#1 Child rapists can't be executed, Supreme Court rules
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 4:51 pm
LibriumArcana.Games
Fantasy Gaming, SciFi and Irreverence
http://libriuma.phpwebhosting.com/forum/
Child rapists can't be executed, Supreme Court rules
http://libriuma.phpwebhosting.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=5611
Page 1 of 2
#2
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:58 pm
What a bizarre ruling, if your going to execute someone for taking a life why can't you execute someone for doing the psychological equivilant?
#3
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:09 pm
I tend to agree. Fry the sonsofbitches.
#4
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:13 pm
Considering the witch hunts, false confessions, and the motivation it gives the molester to kill his victim, I'm happy with this ruling. Yes, child abuse is awful and does long term damage. So do a lot of other crimes we don't execute people for.
#5
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:16 pm
Presumably, because a)the law says you can't and b)it ISN'T the psychological equivalent.
When you kill somebody, they're dead. There's no way to undo that (that we know of, anyway).
The damage done to a child that way CAN be, if not fixed, then at least amended, sometimes. People CAN recover from that.
Don't get me wrong, I fully support the deed requiring the death sentence.
It's your reasoning of WHY it does I debate.
*directed at the Cpl*
When you kill somebody, they're dead. There's no way to undo that (that we know of, anyway).
The damage done to a child that way CAN be, if not fixed, then at least amended, sometimes. People CAN recover from that.
Don't get me wrong, I fully support the deed requiring the death sentence.
It's your reasoning of WHY it does I debate.
*directed at the Cpl*
#6
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:24 pm
I actually agree with this ruling. I frankly oppose the Death Penalty for anything but capital murder. I do not see this changing soon.
Of course, it is unsurprising to me how outraged the Exorcist running Lousiana is. At least the law he's forcing through allows chemical castration instead of just surgical. I expected the sick nutbar to simply pull out the rusty handsaw himself.
Of course, it is unsurprising to me how outraged the Exorcist running Lousiana is. At least the law he's forcing through allows chemical castration instead of just surgical. I expected the sick nutbar to simply pull out the rusty handsaw himself.
#7
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:32 pm
I agree with SirNitram, although eventually I'd like to see the death penalty done away with for good.
Also, BOBBY JINDAL!
(thank you somethingawful)
Also, BOBBY JINDAL!
(thank you somethingawful)
#8
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:38 pm
Oh I agree with the ruling, in fact I'm wondering how long before it will be before similiar logic is used to abolish it all together.Cynical Cat wrote:Considering the witch hunts, false confessions, and the motivation it gives the molester to kill his victim, I'm happy with this ruling. Yes, child abuse is awful and does long term damage. So do a lot of other crimes we don't execute people for.
#9
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:57 pm
That's untrue... they will ALWAYS think about it. It will affect them for the rest of their lives. It's been over 12 years since my...well rape. I think about almost everyday. It effected the way I grew up, the choices I made. Not entirely, but it had a hand in it. I didn't have a normal childhood because of it. A little piece of you does die, and you can never get it back. So no, people don't recover from it they learn to deal with it... kind of.The damage done to a child that way CAN be, if not fixed, then at least amended, sometimes. People CAN recover from that.
As for the ruling, I'd much rather see them rot in prison for the rest of their lives... there's a good chance they won't make it very long once people find out what they've done. And if they do survive... they'll be treated like the pieces of shit they are. I'd love to find out that the man who did what he did to me got in the ass with a rusty pipe every day he was in prison. What worries me more.... rape/molestation has a very high risk of being a repeat crime, when they get, out if they are able, they will probably do it again.
#10
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:21 pm
Florida just killed their child rapist/murderer.
CNN wrote: STARKE, Florida (AP) -- Florida on Tuesday carried out its first execution since a botched lethal injection procedure prompted the state to revamp the way it conducts capital punishment.
Mark Dean Schwab, who was convicted of kidnapping, raping and killing an 11-year-old boy, died at 6:15 p.m.
The execution was the initial test of Florida's new lethal injection procedure, which was instituted after Angel Diaz was executed in December 2006. Needles to inject the deadly chemicals into Diaz missed their mark and he suffered burns and extreme pain, prompting a state investigation and a moratorium.
It took 34 minutes for Diaz to die, more than twice the normal time. Schwab's execution started at 6:03 p.m. and lasted 12 minutes.
