Death Sentence for Child Rape?

[brokenandtwisted]

First, the article...

Court upholds death sentence for child rape

Both sides say the sentence for Patrick Kennedy, 42, could expand a 1977 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that held the death penalty for rape violated the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. The high court said then that its ruling applied only to adult victims.

Attorney Jelpi Picou, director of the New Orleans-based Capital Appeals Project, said he will ask the Louisiana Supreme Court for a rehearing and, if rejected, will go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"As horrid as (rape) is and as harshly as we believe it should be condemned, death is inappropriate in this case," Picou said.

Louisiana law allows the death penalty for the aggravated rape of someone less than 12 years old.

"He's the only person in the United States on death row for non-homicide rape," Picou said.

Kennedy was convicted in 2003 of raping a relative as she sorted Girl Scout cookies in the garage of her home in suburban New Orleans. He bragged to one man that the girl "became a lady today," deputies said.

His defense attorney at the time argued that blood testing was inconclusive and that the victim -- who didn't report that Kennedy was her rapist until 21 months later -- was pressured to change her story.

In Tuesday's opinion, Justice Jeffrey Victory wrote, "Our state Legislature and this court have determined this category of aggravated rapist to be among those deserving of the death penalty, and, short of a first-degree murderer, we can think of no other non-homicide crime more deserving."

Victory wrote that the Louisiana law meets the U.S. Supreme Court test requiring an aggravating circumstance -- in this case the age of the victim -- to justify the death penalty.

The governors of South Carolina and Oklahoma signed laws last year allowing the death penalty for people who repeatedly rape children. Richard Dieter of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C., said he doesn't know of any successful prosecution under either of those laws.

A bill that would allow the death penalty for a second offense of child rape is awaiting the governor's decision in Texas.

Georgia law allows death as a penalty for rape. Dieter said Florida and Montana also have such laws, but authorities have said the penalty would be invoked only for rape of a child.

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/05/23/child.rape.ap/index.html)

What is your opinion? I don't believe the death sentence should be imposed for rape. Yes, it is morally degrading however it does not (in my eyes) equal death. Thoughts?

[Killroy]

I absolutely believe in the death penalty in some cases, including the rape of a child. However, it is not for punishment. I look at the death penalty sort of like I look at what we do with rabid, or violent dogs. It may be a cold way of looking at things, but certain humans are vampires to society. They contribute nothing while repeatedly infringing on law-abiding citzen's safety.

These people must be removed from society WITHOUT putting a drain on society. The ONLY way to do this is to remove them from society. Permantly and at no cost to the citizens you are trying to protect.

Of course there are grey areas, so I wouldn't say murder=death, rape=death. Each case would be looked at individually. If a man has killed a second convenience store clerk for $20.00, or if another has anally raped a 3-month-old, or certain type of serial rapists and murderers...why keep them around? To feel good about ourselves? To sit on some high-horse and feel like we are doing the "right" thing? The human thing?

All garbage to me.

It may not be a popular viewpoint, or politically correct or whatever, but doing it my way I can can 100 PERCENT gaurantee that a baby raper will never repeat his act, or a serial killer will never slaughter another woman. Ever. That is not something you can say about these same individuals I pay to live in our prison systems.

[CPL CHUD]

If you keep him in jail for the rest of his natural life it'd be cheaper than going through the legal process associated with the death penalty. The only way the death penalty can be an effective deterrent it by making it a public spectacle. Hang him in a stadium during half time and crime will plummet. Otherwise let him live the rest of his miserable life behind bars.

[ZombieBabe]

Kill 'em all!I agree wholeheartedly. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Plus, think about the child who's soul and spirit were destroyed by the rape. They will NEVER be the same. It's almost a death sentence - mentally anyway. Make sense?

[Killroy]

If you keep him in jail for the rest of his natural life it'd be cheaper than going through the legal process associated with the death penalty. The only way the death penalty can be an effective deterrent it by making it a public spectacle. Hang him in a stadium during half time and crime will plummet. Otherwise let him live the rest of his miserable life behind bars.

