Obama says child rapists should be executed

[Babbylonian]

You are not being intellectually honest. Even if the convicted felon's crimes were on video tape along with their confession, you would not be in favor of executing them, so their guilt or innocence is not even your argument against the death penalty.

Where's my dishonesty? You're correct that I'm against the death penalty regardless of guilt or innocence. I personally find it barbaric. Still, one good, evidence-based reason for being against the death penalty is the possibility of innocence versus the finality of a death sentence. This, along with procedural concerns, is the reason for the long appeals process which death row inmates go through.

There are plenty of countries that manage to get by without a death penalty, and I hope that one day the United States reenters their ranks.

 

[Dr Adequate]

What is this agency that "locks up" child rapists after they complete their court ordered sentences? Why were they released from prison in the first place? Why are they not spending their life sentences where they were initially incarcerated? Having them spend their time in a half way house is not the same as maximum security.

If these already convicted offenders need to be incarcerated after they leave incarceration, why were they released, and if they are repeat offenders, why were they not executed as obama thinks they should be?

You still seem to be having baffling problems in comprehension.

What is this agency that "locks up" child rapists after they complete their court ordered sentences?

There is no such agency. Gdnp is proposing that there should be such an agency, not that there is.

Why were they released from prison in the first place?

People are released from prison when they've completed their sentences. Unless gdnp has his way.

Why are they not spending their life sentences where they were initially incarcerated?

This is a bizarre non sequitur with no relevance to the discussion. Why are who not spending their life sentences where they were intitially incarcerated? No-one has suggested moving the prisoners.

Nor, indeed, would gdnp's suggestion affect anyone serving a life sentence.

Having them spend their time in a half way house is not the same as maximum security.

This is also a bizarre non sequitur with no relevance to the discussion. No-one has suggested that a halfway house is the same as maximum security, nor indeed referred to halfway houses in any way.

If these already convicted offenders need to be incarcerated after they leave incarceration, why were they released ...

People are released from prison when they've completed their sentences. Unless gdnp has his way.

... and if they are repeat offenders, why were they not executed as obama thinks they should be..

Because, and this will astonish you, America is not governed by the power of Obama's thoughts.

Using the word "cured" in conjunction with the offenders is beyond ridiculous even with the silly caveat "hardly ever."

Would you find the caveat "never" less silly? I was attempting to avoid the appearance of dogmatism, but you would seem to prefer it.

 

[Policenaut]

Trouble occurs when an island of child abusers get to breed...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitcairn_sexual_assault_trial_of_2004

Or were you assuming that only males abuse children?

Everyone also get's an all expenses paid castration. Problem solved. Can we start building this island already? Maybe we can outsource it to Dubai.

Oh yea and to the first person that asked it was something I heard before. Nothing official or anything. Maybe it was so fringe that the idea has not permeated the internet but that seems strange in this day and age. Oh well.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Let's watch this again in slow motion, 'cos it's funny.

I tend to agree. Child rape is a sickness, which justifies locking up child rapists after they complete their sentences until they are cured. I doubt many child rapists would be deterred. They would, however, be more likely to resist arrest.

Except that if you read what gdnp actually posted, the conclusion he draws is that they should remain locked up even after completing their sentences.

Since I posted gdnp's quote verbatim, since his point was unambiguous, where is this subtext "conclusion" you say he drew in the quote? I do not have the liberal decoder ring.

Comprehension ... the liberal decoder ring.

 

[Cicero]

Are you familiar with The Innocence Project?

Did you read the story just today about a man pardoned posthumously 86 years after being executed for the rape and murder of a child, now exonerated?

Why does the notorious Barry Sheck of The Innocence Project beleive DNA is only reliable as a tool for exculpatory, but not inculpatory?

Do you have a case that was on this continent?

Are you saying that Fish, Bundy, Gacy, Williams, etc should have been given life sentences because their guilt was in doubt? And even if it was not, their absence from this earth is a loss?

 

[Cicero]

Would you find the caveat "never" less silly? I was attempting to avoid the appearance of dogmatism, but you would seem to prefer it.

No. "Never" would be accurate. Perhaps you could share with us your research on the cure rate of sex offenders?

