Supreme Court Really Is Out of

[Bert 1,091]

I can not think of a worse crime but the highest court in the land doesn't seem to think its all that bad.

 

Link

[davebg 0]

I can not think of a worse crime but the highest court in the land doesn't seem to think its all that bad.

 

Link

Wow...oversimplify much?

 

Look...I think crimes against children are the worst of the worst. I also support the death penalty. However, there are many legal and practical issues to be considered when trying to apply the death penalty in cases of child rape. The two most significant issues IMO are:

 

1. Children are notoriously unreliable witnesses.

2. If rape of a child is deemed a capital crime, then we have actually created an incentive for the rapist to murder their victim.

[Bert 1,091]

Wow...oversimplify much?

1. Children are notoriously unreliable witnesses.

quote]

 

Funny, that is the same argument the Catholic priests have been making for decades.

 

It is simple. If a guys rams his c0ck into an 8 year old he deserves to die.

[davebg 0]

It is simple. If a guys rams his c0ck into an 8 year old he deserves to die.

Look, I'm not arguing against the notion that if a guy does that he deserves to die, but first you have to prove that he did that in a court of law.

 

Again, children are notoriously unreliable witnesses...especially in cases of abuse. In the very case before the SC the victim initally had gone along w/her stepfather's lie that it was some other guy who did it (that other guy was actually arrested for the crime, I believe.) Only after months had gone by and the story didn't add up did the child come forth w/the truth. How many child custody cases center around stories of abuse made up by the wife where the child is coached into going along w/it?

 

Also, as I said, if the penalty for raping a child is the same as for killing a child, then there is incentive for the criminal to murder the victim. It is much more difficult to prove a crime when there is no living victim/witness.

 

I'm not even going to get into the whole philosophical debate about whether or not the death penalty is "cruel and unusual punishment." Personally, I don't think that it is...I think that there are some crimes that warrant such punishment. However, the purpose behind the death penalty is twofold: to discourage someone from committing the crime in the first place and to ensure that if they do commit such a heinous act, that they are not able to ever do it again. In the case before the SC there is a very real possibility that enacting the death penalty would have the opposite effect...it would encourage even more heinous crimes, which would make a conviction less likely.

[davebg 0]

Funny, that is the same argument the Catholic priests have been making for decades.

There's a big difference between a civil suit where the defendant stands to lose money and a criminal case where the defendant stands to lose his life.

 

The fact that you make such a cavalier and asinine comparison just goes to show that you don't take this subject seriously (or you're just too ignorant of a person to be entrusted w/decisions more important than whether to grill burgers or chicken this weekend.)

[Bert 1,091]

There's a big difference between a civil suit where the defendant stands to lose money and a criminal case where the defendant stands to lose his life.

 

The fact that you make such a cavalier and asinine comparison just goes to show that you don't take this subject seriously (or you're just too ignorant of a person to be entrusted w/decisions more important than whether to grill burgers or chicken this weekend.)

 

I take it seriously. I love how you just assume rapists will become murderers if it becomes a capital crime. The comparison is not asinine. In the 40's, 50's and 60's children said they were being molested by Priests. The argument put forward by the Lawyers for the Priests and the Church was that "children are notoriously unreliable witnesses...especially in cases of abuse." Well fast forward three decades and low and behold it is discovered the kids. now adults, were telling the truth. And everybody is jumping around like this is some big new problem that needs to be addressed. Well if it had been addressed earlier and with force the problem would not have become as big as it has.

 

You assume if child molestation and rape are made a capital offense rapist and molesters will be come murderers.

 

I assume if child molesters and rapist get more than the current slap on the wrist there will be fewer child molesters and rapists.

 

That being said your points are valid and helps show that our legal system is far more screwed up and in need of repair than our medical system or livery services at Newark.

[Strike 3,979]

2. If rape of a child is deemed a capital crime, then we have actually created an incentive for the rapist to murder their victim.

 

Dave,

 

This isn't really a good reason to not impose the death penalty. First of all, you have to believe that the person is capable of murder. Certainly someone capable of raping a child may very well be capable of then murdering that same child but that's not definite. Second, the same rational could be applied to having a prison sentence for the same crime. In fact, I remember a case in Florida from a couple years ago where a child rapist killed a child after the rape because he didn't want to go to prison. He had been in prison for a previous child rape and didn't want to go back. So, using your reasoning we shouldn't put these guys in prison either? Maybe a nice little $20 speeding ticket would suffice? Surely no child rapist would commit murder over a ticket, right?

[NorthernVike 2,080]

It is simple. If a guys rams his c0ck into an 8 year old he deserves to die.

 

 

 

No, it is simple. If a guy rams his c0ck into an 8 year old he deserves to have it cut off and shoved up his own a$$.

