One way ticket to the other side!

Here's the problem - many death row inmates are being exonerated years later. As heinous as the crime certainly is, why put non-murderers on death row too?

I see your point Holly. My opinion is HEAVILY colored by what I saw. And in child rape cases, the punishment of death, fits the crime in my opinion. But I do keep up on how their are innocent people on death row. And maybe our current laws don't work well with my opinion. But child rape is equal to murder in my eyes especially since most children, once raped, are raped repeatedly because of their defenselessness.

I don't think anyone's questioning the heinousness of the crime (although some would reserve the death penalty for murder due to a need for proportionality and a belief that killing is ultimately worse because it is, shall we say, inevitably permanent). Other considerations include whether life without parole isn't equal to execution in its punitiveness and, of course, whether the state should be in the business of killing individuals at all.

I have heard (NPR) that some victim's rights advocates supported banning the death penalty for child rape because many of the perpetrators are family members of the victims and that having a child's testimony result in the execution of someone who may be close to them may itself not be a good thing. Sad, though, in either case.

I got to agree with Holly for the first time on this one. If we can start executing folks for crimes that do not result in death, I believe a snowball effect will start, and other non-lethal crimes will be placed under this heinous guise as well.

This is not an excuse for child rapists, I believe they need to be rehabilitated if possible, if not keep them away from society.

aba23,
I would say life in prison without parole is more of a punishment.

And as I said yesterday on my blog:
Child rapists are most certainly detestable creatures. However, the power of government to take away a life is extreme and dangerous. It should only be wielded when absolutely necessary.

While I disagree with T-Steel on this one, I think he makes an interesting point in this sentence:

"So why do the men and women that commit this terrible crime still get to see the light of day after effectively destroying another human being? Why?"

I recall the "institutional" child rape revelations of the 1990s re: the Church, Christian Brothers etc. One of the interesting consistencies of the victims in many of these cases - adults at the time of prosecutions - was that they had been scarred for life.

As adults, they often seemed never to thrive...and drifted into crime and drugs themselves.

While rape is horrible for an adult...I would argue that such an act against a child still in formative emotional and intellectually has more devastating consequences.

One of the SCOTUS arguments was that the death penalty necessitates death as part of the crime. But raping children is, in many sad cases, tantamount to killing them.

Thus, while I disagree with T-Steel and agree with ChrisWWW...I believe T-Steel's argument is strong in that respect.

( I recall a NYC trial a couple of days ago, where the woman was brutally raped, tortured, forced to claw her eyes out, and finally lit on fire and left to die. She survived (after trying to kill herself). Her attacker was convicted.

By SCOTUS logic, the criminal in that case should not get the death penalty...but the nature of the crime was so appalling it numbs the senses...and the woman survived only by luck and perserverence (she put her binding ropes over fire until they burned off).

Thus, I think T-Steel's argument raises a number of interesting points regarding the SCOTUS ruling.

Holly does make a good point about perps who are later exonerated by DNA.

While there has not been a proven case of an innocent convicted and executed in the US in living memory...the possibility certainly exists.

If we broaden the crimes deserving death to child rape . . . we risk opening the floodgates.

Recall the PC hysteria in the 90s with numerous examples of near-witch hunt madness.

Here is one case in NYC where the wrongfully convicted day care worker was awarded millions after spending years in jail...where he himself was raped, and attempted suicide. The prosecutors in this case actually witheld evidence that undercut the supposed victim's testimony.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=...

I think another perspective to consider (which I just recently read, but don't remember where) is to contrast two scenarios.

Scenario 1 is a person who joins in a robbery, during which an accomplice shoots and kills multiple victims. Said person is sentenced to death, in addition to the actual shooter, for his complicity.

Scenario 2 is the child rapist, who kidnaps, tortures, and mutilates a small child, but said child manages to survive their hideous ordeal.

Ignoring those who do not agree with the death penalty at all under any circumstances, for those that do support it (and I do, in general), how can someone believe that the criminal in scenario 2 is less depraved, and represents less of a threat to society, and is deserving of a lesser punishment than the individual described in scenario 1?

Marlow -

"While there has not been a proven case of an innocent convicted and executed in the US in living memory"

Actually, we had one recently here in Texas. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/34728...