Well, I was more explaining what I would do. My death penalty would be pretty immediate. Since it is not a punishment, and just safety, I would do it as humanely as possible. I would take no joy in killing another human, but would sleep easy knowing that the person would not be able to get the chance to repeat his behavior.

As far as mode of death, who cares. Take your pick, I would just want to make it immediate with as little suffering as possible.

But I agree 100 percent with the public aspect. Bring back the guillotine.

[apocalypticdreamer]

Bring back the guillotine.

I think public stoning would be a good death sentance. The criminal dies, and people get their anger out at the same time.

[I am Legend]

im all for it. public execution would make me all warm and fuzzy inside. they should serve neopolitan ice cream at them too.

one thing is for sure:
after he is executed, he wont rape anyone else.

[ZombieBabe]

Public... Private... What the fuck ever. YOU RAPE A CHILD, YOU DIE. It's a fair trade.

A child rapist should HOPE for a death sentence. The state will be FAR more humane about it than I ever would. You destroy the innocence of my children, I will end your life with my bare hands, and it WON'T be pretty. You better PRAY that they find you before I do...

[brokenandtwisted]

I don't agree with any of you...but I suppose it is because I am not a parent, and do not see that side of the story. However, I do believe the person should be imprisoned for life (on death row) and when the victim is of age, he or she can decide what to do with the convict...keep them in jail, or kill them.

[Killroy]

I don't agree with any of you...but I suppose it is because I am not a parent, and do not see that side of the story. However, I do believe the person should be imprisoned for life (on death row) and when the victim is of age, he or she can decide what to do with the convict...keep them in jail, or kill them.

But then the victim basically becomes a murderer themselves. I am completely against death as a punishment. It serves no purpose but satisfying revenge based feelings. I am for death as a consequence. Purely safety reasons. Some of these people who commit these acts are products of environment, mentally damaged or in the case of sex offenders, possibly abused themselves. I see no need to try to distinguish between a person who shoots a 7-11 clerk in the head for 20.00 'cause they got spooked and the sociopath who slaughters a family because of some mental defect the person had at birth.

Lump 'em all in the same category, explain to them that society is sorry that they are broken, from birth or some other external stimuli. Explain that if their society shares partial blame for the events that led to their actions that society is sorry and society will continue to work towards making sure it doesn't happen again. But for the safety of the rest of society, they must be removed. Then put a bullet in their skull. Done.

[swivel]

I think most children are too young to know if they "want" it or not.

Kids are petulant, they say "No" all the damn time, especially 2-3 year-olds. It is the responsability of adults to not give in to these pleas, and do what we know is right for them.

Which means, I don't think it is even possible to rape a child. That is like saying we are committing "neglect" by not giving them the ice cream that they really, really want. Or we are abusing them by forcing them to go to bed at 10pm.

Once the kid is at least 16, then they are old enough to decide whether or not daddy should be shoving his cock up his/her anus.

[CPL CHUD]

Once the kid is at least 16, then they are old enough to decide whether or not daddy should be shoving his cock up his/her anus.
Hahahahaha! That's golden.

[Peeperann]

I have to say, I do agree that it is the easiest and cheapest way to make sure the sick freaks never hurt a child again. But I have two different thoughts on the subject. Oe the one hand, I agree that the death penalty should be used just as a consequense, but the mother in me would want to kill them in the most painful way possible and i'd want to be the one to do it. Just the thought of someone hurting my children or grandchildren drives me insane, and if it ever really happened, the perp better hope the police get to them before I do, because revenge would hurt and last.

[swivel]

I love it when a thread is brought back from the dead, and you read something you wrote so long ago that you don't remember writing it, and you end up giving yourself a chuckle. I just read my post at the top of this page and thought, "DAAAAMN! I am one sick fucker."

[Universal_Vagabond]

Swivel, I'm surprised that you would even have to look back at a post from a long time ago to ever remind yourself of such an obvious ailment.

You seem a little sick to me Swiv. What do you contribute to the entire picture? How do you serve society as a whole? Seems to me that all you do is rant and rave about how all the rest of society is screwed up... hmm, anyone here for stoning swiv?