[kutulu 1,551]

Richardson man becomes 16th Dallas County inmate cleared by DNA since 2001

 

[davebg 0]

Dave,

 

This isn't really a good reason to not impose the death penalty. First of all, you have to believe that the person is capable of murder. Certainly someone capable of raping a child may very well be capable of then murdering that same child but that's not definite. Second, the same rational could be applied to having a prison sentence for the same crime. In fact, I remember a case in Florida from a couple years ago where a child rapist killed a child after the rape because he didn't want to go to prison. He had been in prison for a previous child rape and didn't want to go back. So, using your reasoning we shouldn't put these guys in prison either? Maybe a nice little $20 speeding ticket would suffice? Surely no child rapist would commit murder over a ticket, right?

Again, I support the death penalty and would likely support it being applied in cases of child rape. I was merely trying to point out that it's a much more complicated issue than Bert was making it out to be and the fact that the SC is taking its time debating this topic and deliberating the case before them shows that they are using their heads, rather than emotions.

[Strike 3,979]

Richardson man becomes 16th Dallas County inmate cleared by DNA since 2001

 

 

Not really applicable IMO. I would never agree to the death sentence for someone based purely on the testimony of one witness. Given that you posted a case where DNA proved innocence, I assume that if DNA proved guilt you'd be ok with a harsh sentence?

[kutulu 1,551]

Not really applicable IMO.

 

Yeah well, you know, that's just like, your opinion, man.

[edjr 5,567]

Not really applicable IMO. I would never agree to the death sentence for someone based purely on the testimony of one witness. Given that you posted a case where DNA proved innocence, I assume that if DNA proved guilt you'd be ok with a harsh sentence?

 

[Bert 1,091]

I was merely trying to point out that it's a much more complicated issue than Bert was making it out to be and the fact that the SC is taking its time debating this topic and deliberating the case before them shows that they are using their heads, rather than emotions.

 

Just because the SC takes its time deliberating doesn't mean they are using there heads. How long did it take them to decide black people should have the same rights as white people?

[I have no idea what i'm doing 0]

So is the Death Penalty a deterrent or not? Seems like davebg is making the argument that it is while pro-Death Penalty folks are arguing against that idea.

[davebg 0]

So is the Death Penalty a deterrent or not? Seems like davebg is making the argument that it is while pro-Death Penalty folks are arguing against that idea.

That question has always been at the crux of the death penalty debate. The answer pretty much depends on which "expert" you ask. My support of the death penalty has always been grounded more in the notion that some crimes deserve to be punished with death and that we can all rest assured that the person in question will never committ that crime again, but that's a slightly different "deterrent" question than the one that I think you are asking.

 

In this particular case, I think that the death penalty would likely not be a deterrent when it comes to the rape of a child. I think that people who abuse children are doing so b/c they're sick focks. When it comes to such depraved acts, I do not believe the fear of punishment plays a factor in the criminal's mind...at least, not until after the crime has been committed. That's when (IMO) the thoughts of "well, I could get the death penalty for raping this kid, so I might as well kill the kid so there are no witnesses and I stand a better chance of not getting caught since the punishment would be the same" come into play.

[Isotopes 1]

It shouldn't matter if they are in touch or not. They should make their rulings based on law and not public opinion.

[kutulu 1,551]

Not really applicable IMO. I would never agree to the death sentence for someone based purely on the testimony of one witness. Given that you posted a case where DNA proved innocence, I assume that if DNA proved guilt you'd be ok with a harsh sentence?

 

 

How about 5 witnesses?

 

Kirk Bloodsworth was convicted in March of 1985 for the brutal killing and sexual assault of a nine year old girl. The victim was found dead in July of 1984. She had been strangled, raped, and beaten with a rock. Bloodsworth was arrested based on an anonymous call telling police that he was seen with the victim that day and an identification made by a witness from a police sketch that was based on the recollections of five eyewitnesses. At trial, all five witnesses testified that they had seen Bloodsworth with the victim. Also presented at trial was testimony that Bloodsworth had said that he had done something terrible that day that would affect his relationship with his wife. Additionally, he mentioned a bloody rock during the investigation. A shoe impression found near the victim matched his size.

 

This evidence was challenged in Bloodsworth's appeals, which asserted that the bloody rock was mentioned because the police showed him a rock during the interrogation. The incident he mentioned regarding his wife amounted to his failure to buy the food she had requested. Moreover, the police failed to inform the defense that there may have been another suspect. Bloodsworth's conviction was overturned by the appellate court and he was retried. This time, he was convicted and sentenced to two life terms, to run consecutively.

