Damn, Christians have the bloodlust! Kerry, you should take matters into your own hands and start killing rapists. Yeah, rapists. Please tell me why only child rapists deserve death and not "normal" rapists. Maybe it's because your definition of a person is unclear.... Hmm, maybe we shouldn't enter that discussion again as it makes your head hurt too much.

Kill this one, don't kill this one... You got some fucking weird ideas. Start with killin' all or not killin' how about that. Murder is murder, isn't it, oh holy one?

Only your silly God knows.

Hypocrite.

Before anyone gets in my face and whines:

"buuuuuuuuuuuuuut SSE, what is wrong with you, are you on drugs, we're talking about children!"

Yeah, I know, and I agree it's a fucking horrible crime!

Let me ask you though, who let you play God? Oh that's right, you did! To say you KNOW it is "right" to kill someone for one type of crime, no matter how evil it is, over another, is just plain guessing. You're playing God, and that ain't no laughing matter.

Why don't you go to your state's prisons and ask to be the lethal injector gal or the "throw the switch" gal. "GOD" knows you have the killer in you.

Actually agree with Kerry, I don't mind sending an added message to criminals to stay away from kids. Heck even criminals generally have a problem with pedophiles and take care of them swiftly in prison.

"Damn, Christians have the bloodlust! Kerry, you should take matters into your own hands and start killing rapists. Yeah, rapists. Please tell me why only child rapists deserve death and not "normal" rapists."

Actually, I think they all deserve capital punishment. But the Supreme Court had already ruled in 1977 in Coker v. Georgia that you can't impose the death penalty for the rape of an adult woman. States had, however not been prevented from imposing it for the rape of a child. Prior to this, the holding in Coker had been interpreted variously by state courts. It was not clear whether child rape was included in that prohibition.

"Maybe it's because your definition of a person is unclear.... Hmm, maybe we shouldn't enter that discussion again as it makes your head hurt too much."

No, it has nothing to do with "person." It has to do with the fact that this Court is moving ever closer to overturning Gregg v. Georgia (1976) which flat-out stated that the death penalty is NOT "cruel and unusual punishment."

"Kill this one, don't kill this one... You got some fucking weird ideas. Start with killin' all or not killin' how about that. Murder is murder, isn't it, oh holy one?"

Yes, murder is murder. But killing isn't murder.

"Let me ask you though, who let you play God?"

Well, in the case of the Supreme Court allowing individuals to commit murder (not just the state, as you think it is doing), Harry Blackmun and his crew did. When they decided that doctors can decide that an unborn child isn't worth the life that potentially beats within it.

"Actually agree with Kerry, I don't mind sending an added message to criminals to stay away from kids. Heck even criminals generally have a problem with pedophiles and take care of them swiftly in prison."

Thank you. Anyone with any human feeling should know that rape itself is a hideous crime--but rape of a child is not just rape. It is the violation of innocence and the utter ruination of a human life.

By the way, I have recently been talking to some prison guards I know, and as it turns out the pedophile hatred we have always heard about is no longer the case. Rather, in many cases now, pedophiles are welcomed because it is believed they will be willing participants in prison sex.

Don't ask me; I just report this stuff.

I still disagree with both of you. Murder is murder, either it's all wrong or it's all fair. If you're going to kill a person, no matter what acts they have committed, you run into all sorts of ethical and moral problems, contrary to how you think Kerry, I come to this conclusion WITHOUT a God or any supernatural element.

Again, I don't deny that the crime is hideous, I just question executions. I think they're barbaric and should be left in the past with the many other horrible acts that humans have done.

I don't mind sending an added message to criminals to stay away from kids.

ahmanrah, I'm disappointed in you. You are aware that executions and the death penalty are not successful deterrent to heinous criminal acts, right? I mean, proof?

Irrational people committing horrible acts don't really think things through.

Or, you could just look at the numerous violent offenders consistently in the prison system....

SSE,

Sorry, but there is just something about messing with kids I just can't stand. And I actually believe you steal more from a child when you kill or rape them, because they have just started life, and didn't get to enjoy much if it before some asshole really screwed it up for them.