While I also have very strong emotions on this topic, I feel that the court's reasoning is poorly grounded. Using the eighth amendment, the court has taken it upon itself to a) determine the relative measure of child rape vs. capital punishment, b) abruptly and far more broadly define "cruel and unusual", and c) mandate a societal direction that it deduced via results from its own rulings.

I dislike the obfuscation used by the court in the Kennedy decision -- and said so. Like you, T, I am taking some flak for this position. But leaving aside one's personal feelings on such atrocities, the constitution really is not supposed to be a tool to direct the future of society as the justices see it.

It's a flawed opinion.

I am all for a punishment that yields the highest deterrent. And it seems to me that life in solitary without parole is as extreme as it gets.

Polimom, you're probably right about the constitutional reasoning, but it didn't really seem to be the subject of T-Steel's post.

Holly does make a good point about perps who are later exonerated by DNA.

Holly's point applies to the death penalty ITSELF but has no bearing at all on whether the death penalty is appropriate for child rape. I'm with T-Steel there. But I still agree with her point, as courts and juries can and do screw up and convict the innocent, and once someone has been executed its too late to say "Oops!" I've always thought that a much higher standard of proof should be required for DP sentences, as in "pretty much beyond ALL doubt." (EX: Just as DNA has freed many wrongfully convicted of rape, it can also conclusively prove same beyond any shadow of a doubt in a child rape case.)

Convince me that life no parole really means jsut that and that prisoners never escape, and I'll happily forgo the death penalty. But in exchange I want child rapists held in the general prison population. :-)

If we broaden the crimes deserving death to child rape . . . we risk opening the floodgates.

Oh, please. For centuries the death penalty used to be about the only penalty for anything resembling a serious crime. Indeed, the word felony referred to crimes for which the death sentence could be applied, and extended down to even fairly petty theft. Slippery slopes rarely run back uphill.

i agree, we should not use the death penalty as punishment for crimes not resulting in death.

ergo, we should get a really, really big man to rape child rapists.

I wish to take exception to T-Steele's comment on rape victims in which he said:

"Those children either become shells of themselves that do anything without protesting or sick and angry projections of themselves that seek to do harm to any and everyone in anyway (or both). And when (if) they grow up, many are very dysfunctional adults with massive trust, relationship, and sexual issues. Frequently they become criminals themselves."

As a victim of childhood rape, it took me years to come out from my defensive shell. However, I am neither a perpetual victim nor an "angry projection". As a result of my experiences, I am very aware of the effects that any type of force can have on a person. I respect the law and look to others to do so as well.

That said, if there is a means of castration & sterilization for repeat offenders that does not violate the Constitution, I would definitely support it.

Austin Roth said: "Marlow -"While there has not been a proven case of an innocent convicted and executed in the US in living memory"

Actually, we had one recently here in Texas. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/34728...

Austin...that is an appalling case. One of many such examples where...with better money for a defense...there would be no execution (and possibly no conviction).

I know Texas gets a bad rap for such prosecutions...but one sees them in other states too.

They certainly give me pause when considering the death penalty as a punishment.

( I recall a NYC trial a couple of days ago, where the woman was brutally raped, tortured, forced to claw her eyes out, and finally lit on fire and left to die. She survived (after trying to kill herself). Her attacker was convicted.

This may seem like a small detail compared to the horror of what was done to this woman, but she was not forced to claw her eyes out. Or, to put it more accurately, She *didn't* claw or gouge her eyes out. Her assailant ordered her to do so, but she either outright refused or could not bring herself to do it, but either way, she still has her eyes. The rapist/torturer, however, did cut the skin above her eyes; she was bleeding from there as well as other places when she was found.

I know somewhat more about this case than I normally would because the victim was, at the time of the attack, a graduate student at the Columbia University School of Journalism, and my 18-year-old daughter is entering her sophomore year at Barnard College (part of Columbia), *and* my daughter is an editor on the Columbia Spectator, the university newspaper. She did not cover the story herself (the crime itself happened before she got to Barnard), but it's a huge story for the Spectator, needless to say, and she knows the reporter who covered the trial.

Then there should be more dead Catholic priests, is what you are saying. I guess though when you have the wealth of the Vatican at your back, you just get "reassigned". Heck of a job, Father!

