SCOTUS knocks down death penalty for raping children - says it is not a "proportional punishment"

[Peikko 1,575]

There are several difficulties to using execution as a form of justice.

Who do we get to perform the exectution? We can't ask people to apply for the job and those who are assigned to it can and do suffer terribly - understandbly because killing someone when you are not insane/crazed/fired up with emotion is not an easy thing to do (something to do with the line between civilized and not so perhaps?)

Inocent people are convicted

There is no place for revenge in the Western criminal justice system

As for whether parents can sleep happy in their beds knowing that there is one less crazy rapist out on the streets - that's flawed logic if ever I saw it. Not everyone's first thoughts on learning of their child's torment and distress at the hands of a rapist are kill the perpetrator. It doesn't change the facts after the event, the child has still been hurt and who knows? Maybe the child will feel responsible for the death of another human being on top of their hurt? It's quite possible.

I totally agree with Alex on this one and I do have a child.

[Jack and Barbara 0]

That's true. From that frame of mind, it actually makes more sense to kill sex offenders than it does to kill murderers, since the homicide recidivism rate is much, much lower than the recidivism rate for sex offenses in general, and three times lower than recidivism for rape.

wouldn't the logic of raping the rapists apply here, not that I would agree with either that or executing them either.

[Peikko 1,575]

I think the idea there is that exectution is permant removal because 'once a rapist, always a rapist' rather than the 'eye for an eye' argument.

There is no reason however, not to keep rapists of children in jail for very, very long periods of time while at the same time putting some effort into looking at the medical reasons for these mental inbalances that lead some people to this type of behaviour.

[HAL 9000 96]

I think the idea there is that exectution is permant removal because 'once a rapist, always a rapist' rather than the 'eye for an eye' argument.

There is no reason however, not to keep rapists of children in jail for very, very long periods of time while at the same time putting some effort into looking at the medical reasons for these mental inbalances that lead some people to this type of behaviour.

This sounds interesting... but eerily reminiscient of Nazi-era experiments on Jews.

I guess the experiments could be innocent enough.

I do agree though. There should not be any possibility of parole for any truly convicted child rapist. One should not do that. I do not believe that killing them would solve anything beyond having a strange sense of revenge... but since the land is based on proportional punishments, then civil protection can only be served by putting these individuals away until they expire.

That must be absolute. Of course, the justice system could benefit from better procedural steps to ensure actual culpability as its no secret accusations should not be the sole reason for declaration of guilt.

[mybackpages 0]

Even in the US capital of executions- texas- this crime does not qualify as a capital offense. Neither does the murder of a child unless that child is uner the age of 6..

[Alex+R 0]

I think the idea there is that exectution is permant removal because 'once a rapist, always a rapist' rather than the 'eye for an eye' argument.

There is no reason however, not to keep rapists of children in jail for very, very long periods of time while at the same time putting some effort into looking at the medical reasons for these mental inbalances that lead some people to this type of behaviour.

This sounds interesting... but eerily reminiscient of Nazi-era experiments on Jews.

She didn't say the inmates themselves should be experimented on; she just said we should look into how to treat their mental illness while keeping them off the street.

I guess the experiments could be innocent enough.

I do agree though. There should not be any possibility of parole for any truly convicted child rapist. One should not do that. I do not believe that killing them would solve anything beyond having a strange sense of revenge... but since the land is based on proportional punishments, then civil protection can only be served by putting these individuals away until they expire.

That must be absolute. Of course, the justice system could benefit from better procedural steps to ensure actual culpability as its no secret accusations should not be the sole reason for declaration of guilt.

I think we need separate penal colonies for sex offenders, and within them, segregation between violent offenders and pedophiles. We should just cordon them off. I completely disagree with the way we handle sex offenses in this country. If you're telling me this person needs to register, and needs to come knock on my door and tell me they're a sex offender, then what are they doing on the streets? Either they're safe or they're not, make up your minds.

[HAL 9000 96]

I think the idea there is that exectution is permant removal because 'once a rapist, always a rapist' rather than the 'eye for an eye' argument.

There is no reason however, not to keep rapists of children in jail for very, very long periods of time while at the same time putting some effort into looking at the medical reasons for these mental inbalances that lead some people to this type of behaviour.

This sounds interesting... but eerily reminiscient of Nazi-era experiments on Jews.

She didn't say the inmates themselves should be experimented on; she just said we should look into how to treat their mental illness while keeping them off the street.

I guess the experiments could be innocent enough.

I do agree though. There should not be any possibility of parole for any truly convicted child rapist. One should not do that. I do not believe that killing them would solve anything beyond having a strange sense of revenge... but since the land is based on proportional punishments, then civil protection can only be served by putting these individuals away until they expire.

That must be absolute. Of course, the justice system could benefit from better procedural steps to ensure actual culpability as its no secret accusations should not be the sole reason for declaration of guilt.

