Death penalty for rapists?

[devilof76]

Was it something I said?

 

[DPrime]

Your opinions on leniency toward rapists and the validity of the Bible are far from universal DPrime, though duly noted. I don't see any reason to continue the discussion in a forum such as this. See you in the Joe section!

Cheers to that!

The point of punishment for a crime is not primarily deterrence; it's punishment. So the deterrence argument doesn't hold water.

At best, that's an arguable opinion.

Deterring future crimes is at LEAST as important as punishing a single person... In fact, I can't even say that - maintaining law and order is much more important than enacting punishment/revenge on a single person for what's already done and can not be changed.

Preventing crime, and thus protecting the innocent, is much more important than punishing one individual. The real good that comes out of punishment is the hope that it will deter others from committing similar crimes.

 

[devilof76]

When you open the door to law designed to prevent crime, you are threatening to cross some very serious lines. If the primary purpose of justice is to protect pre-emptively, then a great many things become acceptable that have no respect for individual rights.

The threat of punishment should serve a double purpose of deterrence. If it does not, then that is not an indictment of the effectiveness of the punishment. It simply means that there are those who will commit crimes regardless of consequences. Personally, the existence of such people is the perfect argument for capital punishment.

There is no such thing as collective crime. There are only individual criminals and the only way to deal with them is by rendering them ineffectual.

 

[Morbach]

Was it something I said?

The fact that you pointed out the lack of female posts was funny to me. You think they'd be all over it.

 

[devilof76]

I know, huh?

 

[DPrime]

When you open the door to law designed to prevent crime, you are threatening to cross some very serious lines. If the primary purpose of justice is to protect pre-emptively, then a great many things become acceptable that have no respect for individual rights.

I don't think that's entirely true - hasn't that door already been opened?

You have a point, though. Certainly the potential for loss of individual rights exists (some would argue that certain rights have been lost as a result of post-9/11 anti-terrorism laws, for example), but democracy offsets that risk somewhat.

 

[jinxx]

what happens if a mentally handicapped or unstable person rape an individual, say a little girl?...should they go on trial just like anyone else?..death penalty, castration, banishment!?....lesser degree of punishment for reason of insanity/retardation!?

 

[Darth Cruel]

what happens if a mentally handicapped or unstable person rape an individual, say a little girl?...should they go on trial just like anyone else?..death penalty, castration, banishment!?....lesser degree of punishment for reason of insanity/retardation!?

I am not down with the making excuses stuff. If a person is capable of cruelty like this to another person...the world is better off without them. And when you start allowing for excuses, you open the door to undeserving people abusing them. Sorry, I already see our laws allowing that to an unacceptable extent.

 

[creature4000]

YES Yes and YEs

 

[jinxx]

I am not down with the making excuses stuff. If a person is capable of cruelty like this to another person...the world is better off without them. And when you start allowing for excuses, you open the door to undeserving people abusing them. Sorry, I already see our laws allowing that to an unacceptable extent.

I think being mentally handicapped is not an excuse....I'm just sayin'.

 

[bcm77]

As soon as they are found guilty they should be given a bullet in the head on the spot and to hell with all the human rights do gooders.

IMO they forgo all human rights when they commit these crimes and need exterminating like the vermin they are.

 

[Darth Cruel]

I think being mentally handicapped is not an excuse....I'm just sayin'.

That mindset is a large part of the problem we have in this country today. We have too many people wanting to create too many levels of guilt. And it allows for the guilty to play with the system in order to get softer punishment. I don't see enough difference between "can't control yourself", "can control yourself, but simply refuse to," and "don't know the difference" to justify slap-on-the-wrist-type punishments. All three equal dead or greatly and permanently injured people. And THAT is the important issue. Not why someone brutalized another person...but simply that they showed ther willingness by actually doing it. And I could even take that to include a person who brutalizes another because they are forced to. If a person is such a coward that they will harm another to avoid harm to themselves...then they are not improving the gene pool. In my opinion, they can be dismissed from service to the rest of humanity.

