Should rapists who rape a child be put to death?

[CFLarsen]

<yawn>

Yes, Claus, prisoners who get life without parole appeal. Almost everyone who gets a stiff sentence appeals, hoping that sentence is reduced. In the case of a condemned criminal, the appeal hopes to get the death sentence reduced - yes, R-E-D-U-C-E-D - to life without parole. Get the picture?

But then you knew all this anyway, didn't you? You're simply being an ass...

I'm merely going with what your argument is. You said earlier:

Of course a punishment ends with death, but bringing that death forward is the punishment. And the endless appeals from those on death row seem to imply the prisoners consider it a worse punishment than life without parole.

Since all kinds of prisoners seek to reduce their sentence, that's not a sound argument in favor of killing prisoners.

Do you have any comments to chulbert's post #86?

 

[Ian Osborne]

Since all kinds of prisoners seek to reduce their sentence, that's not a sound argument in favor of killing prisoners.

I am not pro-death penalty and advanced no argument in favour of killing prisoners. I merely stated that the death sentence is a punishment.

Do you have any comments to chulbert's post #86?

See Rufo's post #88, which I endorsed in post #89.

 

[CFLarsen]

I am not pro-death penalty and advanced no argument in favour of killing prisoners. I merely stated that the death sentence is a punishment.

See Rufo's post #88, which I endorsed in post #89.

They don't need to be aware they are being punished?

But then, you are not punishing them. Then, you are giving the victims (or the relatives to murdered victims) the good experience of knowing that the criminals don't have good experiences - or bad, for that matter.

That's a whole different issue than punishment.

If criminals don't need to be aware they are being punished, why send people to jail?

 

[Ian Osborne]

You don't think a premature death is a bad thing?

And if you can't - or pretend you can't - see how your post implies this, ask someone else to explain it to you, as I really couldn't be bothered.

 

[CFLarsen]

You don't think a premature death is a bad thing?

It makes no difference if you are dead.

If it doesn't matter if the criminal is aware he is being punished, then it isn't a question of punishment, then. It's a question of revenge.

Two very different things.

 

[Rufo]

They don't need to be aware they are being punished?

But then, you are not punishing them. Then, you are giving the victims (or the relatives to murdered victims) the good experience of knowing that the criminals don't have good experiences - or bad, for that matter.

That's a whole different issue than punishment.

Ah, but then you are taking the whole issue one step too far by speculating about the purposes of the execution. Who said the victims will know the criminals are executed?

Granted, in reality they do, and in reality the purpose of capital punishment is indeed often revenge. Which is a failure of society in my opinion. But we are being theoretical here. I never talked about punishment having anything to do with the victims of the crime, so why bring it up?

If you are not satisfied with my definition of punishment, what is your definition of punishment? It's all totally semantics anyway.

 

[zooterkin]

It makes no difference if you are dead.

If it doesn't matter if the criminal is aware he is being punished, then it isn't a question of punishment, then. It's a question of revenge.

They are not aware of anything once they are dead, which is what was being referred to. No-one was saying that they would not be aware that they were being killed.

Do you really not see that having your life ended prematurely is a punishment, even if you don't experience anything further once it has happened?

As well as being a punishment, it is meant to have a deterrent effect.


ETA: Ok, on re-reading Rufo in post 88, perhaps he is saying that the criminal should be executed without being told that is going to happen. That's another question, and a policy I'd object to on several grounds (apart from simply being opposed to the death penalty in general).

I still think that there is some semantic confusion about exactly what it is people are aware of.

 

[fuelair]

Has any lawyer chimed in yet ? If yes, I suppose he must have explained why maximum sentences for sub-maximum crimes is a bad idea. Since a rape victim is perfectly possible to go on and live a happy life, rape is a submaximal crime.

If the lawyer wishes to make that argument, someone (me for example) should be able to counter with any number of cases where the rape victim does not go on to live a happy life, due to the effects/after-effects of the rape , and then have the lawyer locked up with bubba and see if he/she still says the same thing some days later. Sort of like my feeling on any judge who says the average teacher must accept uncontrollably violent kids in a classroom (the judge should be required to be the direct, up close and personal guardian of such child for a year). Justice without direct experience - or the ability to learn well from indirect experience is not justice.

 

[CFLarsen]

Ah, but then you are taking the whole issue one step too far by speculating about the purposes of the execution. Who said the victims will know the criminals are executed?

Granted, in reality they do, and in reality the purpose of capital punishment is indeed often revenge. Which is a failure of society in my opinion. But we are being theoretical here. I never talked about punishment having anything to do with the victims of the crime, so why bring it up?

If you are not satisfied with my definition of punishment, what is your definition of punishment? It's all totally semantics anyway.

It is hardly semantics anymore when you start killing people.

They are not aware of anything once they are dead, which is what was being referred to. No-one was saying that they would not be aware that they were being killed.

Do you really not see that having your life ended prematurely is a punishment, even if you don't experience anything further once it has happened?

As well as being a punishment, it is meant to have a deterrent effect.

In which case, if you really want to punish those criminals, you should make their execution as painful as possible.

