The Supreme Court has rejected the death penalty for raping a child. While I agree with conservatives that the low-life, pond-licking scum deserve it, I also know that someone willing to rape a child will feel free to murder the same child, if he knows he's facing the death penalty because of it.

However, if I were on the jury of a family member of the child on trial for murdering the child's rapist, ....

The death penalty is the easy way out for them.

Put them in with the general prison population, I hear they love child rapists.

Most criminals of any kind manage to justify to themselves why their crime really isn't wrong. Once they've raped the kid, though, if they know death is the punishment, they'll be able to justify shutting the kid up - permanently. I have no problem with tossing them into the prison yard, preferably with a uniquely colored jumpsuit to identify them.

I'm opposed to capital punishment. It's basically glorified petty revenge. I doubt there's any deterrence on crime. If you're to the point of murdering somebody, the fact that you may be put to death isn't going to persuade you not to. I'm sure any criminal psychologist would get my back on that one.

I also look at the company we keep. With a few notable exceptions, such as Japan and South Korea, most of the death penalty countries are the likes of Libya, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea-- not exactly beacons on enlightened society.

I agree with Kennedy's reasoning here:

"When the law punishes by death, it risks its own sudden descent into brutality, transgressing the constitutional commitment to decency and restraint."

I feel it crosses the line into uncivilized.

This would be like (off the top of my head, no googling) the Onion Field Murders; the criminals kidnapped two police officers and thought that the Little Lindbergh Law would mean automatic capital punishment (for the kidnapping) so they killed the cops to shut them up.

I can't think of a more fitting and just punishment for these subhumans than to have to live in fear and terror of being raped, beaten and/or killed by someone way bigger and way meaner than them every remaining second of their miserable lives just like their victims are sentenced to.

You wouldn't be on the jury with any kind of connection to the family. That would be an automatic disqualification. On the other hand, they should never go to trial. They should be shot (multiple times if necessary) while trying to escape.

Ugh. This article doesn't even mention all the horrible things he did to try to kill her. At one point he tried to force her to gouge out her own eyes with scissors.

His lawyer says the case shouldn't have come to trial because he's insane. I say, he shouldn't see the light of day again if he's that kind of crazy.

Iso agree with you on that.

I read about this case. Horrendous. This woman has to be an amazing person to survive what he put her through.

In Canada, repeat offenders or those that have committed crimes of this magnitude are candidates for Dangerous Offender Status. Remember - no death penalty there. It isn't often used, but it essentially means that the person in question cannot ever be released or even come up for consideration to be released. They will die of old age in prison.

It's reserved for people like Paul Bernardo, serial rapist (The Scarborough Rapist - husband of Karla Homolka, though I think he got the status reversed. Not sure.), and various other serial killers.

The most recent example is the pig farmer from central B.C. who preyed on prostitutes for over 20 years. They have no idea how many women he killed - they were only able to find DNA for about 28 on his farm. He was feeding the bodies to the pigs.

I think it's a reasonable response for these offenders, particularly those that aren't eligible for the death penalty, that will inevitable reoffend.

might be nothing more than simple revenge, and it might even be considered cruel and unusual punishment. But anybody who is actually put to death (or dies waiting for their final appeal), won't commit whatever crime got them on death row again.

tonto_goldberg:

You wouldn't be on the jury with any kind of connection to the family. That would be an automatic disqualification. On the other hand, they should never go to trial. They should be shot (multiple times if necessary) while trying to escape.

No, no. I meant, if the family tried to off him, and were brought to trial, and I got jury duty, I'd probably feel they were justified.

In general, I have some reservations about the death penalty. I think it should be reserved for those who are a proven danger to society. Killing one's lover when finding them in another's bed wouldn't really qualify. Selecting random victims and killing them certainly would, as would mass murder.

However, I personally knew a murderer of 3 (that they knew about), who was sentenced to death, commuted by the Supreme Court's decision about it being cruel and unusual, and somehow got out on "good behavior." I didn't know his history, but I knew he was creepy. Around the time I met him, he was busy murdering (at least) four women. They think he killed 14 people in all.

While the thought of a possible sentence of death is no deterent, had this man been executed, several people (and one woman's unborn child) would probably be alive today.

Incogneato,

There's no doubt that our justice system is messed up, but I disagree with the idea that not killing the murderer is the reason more people died. Letting him out of prison is the problem. It shouldn't be that hard to not release someone from prison.

rapple37:

Letting him out of prison is the problem. It shouldn't be that hard to not release someone from prison.

If he'd been executed, he couldn't have been released though, could he? Besides, at least in Texas, prisoners escape pretty regularly.

Even in prison, he could always have murdered other prisoners who perhaps were there for something less heinous, or guards who are trying to earn an honest living.

SomebodyElse:

might be nothing more than simple revenge, and it might even be considered cruel and unusual punishment. But anybody who is actually put to death (or dies waiting for their final appeal), won't commit whatever crime got them on death row again.

Neither will anyone who is locked up for life.

Going the other way, we could prevent recurrence of most crimes by, say, chopping off the offenders' hands, or blinding them. Maybe both.