|
Edited on Wed Jun-25-08 08:03 PM by LuckyTheDog
Victim's rights groups wanted the court to rule as its did on the issue of the death penalty for child rapists. Why? Because, in many cases of child molestation or rape, the perpetrator is a parent or close relative.
The thinking was that a family would close ranks behind the rapist rather than bring charges that could get a relative executed.
And then, there is the issue of asking a 4-year-old to give testimony that could lead to the death of a parent. Even if the parent is the lowest form of life on Earth, that's a lot to ask of a child.
Victim's right groups feared (with some justification) that many cases would never be reported -- let alone prosecuted. And in cases in which prosecution is attempted, the victim or the family of the victim might not cooperate. Sending a relative to a possible death by execution is a heavy thing to do. Many would never do that.
The REAL issue here is: What is the goal? If the goal is to get more perverts prosecuted and put away, then allowing the death penalty for child rape has a good chance of backfiring.
Allowing the death penalty for child rape makes sense only of the goal is to make people feel like they are being "tough on crime" and/or if they want a lot of cases of child rape to be covered up by families of the victim.
This to me is similar to the issue of abortion. Banning it by statute would make a lot of holy rollers feel good about how well the letter of the law “affirms life.” But it would be unlikely to actually reduce the real-world abortion rate. And as a kicker, it's get a bunch of young women killed by back-alley butchers. There are far better ways to go of the goal is to reduce the abortion rate.
|