Schwab, 39, challenged Florida's new procedure, claiming it could also cause pain and suffering. His latest appeal was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court hours before he was put to death for the 1991 killing of Junny Rios-Martinez of Cocoa, a small town on the central-east coast of Florida.
When authorities opened a curtain to the death chamber, Schwab lay on the table blinking his eyes. He did not make a final statement.
Within two minutes of the first chemical being administered, Schwab's eyes were closed and his mouth slightly opened. A warden shook Schwab, called out his name and ran a finger over his eyelashes at 6:07 p.m. Schwab did not respond.
Among the 40 witnesses were the boy's mother and father, who wore white T-shirts with the his picture on the front and "JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED" across the back.
Outside the death chamber, the boy's other relatives clapped and cheered when they heard Schwab had died.
About 50 death penalty opponents held a brief prayer vigil, then quietly stood by about 75 yards from the family members.
Schwab was given a stay of execution by the U.S. Supreme Court in November as it considered the constitutionality of Kentucky's lethal injection procedure. When it ruled Kentucky's protocol was acceptable, it opened the door for Florida and other states with similar laws to resume executions.
Schwab's attorneys claimed that during recent rehearsals, the execution team had a 30 percent failure rate. The State Corrections Department, however, said its mock exercises were to test potential problems, and were not failed executions.
In the Diaz execution, the executioner pushed the needle through his veins into his muscles, causing severe chemical burns on his arms. Several times during the process, Diaz could be seen grimacing and asked at one time, "What's going on?"
The Diaz case resulted in an investigation by a committee appointed by then-Gov. Jeb Bush. Changes suggested by the panel were incorporated into new execution procedures.
One change called for the warden to assess whether the inmate is unconscious after sodium pentothal is injected into his body. Then the executioner will inject pancuronium bromide, used to paralyze his muscles, and potassium chloride, used to stop his heart.
Schwab raped and killed Junny a month after he was released early from a prison sentence he got for raping a 13-year-old boy. The case prompted Florida's Junny Rios-Martinez Act of 1992, which prohibits sex offenders from early release from prison or getting credit for good behavior.
Schwab stalked the boy after seeing his photo in a newspaper for winning a kite contest.
Although Schwab claimed another man had made him kidnap and rape the boy, he was able to lead police to a footlocker in rural Brevard County where Junny's nude body was discovered.
Schwab was the 10th person executed in the United States since the Supreme Court's Kentucky ruling and the 65th inmate to be executed since Florida resumed capital punishment in 1979.
#11
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:24 pm
Kinda unrelated. Murder during the comission of another felony is capital murder, needle.
#12
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:59 pm
Agreed.Cynical Cat wrote:Considering the witch hunts, false confessions, and the motivation it gives the molester to kill his victim, I'm happy with this ruling. Yes, child abuse is awful and does long term damage. So do a lot of other crimes we don't execute people for.
As for the psychological trauma, yes that will be with the person for the rest of their lives, but so will a lot of bad shit that happens to you because of stupid shit people do. Psychological damage is IMMENSELY hard to quantify and tossing around death penalties because of it seems like a very very bad practice.
#13
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 9:01 pm
Well, I'm against the state killing child rapist...
if only for the fact that if the convicts find out your in prison for raping a child, most of them will make you wish you were dead.
And after all, why would we want to ruin the convicts fun?
if only for the fact that if the convicts find out your in prison for raping a child, most of them will make you wish you were dead.
And after all, why would we want to ruin the convicts fun?
#14
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:20 am
There are some crimes that cannot be forgiven. Some crimes are so horrible that in committing them, you simply forfeit the right to live. If we're going to define premeditated murder as one such crime (at least in some states), then I think it makes sense to define something like Child Rape as such a crime as well.
Yes, I know there's issues of irreversability, I know that it encourages the rapist to kill their victim, I know that in pragmatic terms this is probably the right call for a lot of different reasons, but on a purely moral level, I just cannot help but say "No, for this you die." Yes, there are some who would say rotting in jail forever is just as bad if not worse, or the theory that the convicts will take it out on the rapist themselves (how often does that really happen?). I'm not protesting the ruling, or saying that there's any effective way to make this sort of thing work...
... but I understand the reasons why Louisiana'd try. And if there was a way to do it without all the problems mentioned above, I'd see people who do that dragged up against the wall and shot. They're at least as deserving of it as the people we do execute.
