Death Penalty for rape

[Thumper]

Originally Posted by soulpatch

Then honestly you could not argue about costs since the same chance is available for both.

Sorry Patchie, nothing personal.

But that has got to be the dumbest thing that I have ever read.....................

[kevinsane]

Originally Posted by sloth2946

Considering the mental and psychological damage that happens to people who are abused/raped/victimized as a child and how it cascades into every facet of their life from that point forward, I'd say they have essentially killed that person as they can mostly never make a full recovery without the scars that the abuse has done to them. I wonder what the suicide rate is amongst those who were victimized as children...that should be a telling sign as to how badly this affects them and how putting the perpetrator to death is an equal and fair punishment.

I can speak to that, as a survivor of sexual abuse. Perpetrators get light sentences because the crime is "non-violent". Tell that to a 47 year old man who still has nightmares because his offender was never caught. I'm a good and decent man, with a great family and wonderful friends, but the kid I was is dead, and stayed dead from aged 12 to age 41. Despite the therapy, the support, and the passing of time, the fact that they still live every day means part of you dies every day.
It took me three decades to really move past being a victim to a survivor and an advocate. I love my life now, but I still wonder who I had a chance to be, before...

I can't forgive my abuser, and yes, I'd kill him in a heartbeat, because studies PROVE these guys never change.

[soulpatch]

Originally Posted by Thumper

Sorry Patchie, nothing personal.

But that has got to be the dumbest thing that I have ever read.....................

why. You argued about costs of the appeals process yet those serving life would have the same ability to appeal as many times as those on death row. Sure the arguement could be made that appeals are taken more in the death cases BUT those serving life get as many chances.

[Thumper]

Originally Posted by soulpatch

Then honestly you could not argue about costs since the same chance is available for both.

Originally Posted by soulpatch

You argued about costs of the appeals process yet those serving life would have the same ability to appeal as many times as those on death row.

I will try to explain this one more time, but I think the disconnect here stems from the fact that you do not understand that an appeal is NOT guaranteed, except in the event of a Death Penalty case.

Firstly, you most certainly can argue and compare costs.

They are what they are.

I provided a link which is basically a clearinghouse for hundreds of studies with hard data comparing the end costs of trying Death Penalty cases vs. Life cases. You either didn't read any of it, or chose to ignore it.


Secondly, your assertion that Death Penalty and Life cases have the same chance for an equal number of appeals/trials is absolutely false.

This is an example from personal experience:

A little over a year ago, I served on a Jury for a Capital Murder trial. The DA chose to try the case with a penalty of Life Imprisonment.

It could have just as easily been tried as a Death Penalty case (1 count murder, 2 counts attempted murder with a number of aggravating factors) but the DA chose different.

Now, with the penalty being Life Imprisonment, how many trials/appeals was the defendant guaranteed ?

ONE

Guilt Phase w/ sentencing by the Judge

Had the DA chosen to make this a Death Penalty case, how many trials/appeals would the defendant been guaranteed ?

THREE

Guilt Phase, Penalty Phase and Guaranteed Appeal


So your claims that costs cannot be compared, and the same number of trials/appeals are available for both circumstances are incorrect.


C'mon Patch, you're usually brighter than this..............................

[guitargoalie]

For Timber......


The world is full of cemeteries filled with people who thought life couldn't go on without them.

[Timberwoof]

It would probably be mildly entertaining and maybe even good for some laughs to read what people think I think, despite what I have said I think. But it's uncomfortable in this tight, oddly-shaped box that I've been crammed into without any good reason. (Bad reasons are that people seem to have predefined notions about what others should think politically, and since I don't fit those, I get crammed into the nearest pigeonhole. Ouch! That hurts!)

guitargoalie, I'm sure there's some deep philosophical meaning hidden in that wise-sounding statement, but for fear of getting it just as wrong as people commonly misapprehend me, I'll just let you explain yourself.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Timberwoof

It would probably be mildly entertaining and maybe even good for some laughs to read what people think I think, despite what I have said I think. But it's uncomfortable in this tight, oddly-shaped box that I've been crammed into without any good reason. (Bad reasons are that people seem to have predefined notions about what others should think politically, and since I don't fit those, I get crammed into the nearest pigeonhole. Ouch! That hurts!)

guitargoalie, I'm sure there's some deep philosophical meaning hidden in that wise-sounding statement, but for fear of getting it just as wrong as people commonly misapprehend me, I'll just let you explain yourself.

The thing is how are people supposed to know what you think when you make a statement like this "
The solution is to consider why people actually behave the way they do, and adjust society in a way that minimizes the sorts of situations that damage people into becoming criminals."

What does this mean?? How can you "adjust" society?

Are you blaming society for people being abused that go on to become abusers?

Are you saying that society promotes or allows this??

The only thing I could understand is if you thought more could be done through social/child services (or whatever is called in the US).

Even still there are many offenders who are never abused. They are just sick mofo's that need to be removed from society.

[Timberwoof]

Originally Posted by Huntster

The thing is how are people supposed to know what you think when you make a statement like this "
The solution is to consider why people actually behave the way they do, and adjust society in a way that minimizes the sorts of situations that damage people into becoming criminals."

What does this mean?? How can you "adjust" society?

Are you blaming society for people being abused that go on to become abusers?

Are you saying that society promotes or allows this??

The only thing I could understand is if you thought more could be done through social/child services (or whatever is called in the US).

Even still there are many offenders who are never abused. They are just sick mofo's that need to be removed from society.

Well, one thing is, instead of jumping to a delusion and accusing me of thinking in certain ways, you could ask me. It works like this: "Timberwoof, I'm not clear on something you wrote. It seems to me that you're suggesting that society promotes or allows people to be abused. Is that really what you mean?"

No, not consciously. But a lot of people have wrong ideas about human psychology, and based on those wrong ideas, they make wrong decisions in public policy and in how they raise their children. So if someone beats the crap out of his kid on a daily basis and that kid turns into a monster, he did a bad job raising that kid. Is the grown-up monster to be absolved of responsibility? Don't be absurd! What kind of monster do you take me for?

Now you asked, "How can you "adjust" society?" That's a fair question ... and one that theologians and politicians have been working on for thousands of years. You tell me: how did the Romans, with their love of blood-sports in the Coliseum, turn into the Italians, who are perhaps the world's leaders in protests against the death penalty? How did the US progress from one of the worst slave-states in modern times to one of the freest? Wouldn't you call that an adjustment?

Indeed, I never presented a person's bad upbringing as an excuse or absolution for his crimes. What I have said is that since it is recognized that people's upbringing affects their behavior later in life, perhaps we, as a society, should change the way we raise children. (That is, after all, what Sunday Schools, the Boy Scouts, child protective services, and such things are for, right?)

What do you think? Do you think the problem is intractable, and that the only answer is more violence against the violent?

Look, I'm all for discussing these issues in a polite and rational manner. And that means an end to assuming what other people think about something. Don't assume; ask!