Since you agree with gdnp that it is a sickness and not a voluntary action, what is your prescription for this cure, Doctor?

 

[Wildy]

I tend to agree. Child rape is a sickness, which justifies locking up child rapists after they complete their sentences until they are cured.

So wait, you are saying that they are sane enough to stand trial and be found guilty as a sane person, but are not sane enough to be freed upon completion of their sentence?

 

[Piggy]

Why does the notorious Barry Sheck of The Innocence Project beleive DNA is only reliable as a tool for exculpatory, but not inculpatory?

Oh, that's very simple. He does not.

Even if he did, that would still not indicate that DNA cannot be exculpatory.

Think much?

Do you have a case that was on this continent?

You're on the Internet, Cicero. Which continent is "this" continent? (As if it should matter.)

If you mean North America, and you're looking for a case of child rape that was found to be an erroneous prosecution, then yes. I'd start with Aleck Carpitcher.

Are you saying that Fish, Bundy, Gacy, Williams, etc should have been given life sentences because their guilt was in doubt? And even if it was not, their absence from this earth is a loss?

Nope. Not for a moment. I spent 2 years researching a book on multiple murderers, and I would support the death penalty for Fish, Bundy, Gacey, Corll, Starkweather, and a host of others.

But why are you bringing them up?

They're murderers.

The issue here is not whether murders should be put to death, but whether rapists should be put to death.

Really, you should try thinking every now and then. I promise it doesn't hurt too bad.

 

[Piggy]

So wait, you are saying that they are sane enough to stand trial and be found guilty as a sane person, but are not sane enough to be freed upon completion of their sentence?

Huh?

"Sanity" in the first context merely applies to competency, the ability to know what you're doing when you do it and to understand the charges against you and the process of a trial.

I don't know of any application of the concept of sanity to release for prisoners, rather than persons being held in mental institutions.

 

[Cicero]

Let's watch this again in slow motion, 'cos it's funny. Comprehension ... the liberal decoder ring.

Does your high-lite function key not work on gdnp's "until they are cured" part of the quote? How about there is no cure and that they actually do life without parole in the first place, or Obama's cure for them which is a lethal does of chemicals. I bet that just raises the bile in your throat. Neither of these are gdnp's solutions. If gdnp believes a serial sex offender can be "cured," why would any of them be serving a life sentence in gdnp's penal system?

 

[Cicero]

Oh, that's very simple. He does not.

Even if he did, that would still not indicate that DNA cannot be exculpatory.

Think much?



You're on the Internet, Cicero. Which continent is "this" continent? (As if it should matter.)

If you mean North America, and you're looking for a case of child rape that was found to be an erroneous prosecution, then yes. I'd start with Aleck Carpitcher.


Nope. Not for a moment. I spent 2 years researching a book on multiple murderers, and I would support the death penalty for Fish, Bundy, Gacey, Corll, Starkweather, and a host of others.

But why are you bringing them up?

They're murderers.

The issue here is not whether murders should be put to death, but whether rapists should be put to death.

Really, you should try thinking every now and then. I promise it doesn't hurt too bad.

Looks like you are stuck with the "even if it did" escape clause.

"DNA testing only helps correct conviction of the innocent in a narrow class of cases; most homicides do not involve biological evidence that can be determinative of guilt or innocence" STATEMENT OF PROF. BARRY C. SCHECK

http://judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/6132000_bs.htm

Read much?

Babbylonian stated a abhorrence to the death penalty regardless of the crime. So while you may make a distinction, others in the thread do not.

 

[Dr Adequate]

No. "Never" would be accurate. Perhaps you could share with us your research on the cure rate of sex offenders?

I have done none, since no such research would be relevant to the points I have tried to make.

Since you agree with gdnp that it is a sickness and not a voluntary action, what is your prescription for this cure, Doctor?

I am not actually arguing in favor of gdnp's proposal, nor did I agree that "it is a sickness and not a voluntary action" (not that that's what he said, of course). I have merely undertaken the task of trying to explain to you what he meant.

No, it's OK, I didn't expect thanks.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Does your high-lite function key not work on gdnp's "until they are cured" part of the quote?