And that's how it all begins, with the ability for punishment having to carry a mandatory sentence. Whether it's done by ghastly measures or by the most humane homicidal way, you're still denying someone the right to live. Should child rapists die? Yes. Should they die immediately? Of course. But what other crimes should call for immediate death?

Personally, my view on homicide is that, hell, if you're killing people, you're just making this world easier for me. Unless, of course, you're killing one of my friends, then you're just inviting hell upon yourself... now, where's the pirate smilie when I need him?

:pirate:

[swivel]

Part of my sickness is a short memory.

Do I know you?

Go fuck yourself.

[Universal_Vagabond]

Part of my sickness is a short memory.

Do I know you?

Go fuck yourself.

Oh, you lovable bastard...

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

As someone who's spent a few years in prison, I will tell you that these places do not rehabilitate anyone. It's a terrible place in many ways, yes, but in others, it's a playground for these people. It's also not like what you see and hear in movies, where child predators have to fear for their lives everyday. Often times, they are treated as well as anyone else. Now that's not to say they don't need to be careful in certain instances, because if they run across a lifer who's particularly violent, then yes, they could definitely get hurt. But honestly...they get away with it in the end.

Life in prison for child rapers is the LEAST they should get, in my opinion. But also, to rape a child....goes beyond a normal rapist's urges, IMO, and it's a deadly predatorial kind. Too often, children are hurt or killed, and in when the dirt is dug up on the bad guys, too often we find out they have a past of child rape first. I believe men who rape children are simply experiencing the first phase of a disease they have, which would inevitably lead to worse if they are allowed to function in society.

In the end, I believe if there is enough evidence to make it clear that someone is guilty of child rape, then the death sentence should apply 100% of the time. With, of course, a faulty electric chair.

[Hepatitis-D]

Im hardly an authority on right and wrong but I say kill the bastards. The moment you decided to molest a child you lost your right to be called human.

If someone did something to my daughter....Im almost positive I would kill them. I dont think there is a suitable punishment for crimes of this nature. The best I could come up with resembles something from the film Seven. I would kill them eventually but not before months upon months of physical and emotional pain was inflicted.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

For anyone who would oppose the death penalty, I would say read up on the Jessica Lunsford case. The girl, after being repeatedly raped, was wrapped alive in two trash bags, and buried alive...with her teddy bear. They found that she had clawed through part of the bag, and she tried biting a hole in it.

[brokenandtwisted]

For anyone who would oppose the death penalty, I would say read up on the Jessica Lunsford case. The girl, after being repeatedly raped, was wrapped alive in two trash bags, and buried alive...with her teddy bear. They found that she had clawed through part of the bag, and she tried biting a hole in it.

I Google'd her name after you mentioned it, I've never heard of her until now. Saddening, really. Although I believe one shouldn't look at the crime itself, but what caused the killer to actually commit it. The prison system is faulty and arguably focuses on retribution rather than rehabilitation, but there should be some sort of institution that is capable of compensating for the lack of rehabilitation in the prison system. :neutral:

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

I Google'd her name after you mentioned it, I've never heard of her until now. Saddening, really. Although I believe one shouldn't look at the crime itself, but what caused the killer to actually commit it. The prison system is faulty and arguably focuses on retribution rather than rehabilitation, but there should be some sort of institution that is capable of compensating for the lack of rehabilitation in the prison system. :neutral:

Debatable, certainly. I would agree with you, that its a retribution center, rather than a rehabilitation center.

I dont know about looking at what caused the killer to commit it though. Its like...perhaps findint out a man who raped and killed a woman was abused as a child and growing up. Ok, so if you pinpoint what probably caused his mental imbalance...where do you go with it? Would you lessen his sentence?

Its just me, that the crime its self has to be what determines his/her fate. Its an interesting concept though. Scientists and doctors out there are trying to get a better grasp at what causes the violent crimes, studying the brains of violent offender cadavers and such.

And as for creating something to find a balance for legit rehabilitation? Excellent thought, but nothing comes to mind for me. INteresting. Its worth thinking about.

[Athena]

The primary purpose of incarceration is to keep the population safe.

