Obama says child rapists should be executed

[gdnp]

I am completely against the death penalty yet I am commonly called a "right-winger" for most of my ideas on this board.

Does that mean I am a Liberal?

No, but it probably means you are not the most conservative member of the forum, just as Obama's support for the death penalty raises doubts that he is the most liberal member of congress, as others have asserted.

Back to the point. He is; like most politicians, giving a yes answer to both sides of the question.

Really? could you provide quotes? I'd like to take you on your word, but your prior assertions have not always held up to scrutiny.

 

[Dr Adequate]

LOL. You mistake my intent. I do not believe a true pedophile can be cured, and thus I believe they should be locked up for life even after they have served their sentences.

Ah, the icing on the cherry on the cake.

Cicero has now been wrong about the meaning of your post in every possible respect short of saying that it was a sonnet about the foraging strategies of three-toed tree sloths.

Cicero, do you not begin to see that you might have a problem?

 

[Beerina]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_el_pr/obama_child_rape_case

I am no fan of the death penalty. But I have to agree with Obama.

Child rapists...especially those who do it multiple times to the same child..should be put to death.

Child abuse is not a crime of passion...perhaps making child rape a Federal crime punishable by death would deter enough folks from doing it.

You don't execute child rapists for the same reason you don't execute adult rapists.

Why?


(Final Jeopardy music plays here for awhile. When tired of listening, scroll down.)



























Since you're gonna be executed anyway, well, dead kids tell no tales





This issue is a wonderful example highlighting the law of unintended consequences colliding with "that feels good!" issue pandering.

 

[Pookster]

I think the law of unintended consequences might bite you in the butt there.

If you make any crime against the person short of murder subject to the death sentence, then there is no practical incentive for the criminal not to go on and kill his victim, and one big practical incentive to do so --- the silence of the witness. The only thing restraining the criminal from protecting his interests by murdering his victim would be ... his conscience? ... oh, hold on ...

In short, it might well decrease rapes, but it might well increase rape-murders.

I see and understand the point you're making, but I seriously doubt that the unintended consequences would come into play with child molesters. Most perps tend to be family friends or family. While I'm clearly no expert concerning the mindset of a child molester, I suspect that many believe they won't get caught when they are committing the crime. Also, I believe a big majority of cases are generally discovered in the days/weeks/years after the crime is committed. I dare say that most who would be likely to kill their victim to cover up the crime are already doing so without the death penalty. I admit that I can't back up what I'm contending, but this is the impression I get from the cases I've read about in the past.

 

[Ocelot]

Are you talking about chemical castration or physical castration?

I was presuming that we were talking about physical. I don't know much about chemical castration but thought it'd have simialr effects.

 

[Snide]

Then you are for the death penalty.

Yeah, and...?

 

[Cicero]

Ah, the icing on the cherry on the cake.

Cicero has now been wrong about the meaning of your post in every possible respect short of saying that it was a sonnet about the foraging strategies of three-toed tree sloths.

Cicero, do you not begin to see that you might have a problem?

You are a piece of work. You reflexively omit gdnp's "I apologize for not making that more explicit," in your haste to make another fustian feckless and fractious retort. Had you allowed gdnp to answer about his own post, which he has now done in greater clarity, you could have saved yourself from these convulsions of cacophonous diatribes. But that would run counter to your nature.

BTW: icing goes on the cake, not the cherry. Surely someone with your caloric consumptions would know this.

 

[Cicero]

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.

What? Barry Scheck's meaning was long ago clarified when he dismissed the DNA that incriminated Simpson back in 1994.

 

[Dr Adequate]

You are a piece of work. You reflexively omit gdnp's "I apologize for not making that more explicit," in your haste to make another fustian feckless and fractious retort. Had you allowed gdnp to answer about his own post, which he has now done in greater clarity, you could have saved yourself from these convulsions of cacophonous diatribes. But that would run counter to your nature.

BTW: icing goes on the cake, not the cherry. Surely someone with your caloric consumptions would know this.

You were completely wrong, weren't you?

Did that windy little tantrum make you feel better?

 

[Dr Adequate]

What? Barry Scheck's meaning was long ago clarified when he dismissed the DNA that incriminated Simpson back in 1994.

And yet this "clarification" apparently led you to misunderstand the meaning of a straightforward piece of English.

With clarification like that, who needs obscurantism?

 

[ZirconBlue]

I see and understand the point you're making, but I seriously doubt that the unintended consequences would come into play with child molesters. Most perps tend to be family friends or family.