 

In 1992, the prosecution agreed to DNA testing to be performed by Forensic Science Associates. The victim's shorts and underwear, a stick found at the scene, and an autopsy slide were compared against the blood standards of the victim and Bloodsworth. Using PCR based DNA testing, FSA determined that the amount of spermatozoa on the slide was insufficient for testing. Testing on the panties excluded Bloodsworth. Replicate testing performed by the FBI yielded the same results.

 

Bloodsworth was released from prison in June 1993 and pardoned in December 1993. He had spent over eight years in prison, two of those years facing execution.

[Strike 3,979]

How about 5 witnesses?

 

I'd answer but since you chose not to answer my question regarding a situation where DNA evidence proved guilt instead of innocence I'll just pass.....

[kutulu 1,551]

I'd answer but since you chose not to answer my question regarding a situation where DNA evidence proved guilt instead of innocence I'll just pass.....

 

That's what I do.

 

Also, of course.

[gocolts 300]

This issue is one that the liberals of the geek club have changed my stance on. Unlike what some posters would have you believe, I open to discussions about issues, and in this case, my stance was actually changed. I don't think we should put anybody to death, mainly for reasons kutulu described.

 

I am in favor of making prison tougher though. How about life in prison with hard labor. Video tape this hard labor and make sure every kid that goes to high school see the tape of prisoners working hard labor camps. I think that would deter at least a few of these animals form doing such heinous crimes.

[kutulu 1,551]

This issue is one that the liberals of the geek club have changed my stance on. Unlike what some posters would have you believe, I open to discussions about issues, and in this case, my stance was actually changed. I don't think we should put anybody to death, mainly for reasons kutulu described.

 

I am in favor of making prison tougher though. How about life in prison with hard labor. Video tape this hard labor and make sure every kid that goes to high school see the tape of prisoners working hard labor camps. I think that would deter at least a few of these animals form doing such heinous crimes.

 

For the record, I have never stated where I stand on the issue, mainly cause I am unsure myself. On the one hand, someone like BTK deserves to die and I would be willing swing the axe myself, but then you read or see stories on TV of innocent people who after years on death row are found not to have committed the crime...you know a few at least slipped through the cracks, truthfully proclaiming their innocence. It's a tough nut.

[gocolts 300]

For the record, I have never stated where I stand on the issue, mainly cause I am unsure myself. On the one hand, someone like BTK deserves to die and I would be willing swing the axe myself, but then you read or see stories on TV of innocent people who after years on death row are found not to have committed the crime...you know a few at least slipped through the cracks, truthfully proclaiming their innocence. It's a tough nut.

I should have worded that differently. I didn't mean to imply your stance on this issue. Just that one of the big reasons my stance was changed was situations like the story you posted.

[kutulu 1,551]

I should have worded that differently. I didn't mean to imply your stance on this issue. Just that one of the big reasons my stance was changed was situations like the story you posted.

[GobbleDog 816]

That question has always been at the crux of the death penalty debate.

 

No it's not. The death penalty is not a deterent and comparisons of states with capital punishment and those without shows no difference in homoside rates. Which really isn't suprising because how many killers really think ... "gee, I'd commit murder, but this state has that dang death penalty. I'd do it if it was only life-in-prison with no parole, but that death penalty is just too much."

 

Gimme a break.

[Bert 1,091]

No it's not. The death penalty is not a deterent and comparisons of states with capital punishment and those without shows no difference in homoside rates. Which really isn't suprising because how many killers really think ... "gee, I'd commit murder, but this state has that dang death penalty. I'd do it if it was only life-in-prison with no parole, but that death penalty is just too much."

 

Gimme a break.

 

Since prison is also not a deterent do you advocate no punishment for criminal activity?

[Toro 1]

No it's not. The death penalty is not a deterent and comparisons of states with capital punishment and those without shows no difference in homoside rates. Which really isn't suprising because how many killers really think ... "gee, I'd commit murder, but this state has that dang death penalty. I'd do it if it was only life-in-prison with no parole, but that death penalty is just too much."

 

Gimme a break.

 

You are right. The death penalty, in it's current forms, does not deter. Bring back old sparky and public hangings and then let's look at the stats.

[GobbleDog 816]

Since prison is also not a deterent do you advocate no punishment for criminal activity?

 

Of course not. But "deterent factor" shouldn't be touted as a benfit of the death penalty. The only benefit the death penalty has is it compensates the victim and victim's families. That's it. Unfortunately that one benefit isn't nearly enough to make up for all the problems that go along with it. Problems such as: too damn expensive, executing innocent people, devaluing human life, government sanctioned killing of citizens, more innocent families destroyed, cruel punishment (turning people insane), etc.

 

I know lot of those son's of b*tches probably deserve it. But it just ain't worf it. The ONLY time I can think of where capital punishment might be appropriate would be in rare cases involving national security such as spying or treason where even in prison the person could comprimise national security.