I highlighted the bits that were relevant. It's this little quirk I share with, ooh, everyone else.

How about there is no cure and that they actually do life without parole in the first place ...

But unfortunately this is not always the case.

... or Obama's cure for them which is a lethal does of chemicals. I bet that just raises the bile in your throat.

Yeah, lethal chemicals can have that effect.

Neither of these are gdnp's solutions. If gdnp believes a serial sex offender can be "cured," why would any of them be serving a life sentence in gdnp's penal system?

This seems to have lost something in translation.

I am not sure what gdnp thinks the rate of cure is, I can only read his posts, not his mind, but unless he thinks that it's 100%, then it follows from what he's posted that he thinks that some of them should be locked up for life.

 

[Babbylonian]

Looks like you are stuck with the "even if it did" escape clause.

"DNA testing only helps correct conviction of the innocent in a narrow class of cases; most homicides do not involve biological evidence that can be determinative of guilt or innocence" STATEMENT OF PROF. BARRY C. SCHECK

http://judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/6132000_bs.htm

Read much?

I don't think that quote means what you think it does. Nowhere in that document does Professor Scheck claim that DNA can only be used as exculpatory evidence. In fact, he points specifically to its dual purpose in both potentially exonerating innocent inmates and identifying potential suspects. Said identification can be presumed to have the potential to aid in conviction of those suspects.

All the above quote says is that most homicide causes cannot be solved through the use of DNA evidence. The document, however, is intended to help convince the Senate Judiciary Committee that when it can be used, it should, and there should be federal law to facilitate an inmate's ability to do so.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I don't think that quote means what you think it does.

Cicero's comprehension deficit amounts to a disorder.

You can see what he's done, can't you?

He's taken the utterly unobjectional statement: "DNA testing only helps correct conviction of the innocent in a narrow class of cases", and thrown away the words "in a narrow class of cases", thus completely changing the meaning of the sentence into some crackbrained drivel that Cicero made up in his head.

 

[Ocelot]

Everyone also get's an all expenses paid castration. Problem solved. Can we start building this island already? Maybe we can outsource it to Dubai.

That would certainly work. But hang on why do we need the island then? Wouldn't removal of sex glands be enough on it's own?

 

[Skwinty]

That would certainly work. But hang on why do we need the island then? Wouldn't removal of sex glands be enough on it's own?

Quite frankly, castration isnt enough. Any object could be used to sexually molest a young child.

My vote is for execution.

 

[Ocelot]

Quite frankly, castration isnt enough. Any object could be used to sexually molest a young child.

My vote is for execution.

But without the glands that lead to sexual desire, is that really likely?

My understanding was that castration leads to personality change.

 

[Skwinty]

But without the glands that lead to sexual desire, is that really likely?

My understanding was that castration leads to personality change.

Are you talking about chemical castration or physical castration?

 

[gdnp]

I see you also attended the Dukakis school of penology. A sex crime multiple offender "cured?" Libs are truly staggering in their capacity to always give the offenders the benefit of the doubt at the expense of the rest of society.

LOL. You mistake my intent. I do not believe a true pedophile can be cured, at least with current techniques, and thus I believe they should be locked up for life even after they have served their sentences. I apologize for not making that more explicit. This does not exclude the possibility that an effective cure could be found in the future. Castration has been suggested, but since the castrated person could still take testosterone shots, this might not be 100% effective. It is not even clear to me if castration would completely eliminate the urges. I do not know.

There is precedent for transferring mentally ill patients who commit crimes involuntarily to locked wards once their sentences have been completed if they are still considered dangerous. There are clearly civil rights issues that are important here: it is not that different from locking up Al Quaeda terrorists indefinitely, a process that I have argued against.

The difference I see here is that terrorist acts are, at least for most, voluntary actions. Pedophilia seems to me more of a compulsion over which the actor has limited control. Thus the high recidivism rate. Those who have acted on those compulsions should be removed from society until we can be reasonably assured that they will not do so in the future. Something we cannot do with current psychiatric or pharmacological techniques. Lobotomy, anyone?

This, of course, applies to true pedophiles. It does not apply to the 21 year old convicted of consensual sex with a 14 year old.