This is not the Mikado, this is America. Maybe we should chop off hands for shoplifters, then. Child rapists are not just criminals- more often they are wounded animals themselves- just perpetuating the cycle. Killing them won't stop more.

Okay... here is the best argument I've read against the death penalty for these cases:

Legal reasoning aside, imposing the death penalty for child rape is a terrible idea. For any crime, you want to avoid incentives for the criminal to murder a victim who would otherwise survive. In states with the death penalty, if you rape and murder a child, you’re risking execution. If you also risk execution for raping the child even if you don’t murder him or her, then you have a powerful temptation to kill your victim anyway. Your legal jeopardy is no worse and you eliminate the potential witness. At the margins, the death penalty for child rape incrementally increases the danger to children from sexual predators.

http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2008...

rsm72, I should have been more careful in my characterization. That is what I saw these victims become. I apologize if I offended.

RememberNovember said:

This is not the Mikado, this is America. Maybe we should chop off hands for shoplifters, then. Child rapists are not just criminals- more often they are wounded animals themselves- just perpetuating the cycle. Killing them won't stop more.

You know, I had that viewpoint until I met a good friend of mine who's an ex-con and ex-gang member (wish his blog was still up). He talked about and showed me "the street" (and I volunteered at a local community outreach center there). Looking at those children's eyes and interacting with them after being brutally raped by adults just broke my heart. And something just snapped inside me. I thought about my children and what I would do if they were raped. And I've never been the same.

It's very very hard for me to be civil in this. It's just too terrible to me. Sometimes humans just cross a certain line and there's no return. No matter how earnest the plea, when certain lines are crossed, game over. It may sound barbaric and uncivil but it's hard for me to feel any other way about child rapists.

ChrisWWW:

That's an interesting point. But what about not committing the rape in the first place? Then you won't have to kill the victim since you would die first. Yes I know it's simplistic thinking but are we now reduced to worrying about how the rapist feels about their sentence before raping?

Tyrone,
It depends on what's more important to you, potentially saving the life of a victim or revenge.

How parallel these arguments are to debates about torture.

The bottom line isn't how bad the crime or the criminal is,but how low we are willing to sink when reacting to abomination.
It's about who we are, not who the criminal is.

.

T-Steel, you sure know how to start a firefight! :-)

Of course, I agreed with your original post, but I do understand the concerns registered by many of your readers.

I think there are many people who deserve death including child rapists, but I don't trust myself or anyone else to make that decision. Even if I got it 100% right, do I want to be a regular killer of others, even when they are scumbags who deserve it? I think being an executioner would slowly destroy me inside. (This last echoes runasim's comment.)

That said, few of us would hesitate to kill (would we?) if we caught someone in the act and that's how we could stop it. What is the difference between execution in defense of a child in an immediate case and retributive justice?

I can think of two things: First, in the immediate, almost self-defense type case, you can stop the crime while it's occurring. In the retributive one, the crime has already happened. However, perhaps the death penalty for child rape could be successfully preventitive? However, the second difference is the habitual and planned nature of retributive justice compared to immediate defense. When execution is common, it becomes part of who we are. This seems less likely in the immediate defense of child case.

However, in the long run, with children at stake, perhaps prevention should be the most important item. Adults have a better chance to deal with being (justified) killers than children can deal with having been raped.

I also agree with this sentiment from Matthew Yglesias:

At the end of the day, to be haunted by a nagging fear that somewhere there lurks a criminal who deserves death but who is, instead, suffering a lifetime of imprisonment doesn't strike me as especially reasonable.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives...

ChrisWWW,

"Potential" just stinks in this situation (no disrespect intended). It's extremely difficult for me to wrap my head around potentially saving the life of a victim by not threatening to kill the criminal if caught. That just rankles me. And the word "revenge", *SIGH*.... I'll tell ya this much, you all got me thinking about this more but I still feel zero compassion for the child rapist thus if we dropped a 5000 lb iron block on them I wouldn't blink.

And I agree with pacatrue's comments below:

However, in the long run, with children at stake, perhaps prevention should be the most important item. Adults have a better chance to deal with being (justified) killers than children can deal with having been raped.