I see only one issue being important in the decision...Is the person willing to inflict cruelty on an innocent person? If so, the world is better off without them. Turning them loose will only endanger more people and incarcerating them creates an unnecessary expense. Doctors who want to study them can do it on death row.

I can also go on to say that I can not think of a single instance where being mentally handicapped has been reason for a brutal crime. In fact, cruelty is not a normal trait associated with the mentally handicapped. Cruelty is more commonly associated with sociopaths. And it is almost always insanity that is argued in court...not the defendant being mentally handicapped. And even that rarely wins in court as even sociopaths know the right from wrong. It is effectively one in a million cases where brutality was inflicted as a result of the perpetrator not knowing it was wrong to do. And in my opinion, not knowing right from wrong doesn't lessen the effect on the victim.

 

[LEADERCOBRA]

Bullet to the head. GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY. You guys are as quick to point the finger as ghost rider?! what if it's like green mile and didn't do anything. Remember...rape is an extreme sport to some people. Pwning with a hot dog

 

[-Super Hans-]

Bullet to the head. GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY. You guys are as quick to point the finger as ghost rider?! what if it's like green mile and didn't do anything. Remember...rape is an extreme sport to some people. Pwning with a hot dog

your presence offends me.

 

[Morbach]

Bullet to the head. GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY. You guys are as quick to point the finger as ghost rider?! what if it's like green mile and didn't do anything. Remember...rape is an extreme sport to some people. Pwning with a hot dog

Do yourself a favor and read the last few pgs of this thread. We already discussed the guilty/not guilty thing.

 

[Darth Cruel]

Bullet to the head. GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY. You guys are as quick to point the finger as ghost rider?! what if it's like green mile and didn't do anything. Remember...rape is an extreme sport to some people. Pwning with a hot dog

This issue has been addressed. False convictions are a problem that need to be dealt with, but not what is being discussed in this topic.

 

[jinxx]

That mindset is a large part of the problem we have in this country today. We have too many people wanting to create too many levels of guilt. And it allows for the guilty to play with the system in order to get softer punishment. I don't see enough difference between "can't control yourself", "can control yourself, but simply refuse to," and "don't know the difference" to justify slap-on-the-wrist-type punishments. All three equal dead or greatly and permanently injured people. And THAT is the important issue. Not why someone brutalized another person...but simply that they showed ther willingness by actually doing it. And I could even take that to include a person who brutalizes another because they are forced to. If a person is such a coward that they will harm another to avoid harm to themselves...then they are not improving the gene pool. In my opinion, they can be dismissed from service to the rest of humanity.

I see only one issue being important in the decision...Is the person willing to inflict cruelty on an innocent person? If so, the world is better off without them. Turning them loose will only endanger more people and incarcerating them creates an unnecessary expense. Doctors who want to study them can do it on death row.

I can also go on to say that I can not think of a single instance where being mentally handicapped has been reason for a brutal crime. In fact, cruelty is not a normal trait associated with the mentally handicapped. Cruelty is more commonly associated with sociopaths. And it is almost always insanity that is argued in court...not the defendant being mentally handicapped. And even that rarely wins in court as even sociopaths know the right from wrong. It is effectively one in a million cases where brutality was inflicted as a result of the perpetrator not knowing it was wrong to do. And in my opinion, not knowing right from wrong doesn't lessen the effect on the victim.

what about "victims" crying wolf!?...

your presence offends me.

I concur............

 

[Darth Cruel]

what about "victims" crying wolf!?

See below referenced post

This issue has been addressed. False convictions are a problem that need to be dealt with, but not what is being discussed in this topic.

 

[Darth Cruel]

In fact...I see "victims crying wolf" as just more of the exact same cruelty being inflicted on the innocent. It is just using the legal system and its punishment as the weapon.

 

[LEADERCOBRA]

You want someone to die for a sex crime? They should just go to prison