Kind of the same way I feel about this country's real lack of value toward soldiers who in their late teens or early 20's get killed or suffer a life ruining wound. Most people think its enough to call them a hero, slap a medal on their chest and give them a few thousand bucks and call it good. Doesn't cut it for me.

I'm with ya, but taking that horrible person, and killin' em? That's the solution? Because you "can't stand" it, they need to die?

I understand a child may have a screwed up life after some traumatic event like this, but how do you just kill someone. What is the point of the death penalty? It doesn't help the criminal, cause he's dead, It doesn't help the kid, cause she/he has already had the trauma. Oh that's right, it helps the bloodthirsty crowd who are rightfully upset, but thinking irrationally. Exclamations of "That son of a bitch is going to burn in hell!" or "Kill him, he deserves to die for what he did!" are rightfully difficult to ignore.

Finally, put yourselves in my shoes, you think, "Oh no! Now we have to put all of these convicted offenders somewhere, we've got to find the space, get the money and continue to get the money to run prisons to hold these thugs. This worries me too, but I still can't see how the death penalty is the correct solution.

"I still disagree with both of you. Murder is murder, either it's all wrong or it's all fair. If you're going to kill a person, no matter what acts they have committed, you run into all sorts of ethical and moral problems, contrary to how you think Kerry, I come to this conclusion WITHOUT a God or any supernatural element."

Oh, I absolutely believe you. In fact, you can't come to that conclusion WITH God, because God distinguishes between murder and killing.

"Again, I don't deny that the crime is hideous, I just question executions. I think they're barbaric and should be left in the past with the many other horrible acts that humans have done."

So, you think the "barbarism" of execution outweighs the "hideousness" of child rape?

""I don't mind sending an added message to criminals to stay away from kids.""

"ahmanrah, I'm disappointed in you. You are aware that executions and the death penalty are not successful deterrent to heinous criminal acts, right? I mean, proof?"

And I disagree, because I don't think a deterrent result is required. I think it's important to the integrity of society to send the message, regardless of whether the rapists receive the message or not.

"Irrational people committing horrible acts don't really think things through."

What makes you think child rapists are "irrational?" This one wasn't. He had the presence of mind to craft an alibi. Or do you automatically assume that child rape is an "irrational" act? If so, why? Disgusting, sure. Immoral, absolutely. But "irrational?" Why?

And if that crime is automatically "irrational," why isn't ALL crime? In which case, how dare we punish anyone, since they are irrational and can't help it? (Or is it just that they're "irrational" and won't get the point?)

"Kind of the same way I feel about this country's real lack of value toward soldiers who in their late teens or early 20's get killed or suffer a life ruining wound. Most people think its enough to call them a hero, slap a medal on their chest and give them a few thousand bucks and call it good. Doesn't cut it for me."

It's NOT the same thing. Soldiers VOLUNTEER for service, knowing they could be injured or killed. Child rape victims--except in the eyes of the most dedicated NAMBLA pederasts--are NOT volunteers. They are not making a conscious choice to enter into the behavior that has the potential to ruin their lives. In fact, by law they cannot even do so.

"I'm with ya, but taking that horrible person, and killin' em? That's the solution? Because you "can't stand" it, they need to die?"

No, they need to die because they freely CHOSE to take the functional life of another human being. Such an act disqualifies you from the benefits of civilized society.

"I understand a child may have a screwed up life after some traumatic event like this, but how do you just kill someone."

Lethal injection. Doesn't hurt a bit.

"What is the point of the death penalty?"

To express the respect of society for the integrity of an individual innocent human being. To express the sense of society that it will not permit other individuals to violate that integrity without paying the ultimate penalty.

"It doesn't help the criminal, cause he's dead,"

And that's a good thing.

"It doesn't help the kid, cause she/he has already had the trauma."

No, you are wrong. It DOES help to know that the person you were violated by can never do it again, will never show up on your doorstep, and has been deprived of every good thing forever. It helps a lot.

"Oh that's right, it helps the bloodthirsty crowd who are rightfully upset, but thinking irrationally. Exclamations of "That son of a bitch is going to burn in hell!" or "Kill him, he deserves to die for what he did!" are rightfully difficult to ignore."

