Supreme Court (Child rapists get to live)

[Mail5398]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Mail5398
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/....child.rape/index.html

I say don't worry about it. Remove special protection from these guys in prison and it will all work out in the end.

Rudder:

No need for the death penalty. Send him to prison and make sure he is put with the general population. Problem solved.

And I say you are two immoral people.

It's no secret that prison is full of people who were abused as kids. It just gives them an opportunity to work out their issues.

I thought your kind was all for that kind of stuff.

 

[Mail5398]

We better be careful what we type. All of the pedophiles will be on here defending their brothers.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: teiresias
Following this line of reasoning out to its conclusion I guess you figure someone that has enough repeat offenses on their record that they're in and out of prison for a majority of their lives should just be executed to save the country the trouble?

Better yet, everyone upon birth gets a "jail allowance", once you use up the time you're allotted to be in jail we just execute you because you're obviously not contributing anything to society by being in jail so often - regardless of your offense.

Yes. It sounds harsh, and it probably means that a couple of my friends would be facing execution (I know some good people), but I firmly believe that not all people are equal,

Depends in what sense. In some they are, in others they're not. There's the Christian message that all are sinners, all are valuable; there's the vast differences in behavior.

and not all people are worth "saving."

What does that mean? If it means not killing them, I disagree.

We spend tens of thousands per year per prisoner on people who are never going to be let out of prison. I would rather see that money go help a starving orphan in Africa. Why should we ignore the sick and dying in favor of someone who we objectively deem not fit for society just because s/he had the good fortune to be born here rather than there?

First, you are creating a false dilemma. In the trillions we spend, there is *zero* cause of money for starving orphans in Africa being unavailable because of prison for killers.

We can absolutely pay for jail for killers, AND pay for the starving orphans you want to pay for. There are a whole lot of areas money is spent.

Second, you appear not to be aware that the cost of the *minimal constitutionally required* court proceedings for an execution cost 3x times the life in prison costs.

So, *if* we are to believe what you wrote a moment ago, how it's all about freeing money for the orphans of Africa, then you *have* to oppose all executions now to free money.

I know it's naive, but I like to think of the world as a global community.

I do to, and don't think it's naive. I think that thinking otherwise is a distorted view.

I want to get along, all of us, working together to make life better for everyone.

Nifty. Killers are part of everyone, FYI.

If someone is clearly going to be a threat to others for the rest of their lives, I'd rather they die so that others have a chance to live.

You've convinced me - to not let them roam free as killers, at least for a long time.

But they're not some big threat to the public in prison, so your call for execution is not justified.

Life is not sacred just because we want it to be

It's sacred, IMO.

, and from any logical standpoint, there is nothing to be gained by paying to keep someone locked in a cage for 60 years.

1. A culture of human life being valuable, and not killing people

2. The million dollars saved on the capital punishment legal process mentioned above.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Mail5398

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Mail5398
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/....child.rape/index.html

I say don't worry about it. Remove special protection from these guys in prison and it will all work out in the end.

Rudder:

No need for the death penalty. Send him to prison and make sure he is put with the general population. Problem solved.

And I say you are two immoral people.

It's no secret that prison is full of people who were abused as kids. It just gives them an opportunity to work out their issues.

I thought your kind was all for that kind of stuff.

Your post is offensively idiotic. Don't wast my time, the readers' time, and your own time with idiocy.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Mail5398
We better be careful what we type. All of the pedophiles will be on here defending their brothers.

Because if you don't want someone to be killed or beaten to death by prison inmates, you must be defending pedophiles. How about calling it 'defending other human beings from vigilante murder'?

 

[Mail5398]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Mail5398
We better be careful what we type. All of the pedophiles will be on here defending their brothers.

Because if you don't want someone to be killed or beaten to death by prison inmates, you must be defending pedophiles. How about calling it 'defending other human beings from vigilante murder'?

Other human beings who like to molest little children. Depression and low self esteem get to accompany the victim for the rest of their lives. Considering the amount of suicide by victims, they would rather be dead.

 

[OrByte]

Obama doesn't agree with SCOTUS

One more thing I disagree with Obama on.