 

[Cainkane1]

I actually know of a woman who was raped and strangled and left for dead when she was 5 years old. She was injured so badly that she was never able to have children of her own. Her assailant was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 30 years. Thirty years rolled by and she went before the parole board and brought her medical records showing her injuries caused by the assault with her and showed them to the parole board. He was denied parole and had to wait another seven years before he was eligible again. Last I heard he was still in prison.

 

[zooterkin]

In which case, if you really want to punish those criminals, you should make their execution as painful as possible.

Really? Why?

Would you not regard it as a punishment to have your life cut short?

 

[Rufo]

It is hardly semantics anymore when you start killing people.

I think you misunderstood something here. I oppose death penalty. I think it's not practically possible to use it morally. I think there are a million reasons not to.

What we are debating is whether or not death penalty can be classified as a "punishment", not whether or not it's right. This is semantics. How do you define "punishment"?

 

[richardm]

How do you define "punishment"?

Oh god you are fearless

(either that or a glutton for punishment*.)

Edited to add: *By which I mean: you won't enjoy it.

 

[CFLarsen]

Really? Why?

Would you not regard it as a punishment to have your life cut short?

Of course. But think about it: For a limited time, I have to live with knowing I am not going to live anymore. After that - no more punishment.

So, in order for me to be punished more, I'll have to be kept alive longer. The longer incarceration, the longer punishment.

Which, in effect, is a life sentence.

So, following the logic that knowing that you will die is punishment...why not just keep people in jail for life? Why have the death penalty at all?

I think you misunderstood something here. I oppose death penalty. I think it's not practically possible to use it morally. I think there are a million reasons not to.

What we are debating is whether or not death penalty can be classified as a "punishment", not whether or not it's right. This is semantics. How do you define "punishment"?

I haven't seen any disagreement over what punishment is. Only if death is punishment.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Consider locked-in syndrome, the star of the latest film The Diving Bell And The Butterfly. Wouldn't a far worse punishment than death be something like being trapped in a small, pitch black room the size of a bed for seventy years?

Would you choose death over that? I would.

I can also guarantee you that people would find that more inhumane than the death penalty, which shows you how it isn't the ultimate horror.

People who think death or painful torture is the ultimate punishment have no imagination.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

While I like watching the busts on Dateline I have an ounce of sympathy for those idiots because let's face it, kids are growing up a lot faster than they used to and there's enticement going on. If you're asking me I'd set the bar at 12 but could be argued down to 9.

So if a man has a thing for girls who have just turned 13 years old, and manages to rape one, would you not have them then killed by the state?

But if a man has a thing for girls who are 12 years, 364 days old (People have strange fetishes), then they get put to death?

Looking at this rationally, and you are forced to conclude it isn't simply irrational, it is superfluous.

 

[Rufo]

I haven't seen any disagreement over what punishment is. Only if death is punishment.

I understand. However, I have seen disagreement over what punishment is - that's why I was asking the question. I'll clarify what I considered disagreement.

Part of my definition, with point of dispute bolded:

It seems the definition of a punishment used (at least by those who argue that death itself is no such thing) is to cause negative experiences to a subject. I disagree. I think it should be included in the definition of a punishment that it may consist of denying someone positive experiences, in addition to giving someone negative experiences. This means that no, since the subject does not necessarily have to know about the positive experiences which they are denied (the only purpose of that would be for them to have the negative experience of grieving over their loss), they do not need be aware they are being punished.

Part of your definition, with point of dispute bolded:

They don't need to be aware they are being punished?

But then, you are not punishing them. Then, you are giving the victims (or the relatives to murdered victims) the good experience of knowing that the criminals don't have good experiences - or bad, for that matter.

I am saying that a punishment does not necessarily require that the subject is aware of it. You are saying, I believe, that it does. Our definitions are different.

If you do not think our definitions are different, and what I pointed out does not constitute a difference between them, I would like you to provide your definition to clarify the debate anyway.

ETA: Ok, on re-reading Rufo in post 88, perhaps he is saying that the criminal should be executed without being told that is going to happen. That's another question, and a policy I'd object to on several grounds (apart from simply being opposed to the death penalty in general).

Seriously, although I'm repeating myself, can not stress this enough: I am opposed to the use of death penalty. No one should be executed, and even less so without being told that it is going to happen. I am discussing whether or not death penalty is a punishment or not, and how. My opinion is that death penalty is a punishment, not that it is a punishment that should be used, ever.

Oh god you are fearless

(either that or a glutton for punishment*.)

Edited to add: *By which I mean: you won't enjoy it.

Why? Is CFLarsen reluctant to give definitions or terms? In that case, I'm afraid I can't contribute more to that part of the debate.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Leave the death penalty up to the other inmates.

No.

That is not due process of law, that is a government sponsored lynch mob, if the government turns a blind eye to that or allows it.

As to rapists being eligible for the death penalty?

Yes. Some cases certainly warrant that sentence.

DR

 

[Thurkon]

Oh, I see, so while prisons aren't foolproof, the justice system is?

Did I say or imply it was?

I also stated if the guilt cannot be questioned. Hard evidence, perhaps DNA, or somesuch. The BTK killer, for example. Just kill him.

 

[Thurkon]

The Death Penalty is wrong under any circumstances.

Is death wrong under any circumstances? Any?

Death for killers and rapists could be thought of as an extension of self-defense for our society.