Update: I like this idea from a commenter (emphasis in original):
“In the 18th Century, England could send its ne’er-do-wells to Australia. It was a viable option to the death penalty. My variation on that is simple: send them to Antarctica. Send them there with a parka, a tent, a sleeping bag, and a week’s worth of MRE’s [meal, ready to eat]. They can kill each other for food for all I care, and their life (or death) is up to them and their own survival skills…Couldn’t happen soon enough in my opinion.”
By the way, don’t twist my words or my meaning. I didn’t say I’d gleefully throw things at child rapists. 
I’d do it somberly. 
I just happen to think some criminals should be subjected to modern-day stonings. Is that so wrong?
Commenter Gabe, a Christian, has a reasonable response (unlike mine, apparently) to the questions. Check it out.
——————————————————————————————–
I can’t remember a time when I didn’t advocate the death penalty for animals who rape children.
“We can’t do that,” people would say. “If a man can be put to death for raping someone, what’s to stop him from going ahead and killing the person if he’ll get the same penalty?”
I can see the logic. Sentencing a rapist to death certainly seems disproportionate to the crime of rape, but I’m willing to suspend logic when it comes to the violation of children. I hope capital punishment for child rape becomes law in all states.
And here’s the kind of death a pedophile should face: After he’s found guilty and sentenced to death, he should be tied to a pole in the public square. Every day, all day, until he’s dead, people are allowed to throw at him whatever they can lift. They can spit on him, throw rocks, cans, glass, shoot him with arrows (but no bullets), baseball bats, knives — and he stays tied to that pole in the heat, wind, rain, or snow with no food and only a little water to prolong his misery. And he receives no treatment for his wounds. How long can a person survive that? Days? Weeks? Who cares? His suffering is the focus. People who rape children should suffer a painful, humiliating death.
I’ve heard some say that convicted pedophiles should suffer the same torture they inflicted on the children: rape. In some cases, repeated, brutal rape. I agree.
Does that sound medieval? Those scenarios are two of my milder ones. Human rights, my eye. Too bad we no longer draw and quarter people.
Finally, what I hoped for might come to pass. I read a story this morning with the provocative title, “Proposals to execute pedophiles make headway in US.” I know that rape was punishable by death back in the day, but I had no idea that some states resurrected the penalty. An excerpt:
The idea of executing child rapists, even when there in no loss of life, is making headway in the United States…The Louisiana Supreme Court last week upheld the death sentence for a pedophile, and the governor of Texas is soon to sign into law legislation to that effect.
In 1995, Louisiana was the first state to adopt legislation authorizing the death penalty for child rapists…Ten years later, the movement to make pedophilia punishable by death really picked up steam after nine-year-old Jessica Lunsford was raped and buried alive in Florida by a man with a prior conviction for sex crimes.
Various versions of the “Jessica Law” sprang up all over in the country, imposing in most cases a minimum 25 year jail sentence and the wearing of an ankle bracelet for life for raping a child aged 12 or younger…But in some states, elected officials amended their versions of the “Jessica Law” by adding the possibility of condemning a pedophile to death.
They include Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina [Yee-haw! My home state!], Georgia and Montana.
I like it. I like it a lot. There are bleeding hearts out there who believe condemning a child rapist to death is wrong. In fact, some readers are against the death penalty for murder. You know where I stand, obviously. I am pro-capital punishment. Questions for you:
1) What are your views on the death penalty in general?
2) What are your views on the death penalty for child rapists, whether or not they murder the children?
1. The death penalty is justified in heinous cases.
2. There is nothing more heinous than the abuse of an innocent child.
Comment by RedBeard — 05.29.07 @ 6:22 am
So LaShawn, are you suggesting imposing Sharia law on pedophiles?
Comment by Snake — 05.29.07 @ 6:53 am
Hmmm…good question. I, uh…YES!