Yes, I know there's issues of irreversability, I know that it encourages the rapist to kill their victim, I know that in pragmatic terms this is probably the right call for a lot of different reasons, but on a purely moral level, I just cannot help but say "No, for this you die." Yes, there are some who would say rotting in jail forever is just as bad if not worse, or the theory that the convicts will take it out on the rapist themselves (how often does that really happen?). I'm not protesting the ruling, or saying that there's any effective way to make this sort of thing work...
... but I understand the reasons why Louisiana'd try. And if there was a way to do it without all the problems mentioned above, I'd see people who do that dragged up against the wall and shot. They're at least as deserving of it as the people we do execute.
#15
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:31 am
I believe when guilty has been proven in a fair and open trail then our concerns should be as follows:
A: The victim and what is best for them.
B: Society as a whole
C: Basic decency.
To expand, the needs of the victim of the crime should always be considered first in a sentencing. Steps must be taken to ensure that if nothing else the victim has every chance of surviving and not being threatened again by the aggressor. I believe in this case our duty (I will be blunt, I believe Duty to be one of the foundations of morality) demands that rape not be made a death penalty offense. For if it is, what reason is there not to kill the victim?
Society has a whole is tricker. In this case we should make our best effort to ensure that the aggressor does not threaten society at large or individuals within it again. In this case the death penalty would ensure that but there are better ways., not to mention in this case both we and society has a whole owe a duty to the victim, having already failed in the duty to protect them from undue harm. Our current prison system does keep them from effecting any harm to society (excluding Charles Mason and the like, but if I was running things he would be dead for being to dangerous to live) but it is temporary in most cases and has no real effect on preventing repeat crime. This is why I believe our prison system should be rather radically altered but that is beyond the scope of this thread I feel.
Basic Decency. It is not decent or right to kill a man for a loaf a bread for example. It is not decent to kill a wrong doer at the cost of innocent lives, especially when you risk more then one life. The stark math demands that whatever our emotional response, which is rooted in the best of intentions, that we do not kill the aggressor via the death penalty. As that will only encourage others to kill their victims and kill any who might witness against them.
A: The victim and what is best for them.
B: Society as a whole
C: Basic decency.
To expand, the needs of the victim of the crime should always be considered first in a sentencing. Steps must be taken to ensure that if nothing else the victim has every chance of surviving and not being threatened again by the aggressor. I believe in this case our duty (I will be blunt, I believe Duty to be one of the foundations of morality) demands that rape not be made a death penalty offense. For if it is, what reason is there not to kill the victim?
Society has a whole is tricker. In this case we should make our best effort to ensure that the aggressor does not threaten society at large or individuals within it again. In this case the death penalty would ensure that but there are better ways., not to mention in this case both we and society has a whole owe a duty to the victim, having already failed in the duty to protect them from undue harm. Our current prison system does keep them from effecting any harm to society (excluding Charles Mason and the like, but if I was running things he would be dead for being to dangerous to live) but it is temporary in most cases and has no real effect on preventing repeat crime. This is why I believe our prison system should be rather radically altered but that is beyond the scope of this thread I feel.
Basic Decency. It is not decent or right to kill a man for a loaf a bread for example. It is not decent to kill a wrong doer at the cost of innocent lives, especially when you risk more then one life. The stark math demands that whatever our emotional response, which is rooted in the best of intentions, that we do not kill the aggressor via the death penalty. As that will only encourage others to kill their victims and kill any who might witness against them.
#16
Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 4:01 pm
I can find few calmly structured reasons to kill another person, although that can break down in the heat of anger and frustration. I happen to be okay with the concept of killing in response to a killing--in a certain sense by committing murder a person has, in my mind, given up its right to be protected from those that would kill it in return. (Practicality requires that a proper establishment of authority take the place of the avenger though.) But I only condone the concept of such killing; the practice of such is mismanaged and results in the killing of innocents which I find unacceptable.
How does this relate to rape? No rape, however severe, can be proved to be equivalent to a murder. I accept the possibility that a personality can be so changed by the experience that a highly different personality is left afterward, and I accept the possibility a victim might rather have died than live through that experience, but I cannot precisely define that outcome the way I can define death. If I cannot precisely define or quantify something then I should avoid killing over that something.
