Imagine being innocent of child rape, but you were still executed....

[trumad]

It's not like people who have been accused of this crime were eventually exonerated.....

Mistakes happen and until you can prove that the death penalty is flawless, then in mho, it's murder.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. There have been cases of unfounded allegations of child rape during

divorces with contentious issues of child visitation, custody, and/or support.

[trumad]

2. Many many cases....

[WinkyDink]

16. You added the extra "many's", so now I'm wondering if you have the evidence.

[trumad]

21. OK---one case.... is that fair.... and if so...

you ok with that?

[Evergreen Emerald]

54. what? It is so hard in our society for children who are abused

An adult is more powerful, more knowledgable of law and the world in general, more able to manipulate the system, the child and the family.

It is difficult for children to tell of the abuse and what they are put through is disgusting in our system of justice.

And you actually have the nerve to suggest that "many many" children are big fat liars. Bullshit.

Many many rapists are bigfatliars who use any excuse to avoid consequences for using children to get their rocks off.

Show me stats. And then find the stats where rapists get away with it because the child is too young to talk about it.

[anonymous171]

3. That is why the death penalty is wrong. It cannot be undone if you are exonerated.

[trumad]

4. And there aint no doubt that innocent people have been executed.

but I guess that's OK for some.

[EFerrari]

5. People seem to focus on the crime and not the irreversability

of the "penalty", let alone, how selectively it is handed out.

[Blue_In_AK]

6. Exactly.

If the number of child sexual assault cases just here in Alaska that I transcribe is any indication, there must be thousands and thousands of these offenders nationwide, probably way more than anyone wants to know about -- maybe even millions. Each one is horrific in its own right, but if we started executing these people we would soon run out of lethal injection drugs. There is no way to ensure that a death penalty for child sexual assault would be administered equally and fairly (if the death penalty can EVER be fair, which I doubt). It's just too slippery a slope.

[leftynyc]

7. That's the only reason

I'm against the death penalty at all. I know in my heart that innocent people have been executed. That doesn't mean some crimes don't call for it - just that any system run by humans is, by definition, flawed.

[NatBurner]

11. basically

[southern_belle]

8. I'm for it ONLY when DNA is available!

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. Then you just have to hope that the lab samples didn't get

mixed up, or that the lab actually did the tests in the first place - there are known incidents of both mixups in the lab and of labs just signing off on the tests without actually doing any testing.

[ieoeja]

17. You also have to hope the cops are honest. Because NO evidence is easier to fake than DNA.

Just need to transfer your saliva off the rim of a glass/bottle of water.

[Occam Bandage]

15. delete

[davsand]

9. Tough to reverse that sentence once it is carried out.

At least life in prison can be reversed if it turns out to have been an incorrect conviction.

Something else that lies under the entire discussion--a fundamental for me--is the opinion I have that the government should never be in the business of killing its citizens.



Laura

[berni_mccoy]

58. Maybe that should be a corner stone of the judicial systems penal code:

No punishment shall be irreversible.

Along with:

The judical system is fallible since it is operated by humans.

It would be a nice concept.

[GihrenZabi]

10. Understand how it works

First, you get an automatic appeal after a capital conviction.

Next, you get an automatic appeal of specifically the capital sentence.

No one just randomly throws around the death penalty.

Shore up the laws around rules of evidence, set statutes that demand certain levels of corroborating evidence before the capital punishment may even be put on the table, and eliminate these concerns.

That, IMHO, is the proper course of action. Eliminating the death penalty eventually leads to murderers and rapists getting out of jail and killing and raping again.

Even if it only happens ONCE, that's too much.

It is entirely irresponsible of any civilized society to recognize the monstrous nature of a criminal and then allow for ANY possibility of a repeat offense.

Obama is right on this one - only for the most egregious of offenses, but it's the right thing to do in those cases.

Rape a child so badly that she requires surgery? You can't atone for that. You can't balance those books. You cease to be human - you're a monster.

We kill monsters.

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. Never mind the many, many cases of people being exonerated

after 20 years or more, long after all their appeals had been exhausted. It is a statistical certainty that innocent persons have been executed.

