Should rapists who rape a child be put to death?

[Cainkane1]

Unless the child is murdered I say no. Not because the perp doesn't deserve death but I believe if the perp was facing the death penalty they would be more likely to kill the kid after the crime. Leave the death penalty up to the other inmates.

 

[bigred]

???

Yes in fact hell yes.

 

[Rufo]

I don't think anyone should be put to death, but that is because it is not practical to use death penalty. Since child rapists are often individuals psychologically damaged beyond repairibility, however, I can agree that we might consider the theoretical benefits of putting them to death.

I also disagree with your logic. I don't think child rapists are as cold and calculating as you think them to be. The risk of them killing the child is more dependent on them than on the punishment they are facing.

 

[baron]

I've never been in favour of the death penalty, not least because the act of being killed is not, in my eyes, a true punishment. How are you meant to reflect on the error of your ways if you're dead?

Lock them away for life.

I'm not in favour of prioritising crime by the age of the victim either. Rape is rape. Murder is murder. Child or pensioner, it's irrelevant.

 

[bigred]

I've never been in favour of the death penalty, not least because the act of being killed is not, in my eyes, a true punishment. How are you meant to reflect on the error of your ways if you're dead?

Lock them away for life.

I'm not in favour of prioritising crime by the age of the victim either. Rape is rape. Murder is murder. Child or pensioner, it's irrelevant.

Sorry but I find your logic bizarre. Death isn't a "true punishment?" Raping or killing a child is the same as doing so to an adult? Hardly. Also punishment does not equate to reflecting on the error of one's way. Punishment is a negative action done to someone because of something they have done.

 

[Drudgewire]

Yup. Don't care if it's a deterrent, don't care if there are other avenues available. Kill them and put a urinal by their gravesite.

 

[steverino]

I vote "no."

A lot of these trials use the child's testimony. The kid could be 4 years-old.
I'd hate to risk the gas chamber because Tommy pointed at me and said, "Mommy. THAT man touched me."

I was once named in a law suit when an elderly man who was being helped by a hired security guard hit his ankle on my camera bag that I'd set down to help open the door for him. He fell and injured himself. By the time his lawyers got through with me, the perception they created was that I pushed an old man over my bag. It was all a big lie to get money from me & my insurance, which worked.

 

[baron]

Sorry but I find your logic bizarre. Death isn't a "true punishment?"

That's what I said, yes. If I kill you now, you're dead. You can't reflect on your wrong-doing and neither can you suffer or experience remorse. That's a pretty poor punishment in my book. Some might say it's letting the perpetrator off lightly. Of course, there's the 20 years on death row but that's another story.

Raping or killing a child is the same as doing so to an adult? Hardly.

Why is that, then? And what are the thressholds at which murder changes from "appalling", maybe, to just "outrageous"? Does it ever go down to "not very nice", for a pensioner maybe?

Also punishment does not equate to reflecting on the error of one's way.

No, but it should allow reflection, as I've already said.

Punishment is a negative action done to someone because of something they have done.

Well it shouldn't be. Punishment should be a positive action to counter a negative act.

 

[Irony]

I'd say no. Especially since given current laws concerning what "rape" is, two sixteen year olds having sex together could both face execution.

 

[DanishDynamite]

As usual I will use the Bible as my moral guidance. Now, given the principle of "an eye for an eye", I say the perp should be raped in turn (preferably by a huge guy called Brutus).

 

[baron]

Now, given the principle of "an eye for an eye", I say the perp should be raped in turn (preferably by a huge guy called Brutus).

You may be joking but I would actually be in favour of this. Not doing it personally, you understand, but standing back and allowing the perpetrator to get a taste of his own medicine, so to speak, if the occasion arose.

 

[bigred]

I vote "no."

A lot of these trials use the child's testimony. The kid could be 4 years-old.
I'd hate to risk the gas chamber because Tommy pointed at me and said, "Mommy. THAT man touched me."

I would certainly expect more/better evidence than that....

That's what I said, yes. If I kill you now, you're dead. You can't reflect on your wrong-doing and neither can you suffer or experience remorse. That's a pretty poor punishment in my book.

ie you agree that it IS a punishment, though. OK.

Some might say it's letting the perpetrator off lightly.

Some might need their heads examined.

No, but it should allow reflection, as I've already said.

Agree to disagree.

Well it shouldn't be. Punishment should be a positive action to counter a negative act.

That varies greatly with the specifics, to say the least. Not in this case. You cannot "counter" raping a child in some positive way.

Punishment is about paying for one's crime, be it in a "positive" or "negative" way.

 

[CFLarsen]

???

Yes in fact hell yes.