Comment by La Shawn — 05.29.07 @ 7:00 am
In general I am strongly in favour of this idea. The crime is heinous, whether or not the victim was killed, and there is, IIRC, evidence that kiddie fiddlers do not “recover” from their taste for children and frequently attempt to repeat. Hence there seems little point in their continued existence. Under some circustances I’d be happy to extend the death penalty to regular rapists too (e.g. serial rapists, gang rapes)
However I do not want this to be a *mandatory* punishment because then you get into some nasty borderline cases. For example I believe I read somewhere that a 18yr old was accused of child abuse as well as rape because he had non-consensual sex with his 15 yo girlfriend. I’m OK with the rape charges but not with him being accused of child abuse, even though under strict legal definition sex with a minor is child abuse. This is the sort of case where the rapist can be imprisoned to help him learn the meaning of “NO” and then released because there is a good chance that he’ll not offend again.
Comment by Francis — 05.29.07 @ 7:06 am
I’ve thought about this question alot. In light of justice and God’s command to forgive. I’m still not 100% sure that capitol punishment is a deterrent for violent crime. But I believe that in the interest of justice and making darn sure that the rapist does not offend again it is justified.
Comment by Michael Burrow — 05.29.07 @ 7:29 am
I support capital punishment not for deterrence but for retribution. Retributive justice, baby.
Comment by La Shawn — 05.29.07 @ 7:31 am
Yep, once a child rapist is punished by death, there is zero chance that some namby-pamby parole board will release him to rape again, so in that sense it sure is a deterrent.
Comment by RedBeard — 05.29.07 @ 7:36 am
I’m on the extreme side of capital punishment. I think it should be used much more than it is today, but ah…thats me..
I’ve always thought that anyone who would abuse a child like that should get the death penalty.
However, i do agree that it could backfire. Most child abuse is done by a member of that child’s family. Knowing that reporting the abuse would lead to “Uncle Charlie” getting the death penalty would most certainly result in fewer reports and thus, less convictions.
Sounds like get tough stuff, but I dont think it would work, due to the nature of the crime. Needs a bit more tweaking.
Comment by lukeNC — 05.29.07 @ 7:48 am
1) I am in favor of capital punishment.
2) I don’t like the vengeance mentality that you express in your post. Secondly, it does not help to redeem the culture when you have the culture carry out the execution. What you are in essence attempting to do is rule by fear. And as ’snake’ pointed out, that is exactly like Sharia law.
Also, if such a law were to be enacted, be prepared for a fair number of innocent deaths and the many ruined lives following. Children today have made a number of false accusations against adults for various reasons; didn’t like how the teacher graded a paper, didn’t like the perception of how the teacher favored one student over another, etc. Our culture has made sure that children loose their innocence at a young age. Look at how our public school system pushes sex and drugs. So it is no surprise when children do cunning and even deadly things directed at others. The burden of proof would have to be overwhelming for such an accusation and I’m not so sure our justice system is reliable in that regard anymore.
Comment by Hal — 05.29.07 @ 8:01 am
Not much to say here but
http://www.newsobserver.com/662/story/579624.html
http://www.newsobserver.com/print/saturday/city_state/story/580976.html
Comment by Uncle Ruckus — 05.29.07 @ 8:10 am
Yes, child rape should be punished by death. And even if a few adults are falsely convicted, that number will be far lower than the number of children who are now suffering because a known child rapist was allowed to go free.
Comment by Elizabeth — 05.29.07 @ 8:12 am
Michael Anthony Gathings raped a 7 year old girl, but some limp-wristed judge now says he’s “no longer a danger to the public” based upon, I presume, such absolute truths as the rapist saying, “I’m pretty sure I’ll never reoffend again…” Good grief.
Ok, Judge, I assume you won’t mind the guy babysitting your daughter or granddaughter. Idiot.
Comment by RedBeard — 05.29.07 @ 8:26 am
If a pedophile is killed by capital punishment it saves lives and taxpayers money. If also there is immediate execution of sentence with limited appeals(no 20 years on death row e.g. tookie williams) then it should be law. We have so many laws on the books that would work if they were enforced.