Even if it happens only ONCE, that's too much.

If you think otherwise, YOU are the monster.

[GihrenZabi]

14. Hyperbole

It works wonders.

You are arguing against the way the penalty is applied, not against the penalty itself. Just realize that.

All anti-DP arguments come down to this: "The State never has the right to take the life of a human being."

We simply disagree on that premise. If a criminal has a gun pointed at my family and a police officer has the opportunity to prevent my family from being murdered by putting two bullets in a criminal's chest, then by all means, please feel free to unload the entire clip into the sonofabitch.

The State has the right to take a life, in extreme circumstances.

If you disagree, you either really haven't thought out all the parameters, or you simply agree with Dukakis, which is fine...but we all know what happened to Dukakis.

The real world isn't some moral absolute where we can dance around in fields of daisies. It's the *real world*, which is nothing more than an exercise is moral compromises.

It is WHICH compromises you accept or reject which define you. Not whether you compromise or not.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. No, that is disingenuous at best. I AM arguing against the penalty.

You know what the word 'penalty' means? It is a punishment - it comes AFTER the fact. As is, when the perpetrator is no longer an immediate threat.

That is a HUGE difference from self defense, or defense of another at the scene of a crime.

And no, the state never does have the right to take a life. Just because it has the power to do so does not give it the right. The only time the state, as an official entity (as opposed to a cop doing his job)has the power to take a life is when that life is in the custody of the state. If the person is in custody, taking the life is unnecessary - he is already removed from society.

But apparently you are just fine with the execution of innocents. Pretty well defines YOU.

[Milo_Bloom]

20. So you only have an evidence concern??

If you could eliminate the possibility of mistakes, the death penalty is okay?

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. That is the exact OPPOSITE of what I am saying.

The death penalty is NEVER OK. Never mind the fact that we can never eliminate the possibility of mistakes.

The state should never take a life. Not until it is able to restore it.

[Milo_Bloom]

26. Can't restore lost years in a prison cell either

If you are against it, just be against it, don't use the lame "possibility of mistakes" argument.

There are cases where there is no possibility of mistakes (Caught on tape + mountain of physical evdience + additional testimony) so by your reasoning, it is fine in those cases.

[GihrenZabi]

30. Absolutely

Life imprisonment is not justice for murder or child rape. The amount of pain the criminal feels does not equal the pain of the family of the murdered person, or the family of the raped child plus all the emotional trauma that person is stuck with.

I have a close friend who was raped repeatedly as a child, and I think the person responsible should die. I have heard her talk about her mental problems, the issues that will never be solved, the problems she has in relationships - her pain will never end. It will never go away.

Explain why her attacker deserves to live. Explain how he can ever atone for those actions. He can't.

Justice is about balance. The only balance to these sorts of crimes is to remove the person who committed them from the equation. They're not human anymore. They've voluntarily stepped outside the veil of humanity. You're not killing a human being - you're putting down a rabid animal. A monster.

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. You aren't talking justice - you're talking vengeance.

And no matter your fascist, reactionary feelings the perpetrators of even the most heinous crimes ARE human - they may be monstrous, but they are human and to treat them as less than human dehumanizes society.

Your argument is the same as those who torture people at Gitmo - they are terrorists, less than human so they deserve what we decide to dish out.

We have moved beyond the "eye for an eye" laws of the ancient middle east. By keeping the death penalty we stand in solidarity with countries like China, Iran, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia - every western industrialized country as given up the barbarism of state sanctioned killing.

We are known by the company we keep.

[Milo_Bloom]

43. It isn't necessarily about vengeance or justice, it is about simplicity.

When it is proven that someone committed some crimes, there is simply no purpose in keeping them around anymore.

Why risk the lives/safety of the prison guards and other potentially treatable inmates by exposing them to someone like that?

There is absolutely no point to keeping someone alive just so they can eventually die in prison.

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. That kind of thinking died with the Third Reich.

At least among civilized nations.

[Milo_Bloom]

46. Not at all...

Your just not thinking it through, because you are unable to justify your basic moral objection.