It has nothing to do with that. The law has to have meaning. If we make laws that we do not enforce, we might as well have none. If the individual in society has no security, no reassurance that anyone who violates him or her will be removed from society--then there is no point in having a society, and we might as well go back to the Hobbesian state of nature--"solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

"Finally, put yourselves in my shoes, you think, "Oh no! Now we have to put all of these convicted offenders somewhere, we've got to find the space, get the money and continue to get the money to run prisons to hold these thugs. This worries me too, but I still can't see how the death penalty is the correct solution."

The death penalty is the correct solution only if the society truly values the life of the innocent individual. If society is willing to treat people as part of some cost/benefit analysis, or treat them as a collective, or gives some people more rights than others, then there is no value in a death penalty, because the legal system becomes illegitimate in the first place, and no amount of punishment will help.

But if you have a system that values the individual and pledges to protect his inalienable rights, you must have an ultimate sanction for dealing with the violation of those rights. As long as it is possible that a child rapist could live out a sentence, move on in his life, and someday become a television talk show host (or, whatever--pick your positive life outcome), then the integrity of the violated child is at risk.

Imagine being violated by another person. Let's say (unlike in most rape cases--particularly date rape) that person is tried, convicted, and serves a sentence. After that point, our law says we have to treat them as though they are ordinary persons (except in jurisdictions where there are sex offender notification laws, which will surely be overturned if the current Court lasts another 5 years).

You, the violated person, have moved on in life. You are happy. You are well-adjusted. You have almost forgotten. You can almost trust people.

Then, without warning, one day your rapist turns up as your next door neighbor, or your professor, or your boss, or just a guy that you suddenly run into on the street. And there's nothing you can do about it.

Now you don't know when the next knock at the door will be him. When the shadow behind you will turn out to be him. When the voice on the phone will be him--or the mysterious hangup will be him trying to find out if you are home. You have no security. You have constant fear. It's not paranoia because you now know he really is out there somewhere. But it doesn't matter that you're not paranoid--because the fear itself is constant and crippling.

You are now the prisoner of your own life. You can't find a safe space, no matter where you go. Because he's out there. Somewhere. Waiting.

To attack you again.

And even if the rest of your life goes by and nothing ever happens, your life has been destroyed anyway because of the continuous free-floating anxiety and crippling fear that won't go away. While he moves on in life, carefree, in total control of his own life, without fear of being victimized, knowing the law will protect his rights, and content to have gotten away with taking YOUR innocence.

You think that's "justice?" That, actually, is how most rapes turn out because they are never reported, or the rapist is not convicted. But for those few where the rapist IS caught and convicted, doesn't society owe the victims a better outcome than the lifelong fear that the rapist will come back and do it again?

Better to permanently remove the rapist from the planet. Better for everyone--except the rapist. And that's just too bad for him. He should have thought of that before he destroyed a child's life.

Kerry,

Oh the solider thing, frankly I don't think most 18-20 year olds have a clue what they are getting into when they sign on the dotted line. Most have visions of glory, and honor in their heads, and probably like to shoot at things...but really don't know much more than that. Heck most of us don't know much more than that...and most of us never do, because the average person never has to watch their buddy explode before their eyes, or watch a 50 caliber bullet blow off their arm.

This is in fact one of the reasons I think we still have war, because young men don't have the knowledge to understand what their elders are sending them off to do.

SSE,

I in no way have a problem with your position. We just look at this particular situation differently.

No, they need to die because they freely CHOSE to take the functional life of another human being. Such an act disqualifies you from the benefits of civilized society.

hypothetical sit: what if the rapist was raped as a child and was disturbed by it. Do you still think he freely CHOSE to do what he did or was he disturbed from his previous experiences and somehow not fully responsible. Keep in mind, you've already justified killing someone because it ruins that childs life, now what happens when that disturbed child does the same thing, are they gonna be killed too? Tell me how that works...

All in all, the SC made the right decision, maybe some would like to see that person executed but since it's very hard to say for sure that's the right penalty, the person goes to jail. As for them being released, I am with you, they probably shouldn't, but I don't say kill em'just put em' in jail until their end.

A very clear usurpation of the 10th Amendment rights of the People of Louisiana.