Immediate execution. I like it! -
Comment by Warrior Nurse — 05.29.07 @ 8:51 am
Are we speaking solely of pedophiles? Because not all child molesters are pedophiles. What should happen to men who have sex with willing, underaged, teenagers?
Comment by Shade — 05.29.07 @ 9:02 am
There was a man here named Michael Ross who was the first person executed in CT in 45 years. He raped and murdered 8 girls and women here and in NY, confessed, and was still on death row for over 20 years, even when he publicly accepted the penalty for his crimes (two of his victims were 14). There’s still a web site for this dead monster, so the question is; how do we fix the system so that the condemned might not last longer than the parents of the victims?
Comment by Tom Bosee — 05.29.07 @ 9:03 am
“And even if a few adults are falsely convicted, that number will be far lower than the number of children who are now suffering because a known child rapist was allowed to go free.”
This should read “adults falsely murdered by the state.” As such, I can’t be OK with that.
What if there’s an overzealous prosecutor, such as in the Duke case?
Comment by tvd — 05.29.07 @ 9:08 am
We should be using the death penalty much, much more! A wonderful deterrent that’s been used far too little IMHO.
And yes, the executions should be done in the public square as in old.
…my two cents!
Comment by libbygirl — 05.29.07 @ 9:33 am
Here’s a fascinating study on the deterrence factor of the death penalty. Apparently, there are those in the Ivy League that have compelling evidence that, if adminstered within certain parameters, the death penalty saves lives; 13 to 1.
IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT MORALLY REQUIRED?
THE RELEVANCE OF LIFEâ€LIFE TRADEOFFS
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/academics/publiclaw/85.crs-av.capital-punishment.pdf
As far as the question of executing child rapists is concerned, I am worried about whether a rapist would then have every reason to kill their victim. I wonder if severe humiliation in the public square, and major physical deprivation/pain, and life imprisonment with miserable accomodations, might work even better without endangering the kid….
Comment by jan — 05.29.07 @ 10:00 am
I don’t like the death penalty because it’s very hard to un-execute them if you find out later they are innocent. I am all for long prison sentences in solitary so that they really get punished. As for child rapists? I go back to point #1. But we need to make sure the punishment fits the crime. Big difference between a real child rapist and an 18 year old with a 15 year old. Not the same thing…
Comment by Vegas Art Guy — 05.29.07 @ 10:22 am
I prefer Bill O’Reilly’s option to capital punishment - put them in a Gulag in Alaska.
Or better yet - send them to Huntsville with “child rapist” embroidered on their forehead. This might be as slow and painful as medieval torture without the isssue of accidentally executing an innocent.
And while we’re on it, the laws need to change such that on the first molestation conviction, the perp is placed under surveillance in a location that can not be within 30 miles of a school, nursery, daycare, playground, etc. And they should be branded as a child molestor in some manner to make it obvious to even a 2 year old that this person is evil.
Space Puppy
Comment by Space Puppy — 05.29.07 @ 10:29 am
Death penalty…I am for, although I am not for the legal juggling that occurs for a few decades after one has been sentenced to death.
I am sickened at what happens to children in the world, and even more sick at the variances in the legal system, where some molesters receive lessor punishment,etc. for whatever the judge feels is the reasoning. I used to watch O’Reilly, waiting for Hannity, but I had to stop, because he would spotlight judges that don’t punish child molesters etc.
I have to say that as a Christian that I find comfort in Matthew 18:6.
Thanks again for having me reflect on my viewpoints and why!
Comment by jennifer — 05.29.07 @ 10:33 am
1) What are your views on the death penalty in general?
In theory, I’m for it. In practice, as The Innocence Project is showing, mistakes and sometimes “rogue” prosecutions are taking place. I can’t support the death penalty as it currently stands.
2) What are your views on the death penalty for child rapists, whether or not they murder the children?
If I supported the death penalty, I’d say kill them.
Comment by DarkStar — 05.29.07 @ 10:35 am
1) As a Catholic, I have trouble supporting the death penalty. As a person, I know that if someone killed a member of my family,I would want to draw and quarter them myself. Should revenge be legislated? Probably not. But I personally can’t say I’m consistently anti-death penalty because of my personal feelings about it.
