Child Rape: Life or Death?

[cabalofdemons]

this guy wont get out though. No parole. Ive visited prison and it's not a fun place to be, No matter how the media says that prisoners get if easy, prison is no paradise.

[cabalofdemons]

The Supreme Court stated that the death penalty being imposed in a child rape case in unconstitutional because it violates the 8th Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment. Besides, the US has not executed a rapist that didn't kill his victim since 1964. I see rapists as scum, but a murderer is the worst. Life without parole is a fine sentence for a rapist.

[ericblr]

You know what, although I still disagree with the Supreme courts decision to overstep its bounds, maybe it is better for the bastard to be in prison. I forgot how much torture child molesters go through at the hands of other inmates. As a matter of fact he will probably be getting his just deserts a little faster than what our so called justice system would be able to dish out. I think this perp will be dead within a couple of months.

[cabalofdemons]

You could be right. Besides, the fact that he is never getting out of jail is bad enough. Unless they isolate this guy from the prison population, he won't make it in prison.

[hatertribe]

People love that image of vindication, but it is really a delusion. This may be true for high profile media cases, but for the average case most people like this keep to themselves, do their time, and are out after ten years or so.

Prison is not the madhouse some people like to think it is, but I suppose for some the delusion provides a deterrant to crime.

[cabalofdemons]

The Supreme Court didn't step over it's boundaries. The death penalty only applies to murder. This was not a murder case. As for the whole states' rights argument, that is cliche. States cannot enact laws that run counter to the U.S. Constitution. This law is clearly unconstitutional. Besides Patrick Kennedy is still sentenced to life without parole, so he is already living in hell.

[ericblr]

Please tell me what part of the constitution the Supreme Court was protecting? Why did they suddenly decide after so many decades of the law being in the books that it was suddenly "unconstitutional"? I am afraid the Supreme Court is, yet again, legislating from the bench to suit the current political climate.

[Ragnorckgorgonash]

Death.

[tubebunny7]

Child rapists will then likely kill their victims as well as raping them if that were the case. Rape is not on par with murder. Yes, rape is horrible but people have survived through a lot more but I've never seen people survive their own deaths. Murder is the worst crime possible.

[ericblr]

Rape scars women for life! How can you even sit there with a straight face and let one of those animals rape a kid and then get off scott free?!

Death!!!

[tubebunny7]

Who talks about them getting off scott free? Death? That is what you are going to give to every rape victim if you are going to equal rape to murder, fool! Rape scars men and women for life but it's nothing compared to the wound that murder brings. It ends your life and removes you from those that love you. I'd take being raped a 1000 times before getting murdered one time.

[ericblr]

I dont think any of the girls who where raped by family members would agree with you. You were probably never a rape victim.

[tubebunny7]

I'm not but I don't have to be raped to understand it's implications. But I know that the human spirit can survive all kinds of hardship. There are people who have survived and picked up their lives even in light of the slaughter of their family members for instance. I believe that you can overcome everything expect losing your life. It's the most precious thing one has.

[cabalofdemons]

I agree. Rape is wrong, and I agree that Patrick Kennedy should be sentenced to life with no parole, but he did not murder this girl. Had he have murdered this girl I would say give him the death penalty, but he didn't. The Supreme Court made the right decision.

[ericblr]

Did the supreme court make the right decision by stepping over its boundaries,again, and intruding on yet another state's right?

[Ragnorckgorgonash]

prison and the death penalty exist for the protection of society, not for the punishment of criminals...I don't think that a child rapist can point to anyone and say "he is a greater threat than I".

The death penalty should be used in those extreme cases where there is no possibility of innocence, no way that a DNA test done years later will exonerate the accused.

The reason you have given for not applying the death penalty, is a "reason" these types of criminals do not practice reasoning.

[tubebunny7]

Protecting society doesn't happen by putting a death penalty on a crime when there is a more heinous crime that can be committed without threat of more punishment or better chances to be caught. The assumption that these types of criminals are all mad men without any reasoning is just silly. But if they have no reasoning why would it protect society more by killing child rapists? You would think an ordinary rapist might be easier deterred by a possible death sentence.

[Ragnorckgorgonash]

I am afraid you have mentally separated the phrase "child rapist" with he act of raping a child...or perhaps you have misunderstood and believe that it refers to a child that commits rape.

If we were to limit punishment because there is a more heinous crime possible (in your opinion) then were do we stop??? 'Yes, he killed a woman...but only one woman'...'yes he killed a family of four, but four...not five!"

[tubebunny7]

Well you have to include that it's uncommon to give the death sentence for raping a child so it's not like it's something earth shatteringly different. Your analogy doesn't hold up because it doesn't pertain to the same victim of victims. If you rape and then kill the victim you have silenced them from them being a possible witness in court at no additional cost. A rapist that rapes again well I don't view it as the same as a murderer that murders again.

[tubebunny7]

{cont.)

I was a bit unfortunate with the term "child rapist". I mean someone that rapes a child. Why punish someone who can't supposedly reason more than someone who can reason, like someone who rapes an adult? If anything there is a history to treat those that are insane somewhat favorable than someone who isn't insane.

Regarding no possibility of innocence, there is no such thing. There will always be some doubt for different reasons but if we exclude doubt we wouldn't have anyone in prison.