To phrase this idea a little differently: if I cannot quantify something then I cannot measure it against taking a life. Emotional suffering is something I cannot quantify precisely enough to measure against murder, and even though I can quantify it well enough to apply punishment I cannot be sure that it is worth killing over--even if every emotion in me screams for blood, even if that decision would hardly be questioned, I could not justify such a decision to my satisfaction. I cannot condone killing for less than killing, and I cannot prove rape is equal to killing, so I cannot kill for rape.
How does this relate to rape? No rape, however severe, can be proved to be equivalent to a murder. I accept the possibility that a personality can be so changed by the experience that a highly different personality is left afterward, and I accept the possibility a victim might rather have died than live through that experience, but I cannot precisely define that outcome the way I can define death. If I cannot precisely define or quantify something then I should avoid killing over that something.
To phrase this idea a little differently: if I cannot quantify something then I cannot measure it against taking a life. Emotional suffering is something I cannot quantify precisely enough to measure against murder, and even though I can quantify it well enough to apply punishment I cannot be sure that it is worth killing over--even if every emotion in me screams for blood, even if that decision would hardly be questioned, I could not justify such a decision to my satisfaction. I cannot condone killing for less than killing, and I cannot prove rape is equal to killing, so I cannot kill for rape.
#17
Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 4:16 pm
Minor relevent update: The DoJ issued a public mea culpa as they had failed to inform SCOTUS that there was legal precedent for executing for child rape. It had recently been instituted as part of the military's laws.
It doesn't change what the laws for civilians should be, IMHO, but it's a point that should have been brought up, wasn't, and I now put forward in case anyone wishes to consider that.
It doesn't change what the laws for civilians should be, IMHO, but it's a point that should have been brought up, wasn't, and I now put forward in case anyone wishes to consider that.
#18
Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 4:30 pm
I might be a little atypical in that I don't give much of a hoot about what the laws are (beyond what is needed to avoid trouble), or legal precedent, whatever. If someone tells me about a law I want to know the ethical and moral and practical reasons for that law. I do not want to know about the legal reasons for that law, and I don't care about those same. So for me, military law having a legal precedent for executing child rapers means jack and shit to how I feel about the whole thing.
#19
Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 4:47 pm
So if you thinks it is a GOOD law, you don't particularly care wether it's actually legal and thus enforceable to begin with?
Having a law that's good and just is USELESS if it will never get by the courts. That's why they're called LAWS.
While I'm personally not opposed to the Death sentence for child rape (or rape in general), or the Death sentence in general period, I AM effectivelyopposed to the Death penalty, in general, particular cases, or otherwise.
While I would LOVE to make sure the guilty ones never, ever, do it again (executees tend to have a VERY low reoffense rate) I don't trust any human run system to make sure that the guilty ones are the ONLY ones who get capped, even if it is because of innocent human fallibility and no evil intent.
And in any human run system, humans trying to twist it to their personal behaviour WILL figure into it.
Having a law that's good and just is USELESS if it will never get by the courts. That's why they're called LAWS.
While I'm personally not opposed to the Death sentence for child rape (or rape in general), or the Death sentence in general period, I AM effectivelyopposed to the Death penalty, in general, particular cases, or otherwise.
While I would LOVE to make sure the guilty ones never, ever, do it again (executees tend to have a VERY low reoffense rate) I don't trust any human run system to make sure that the guilty ones are the ONLY ones who get capped, even if it is because of innocent human fallibility and no evil intent.
And in any human run system, humans trying to twist it to their personal behaviour WILL figure into it.
#20
Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:37 pm
To be entirely honest with you... I have no idea how to comprehend what you typed there. It seems like you're running in so tight a circle that you're biting your own ass (e.g. a law is useless without laws enforcing the rule of law) but like I said, I don't really comprehend your statement.Batman wrote:So if you thinks it is a GOOD law, you don't particularly care wether it's actually legal and thus enforceable to begin with?
Having a law that's good and just is USELESS if it will never get by the courts. That's why they're called LAWS.
#21
Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:27 pm
No, you're right, my bad. You didn't want to know why that law was actually, well, law, you wanted to express how you didn't care a flying fuck about how it affected you beyond where, guess what, it is the fucking law.