[RaleighNCDUer]

47. WTF?

first you demand that I hold to my stance without justifying it, and now you say I CANNOT justify it?

That's why I can't make any headway with you - you're fucking nuts.

[Milo_Bloom]

49. You have attempted to justify your stance everytime...

First you start with an evidentiary objection, which is easily shot down.

Even when you attempt a moral stance you have to qualify it... "The state should never take a life. Not until it is able to restore it."

Basically stated is that if the state is able to adequately compensate for the loss the life, than the punishment is fine.

When it is pointed out that the state doesn't have a time machine and cannot compensate for time spent in prison, you ignore that reality.


But, let's run with your latest justification...

We can put convicted murders and some violent rapists into chemically induced comas and keep them there indefinitely. We can bring them out if they are ever found to be incorrectly incarcerated.

[RaleighNCDUer]

50. Like I said,

you are fucking nuts.

"The state should never take a life. Not until it is able to restore it."

You really think that is a qualification? Like, it is EVER going to happen? Something that has NEVER happened in the history of the world?

The state can NEVER compensate for the loss of the life; therefore, the punishment is NEVER fine.

The state CAN compensate for unjustified imprisonment - and does so on a regular basis, paying millions of dollars in compensation to those lucky enough to be well represented by counsel - and, you might note, the person collecting the compensation is ALIVE to do so.

And I have no idea where that last sentence came from - I certainly never said it. You are making shit up, cuz that's all you got.

[Milo_Bloom]

51. Yes, it is a qualification and justification.

You are afraid to stand on actual conviction, so you need justifications.

Money doesn't make up for time in prison... you cannot adequately compensate for the lost time and mental anguish it causes.

The last setence is the logical conclusions of your attempts at justifying your stance.

When you become fully comfortable with your position, whatever it may be, you will understand it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

57. Ref. post #47.

I am, and have been for 25 years, very comfortable with my position which is firmly opposed to the death penalty, in all circumstances - as I have stated in every fucking post.

If you can't read, that's not my problem.

[Milo_Bloom]

59. So just stop trying to justify it with lame, debunkable arguments.

You want to be against it fine.

But, you would obviously be for putting people in chemical comas, correct?

That is afterall where your logic leads.

[RaleighNCDUer]

60. I was about to post another rational post about the source of

personal morality, but you obviously want to only piss me off, so go ahead, reply to this so you can get the last word.

And fuck off.

[Milo_Bloom]

64. Sorry logic upsets you so much.

[JVS]

53. First of all, Godwin. Second, are you aware of what kind of punishments we gave to those...

who we got our hands on when the 3rd reich fell?

Read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials

[RaleighNCDUer]

61. First of all, Huh?

Who or what is Godwin and what does he have to do with it?

And yes, the allies executed a couple dozen of the top war criminals.

That was wrong. A great many more who were as bad or worse than those few were sentenced to life in prison - of them, most were eventually released - and many others never saw the inside of a courtroom. So how was the DP the right sentence for the few, and positions with our space program the right end for others?

It was not justice. There can be no justice for the murder of 20 million. All it was, was public vengeance, and unworthy of an enlightened nation. We should not have executed the ones we did (a more fitting punishment would be for them to live to see their world view utterly repudiated by civilization), AND we should not have given a pass to those we needed for their anti-soviet intelligence connections, their scientific expertise, or their willingness to be pawns for the CIA. THAT was not justice, either.

[Milo_Bloom]

65. Google is your friend...

Godwin's law as it is known is brought up when the first person cries Hitler.

It is the idea that everyone tries to bolster their argument by referencing Nazi's and/or Hitler, thereby weakening a REAL comparrison to them.

Such is the case with your reference to the Nazi's as being the last who would argue for the DP as the best solution to a particular problem.

[RaleighNCDUer]

68. Fuck Godwin's Law.

IMO, that is a creation of fascists meant to shut down any criticism of the 3rd Reich by denying any legitimate comparison to the 3rd Reich.

The person to cite Godwin's Law as a way to avoid the argument is the one to expose himself as a fascist. I call that NCEvilDUer's Law, and it is a collorary to Godwin's Law.