As it stands currently, rehabilitation methods are inconsistantly effective and make for expensive programs. Yes, "fixing" people would be ideal, but it's something we have to work up to. Furthermore, there is a secondary but reasonable element of punishment to incarceration. I'm not advocating "eye-for-an-eye" policy, but I have no qualms with making criminals suffer a bit.

[swivel]

I'm not advocating "eye-for-an-eye" policy, but I have no qualms with making criminals suffer a bit.

Not the correct use of the term "eye-for-an-eye". I need some help setting the rest of society straight on this one, so team up with me here...

Eye-for-an-eye is a Biblical call for leniency, not punishment. It is a phrase meant to evoke mercy and pity, not vengeance and wrath. The point of the story is that we do no worse to an offender than they themselves did to a victim. It was meant to stop the trend of cutting off the hands of thieves, or the tongues of blasphemers.

Proper usage today would be to say, "We shouldn't give the death penalty to rapists, I am a supporter of eye-for-an-eye".

Oddly, you tend to see conservatives use the term in a mean way, when it really should be liberals using the term in a naive one.

[Athena]

Not the correct use of the term "eye-for-an-eye". I need some help setting the rest of society straight on this one, so team up with me here...

Eye-for-an-eye is a Biblical call for leniency, not punishment. It is a phrase meant to evoke mercy and pity, not vengeance and wrath. The point of the story is that we do no worse to an offender than they themselves did to a victim. It was meant to stop the trend of cutting off the hands of thieves, or the tongues of blasphemers.

Proper usage today would be to say, "We shouldn't give the death penalty to rapists, I am a supporter of eye-for-an-eye".

Oddly, you tend to see conservatives use the term in a mean way, when it really should be liberals using the term in a naive one.

While I do appreciate the history lesson, I'm not sure that it will change my usage in the future. Generally speaking, people understand the phrase to illustrate a barbaric, "two wrongs" form of punishment. While this may not be historically accurate, that is the common understanding. Using it in the historically correct manner, I may confuse people who are unfamiliar.

Eh...but now that I know, I don't think I could stand it knowing that I'm using a phrase incorrectly. I may just cease to use it.

Geez, Swivel...Geez. :p

[swivel]

While I do appreciate the history lesson, I'm not sure that it will change my usage in the future. Generally speaking, people understand the phrase to illustrate a barbaric, "two wrongs" form of punishment. While this may not be historically accurate, that is the common understanding. Using it in the historically correct manner, I may confuse people who are unfamiliar.

Eh...but now that I know, I don't think I could stand it knowing that I'm using a phrase incorrectly. I may just cease to use it.

Geez, Swivel...Geez. :p

Go back to the origin of the discussion. Say what Jesus would have said (assuming he really existed), and what I say when the matter comes up: "I will not condone cutting off a thief's hand, nor a blasphemer's tongue. The punishment should not only fit the crime, it should advertise a fit society."

Feel free to use it anytime.



Oh, and by the way, the saying is "You can not EAT your cake and HAVE it too". There is nothing logically wrong with HAVING your cake and EATING it too, since the "too" implies the passing of some time. The etymology on this saying is very well-known and the common usage is not just logically defunct, it is a modern bastardization. Give me a hand with this one as well... :whip:

[Athena]

Go back to the origin of the discussion. Say what Jesus would have said (assuming he really existed), and what I say when the matter comes up: "I will not condone cutting off a thief's hand, nor a blasphemer's tongue. The punishment should not only fit the crime, it should advertise a fit society."

Feel free to use it anytime.

I might just take you up on that. :p


Oh, and by the way, the saying is "You can not EAT your cake and HAVE it too". There is nothing logically wrong with HAVING your cake and EATING it too, since the "too" implies the passing of some time. The etymology on this saying is very well-known and the common usage is not just logically defunct, it is a modern bastardization. Give me a hand with this one as well... :whip:

Oh, this one's already on my list. Has been since the first time I remember hearing it. My mom said it to me when I was young and I replied, "But, I have to have my cake in order to eat it." My dad laughed and took the opportunity to explain the saying, much like you just did.