I believe that many juvenile sex offenders can be rehabilitated. I'm not as optimistic with adults, though. I do like the sexual predator statues which allows for a mental health commitment for sexually dangerous persons.

[Timberwoof]

Gophergirl, thanks for providing some real data for people to think about. As usual, the issue is not as cur-and-dried as people would like. (Why is it that reality is left-biased?)

[sloth2946]

Originally Posted by Timberwoof

Gophergirl, thanks for providing some real data for people to think about. As usual, the issue is not as cur-and-dried as people would like. (Why is it that reality is left-biased?)

You never answered my question so I will pose it again.

When an adult victimizes a child, who is to blame?

Still waiting.

[DeuceNine]

Originally Posted by Timberwoof

I stand by my comparison. Suggestions for ways to deal with rapists included putting them into prisons where other inmates can beat them up and **** them, using them for medical experiments, and just killing them outright. In early debates on Iraq and the use of torture, a concept that was often used was "at least we treat them better than Saddam did!" But if you do any of that stuff, you lose the ability to say that you're any better than those tyrants, because those are the tactics of tyrants.

Location: San Francisco, CA

Nuff said.

Reality isn't left-biased. Utopianism is.

[Timberwoof]

Originally Posted by sloth2946

You never answered my question so I will pose it again.

When an adult victimizes a child, who is to blame?

Still waiting.

You don't actually care about my answer. You've stated many times that you just want to brutalize or kill certain classes of criminals; you're a monster. I don't have to discuss anything with you.

Okay, all right, you're about to fire off some insulting flame about what you think this "obviously" means about my beliefs in this matter, so I'll tell you: It depends.

First off, the adult is to blame[1]. People should know better than to brutalize children, and they should, instead of doing that, suppress their desires or urges or seek help.

Second, whatever's wrong with society that it damages people to do this is also to blame. Now based on the amount of binary thinking I've seen here lately, I can understand how the concept of shared blame might be new to some. This is the idea that blame for some event need not fall exclusively on one person ... more than one person might be responsible for the same evil.

I once read a book about mass murders and serial murderers. Each chapter was about a different one. The book detailed the crime, the murderer's background, and the results. It struck me that the sections on the criminals' backgrounds all read pretty much the same: they were emotionally and physically abused by their parents or others and shared certain psychological traits, usually sociopathy. It seemed pretty clear to me that people should stop beating their kids ... and stop bullying weaker kids. The attitude, "Oh, waaah. You got beaten up by your parents and you got bullied when you were a kid. Suck it up, be a man, check yourself in to a mental hospial," isn't going to solve the problem. Brutalizing and murdering them isn't going to solve it either.

Have I provided the politically correct answer?

[1] Fer chrissakes! What answer did you think I was going to come up with? No, I don't want to know. You've already described, several times, in graphic detail, what brutal treatment you recommend for some people, and, as though it would turn opinion into fact, repeated your opinion, several times.

[Timberwoof]

Originally Posted by gophergirl

IOne interesting note is that only about 40% of offenders actually report being sexually abused as children. This could also be to an unwillingness to report being a victim. Or, it could be that the perpetrator has experienced extensive abuse, but not necessarily that of a sexual nature.

Is it possible that a victim of such abuse might consider it normal behavior and, convinced that he deserves that treatment, does not call it abuse? One understandable[1] outcome of such thinking would be the willingness to dish it out to others as a perfectly reasonable way to discipline them.


[1] By which I mean, of course, that I understand it, not that I approve of it.

[sloth2946]

Originally Posted by Timberwoof

You don't actually care about my answer. You've stated many times that you just want to brutalize or kill certain classes of criminals; you're a monster. I don't have to discuss anything with you.

Okay, all right, you're about to fire off some insulting flame about what you think this "obviously" means about my beliefs in this matter, so I'll tell you: It depends.

First off, the adult is to blame[1]. People should know better than to brutalize children, and they should, instead of doing that, suppress their desires or urges or seek help.

Second, whatever's wrong with society that it damages people to do this is also to blame. Now based on the amount of binary thinking I've seen here lately, I can understand how the concept of shared blame might be new to some. This is the idea that blame for some event need not fall exclusively on one person ... more than one person might be responsible for the same evil.

I once read a book about mass murders and serial murderers. Each chapter was about a different one. The book detailed the crime, the murderer's background, and the results. It struck me that the sections on the criminals' backgrounds all read pretty much the same: they were emotionally and physically abused by their parents or others and shared certain psychological traits, usually sociopathy. It seemed pretty clear to me that people should stop beating their kids ... and stop bullying weaker kids. The attitude, "Oh, waaah. You got beaten up by your parents and you got bullied when you were a kid. Suck it up, be a man, check yourself in to a mental hospial," isn't going to solve the problem. Brutalizing and murdering them isn't going to solve it either.

Have I provided the politically correct answer?

[1] Fer chrissakes! What answer did you think I was going to come up with? No, I don't want to know. You've already described, several times, in graphic detail, what brutal treatment you recommend for some people, and, as though it would turn opinion into fact, repeated your opinion, several times.

The answer to my question is simple. The adult. Period. And I do care about your answer because it says a lot about you that you'd blame society, and not the monster. See the next para for explanation.

And again, in your paragraph that starts with SECOND you again blame society for creating these monster, thus absolving the monster from his action because society creates it.

Society creates nothing. People CHOOSE to act and do things and more often then not, as indicated by Gopher's statistics you like, they CHOOSE to victimize children. Quit being an apologist and see these inhuman monsters for what they are and give them what they justly deserve.

[H_man2]

Originally Posted by soulpatch

stupid is running a red light or stealing some food because you are hungry. Stupid trying to use a fake license to get beer.

Raping a child is no where near as trivial a thing as a stupid offense.


Psychological problems are another thing to be argued. I am in the mindset that if you are that screwed up to rape a child then you have nothing good to give to humanity and should be put down. There is no recourse for you. no therapy. Nothing.

Who are you to state they will have nothing to contribute to humanity? There are too many variables to kill a potential advancement for humanity. What if they reform? What if they rid themselves of their negative thoughts, or eroticism? Anyone else with the same DNA, the same background, and life would have committed the same atrocious acts. Who are we to say there's no potential left?