Which leads to a hypothesis I heard on the radio the other day: Victims will be less likely to report rapes if the death penalty is applied to such cases. The reasoning goes:

A) Victims will not want their family member to be killed, and/or
B) Other family members will put pressure on the victim not to report, because they don't want their friend/family member to be killed.

I don't know if there is any evidence to back this up, but it seems a non-unlikely scenario to me.

 

[gdnp]

I'm just thrilled to know that my opinion on how long child rapists should be locked up carries so much weight that it became the main topic of debate.

 

[Pookster]

Which leads to a hypothesis I heard on the radio the other day: Victims will be less likely to report rapes if the death penalty is applied to such cases. The reasoning goes:

A) Victims will not want their family member to be killed, and/or
B) Other family members will put pressure on the victim not to report, because they don't want their friend/family member to be killed.

I don't know if there is any evidence to back this up, but it seems a non-unlikely scenario to me.

You make a good point. The law here in South Carolina applied to repeat offenders. I don't know how many of those tend to be family members.

Many/most cases tend to go unreported anyways, based on anonymous surveys of teens/adults who claim to have experienced it. Many cases are discovered because of injury that requires medical attention and/or when STDs are diagnosed. Some cases are discovered because of suspicion of others (like school officials) from how a child may be acting. I guess a lot will depend on each situation.

Edited to add: I also wonder how many cases go unreported now because the victim and/or family don't want their relative to even go to jail or create such a controversy for the family.

 

[T.A.M.]

I think this is a tough one...

The death penalty in and of itself is not an easy decision for me. As a physician, I am to hold the sanctity of life above all else, or at least in theory that is how it is suppose to work.

Beyond that, personally, I am torn. When I place myself in the position of losing a son or daughter to a murder, my gut instinct is vengeance. I think this is natural of all parents. As well, if one of my children were raped, my natural impulse would be one of vengeance.

I think, however, that it is a mistake to use only the basal instinctive reaction as a decider in such a case. One has to use emotion free logic and practicality as well.

As a result, I think I am likely going to side against Obama on this one. As much as my gut would tell me to seek death for any person who raped my children, the logical, unemotional side of me, tells me such a punishment would, as others have said, lead to more rape-murders, a more horrible crime IMO. Lock them up and throw away the key I say.

TAM

 

[Cicero]

You were completely wrong, weren't you?

Did that windy little tantrum make you feel better?

Right. gdnp explained how I might have misinterpreted his post. But if I had not mischaracterized gdnp's positon, we would have all missed out on your tempest in a tea pot soliloquy.


Here are examples of more Scheckisms:

"We can now use DNA to get suspects and to eliminate the wrong people very, very early in the investigation, but we're not putting enough money into it right now."


"It's going to save money across the board and it's going to essentially create a much better system for apprehending the truly guilty and excluding the truly innocent."]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dna/interviews/scheck.html

Notice he did not say "convict" the truly guilty. DNA for Sheck is always valuable when arresting suspects/truly guilty, but not valuable for conviction? Yet Sheck is not so wishy washy when it comes to DNA being the avenger of the wrongfully accused/sentenced.

When has Sheck ever been an expert witness on DNA for the prosecution?

 

[Cleon]

"We can now use DNA to get suspects and to eliminate the wrong people very, very early in the investigation, but we're not putting enough money into it right now."


"It's going to save money across the board and it's going to essentially create a much better system for apprehending the truly guilty and excluding the truly innocent."]

...There is nothing wrong with either of these statements, as far as I can see.

Notice he did not say "convict" the truly guilty.

That's some world-class hair-splitting, right there. Congratulations, I guess.

 

[Babbylonian]

When has Sheck ever been an expert witness on DNA for the prosecution?

What? Why would a prosecutor ever call an attorney - especially a famous defense attorney - as an "expert witness on DNA?" Your Sheck fixation, and your persistence in distorting his words, is really weird.

 

[Brainster]

There is certainly an argument to be made about whether or not child rapists should be executed. But I think that's an argument better debated in the legislature than in front of the Supreme Court.

 

[corplinx]

As a result, I think I am likely going to side against Obama on this one.

The first step in your de-programming is done. Check back in next week.

 

[Bob Klase]

Originally Posted by Cicero
When has Sheck ever been an expert witness on DNA for the prosecution?

What? Why would a prosecutor ever call an attorney - especially a famous defense attorney - as an "expert witness on DNA?" Your Sheck fixation, and your persistence in distorting his words, is really weird.

One could also ask "when has Sheck ever been an expert witness on DNA for the defense?".

Or, when has any lawyer ever been called as a expert witness in a scientific field? Lawyers are experts in the law (at least in theory). While Sheck may know a lot more about DNA than the average person or average lawyer, I'm fairly sure he's still not qualified as an expert in DNA.