But I can't fault his reasoning. It all depends on where we decide to define the threshold. And if you have 100 different people in the room you may very well have 100 different opinions, unless of course those 100 people happen to be republican, in which case you will end up with only 1. 😛

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Mail5398

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Mail5398
We better be careful what we type. All of the pedophiles will be on here defending their brothers.

Because if you don't want someone to be killed or beaten to death by prison inmates, you must be defending pedophiles. How about calling it 'defending other human beings from vigilante murder'?

Other human beings who like to molest little children. Depression and low self esteem get to accompany the victim for the rest of their lives. Considering the amount of suicide by victims, they would rather be dead.

That's pretty presumptuous of you.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Yes. It sounds harsh, and it probably means that a couple of my friends would be facing execution (I know some good people), but I firmly believe that not all people are equal,

Depends in what sense. In some they are, in others they're not. There's the Christian message that all are sinners, all are valuable; there's the vast differences in behavior.

and not all people are worth "saving."

What does that mean? If it means not killing them, I disagree.

We spend tens of thousands per year per prisoner on people who are never going to be let out of prison. I would rather see that money go help a starving orphan in Africa. Why should we ignore the sick and dying in favor of someone who we objectively deem not fit for society just because s/he had the good fortune to be born here rather than there?

First, you are creating a false dilemma. In the trillions we spend, there is *zero* cause of money for starving orphans in Africa being unavailable because of prison for killers.

We can absolutely pay for jail for killers, AND pay for the starving orphans you want to pay for. There are a whole lot of areas money is spent.

Second, you appear not to be aware that the cost of the *minimal constitutionally required* court proceedings for an execution cost 3x times the life in prison costs.

So, *if* we are to believe what you wrote a moment ago, how it's all about freeing money for the orphans of Africa, then you *have* to oppose all executions now to free money.

I know it's naive, but I like to think of the world as a global community.

I do to, and don't think it's naive. I think that thinking otherwise is a distorted view.

I want to get along, all of us, working together to make life better for everyone.

Nifty. Killers are part of everyone, FYI.

If someone is clearly going to be a threat to others for the rest of their lives, I'd rather they die so that others have a chance to live.

You've convinced me - to not let them roam free as killers, at least for a long time.

But they're not some big threat to the public in prison, so your call for execution is not justified.

Life is not sacred just because we want it to be

It's sacred, IMO.

, and from any logical standpoint, there is nothing to be gained by paying to keep someone locked in a cage for 60 years.

1. A culture of human life being valuable, and not killing people

2. The million dollars saved on the capital punishment legal process mentioned above.

My view is not something that I could ever conceive being practiced in the real world. It is, if anything, a philosophical view set in a perfect utopian society, which obviously will never exist. You do raise a couple interesting points that I would like to address.

Budgeting: You are partially correct, in that you say that money for prisoners isn't taking away from our humanitarian efforts overseas. However, seeing as how we do have a limited budget, we should be critical of any expenditure of money; it should all be justifiable. I cannot find a justification for expending money to keep people incarcerated when it's clear they will never reform, never produce anything of value, and exist only as a net drain on the economy. If they are unable to live in society, they shouldn't. I don't mean they should be off in a box somewhere with a whole bunch of other people just like them who are unable to live together in peace, I mean they shouldn't live. It's cold-blooded, sure, but it was their choices that led them there, no one else's.

The cost: Right now, there is a huge cost involved with executing death row inmates, you are absolutely correct. But this is because we have deemed that we are going to expend such an amount on the defense, on appeals, etc. This is by no means set in stone. Am I saying we should do away with the appeals process? Absolutely not. But in a case where there is no doubt as to the guilt of the suspect (whether it is via confession, numerous eyewitnesses, video, etc.), I don't see the value gained from granting them millions of dollars worth of appeals any more than I see the value of paying to keep them in a cage for the rest of their life.

The value of human life: This is a social construct. Granted, we are biologically driven to keep our own genes alive, but that's as far as it extends. We have created a false belief that all human life is sacred. I don't believe that's inherently true. I believe that humans have a right to be alive, but if you cross certain lines (serial rape or murder, for example), you have sacrificed your right to live. Why should upstanding citizens pay to keep someone alive who has harmed good members of society? This is what I meant by "saving;" the idea that human life is inherently sacred and that even the basest criminal can be redeemed. It's a noble idea, and I wish it played out in the real world, but some people will never change, and we have to accept that.