You may be joking but I would actually be in favour of this. Not doing it personally, you understand, but standing back and allowing the perpetrator to get a taste of his own medicine, so to speak, if the occasion arose.

Really?

I take it that the both of you also think that murderers should be executed?

Should arsonists also have their property burnt down?

Should arsonists who, by way of them setting fire to buildings, thereby killing people, be burned alive?

Should drunk drivers be killed by a car running over them?

I've never been in favour of the death penalty, not least because the act of being killed is not, in my eyes, a true punishment. How are you meant to reflect on the error of your ways if you're dead?

I have never been able to understand why skeptics-who-are-also-atheists could possibly argue that death is a punishment. If you are an atheist, you don't believe in an afterlife - so, how is death a punishment? You don't feel anything when you are dead.

Lock them away for life.

Absolutely. Having your freedom taken away from you...isn't that worse than having your life taken away from you? "Give me liberty or give me death" and all that?

Sorry but I find your logic bizarre. Death isn't a "true punishment?" Raping or killing a child is the same as doing so to an adult? Hardly. Also punishment does not equate to reflecting on the error of one's way. Punishment is a negative action done to someone because of something they have done.

Yup. Don't care if it's a deterrent, don't care if there are other avenues available. Kill them and put a urinal by their gravesite.

What punishment do you feel when you are dead?

As usual I will use the Bible as my moral guidance. Now, given the principle of "an eye for an eye", I say the perp should be raped in turn (preferably by a huge guy called Brutus).

These days, it's "Bubba". As in "Bubba's bitch".

 

[TragicMonkey]

Would the victim feel burdened by their rapist being put to death? And before I get attacked by a slew of furies, please recall we're talking about children here. They might be more sensitive, and the psychological impact on top of what already occurred might not be desirable. "Hey kid, are you sure this is the right guy? Cause we're going to kill him if you say he is." No pressure!

Also, mightn't a severer penalty raise the risk of the guilty getting off, because a jury would be less likely to convict if they thought there was no way to undo what might be a mistaken verdict?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Should rapists who rape a child be put to death?

As in contrast to a non-rapist who rapes a child?

As for your question: No.

At what stage is a man qualified as being bald by general consensus? When 44.2% of his hair is gone or 44.3%?

 

[DanishDynamite]

You may be joking but I would actually be in favour of this. Not doing it personally, you understand, but standing back and allowing the perpetrator to get a taste of his own medicine, so to speak, if the occasion arose.

I was only slightly joking. As a general rule, the "eye for an eye" isn't that bad, in my view. I just suspect that for many Americans, who seem to have a love affair with capital punishment, "an eye for an eye" would not be enough.

 

[Irony]

I noticed no one responded to my other post. Perhaps it sounds a bit too far fetched?

Well then, what about an 18-year old who had sex with his 17-year old girlfriend, or an old man who grabbed a young girls arm to scold her after she ran out in front of his car. Both of these events really happened, and both of these men are "child rapists" according to the law.

Both would be executed under this hypothetical.

People who go "hell yeah" to questions like this without thinking of the consequences are the reason such travesties of justice happen.

 

[fuelair]

Sorry but I find your logic bizarre. Death isn't a "true punishment?" Raping or killing a child is the same as doing so to an adult? Hardly. Also punishment does not equate to reflecting on the error of one's way. Punishment is a negative action done to someone because of something they have done.

Actually, If I am involved in it the perpetrator will be screaming for death long before that request is finally granted - but they will have plenty of time to reflect on what they did wrong. The process is very educational - and involves education in the functions of various parts of their organ systems combined with reiteration of why these lessons are being provided for their edification.

As with much of my belief system, this was hard-wired in my youth from, not so surprisingly, the tales of the Brothers Grimm (not the rewritten versions) which seemed perfect in response to evil against others. (per ex.: try to wreck your stepdaughter's/sister's life and get her killed? Get put naked into a nail studded barrel, sealed up, rolled down a long hill and finish with sailing through the air out into the ocean. Sounded fair to me.)

 

[Drudgewire]

I was only slightly joking. As a general rule, the "eye for an eye" isn't that bad, in my view. I just suspect that for many Americans, who seem to have a love affair with capital punishment, "an eye for an eye" would not be enough.

It basically comes down to math. If we could set up an equation where the rapist got his "eye for an eye" taking the size difference of him and his victim into account and dishing out the penalty according to that ratio I could live with that.

For instance: Adult male to child = large tree branch to adult male.

*struggles to resist making brown eye for a brown eye joke and fails miserably*

 

[Ratman_tf]

No.

In the real world, innocent people are punished for things they did not commit.

While being locked away in modern jails is not a very appealing situation, it's at least possible to reverse a mistaken sentence and release the person.

Dead is dead.

That's the reason I'm against the death penalty in all situations.