You mean the very thing that MAKES them laws?I might be a little atypical in that I don't give much of a hoot about what the laws are (beyond what is needed to avoid trouble), or legal precedent
#22
Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 2:43 am
My honest belief is that troops and their officers should live under harsher laws then the men and women they protect. While no one else may agree with me a soldier, Marine, sailor or even an airmen who has raped has done worse then a civilian. He has violated his duty and his oaths and given the nature of those duties and oaths and the offense in question, perhaps death may be needful as a punishment.It had recently been instituted as part of the military's laws.
In other words, military law must be harsher then civilian law and as such may not be the best place to go looking for guides on it. It's not the worse place either though.
#23
Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 7:33 pm
Still not following your meta-point.Batman wrote:No, you're right, my bad. You didn't want to know why that law was actually, well, law, you wanted to express how you didn't care a flying fuck about how it affected you beyond where, guess what, it is the fucking law.You mean the very thing that MAKES them laws?I might be a little atypical in that I don't give much of a hoot about what the laws are (beyond what is needed to avoid trouble), or legal precedent
I'm also sensing hostility, which I don't understand.
A law is an agreement made among key members of a society to allow or disallow various certain things. A law does not need to make sense, it does not need to be ethical, it does not need to be moral. A law may be any of those, but it also may not. Which is why I don't care much for looking to an existing law to determine whether a new one is justified. Bad legal precedent may be used to pass new bad law. Please note the word "may" which implies possibility and not certainty.
In light of that perhaps you can comprehend** why I give so little value to legal reasons given to have or enact any law. I prefer more basic reasons--reasons such as practical ones or ethical ones. So in the context of Nitram's recent post, which introduced to us the knowledge of a relevant legal precedent, you can perhaps see why I typed a response to the effect of the one I did?
As for what you quoted:
"beyond what is needed to avoid trouble" --pretty clear. I abide by laws, even ones I don't agree with, because I don't want to deal with the kind of trouble not abiding can get me in. That doesn't mean I give a rat's ass about the laws I follow, it just means I follow them. I don't care about them in any philosophical sense. The other thing I meant by that statement is that I don't bother to learn the majority of the laws I follow...because my daily activities predispose me toward being an abiding citizen. The few things I might do that are illegal are the ones I have bothered to learn about.
**I am neither asking nor expecting you to agree or side with me here. "Comprehend" in this context merely means to see how I see--not as I see.
#24
Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:43 am
I'm all for execution for rape, as well as MORE crimes than currently. I don't understand how an execution, carried out deliberately and after due process, in the spirit of removing a dangerous person from society as well as serving as an example to others, is somehow "barbaric." We're not cutting hands off for stealing (although that does drop the theft rates).
And as for the "it gives the criminal more incentive to kill their victims." Do you think that the person is thinking "oh gee, I better not KILL them or I might get gassed. Better just rape them and nothing else; that way I can get a life sentence and hope for an overturn on appeal or parole in 20 years! Yeah, that sounds like a plan." Seems a bit elaborate. I wonder what the numbers are for crimes deterred by capital punishment vs. extra motivation for killing.. killings (don't know how to put that really).
And as for the "it gives the criminal more incentive to kill their victims." Do you think that the person is thinking "oh gee, I better not KILL them or I might get gassed. Better just rape them and nothing else; that way I can get a life sentence and hope for an overturn on appeal or parole in 20 years! Yeah, that sounds like a plan." Seems a bit elaborate. I wonder what the numbers are for crimes deterred by capital punishment vs. extra motivation for killing.. killings (don't know how to put that really).
#25
Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:00 pm
I can't help but notice, good sir, that you use your conclusion as a postulate.General Havoc wrote:There are some crimes that cannot be forgiven. Some crimes are so horrible that in committing them, you simply forfeit the right to live. If we're going to define premeditated murder as one such crime (at least in some states), then I think it makes sense to define something like Child Rape as such a crime as well.
But by what standard do you maintain that it makes sense to judge these two types of crime as equal? And how does the impossibility of forgiveness lead to the death penalty, as opposed to, say, life without parole?
Now to be fair, if I were to argue from emotion, I would be tempted to agree with you. Child rape is one of those crimes that provokes that kind of reaction in many people. However, I have come to view arguments from emotion with great suspicion.
Of course, there are those who decry the use of the death penalty there too.General Havoc wrote:... but I understand the reasons why Louisiana'd try. And if there was a way to do it without all the problems mentioned above, I'd see people who do that dragged up against the wall and shot. They're at least as deserving of it as the people we do execute.