Incidentally, lest I come off as a sociopath hellbent on murdering countless scores of "criminals," I'm focusing on the worst of the worst here. The career criminals who ruin the lives of other people. Serial rapists and mass murderers would be the primary groups who I feel simply cannot ever reform. I see no value in keeping them alive; they gave up that privilege when they devoted themselves to continually harming others.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Yes. It sounds harsh, and it probably means that a couple of my friends would be facing execution (I know some good people), but I firmly believe that not all people are equal,

Depends in what sense. In some they are, in others they're not. There's the Christian message that all are sinners, all are valuable; there's the vast differences in behavior.

and not all people are worth "saving."

What does that mean? If it means not killing them, I disagree.

We spend tens of thousands per year per prisoner on people who are never going to be let out of prison. I would rather see that money go help a starving orphan in Africa. Why should we ignore the sick and dying in favor of someone who we objectively deem not fit for society just because s/he had the good fortune to be born here rather than there?

First, you are creating a false dilemma. In the trillions we spend, there is *zero* cause of money for starving orphans in Africa being unavailable because of prison for killers.

We can absolutely pay for jail for killers, AND pay for the starving orphans you want to pay for. There are a whole lot of areas money is spent.

Second, you appear not to be aware that the cost of the *minimal constitutionally required* court proceedings for an execution cost 3x times the life in prison costs.

So, *if* we are to believe what you wrote a moment ago, how it's all about freeing money for the orphans of Africa, then you *have* to oppose all executions now to free money.

I know it's naive, but I like to think of the world as a global community.

I do to, and don't think it's naive. I think that thinking otherwise is a distorted view.

I want to get along, all of us, working together to make life better for everyone.

Nifty. Killers are part of everyone, FYI.

If someone is clearly going to be a threat to others for the rest of their lives, I'd rather they die so that others have a chance to live.

You've convinced me - to not let them roam free as killers, at least for a long time.

But they're not some big threat to the public in prison, so your call for execution is not justified.

Life is not sacred just because we want it to be

It's sacred, IMO.

, and from any logical standpoint, there is nothing to be gained by paying to keep someone locked in a cage for 60 years.

1. A culture of human life being valuable, and not killing people

2. The million dollars saved on the capital punishment legal process mentioned above.

My view is not something that I could ever conceive being practiced in the real world. It is, if anything, a philosophical view set in a perfect utopian society, which obviously will never exist. You do raise a couple interesting points that I would like to address.

Budgeting: You are partially correct, in that you say that money for prisoners isn't taking away from our humanitarian efforts overseas. However, seeing as how we do have a limited budget, we should be critical of any expenditure of money; it should all be justifiable. I cannot find a justification for expending money to keep people incarcerated when it's clear they will never reform, never produce anything of value, and exist only as a net drain on the economy. If they are unable to live in society, they shouldn't. I don't mean they should be off in a box somewhere with a whole bunch of other people just like them who are unable to live together in peace, I mean they shouldn't live. It's cold-blooded, sure, but it was their choices that led them there, no one else's.

The cost: Right now, there is a huge cost involved with executing death row inmates, you are absolutely correct. But this is because we have deemed that we are going to expend such an amount on the defense, on appeals, etc. This is by no means set in stone. Am I saying we should do away with the appeals process? Absolutely not. But in a case where there is no doubt as to the guilt of the suspect (whether it is via confession, numerous eyewitnesses, video, etc.), I don't see the value gained from granting them millions of dollars worth of appeals any more than I see the value of paying to keep them in a cage for the rest of their life.

The value of human life: This is a social construct. Granted, we are biologically driven to keep our own genes alive, but that's as far as it extends. We have created a false belief that all human life is sacred. I don't believe that's inherently true. I believe that humans have a right to be alive, but if you cross certain lines (serial rape or murder, for example), you have sacrificed your right to live. Why should upstanding citizens pay to keep someone alive who has harmed good members of society? This is what I meant by "saving;" the idea that human life is inherently sacred and that even the basest criminal can be redeemed. It's a noble idea, and I wish it played out in the real world, but some people will never change, and we have to accept that.