Here I was in a rational discussion about the DP, and someone mentions a guy named Godwin. I thought it was a rational response, and didn't even make a connection to Godwin's Law - so sue me.

My point stands - the DP was used more extensively by the Nazis than any other nation since imperial rome, with increasingly bogus reasoning. Eventually, it came down to "because we can". The person I was responding to cited such bogus rationale for executing people that it could ONLY be compared to Nazi Germany.

Don't like it? Look at the reasons I said it.

[Milo_Bloom]

69. Like your other responses, it was not rational either.

The Nazi's executed people without reason and/or for reasons of race/creed/religion.

"The person" talked about giving the death penalty to convincted murderers and violent rapists... you know, people who had actually DONE SOMETHING to deserve it.

Like your other rationals and justifications, this one for raising the Nazi's is just as lame.

[RaleighNCDUer]

72. Learn a little history.

The Nazis did not open the death camps in 1931. It took a while to get there. They expanded the use of the DP for a number of crimes and nobody protested very hard (without getting arrested themselves) which empowered them to expand them even more until by 1943 the state was, as you said, executing people without reason and/or for reasons of race/creed/religion.

Also, one of the FIRST groups they conducted wholesale executions of were the euthanasia programs against disabled persons - those persons who were determined to be a 'burden on society', just as the life-in-prison persons are a burden on society. They will never be useful, always be a burden, so let's kill them.

THAT is the correlation I was making. When the power of the state is the issue, matters like guilt or innocence are secondary. Scalia, evidently one of your heroes, said that factual innocence of a crime is not sufficient grounds to overturn a properly arrived at 'guilty' verdict. Who cares if the person is innocent? Let's kill him.

The only reason we have a constitution is because we recognize that the individual is powerless against the overwhelming might of the state. Allowing the state the power to decide who lives and who dies gives it absolute power.

And by the way, why the FUCK do you disallow me 'justification' as an argument against the DP but claim the same fucking 'justification' as a reason to uphold the DP? FUCKING HYPOCRIT.

[Milo_Bloom]

73. A completely nonsensical comparison.

Trying the "slippery slope" argument are we? The Nazi's started with the disabled, which is exactly like a convicted rapist... LMAO.

You went for the Nazi comparison because you tried for the shock value... it failed miserably.

As for your Scalia quote, he was talking about powers of various courts and although I believe courts SHOULD be able to find fact in DP cases, that isn't currently the way our legal system is set up. If it was up to me, we would have an entirely different legal system, with factual reviews.

Your charge of hypocrisy makes no sense at all, as I am not against the DP in the least or have any moral objections to it nor have I tried to "justify" anything.

You still have failed to answer the chemical coma question... why are you afraid of that?

[RaleighNCDUer]

77. On the contrary, you are constantly trying to justify the execution of

innocent people - because whenever you have state executions, you WILL have innocents being executed.

And you 'chemical coma' question is just nonsense and not worthy of discussion - it is not used as a punishment ANYWHERE IN THE FUCKING WORLD and thus has no relevance. I'm talking about reality here, not about hypotheticals.

[Milo_Bloom]

79. The same lame debunked justification, I see.

"innocent people - because whenever you have state executions, you WILL have innocents being executed." Still feel the need to qualify it all, eh? If you properly fix evidence review and create standards, you can entirely eliminate mistakes.. but according to you even that isn't sufficient... so why do you keep going back to it?

Why are you so afraid to address the chemical coma? Or are you still living under the fantasy that life in prison is about "punishment". Life in prison is about removing the person from society. A chemical coma allows for that, while still embracing your bring them back to life justification.

[JVS]

75. 1931, eh?

[RaleighNCDUer]

38. What the FUCK are you going on about?

I just said that is NOT what I said.

The state should NEVER execute ANYONE.

Is THAT fucking plain enough for you?

And here is a SECOND statement.

If the state DOES maintain the 'death penalty' it WILL make mistakes.