I think we need separate penal colonies for sex offenders, and within them, segregation between violent offenders and pedophiles. We should just cordon them off. I completely disagree with the way we handle sex offenses in this country. If you're telling me this person needs to register, and needs to come knock on my door and tell me they're a sex offender, then what are they doing on the streets? Either they're safe or they're not, make up your minds.

I'd say that in order to investigate medical aspects you kind of need some kind of prime matter to experiment on... I also doubt she was advocating it and my example was only for example's sake.

I also think they should be completely removed from society- once proven to be an actual threat.

[almaty 19]

The supreme court acted justly...it is not a capital crime or should be

[Peikko 1,575]

I wasn't actually suggesting using prisoners as 'lab rats'. Apolgies for that confusion.

What's with the sex register thing? - well it might just have a lot to do with the fact that the sex register doesn't differentiate between different sexual crimes. There are registered sex offenders who were say 19 having sex with 17 year olds. I don't think that really comes out as some dangerous pervert who should never, ever be allowed out onto the streets again, mind you, I don't think those people should be kept permanantly on a register either.

[Dan J 277]

I think the idea there is that exectution is permant removal because 'once a rapist, always a rapist' rather than the 'eye for an eye' argument.

There is no reason however, not to keep rapists of children in jail for very, very long periods of time while at the same time putting some effort into looking at the medical reasons for these mental inbalances that lead some people to this type of behaviour.

This sounds interesting... but eerily reminiscient of Nazi-era experiments on Jews.

She didn't say the inmates themselves should be experimented on; she just said we should look into how to treat their mental illness while keeping them off the street.

I guess the experiments could be innocent enough.

I do agree though. There should not be any possibility of parole for any truly convicted child rapist. One should not do that. I do not believe that killing them would solve anything beyond having a strange sense of revenge... but since the land is based on proportional punishments, then civil protection can only be served by putting these individuals away until they expire.

That must be absolute. Of course, the justice system could benefit from better procedural steps to ensure actual culpability as its no secret accusations should not be the sole reason for declaration of guilt.

I think we need separate penal colonies for sex offenders, and within them, segregation between violent offenders and pedophiles. We should just cordon them off. I completely disagree with the way we handle sex offenses in this country. If you're telling me this person needs to register, and needs to come knock on my door and tell me they're a sex offender, then what are they doing on the streets? Either they're safe or they're not, make up your minds.

I'd say that in order to investigate medical aspects you kind of need some kind of prime matter to experiment on... I also doubt she was advocating it and my example was only for example's sake.

I also think they should be completely removed from society- once proven to be an actual threat.

I tend to agree with removal from society. If a person is a Registered Sex Offender, there is such a stigma attached to it, that finding a place to live, or getting a job is very difficult.

But I also don't think prison is a very good place to put these people either. Prisons here focus on punishment, not rehabilitation.

I think the best type of place would be something in between. A facility where they would be restricted too, that focuses more on treatment, and provides opportunities were the inmates can work or in some way contribute back to society.

But we do need to look at how a person gets labeled a sex offender too. Consentual sex between a 16 and 18 yr old does not mean the 18 yr old is a sex offender.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

I wasn't actually suggesting using prisoners as 'lab rats'. Apolgies for that confusion.

What's with the sex register thing? - well it might just have a lot to do with the fact that the sex register doesn't differentiate between different sexual crimes. There are registered sex offenders who were say 19 having sex with 17 year olds. I don't think that really comes out as some dangerous pervert who should never, ever be allowed out onto the streets again, mind you, I don't think those people should be kept permanantly on a register either.

unlikely scenario - see romeo and juliet laws.

[Peikko 1,575]

There are some cases where a younger girl has had sex with a not so old teenager and the male is put on the sex offences register. I have seen these cases on the TV so I know they happen

[Dan J 277]

I wasn't actually suggesting using prisoners as 'lab rats'. Apolgies for that confusion.

What's with the sex register thing? - well it might just have a lot to do with the fact that the sex register doesn't differentiate between different sexual crimes. There are registered sex offenders who were say 19 having sex with 17 year olds. I don't think that really comes out as some dangerous pervert who should never, ever be allowed out onto the streets again, mind you, I don't think those people should be kept permanantly on a register either.

unlikely scenario - see romeo and juliet laws.

Its happened. Though i think the law in that state has changed since.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=Wilson

[Peikko 1,575]

Also, flashers are registered sex offenders. Again, these people aren't as dangerous as say rapists.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

There are some cases where a younger girl has had sex with a not so old teenager and the male is put on the sex offences register. I have seen these cases on the TV so I know they happen

it can happen, but in your case above with 2 years age difference it's quite unusual. usually the romeo and juliet law applies when there is less than 4 years of age and the age of consent hasn't been met:

The problem typically arises when the male is 18 or 19, the female is between 14 and 16, and the parent of the younger teen presses charges. (Even Romeo would be labeled a sex offender today, as he was believed to be 16 and Juliet 13 when their relationship began.)

link

one guy who was removed:

Croce was 17 when he started having sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend, but her mother pressed charges after he turned 18. Croce pleaded no contest to lewd and lascivious behavior, which required him to register as a sex offender.

link