This, like many other things the Supremes seem to wish to pole their noses into, is a very clear STATE ISSUE.

""No, they need to die because they freely CHOSE to take the functional life of another human being. Such an act disqualifies you from the benefits of civilized society.""

"hypothetical sit: what if the rapist was raped as a child and was disturbed by it."

There comes a time when, as an adult, you no longer have the right to blame your behavior on other people, even though they may be responsible for the way you feel. Behavior is CONTROLLABLE. If you cannot control your behavior, you should not be allowed any other right of adulthood.

"Do you still think he freely CHOSE to do what he did..."

Yes.

"...or was he disturbed from his previous experiences and somehow not fully responsible."

Even if you are "disturbed," you are still responsible for your behavior, unless you are judged to have diminished capacity--which is a defense, but does not serve to make you automatically innocent.

"Keep in mind, you've already justified killing someone because it ruins that childs life, now what happens when that disturbed child does the same thing, are they gonna be killed too? Tell me how that works..."

It works like this. If you rape a child, you die. If you rape a child and are acting under compulsion or diminished capacity, you MIGHT die. Those decisions are up to the jury. But the state should always have the option to offer the death penalty.

"All in all, the SC made the right decision, maybe some would like to see that person executed but since it's very hard to say for sure that's the right penalty, the person goes to jail. As for them being released, I am with you, they probably shouldn't, but I don't say kill em'just put em' in jail until their end."

But that's not the way it happens. They get out. And even while they are in, they are able to enjoy some semblance of a life, to get used to living in the total institution that is prison, to visit with friends and relatives, to become a lawyer, to write a book, to (in some cases) even win a Pulitzer prize. Meanwhile, the victim lives in fear that the rapist will get out, that someone else will rape them, that no one can be trusted, that the system doesn't work, that they can never have a relationship with anyone that will understand how they feel when someone touches them, or comes up behind them without warning, or talks to them in a certain tone of voice.

And then, when the rapist does get out, the victim can never feel safe. Never. Ever. Until the rapist is dead. And even then, the victim might not be able to believe it for quite a while.

Again I say, that's not *justice*.

"A very clear usurpation of the 10th Amendment rights of the People of Louisiana."

PRE-cisely.

"This, like many other things the Supremes seem to wish to pole their noses into, is a very clear STATE ISSUE."

And that's why we have to get the right people on the Court.

There comes a time when, as an adult, you no longer have the right to blame your behavior on other people, even though they may be responsible for the way you feel. Behavior is CONTROLLABLE.

If that were always true psychiatrists wouldn't exist. I would make exceptions regarding the death penalty for certain mental conditions, but that happens already anyway.

Ahmanrah,

Quite frankly, I think that people who CANNOT control their murderous (or, in this case, rapist) impulses should be first in line for the death penalty. I will concede that there should be allowances made for very young minors who are incapable of understanding their acts, but they should still be sent to a mental institution until the age of majority. However, adults who kill without remorse should be executed.

Kerry,

The problem is, if the person is insane, is it really their fault? God made them that way? So who do we really blame?

Or are you of the opinion that the insane can shed their insanity like you think homosexuals can?

"The problem is, if the person is insane, is it really their fault?"

That depends on what you mean by "fault." I do not believe there are adults who do not know right from wrong--there are, however, people who do not care.

"God made them that way?"

I know of no such case. Do we have proven cases of people who have been insane since birth?

"So who do we really blame?"

The person who committed the crime. The instrumentality of evil.

If a person cannot, regardless of consequence, refrain from doing evil, that person cannot be free to roam society. And if, in the opinion of the psychiatric community, they cannot be changed, they should be removed from this plane of existence.

The alternative is to give someone a free pass to commit whatever heinous acts they choose (or, in your assumption, are compelled) to engaged in. A civilized society cannot allow that to happen.

"I spent five years trying to reach him, and the next ten trying to keep him locked up."--Dr. Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasance) in John Carpenter's "Halloween," speaking of the psychopathic Michael Meyers.

But you can't "keep them locked up," can you? And for those we KNOW will only kill--or rape children--again, perhaps moving on to something worse, we should have the death penalty available to the state as a means of protecting society.