I came across this story in the Denver Post. Apparently there is a bill before the Colorado legislature that would allow prosecutors to seek the death penalty for repeat offender child rapists. From that article.....



There are of course Constitutional issues......




I'm not sure quite what I think about this idea, so I thought I'd ask y'all what you thought and that leads us to the questions for debate.....


1. Would you support such a law that would invoke capital punishment on repeat child rapists?

2. Do you think the Supreme Court would uphold such a law as Constitutional? Should they?


Aquilla

Well it's no mystery how I feel about this subject.

I would be in full support of such a law.

I don't see how it would be unconstitutional for the more heinous crimes.

1. Would you support such a law that would invoke capital punishment on repeat child rapists?

While I support tough punishments for heinous crimes... If the rapist will get the death penalty from rape, why wouldn't the rapist just kill their victim? Would you rather have a living but raped child OR a dead child? I suppose for repeat rape it might be workable. Say, three rapes you're out? That seems awfully arbitrary though.

2. Do you think the Supreme Court would uphold such a law as Constitutional? Should they?

There's probably a way in which a law like this could pass Constitutional muster. First, I think you'd have to define precisely what acts *are* considered candidates for this law. Second, every repeat child rape would need to meet this higher standard. Third, the number of repeat rapes that meet this higher standard must be defined. Fourth, child victims would likely need to be *very* involved in the prosecution (more so than they are now).

That's an excellent point, Logo. I hadn't considered the "what do I have to lose" aspect of this law and it most certainly could lead to the death of the child victim.

Gonna have to ponder on that one.


Aquilla

Wonderful idea and no the SC imo will have no problem with it - its a states rights issue as is Capital Punishment in general

1. Would you support such a law that would invoke capital punishment on repeat child rapists?

No, because I am against the death penalty, period. But I am for convicted perpetrators of this nature to never again see the natural light of day.

2. Do you think the Supreme Court would uphold such a law as Constitutional? Should they?

Maybe. As far as "should they," see #1.

.

I would go with life without parole too but the reality is that most states don’t have it. So the criminal could be in jail for decades or out in 2 years – and in that case I say – ok fine – death is one way to insure that some idiot on a parole board never has a chance to put the criminal back on the street.

This is patently false. Most states offer life without parole.

Wait a minute. REPEAT child rapists?

I'd support the death penalty for the first one. That way, there are no repeats.

The Supreme Court should uphold a law as Constitutional, being it's a states issue.

I'm not sure if they would. But they should.

There's nothing more damaging than for an adult to rape a child. I truly find very few things that I could say are "not rehabitable". But forcing a child to have sex is insanely disgusting, and taking "the chance" in hopes that you can rehabilitate a criminal "not have those desires" after the fact is pointless, and will always be a risk to society. Take the money you'd take to feed, imprison and pay some expert to 'get in his mind' while behind bars, and instead, let the kid have free counseling and hopefully live a better life. That's the person who deserves to have support from the state.

Thus far nobody has addressed the concern raised by Logo earlier in this thread. That being that facing a potential death penalty may make the rapist more likely to kill his victim. It seems to me that's pretty valid concern.


Aquilla

With DNA evidence, there's not going to be any question of executing an innocent person in a horrible crime like raping multiple children. I suppose what we could do for any child rapist who covers his track by killing the victim, we could add additional penalties on top of the death penalty.

For instance, if a crazy man rapes and kills his stepdaughter, we could sentence that crazy man to be tied to a chair for a few hours to be bitten by police dogs before carrying out the actual execution.

Seems to me like that would be yet another "exception" to a harsh penalty that would deter crime.

Why don't our laws work now? Because you can do pretty much anything you want to, and you have to count on two things to REALLY get in trouble:

1. It's really heinous
2. It can be proven without a doubt.

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.

I'm still trying to wrap my brain around "raping children", and how if it was your kid, you wouldn't kill the perp yourself. If you hurt my kid like that, the last thing you'd be worried about is what the state would do to you.

Oh, except we have that pesky thing called a Constitution that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment...

I think its a sad state of affairs when society is willing to kill any of its members rather than perhaps question the system that created those members in the first place.

Of course I think that any sort of child abuse is disgusting and morally wrong; but killing anyone is never the answer. Much like PE, I dont believe in the death penalty for anyone. I include child molesters in with my definition of "anyone."

??? 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?


Um... This is patently false. Speeding isn't a heinous crime but I've still gotten tickets.