The first statement is independent of the second statement. The second statement is, however, a corollary of the first. The fact that you can't restore a dead person is not a "lame argument". It is one of MANY arguments against the death penalty, and one of the best ones - removed from debatable concepts of morality or religion, it is simple fact. It is not the only fact, or the only argument.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

40. Bingo.

I agree. I understand the death penalty mentality because I used to have that mindset. I came around to believing it is more wrong for a society to murder its own people in the name of justice.

I am absolutely against the death penalty.

[Milo_Bloom]

42. So make the point without resorting to nonsensical points.

A mistake may be made is not a compelling argument... it is an easily debunked one, especially since it can be used to justify not throwing someone in jail as well.

Just make the moral objection based on whatever and be done with it, don't try to pump up your personal moral objections with easily debunked nonsensical arguments.

[trumad]

22. So---is that perfection?

Shouldn't it be 100 percent right?

[Beaverhausen]

28. oh really?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/04/10/krone.htm

[QueenOfCalifornia]

41. You are wrong.

Eliminating the death penalty does not allow for repeat offenses. People who are convicted and sentenced to life without parole die in their prison cell.

No one here is defending the actions of a rapist. No one.

[SwampG8r]

44. and allow new evidence at appeal

right now it isnt allowed if it wasnt part of the trial originally

[peacebaby3]

56. So what constitutes a direct appeal as well as state and federal habeas?

What issues can be brought up at each level of appeal?

What are the differences between each state since the large majority of the first appeals are at the state level? Does the fact that some judges are elected verses some judges appointed play any role?

Who decides whether a crime is charged and then indicted as a capital crime?

How is the death penalty not random? Does each state have the exact same code regarding the death penalty? Does every crime that meets the code charged and indicted as a capital case?

Does the race of the defendant or victim play a role in who is charged and indicted in a capital case?

Is a sentence of death always applied by a jury of a defendant's peers?

How many people have gotten out of jail after receiving a LWOP sentence? If so, what is the recidivism rate for those people?

What is the recidivism rate of murder verses drug and property crime?

If you kill or rape a person's loved one, does he or she automatically get equal retribution?

What is the difference between aggravators and mitigators during the sentencing phase of a capital case and what is the weighing process during the deliberations? What would constitute legitimate mitigators?

Where is the line for what we consider "heinous?" If the law states that a crime must be considered heinous and/or cruel in comparison to other capital crimes in order for a defendant to receive the death penalty, would a crime where the victim lived be more heinous than a crime where the victim is murdered?

Do states or regions without the death penalty have a higher murder rate than states that have the death penalty?

[Milo_Bloom]

19. It should depend upon the evidence.

[goldcanyonaz]

23. And if there is a video of the said act with the perp on it?

Still a pass?

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. You think life behind bars is a 'pass'? nt

[Milo_Bloom]

27. For some... yes.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

70. How many cases

of child rape are caught on video? Less than 1%

I am against the death penalty.

It is not a pass when you are sent to prison with no chance of parole.

Vengeance is not the job of the state.

[TexasObserver]

29. False allegations of sex abuse of children is already an epidemic in custody fights.

The problem is that unless there is good evidence of guilt, backed up by good forensic evidence of the actual attack, we are often relying upon testimony, and perjured testimony happens all the time.

Children can be convinced they have been sexually abused even when they haven't. And worse, adults can be too. Unfortunately, in the past twenty years we have had an epidemic of "recovered memories," that were little more than stories a therapist developed in the mind of a pliable patient.

Even with murders, we know that many, many defendants will not receive adequate legal representation, will not be tried fairly, will be subjected to biases and prejudices, and will have little way to defend themselves.

The decision by the court was right for many reasons, and they all are based in the fear of injustice that is irretrivable. Sex abuse of children is a major problem and anyone who rapes a child should be put away for a long, long time. Unfortunately, in our country, some of those perps will be ages 13-17, and will barely be past the abuse that led them to do likewise with younger kids.

[woo me with science]

63. Thank you. Excellent post. nt

[Tatiana]

31. I am for the death penalty for repeat offenders.

So if they've caught you at it once. You've served your time and get paroled, and you commit the same crime again?

Well, you can't be rehabilitated and you are a danger to society.

