atomik_sprout

__________________


http://www.myspace.com/boondocksamurai

Miroku4444

I don't see how making child rape a non-death sentence punishable offense is good?

__________________

LenMiyata

Grumble Grumble Grumble
Basically, the Supreme Court stated that the Death Penalty should be reserved for heinous crimes that result in the death of the victim. If this wasn't the case, then how can you draw the line on when the Death Penalty applies, and when it doesn't. Under the reign of King George in England, there was a case where a 13 year old boy was hung for stealing a silver spoon! Isn't the opposite extreme just as bad as allowing child rapists to live??? And what do you do in the case where the perpetrator was wrongly convicted. You just can't resurrect someone after the fact...

__________________

Legend

Good point Len, but criminals or the accused are not executed right at the point of arrest. I would HOPE that all of them get a fair trial, and have enough confident in the crime scene investigation teams.

__________________
LEGEND IS: UP TO SOMETHING, GOOD FOR NOTHING.

Miroku4444

Well thats where i disagree with the Supreme Court, it should be based on the worst acts of heinous crimes, which includes child rape. Where these acts don't have to have a physical death of the victim to meet this requirement for a death sentence. Since, most of the time it results in the death of the child spirit, innocence, and stable mental state anyway. They may be physically alive, but their dead inside.

The line would be drawn at, crimes would have to be classified heinous enough to meet the death penalty status. Which would be determined by the courts of each state. Thats the line drawn.

It should be "Death Penalty should be reserved for heinous crimes that result in the mental or physical death of the victim".

See legend's post.

__________________

Hassun

Well in my opinion lifelong imprisonment is worse than the death penalty so that's all a matter of personal 'preference' isn't it?

__________________

Abu Dhabi

^_^ especially if the Supreme Court followed my idea of have long term prisons in deserts/tundras and forced to do hard, menial labor for the rest of their able bodied lives!

but i digress...

even though i am heavily against the death penalty, i was still like "WTF you can't kill the rapists anymore??" but i do truly believe that no one person has that kind of dominion over another's life. and besides, they'll probably get murdered (or at least severely beaten) in prison, and they'll never have their life back... and if they want to die, they'll have to kill themselves the no good sons-a-b!tches!


and as for gun control... yay! America was won with guns and Bibles! now you may ask, "Abu, why do you support people having guns but no support the death pentalty? wtf? LOL!" and i would respond, "just cuz i don't agree with the death penalty, doesn't mean i think everyone in the world is perfect and great and lovely. humans have the right to protect their homes and families and loved ones. and if they kill a robber or no-do-gooder on their property... well what the hell was the guy doing there? and how can you punish a lucky shot?"

^_^ but whatever, you guys probably debate better than i do...

__________________

LenMiyata

Grumble Grumble Grumble
OK, then lets start splitting hairs... A 5 year old would meet a definition of a child, but what about a 12 year old? a 16 year old?, a 18 year old? Would it make a difference if the victim was a non-virgin? mentally retarded? an abandoned runaway? a juvenile delinquent? if the victim was consenting?
And this is one of the reasons why state laws are appealed to the Supreme Court. Would it be fair if the crime had the death penalty in one state, but if the crime had occurred just a few hundred yards away it would only be given a 5 year sentence. One of the requirements to prevent 'cruel and unusual punishment' is to ensure consistency in the penalties for the enforcement of the Laws of the Land. Ultimately IT IS The Supreme Court that sets the standard definition for crimes heinous enough to meet the death penalty status...

__________________

ILikeApples5520

I live in New Jersey, where the Death Penalty had been abloished for good.

And I completely support that decision, as I support the 2nd Supreme Court decision.

This is in general, for rapists and murderers :

If a person commits one or both of these actions, the person can either be sane or insane. If he is insane, he has no right to be punished in a normal jail and needs to be sent to a psychiatric facility. If the person is sane, he will have to maybe deal with his own guilt biting away at him in a jail cell. But definitely, he will have to deal with surviving in a hell-hole jail trying to survive.

If you get the death penalty, you get closure and you know when it's coming. If you get life in jail, closure can sneak up at any minute. If I had a coice, I'd choose the first.

But, people on this thread have forgotten the three primary purposes of the US Penal System: To Punish (We know that one), To protect society (also, obvious), and to REHABILLITATE! Jails have programs on everything from schoolng to prisoner crime rehab (where jailmates learn how to stop their crime and be a productive member of society.

If a man raped a little boy, went to jail, did rehab, and was psychoanalyzed to prove he is sane, I would accept him as a part of society. It would take much time to trust him (especially if I had a small child), and I would be very suspicous. But I would try my best to see what he is, rather than what he was.

Forgiveness is very improtant;the world cannot function without it. It may take time, but it eventually needs to happen.

Don't get me wrong: These people need to be checked up on by police and be watched very closely. But if the person is truly reahbilitated, he (and the people around him) hould have nothing to worry about.

__________________


Thanks to _gwenibe_ for this awesome sig!

Tbaism

Well the death penalty was new to me to begin with, so I honestly can't say anything about a difference in opinion. I would want the death penalty myself, but then again, I consider a slow death priority number one. I was young and stupid doesn't really cut it for me, so rehabilitation is no excuse.

Honestly, I find it strange why some would consider prison just a walk in the park, a simple few years of solitude. Where I was raised and every place I have been, rapists and child rapists especially, don't exactly get a nice cool breeze behind bars. Most people hate them more than any willian out there and they end up recieving a great deal of "special" treatment. If they aren't killed within a few months, they tend to get a good sense of what is really means to be raped.

That is just me though and what I have experienced. Yes, I think death is a easier sentence, but that is because I think dieing or simply living a painful unending experience in prison is so much more suitable for their likes.

Oh yes, my opinion on guns is moot. It really depends and I will have to make my decision later. I like guns, but then I don't like bad people with guns. Simple right? Toss of the coin in either situation.

Legend

I agree with you actually, but not on the same basis. At this point any ban on guns would only favored the criminals that has unregistered guns. Yet I still don't believe that a normal civilian can really protect his/her family with guns even with training. If we can predict when something is going to happen to you it will not happen. It is the "surprise" that often leave us unready for things like break ins.

__________________
LEGEND IS: UP TO SOMETHING, GOOD FOR NOTHING.