Incidentally, lest I come off as a sociopath hellbent on murdering countless scores of "criminals," I'm focusing on the worst of the worst here. The career criminals who ruin the lives of other people. Serial rapists and mass murderers would be the primary groups who I feel simply cannot ever reform. I see no value in keeping them alive; they gave up that privilege when they devoted themselves to continually harming others.

you are right about one thing...your view will never be practiced in the real world.
😛

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: OrByte
Obama doesn't agree with SCOTUS

One more thing I disagree with Obama on.

But I can't fault his reasoning.

I can. But I more fault his motivation which is to avoid looking like a soft liberal.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Skitzer

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Somehow I feel this should be a state decision. While I can see how some child rapists should be executed I can see how some should not. This should be determined on a case by case basis. This isn't something that a blanket solution like this will solve.

QFT Much agree!

I don't agree.

SCOTUS is saying that capital punishment should only be on the table in crimes where human life is lost.

Determining whether one child rape is more heinous than another is stupid when I believe all child rape (or rape for that matter) is equally heinous. Essentially that is what would happen if courts were to decide on a "case by case" basis.

Those convicted of such brutal crimes should rot in a cell for the rest of their life.

would you want a 20 year old man executed for having consensual sex with a 15 year old young woman? in the eyes of the law that is rape of a child.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Kennedy was convicted of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter in her bed. The attack caused internal injuries and bleeding to the child, requiring extensive surgery, as well as severe emotional trauma, Louisiana prosecutors said.

Rape and maiming do not count? The only solace I get is in knowing full well we cannot continue to afford this sort of policy of paying the way for animals that do not respect the sanctity of life.

It might work if we start to ONLY jail violent criminals instead of everyone + dog, but if this decision leads to him/those like him ever being released and hurting another person - the blood of the innocent is on the supreme court?s hands and it is treason to betray the safety of our people.

The court found that he did not intend on killing her. The fact that she required surgery is irrelevant. Even if she had died from the trauma it still wouldn't have been murder.

How is the court saying that they cannot be executed betraying the safety of the people? They didn't say that they can't be put in jail for the rest of their lives. They just said they can't be executed when no one has been killed by intentional action.

Actually that's not true. It might not have been first degree murder, but it definitely would have been felony murder. (which is eligible for the death penalty)

only capital murder (1st degree) is punishable by execution.

 

[Rhaze]

Originally posted by: Mail5398
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/....child.rape/index.html


I say don't worry about it. Remove special protection from these guys in prison and it will all work out in the end.

So.. just because I'm curious..

Do you have the urge to rape children.. and the only difference between you and them is the physical manifestion of that urge?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I heard on NPR that it would potentially put too much on the child victims shoulders if the case involves a relative, knowing that if they got their uncle, brother, cousin, etc convicted, they could potentially be put to death and subsequently may feel inclined not to say anything at all.
Life in prison works for me, better than letting the person go free because the victim is fearful of the potential punishment for a relative.
Do I think they should be put to death? Maybe, not my call, I checked my business card and it doesn't say "God' anywhere on it.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Kennedy was convicted of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter in her bed. The attack caused internal injuries and bleeding to the child, requiring extensive surgery, as well as severe emotional trauma, Louisiana prosecutors said.

Rape and maiming do not count? The only solace I get is in knowing full well we cannot continue to afford this sort of policy of paying the way for animals that do not respect the sanctity of life.

It might work if we start to ONLY jail violent criminals instead of everyone + dog, but if this decision leads to him/those like him ever being released and hurting another person - the blood of the innocent is on the supreme court?s hands and it is treason to betray the safety of our people.

The court found that he did not intend on killing her. The fact that she required surgery is irrelevant. Even if she had died from the trauma it still wouldn't have been murder.

How is the court saying that they cannot be executed betraying the safety of the people? They didn't say that they can't be put in jail for the rest of their lives. They just said they can't be executed when no one has been killed by intentional action.

Actually that's not true. It might not have been first degree murder, but it definitely would have been felony murder. (which is eligible for the death penalty)

only capital murder (1st degree) is punishable by execution.

depends on the state

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=144

Louisiana. First-degree murder; aggravated rape of victim under age 13; treason (La. R.S. 14:30, 14:42, and 14:113).

Florida. First-degree murder; felony murder; capital drug trafficking; capital sexual battery.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Skitzer

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Somehow I feel this should be a state decision. While I can see how some child rapists should be executed I can see how some should not. This should be determined on a case by case basis. This isn't something that a blanket solution like this will solve.