The question I asked is not one of deterrence but one of incentive. Here's a less politically charged example:

Crime A: murder --> capital punishment
Crime B: pickpocketing --> capital punishment

If the pickpocketer will get the same punishment as a murderer, then why wouldn't the pickpocketer just murder their victim? After all, you've made it a lot harder for the main witness to the crime to come forward.

Edited to add:

Note that this is the idea of proportionality. The state must be sure to "game" the system in such a way that it doesn't inadvertently encourage worse behaviors.

For child rapists? I don’t think so – so please show me.


What “system” is that? Are you saying child molesters are “made”. Most people will not agree.



Then let’s pass life in prison without parole.

The way you wrote your sentence you implied that life without parole was a novelty among states. As I clearly demonstrated, this is not the case. It is absurd to think that the life without parole option would not be available for serious crimes. Provide evidence that life without parole isn't an option when sentencing sexual predators. Simply because the trend is not to heavily sentence these people does not mean that the option to sentence them more heavily is somehow prohibited by law.



I don't care if other people don't agree. They're wrong. It's easy to demonize people because of one single facet of their lives, personality, looks, etc. But what most people miss is that there are a host of factors that contribute to persons actions; hence, it would logically follow that something may have happened to encourage or trigger certain behavior.

According to most websites on this subject, there are two different types of child molesters: the situational child molester who has no real sexual preference for children and the preferential child molester, who does indeed have a sexual preference for children. I couldnt find any data about the distribution, but since there exists a child molester that doesn't even care about molesting children, there must be something that triggered the behavior.

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.

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.

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.

The kind of coward that rapes kids is the kind that should meet the biggest bully when he's caught.

You made the statement. We are talking about child rapists – so why you thought I was talking in general is a mystery to me. I have tried and cannot find a state where even repeated child rape gets life without parole – you try.

You may think its “absurd” but I have to say you are clearly naive if you think it does not happen every day. People commit violent crimes, who rape and even murder are pushed back on the street with regularity. This is why we final got three strikes and your out in many states for serious crime – people were fed up with the revolving door.

.

Option? What does that mean? Define option? I cannot find any – have fun.

I can find stories like this:

“The Ohio Parole Board will conduct a death penalty clemency hearing for inmate Romell Broom on Sept. 7.
The hearing, routine for prisoners facing execution, will be at 10 a.m. at the Adult Parole Authority Office, 1030 Alum Creek Drive in Columbus.
Broom, 51, is scheduled to be executed on Oct. 18. He was convicted of raping and stabbing to death a 14-year-old girl in 1984 in Cleveland. He abducted Tryna Middleton at knifepoint then raped her and stabbed her seven times. He's been in prison since Oct. 24, 1985.
After he was sent to death row, prosecutors won convictions against him for previous crimes -- another rape, kidnapping and aggravated robbery”
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2007/08/th..._board_will.htm

.

Perhaps the “option” is there if the judge wants it – but how often does it happen? Why not make it mandatory rather then leave it up to the whim of a judge?



Regardless of type most psychologists believe this is nature not nurture. Its not the “system” it’s the person.

Especially with sexual predators.

1. Would you support such a law that would invoke capital punishment on repeat child rapists?

No, I would not. I no longer support capital punishment in any scenario. I'll raise you by also saying I believe child rapists should be given a another chance to return to the community (this belief includes murderers also). The problem is that they are allowed back out too soon. For some time I've been mulling over this notion of 2nd chances for even the worst offenders and now believe there is an opportunity for many of them to contribute to society if given another chance. Geesh, and I call myself a conservative... Please don't tell my dad!

2. Do you think the Supreme Court would uphold such a law as Constitutional? Should they?

I don't believe they would nor should uphold such a law.

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.


I assume you mean "added protection" in the form of capital punishment? If so, I'm confused by an earlier post you made:
If you don't believe that the death penalty is a deterrent, then what "added protection" do you envision?


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.


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.


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...

1. Would you support such a law that would invoke capital punishment on repeat child rapists?

For repeat offenders on rapes committed on children under 12? Yes I would.

First off, the age limitation excludes the odd case of an 18 year old boy and a 16 year old girl. The repeat clause prevents it from being used on someone who may be wrongly accused and railroaded by the system.

If you get out of jail and put yourself in a situation where you may be accused again, God help you. There is something wrong with your brain.

There are two kinds of child rapists ("molesters"), as kimpossible pointed out. The first type is your general rapist who happens to target a child. They are not likely to be repeat offenders (at least not with a child) and thus are excluded from a "repeat and you fry" law.

