QUOTE(azwhitewolf @ Mar 13 2008, 06:55 PM)
QUOTE(logophage @ Mar 13 2008, 03:40 PM)
??? Are you saying that our laws don't work now because they are bad laws? Or are you saying that the enforcement of those laws don't work now? Or are you generally philosophizing that because there is still crime, therefore our laws don't work?
Saying that capital punishment doesn't work because the crime against a child doesn't merit the death penalty is what I don't get.
The crime of child rape is indeed heinous and I can see why capital punishment seems like a good solution. The problem is that it creates an incentive
for the criminal to kill their victim after raping them. Since the criminal knows he's getting the same punishment after the rape, he might as well kill them so that it's less likely he will be found out.
There is a very small segment of our population that are incapable of adequately defending themselves against a violent attacker - children are one. The elderly are another. Don't they merit an added protection?
I assume you mean "added protection" in the form of capital punishment? If so, I'm confused by an earlier post you made:
Most criminals truly believe that they can get away with it. So I'm not sure the fact that a death penalty is a deterrent, because most criminals don't think they'll get caught - so they get cocky and move up the ladder, so to speak.
If you don't believe that the death penalty is a deterrent, then what "added protection" do you envision?
And here we go with yet another unequal comparison. Losing your wallet to a common thief is much different than forcibly losing your virginity (or dignity, for non virgins) to a violent attack.
The point of the example is to demonstrate the idea of proportionality by avoiding knee-jerk emotional rhetoric. Of course, the crime of pickpocketing isn't the same as rape. I chose that crime specifically because it presented the idea of proportionality nicely.
But I'll answer. Because in the heat of any crime, the goal is to get away. Leaving a dead body means more people are coming to look for you. Leaving a victim in tears will prompt an investigation, but a murder leaves a body. It's much harder to stuff in the "cold case" file. I'd argue that the criminals know this, and NOT kill to avoid the incentive of a heavier investigation.
So, you're saying in the heat of moment the goal of the criminal is to get away BUT they "know" to avoid killing because the investigation will be heavier? Either the criminal is being rational or not, the criminal can't be both, can he? Are you arguing the criminal makes an irrational decision rationally or the criminal makes a rational decision irrationally? I can't decide.
Further, the defense attorney will call it (pedophelia, whatever) a mental disorder, which means you can't under ANY circumstance execute them because you can't execute someone with a mental illness. So they know that whatever happens, as long as they DON'T kill the kid, their "sexual mental disorder" will keep them from getting the needle.
I think you're saying that a criminal who rapes and doesn't kill would get off because they have a "sexual mental disorder" but a criminal who rapes and does kill wouldn't get off because they wouldn't have a "sexual mental disorder". Seems pretty arbitrary to me...