Should rapists who rape a child be put to death?

[Rufo]

Why on Earth do you think anyone should spend time on your self-invented definition?

I never said it was self-invented. I said this is how I understand that the word is used, and thus the way I use it. I base this on experience. I don't think I invented it myself. As for why anyone should spend time on it, no other definition has been suggested. A bit like an argument with no counterargument made against it.

Do you think we can just make up our own definition of every word there is?

We can, but it will probably impair our communication, so in most cases it's a very bad idea.

Don't waste my time.

I don't feel I'm wasting my time any more than you're wasting mine. Should I take your comment as a response to why you do not answer my questions? That they are not worth your time?

 

[gnome]

Even if the "torture" is simple an eye for an eye?

Yes indeed. Such a policy would require--if torture were a common crime, for example--the state to hire torturers on the payroll. Which brave and decent individuals should receive taxpayer money for this honorable job?

 

[Drudgewire]

Out of interest Drudgewire, do you think there are things worse than death?

I do, but we won't be implementing them as legal forms of punishment any time soon so death works for me in cases it's warranted.

I certainly think death is worse than life in prison though if that's what you are asking.

 

[Cainkane1]

You can read in prison and watch TV and talk.

I do, but we won't be implementing them as legal forms of punishment any time soon so death works for me in cases it's warranted.

I certainly think death is worse than life in prison though if that's what you are asking.

Death is worse than life in prison. You get to read, write, marry some stupid woman who digs imprisoned men and perhaps father a child. You can converse with fellow inmates and watch TV. Sounds better than deat to me.

 

[ravdin]

Death is worse than life in prison. You get to read, write, marry some stupid woman who digs imprisoned men and perhaps father a child. You can converse with fellow inmates and watch TV. Sounds better than deat to me.

I disagree. If you're locked up in prison with no chance of release, no friends, and you're at the absolute bottom of the social heap because your crime is universally reviled even among your fellow inmates- I just don't see what you have to live for.

I think life imprisonment is the harshest alternative, which is why I support it in these cases. You'll die in prison in any case one way or the other.

 

[Drudgewire]

I disagree. If you're locked up in prison with no chance of release, no friends, and you're at the absolute bottom of the social heap because your crime is universally reviled even among your fellow inmates- I just don't see what you have to live for.

I think life imprisonment is the harshest alternative, which is why I support it in these cases. You'll die in prison in any case one way or the other.

And yet very few Death Row appeals relate to actually disputing the guilt or innocence of the criminal. It's usually an attempt to keep them alive. And deals are made all the time where someone pleads guilty and accepts a life sentence to prevent the possibility of lethal injection.

Clearly TO THEM life is not as bad as a death sentence, and that's who are affected by these laws. I'm going to operate on the assumption you'll never be committing capital murder so it's a lot easier to hypothisize than when you're not awaiting sentencing.

 

[slingblade]

Well.

I keep thinking about the ones who hurt me, most of whom must surely be dead by now.

Would I have wanted them executed? I don't think so. Imprisoned for life? Possibly, probably, so they couldn't do this to others. Most of all, though, I'd want their stuff. All of it. I'd want a significant cut of any paychecks they may earn. I'd want them to support me off the sweat of their brows, for the remainder of their lives.

Why? Because I think taking people's money hurts them worse than taking either their lives or their liberties. Yes, I'd want them to be my wage-slaves. Make those selfish bastards work for me, instead of against me. For decades. They didn't take away my self-confidence, so much as they took away my ability to develop any.

For that, they should have paid. And paid, and paid, and paid....

 

[ravdin]

And yet very few Death Row appeals relate to actually disputing the guilt or innocence of the criminal. It's usually an attempt to keep them alive. And deals are made all the time where someone pleads guilty and accepts a life sentence to prevent the possibility of lethal injection.

Clearly TO THEM life is not as bad as a death sentence, and that's who are affected by these laws. I'm going to operate on the assumption you'll never be committing capital murder so it's a lot easier to hypothisize than when you're not awaiting sentencing.

Far be it from me to understand the criminal mindset. I still think the prolonged suffering and decay of a life sentence is crueler than the existential dread of Death Row, which will be over comparatively quickly. You're probably right that given the choice, most people would choose the former- but I have a very difficult time understanding why.

 

[Psiload]

I second that!!!!!

Let me see if I've got this straight... you would condemn the Prophet Mohammad to death?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/025-Muhammads-sex-life.htm

Muslim (8:3311) - The girl [Mohammad's nine-year-old wife] took her dolls with her to Muhammad's house (something to play with when the "prophet" was not having sex with her).

 

[Sickly Crypsis]

Most of the arguments I'm reading are either
a) Trying to define if death is or is not a punishment, which leads to
b) Defining what's worse, Death or life imprisonment.

Most of us don't want to die, thus I can see it being a punishment but if we're aiming for what's worse why don't we just burn them alive or have them sodomised daily? (at an uncomfortable level).

Not a lot of talk for Rehabilitation, not ALL child rapists are serial, unchangeable, werewolves, a lot are Uncle Fink who gave in to a sick compulsion he had and couldn't control. He has a mental illness and should be treated for it, not piled in with the worst and exterminated like vermin.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not on "their side" per say, punishment has to be applied (hence jail time, fines) and I know the emotional damage to the child may be significant, but killing the one responsible doesn't help the child and to lust after someone to be killed or tortured in this fashion is a very privative and barbaric notion indeed.

 

[Cincinnatus]

I perfer a lobotomy.

 

[Soapy Sam]

The problem with rape- as stressed in the other thread on the subject- is proof.
Without physical evidence, can we trust the accusation of a child? Children are known to make stories up. It's normal behaviour.

Convicting solely on the testimony of a child seems questionable.

The issue of punishment seems important to many posters. Insofar as a crime like rape is one society as a whole strongly disapproves of , is there not an argument for simply removing the perpetrator from society, without any form of punishment? (At least in a case where guilt is not in doubt).

I should add that for once I agree with Claus. Being dead is not a punishment. It is, however, a permanent solution to the possibility of reoffending.
The potential use of organs for transplant after painless execution (flood a chamber with nitrogen for five minutes) as a "payment" of debt to society seems like a reasonable use of what would otherwise be a criminal waste of resources in the context.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

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.)

And what happens if it is subsequently discovered that the person you tortured so severely is innocent, as happens so often?

I think a world where prisoners who are possibly innocent yet tortured by sadists who don't understand the concept of mis-trials by corrupt or incompetent officials as has happened so often in the USA and elsewhere would be a completely sick world. Luckily there are decent groups of countries like the EU where it will never be allowed

 

[gnome]

I believe everyone will realize, once they think about it, that what they'd fantasize doing to someone who horrifies and angers them so extremely, does not make practical or just real-world policy. Some things are better left to the imagination.

 

[Cainkane1]

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).

I like that.