The second type is the category which we should be concerned with. These molesters are often repeat offenders and they have no morals preventing them from repeating. There are documented cases where these monsters rape dozens or hundreds of children. There are many cases of child molesters getting out of jail only to re-offend. These few blights on society can cause great damage.

The argument of "why wouldn't a child rapist simply kill their victim" doesn't really hold much water for me. First off, molesters don't simply act once and disappear. These people know their victims (90% of the time according to the US Department of Justice) and they reoffend on the same victim over and over again. They aren't likely to take the time to groom a kid into not telling and then kill them. Plus, since they know the victim and the family of the victim, they would be putting themselves up as a suspect, especially if the body shows signs of sexual abuse.

I have said this many times before but I do not believe that punishment is a deterrant. In general, people know that things they are doing are illegal and have consequences if they are caught. But most criminals (of all types) don't feel like THEY will be caught, even if similar people committing similar crimes are caught. They have also overcome any moral consideration for why they shouldn't commit the crime. So punishment isn't deterrance, it is punishment and prevention of future crime (i.e. jail time, or in the case the death penalty).

2. Do you think the Supreme Court would uphold such a law as Constitutional? Should they?

This is a crime not only against the most vulnerable members of our society (small children) but against society itself. The damage caused by child molestation is not only to that child, but the family around them, and potentially to future victims of the victim. Child molestors have often been abused themselves and their attacker never brought to justice.

The recidivism of child molestation is high. Offenders are usually repeat offenders waiting to happen. When they do repeat, they have proven they cannot be trusted to be loose in society. What gain is there to locking up these creeps forever? Is that really more humane than ending the life of a monster? Should we really risk some bleeding heart judge releasing these predators, as has happened time and time again?

1. Would you support such a law that would invoke capital punishment on repeat child rapists?

No I would not, for several reasons.

• The same point that logophage raised - it would seem to make the rapist more likely to kill the victim (and potentially the only witness to his death-penalty crime).
• If we are going to have a death penalty, I can't imagine using it for anything other than capital offenses - i.e., murder.
• I'm against the death penalty for murder. No matter how scarred a victim of child rape is, they are still alive, thus better off than a murder victim.
• The most obvious thing to do with serial child sex offenders is to castrate them. Which, ironically, may be cruel and unusual. But I'd support it.

2. Do you think the Supreme Court would uphold such a law as Constitutional? Should they?

I think that they should uphold it, but you never can tell what they would do if challenged. Clearly, the humane taking of a life as our death penalty is practiced is not 'cruel and unusual' as envisioned by the founders. They came from a place with flogging, stocks, tar-and-feather sendoffs, skinning alive, disembowelment, etc. They could not have possibly found lethal injection to be cruel and unusual. Only the most ardent proponent of a 'living constitution' would argue otherwise.


Unfortunately, there is probably a bigger chance of "bleeding heart judges" letting them go if they do get the death penalty. Because of the vast and organized opposition to the death penalty and its alleged unfair application, there is a network of law students and lawyers looking at those cases. A child molester with a life sentence won't get a second thought, but one on death row will have Northwestern University law students writing his appeals, looking at evidence, and trying their best to get his case re-heard or dismissed. Let them rot in jail, where justice has a way of catching up with them anyway.

Interesting argument. If a rapist *knew* that it takes, say, 3 rapes to get the death penalty, then why wouldn't the rapist just kill his victim after rape number 3? Of course, we don't have data on this but I'm concerned about the incentive effect.


I agree, Amlord. That's the reason why I'm philosophically in favor of the death penalty yet have problems with its implementation. Nevertheless, the argument I'm making is not the deterrence effect but rather the incentive effect. Whenever introducing new punishments for crimes, we must carefully consider any additional harm it may bring to future victims.

1. Would you support such a law that would invoke capital punishment on repeat child rapists?
I no longer believe in capital punishment after being a supporter of same for my entire life - 64 years. I think we need to remove capital punishment totally as an option. I would support castration for repeat offenders.

That's going down an awfully slippery slope. If you're going to do such a thing you should make it for adult rapists as well. But I'm very uncomfortable with the "no punishment too severe, no room for mercy" philosophy we seem to be seeing. There are those who say that I'm "soft on crime" for such a statement, or that it means I support child rape. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's just that black-and-white mode of thinking that is the very problem here. Because if that's the case, where do we draw the line? Death penalty for drunk driving, involuntary manslaughter, or tax evasion? Seriously, where does it end?