And Jazz, this is probably one of the few positions that I'm extremely pig-headed about. So bring the firefight! :-)

I recoil at the very idea of being 'justified killers' other than in a situation of immediate danger and the need to save a particular child in the moment. .
Which person, or which judicial system, can be trusted to make that decision in a just way?

I can imagine myself, a person who has never been in a physical fight, chaining a child abuser to a radiator and pummeling him to death with the nearest blunt object. - in a fit or rage.
That's why I shouldn't be trusted to make that decision in any one particualr case, where the need to prevent and protect is not immediate. That pent up rage is there, ready to be evoked by asssociation, if not immediate circumstances.

Being a 'justifeid killer' can be nothing better than a killer-in-cold-blood, when you strip away the rhetoric.

Prevention is a hard thing to discern. Statistics are used both for and against capital punishment as a whole. What the proponents never,ever take into account, however, are abysmal flaws in the justice system, itself. As with other crimes, those actaully 'justifiably ' killed would be those with inadequate legal representation and/or those of an inately 'suspicious' class:: minorities, the poor, the social outcasts. Others would have lawyers adept at finding legal loopholes and at diluting or negating the strength of evidence.

Outcomes matter as much as the premises.

.

Considering the topic this is one of the nicest threads I've read here in a long time.

No personal attacks or name calling on others with differing opinions... Thoughtful replies... Good Grief Charlie Brown... a truly Moderate Voice!

Congratulations to all.

Now let's see if we can carry this over to discussions about of our candidates of choice... RIGHT!

I went to Baldilocks' blog to check out what beliefs she was using to support her contempt for both the court and perpetrators. The only Christian belief she uses is Matthew 18:6-7, where Jesus is quoted as saying the equivalent of "God damn America" to those who cause a little one who believes in Him to sin. There is a two-edged sword in such a sentiment. While it's common to swing this verse at those who introduce children to sex, there is no context that limits its application. Anyone who causes another to sin, be that through judgmental rhetoric, through saying it's those guys who are the bad guys, not us, or through allowing mistakes such as the execution of some innocent who seems guilty, is seriously on the hook. In 18:7, Jesus specifically condemns the world for this, not just pedophiles.

Whoever the real Jesus was, He apparently did have experience with the death penalty. The gospels don't quote Him as saying all these scum being crucified beside Him deserved what they got. The gospels portray Him asking forgiveness for everyone concerned, because they know not what they do. Do you understand pedophiles well enough to say they don't fit such mercy?

When my daughters were young, it occurred to me that I couldn't imagine how a man could be attracted to them sexually, especially not as a preference. I can't quite appreciate what women and gay men see in men, either, but at least there I can picture what that must be like. I can't with pedophilia. Is it possible that pedophiles find the attraction just as strange? From what I understand, they do. Many see it as quite alien and shameful. Yet that's not enough to control the behavior.

How much different is pedophilia from my trying to control my anger rather than have my natural response hurt someone or some else trying to control some substance abuse? I don't know. As you say, the consequences of child rape can be worse than anything my nature would do to anyone. Does that just make me lucky, not good?

No one in the gospels suggests getting rid of the death penalty. It was a fact of life in ancient times. Today it is not. Lawyers point out that trials and appeals are much more complicated in a death penalty case than without that on the table. It's not entirely random who gets the death penalty, but it's not entirely consistent either. There is no good evidence it is a deterrent. Why isn't life without parole enough?

What the issue boils down to is whether some application of the death penalty is justice or mere vengeance. Some would say even the latter is acceptable, only why people see a humane death as more vengeful than life without parole is beyond me. How will such deaths fix anything?

Anyone can consult their own higher power on this. Mine has me believing the death penalty is always wrong. We never know enough about the perpetrator to know what we're doing in killing someone. Others can decide for themselves, but I wish they would use more than a single Bible verse or single secular rationale to do that. Should all human behavior be judged according to its effects on its victims, even just anger and falseness? There may be a whole lot of people in the afterlife surprised to be on the wrong side of Matthew 18:6.

Please let's not use the Bible to decide life and death, or even punishmet,. policies.
Stoning is recomended for such sins as for youths not being respectjul or obedient to their elders. It even recommens that parents bring their own children to be stoned.

It's amazing that those who rely on the Bible never find anything in it to contradict their own opinions.