QFT Much agree!

I don't agree.

SCOTUS is saying that capital punishment should only be on the table in crimes where human life is lost.

Determining whether one child rape is more heinous than another is stupid when I believe all child rape (or rape for that matter) is equally heinous. Essentially that is what would happen if courts were to decide on a "case by case" basis.

Those convicted of such brutal crimes should rot in a cell for the rest of their life.

would you want a 20 year old man executed for having consensual sex with a 15 year old young woman? in the eyes of the law that is rape of a child.

Someone already tried that argument. Statutory Rape (which is what you are describing) is different than Rape.

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Kennedy was convicted of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter in her bed. The attack caused internal injuries and bleeding to the child, requiring extensive surgery, as well as severe emotional trauma, Louisiana prosecutors said.

Rape and maiming do not count? The only solace I get is in knowing full well we cannot continue to afford this sort of policy of paying the way for animals that do not respect the sanctity of life.

It might work if we start to ONLY jail violent criminals instead of everyone + dog, but if this decision leads to him/those like him ever being released and hurting another person - the blood of the innocent is on the supreme court?s hands and it is treason to betray the safety of our people.

The court found that he did not intend on killing her. The fact that she required surgery is irrelevant. Even if she had died from the trauma it still wouldn't have been murder.

How is the court saying that they cannot be executed betraying the safety of the people? They didn't say that they can't be put in jail for the rest of their lives. They just said they can't be executed when no one has been killed by intentional action.

Actually that's not true. It might not have been first degree murder, but it definitely would have been felony murder. (which is eligible for the death penalty)

only capital murder (1st degree) is punishable by execution.

depends on the state

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=144

Louisiana. First-degree murder; aggravated rape of victim under age 13; treason (La. R.S. 14:30, 14:42, and 14:113).

Florida. First-degree murder; felony murder; capital drug trafficking; capital sexual battery.

Mississippi. Capital murder; aircraft piracy.

😕

 

[halik]

killing someone for rape doesn't app up... one is a lot worse than the other.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Citrix

would you want a 20 year old man executed for having consensual sex with a 15 year old young woman? in the eyes of the law that is rape of a child.

Someone already tried that argument. Statutory Rape (which is what you are describing) is different than Rape.

OK, are you now making the sentence for a 20 year old man committing rape, not statutory rape, of a 15 year old female life in prison, rather than 3 years or 5 years etc.?

 

[Jmman]

I am a little confused. In the new case all over the news the uncle is being charged with a federal kidnapping charge, but he might get the death sentence for it. Doesn't that kind of go against this latest ruling?

OK, upon further research, it is a kidnapping that results in death as opposed to just kidnapping.......

 

[Cellulose]

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Kennedy was convicted of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter in her bed. The attack caused internal injuries and bleeding to the child, requiring extensive surgery, as well as severe emotional trauma, Louisiana prosecutors said.

Rape and maiming do not count? The only solace I get is in knowing full well we cannot continue to afford this sort of policy of paying the way for animals that do not respect the sanctity of life.

It might work if we start to ONLY jail violent criminals instead of everyone + dog, but if this decision leads to him/those like him ever being released and hurting another person - the blood of the innocent is on the supreme court?s hands and it is treason to betray the safety of our people.

The court found that he did not intend on killing her. The fact that she required surgery is irrelevant. Even if she had died from the trauma it still wouldn't have been murder.

How is the court saying that they cannot be executed betraying the safety of the people? They didn't say that they can't be put in jail for the rest of their lives. They just said they can't be executed when no one has been killed by intentional action.

Actually that's not true. It might not have been first degree murder, but it definitely would have been felony murder. (which is eligible for the death penalty)

only capital murder (1st degree) is punishable by execution.

depends on the state

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=144

Louisiana. First-degree murder; aggravated rape of victim under age 13; treason (La. R.S. 14:30, 14:42, and 14:113).

Florida. First-degree murder; felony murder; capital drug trafficking; capital sexual battery.

Mississippi. Capital murder; aircraft piracy.

😕

Example 🙂

Anyways, I agree that the DP should be scrapped all together, another step to improving the USA's global image.