[Solon]

33. And that has what to do with the fucking OP?

Pro-DP people seem to think that the justice system is perfect, guess what, its not, that's just a fact. Do you really want to run the risk of having the wrong person executed?

[Tatiana]

34. As one who has worked in the justice system, I know it is not perfect.

But I think if you've been convicted with incontrovertible evidence (DNA) and burn a second shot at life committing the crime of child rape, the DP should be considered.

Assisted on a case with guy who raped a 10 year-old girl. Pled guilty to a lesser and got paroled after serving only 5 years. Did not take therapy seriously. Had delusions that the girl "loved" and "wanted" him. I knew it was only a matter of time, and sure enough, he ended up raping his niece 13 months later.

He'll probably serve 10 years of his sentence this time. He'll likely get out while he's still in his 40's. Maybe early 50's if we're lucky. And he'll go out and do it again, because the recidivism rates are that high.

I respect those who are against the death penalty. However, I am for it and I think we should be very strict and judicious in its application and I think there has to be iron-clad evidence; certainly the opposite of the Texas model.

I think of that criminal's niece, who was a straight A student and eager to begin her freshman year of high school. She went out back to the family's shed and killed herself. Her abuser is still alive, and to me, there's something tragically wrong with that.

[Solon]

35. So you ask for impossible standards...

and only then should the Death Penalty be considered? Congratulations, you agree with me, I believe, more or less the same thing, the only difference is that I know they are impossible standards, so the death penalty should be abolished until such time that the Justice system can be made perfect, in other words, never.

[LisaL]

55. No death penalty was needed, if he were to be kept in prison

longer than five years. Why only five years?

[TexasObserver]

32. The witnesses, the police, the prosecutor, the grand jury, the judge & the jury were all wrong

In hundreds of cases resolved by DNA evidence the past 15 years, the witnesses, the police, the prosecutor, the grand jury, the judge & the jury were all wrong.

The system is stacked against defendants who lack huge resources. It's easy for an innocent person to be convicted of a serious crime. Once the police decide you're guilty, they and the prosecutors have an easy time shaping evidence and witnesses. Those witnesses that are 100% sure at trial were likely 50% sure when they first made the ID.

We have a bad, bad Justice system. It can never be presumed honest, fair, and just.

[Hoof Hearted]

36. Imagine being innocent of murder, but you were still executed

DUH

[skooooo]

37. Imagine what rightwingers will want to make a captal offense next time...and the time after that...

[old mark]

48. Imagine being guilty of child rape

and given early realese so you could go and do a few more.
Happens every day.
mark

[Mass]

52. Why stop at rape? What about people who beat a child so severely that he needs to go to the hospital

About people who mistreat a child so badly that he is mentally scarred for life?

I am totally against death penalty for the same reason as the OP and many other reasons, but, in this case, I am also puzzled by the criteria. There are other crimes as severe as this one regarding a child that nobody ever considered for death penalty. Do the people who think it is fine here consider these other crimes should warrant death penalty as well.

[reflection]

62. Agreed.

And all the tortured logic will not change this truth.

[helderheid]

66. General Discussion: Presidential

[Duder]

67. I see a bright light... n/t

[high density]

71. Imagine... Obama is elected president instead of McCain

And part of it is because he's smart enough to not put himself in a lose-lose Dukakis position. There are plenty of anchorwhores out there waiting to be 2008's Bernard Shaw.

I am not pro death penalty by any means, but I am also not a single issue voter on the subject. In addition, I do not believe it is currently possible to have a meaningful discussion about the death penalty in our media soundbite world where everything is processed down to six second clips.

[JVS]

74. You wouldn't be able to notice. You'd be dead!

I can't believe it took me this long to realize that it's a trick question!

[Occam Bandage]

76. Imagine being innocent of child rape, but you still spent your entire life in prison, and died

alone, miserable, and hated by everyone you ever knew.

[Marrah_G]

78. How many children would testify if they knew it could lead to the death of their parent?

Or if they did not know.......how badly would that screw up a child later in life. It's hard enough to heal from the abuse without adding onto it that the resulting death of the victims parent. Most children have very mixed emotions about their abusers.