2) If they murder the child, I can see the death penalty being applied. Otherwise, child rapists should NEVER be reintegrated back into the society. This is a crime that tends to repeat itself. It is dangerous to impose anything less than a life sentence/punishment to those who do these things.
Comment by lucy — 05.29.07 @ 10:49 am
Tall tree, short rope.
‘Nuff said…..
Comment by Lonevoice — 05.29.07 @ 11:09 am
You said it, LaShawn. No punishment can be severe enough for a child abuser/rapist/murderer.
Comment by Patsyj — 05.29.07 @ 11:12 am
I’m for capital punishment. I agree with LukeNC, that we need to use it more often. I am also in favor of chain gangs and prisons making criminals work off their sentences. No cable, No gyms, no privliges that arn’t earned.
Comment by Laura — 05.29.07 @ 11:13 am
Philosophically, I’m in favor of the death penalty. One’s right to life (and other rights, such as those to liberty and property) are forfeit when certain crimes have been committed.
As a Christian, Biblical precedent points to government having the authority to execute capital punishment (many casual Bible readers miss the distinction between how we as individuals are to behave when we are wronged and what the government authority is to do when a wrong has been committed).
As a libertarian and a anti-statist, I cannot see giving our corrupt government the power to take lives. They have shown themselves to be absolutely incapable of properly exercising their authority in small matters and I refuse to believe they can be trusted in a matter as grave as the death penalty.
Comment by Elizabeth — 05.29.07 @ 11:13 am
In the 18th Century, England could send its ne’er-do-wells to Australia. It was a viable option to the death penalty. My variation on that is simple: send them to Antarctica. Send them there with a parka, a tent, a sleeping bag, and a week’s worth of MRE’s. They can kill each other for food for all I care, and their life (or death) is up to them and their own survival skills.
Couldn’t happen soon enough in my opinion.
Comment by langtry — 05.29.07 @ 11:23 am
I forgot to answer the first part in re to capital punishment itself. While I would like to see perps get righteous punishment, the systems in place do not appear to be fair or as diligent as they should be.
I’d prefer to let God rather than man separate them out. In most issues I’m conservative, but I don’t want to send any innocent into the death chamber. I remember that Nancy Grace and other media types pretty well helped crucify a day care provider of child molestation and they weren’t cleared until years later. And as another blogger noted, the Innocence Project has recently freed their 200th person improperly convicted.
Part of the problem as noted is the swinging door prison system and the “rights” of prisoner. This has almost persuaded me that in order to keep them in jail, they have to die. Still, I’d prefer to keep them in a hard core, no luxury prison for the rest of their life.
Space Puppy
Comment by Space Puppy — 05.29.07 @ 11:25 am
Just curious:
For the Americans who support the death penalty, are you willingly to administer that punishment?
I ask because I can see the argument in certain crimes, but if I were asked to execute the punishment, I wouldn’t be able to do it. Therefore, I can’t support the death penalty.
Comment by Paige — 05.29.07 @ 11:32 am
Paige, I would have no trouble administering the death penalty to anyone harming my grandchild in the manner we’re discussing. None.
Comment by RedBeard — 05.29.07 @ 11:58 am
I love this blog, and I generally agree with the views in this post, but I have to say that your rhetoric, La Shawn, is perhaps over the top. The suggestion, even if offered hyperbolically, that rapists should be raped as punishment is not becoming of any who would really be a seeker of holy justice because holy justice is, well, holy.
Rape is exceedingly sinful, granted. But to perpetrate sin against sin in not holy. A Holy God did give the authority of the sword (retributive judgment and execution) to human government, but it should be wielded with dispassionate care and it should be a “sword” (death), not imaginative infliction of pain.
Sin against an innocent child is heinous, but the real heinousness of sin is that it is against a Holy God. We err if we allow ourselves to be so carried away emotionally by our justified hatred of despicable behavior that we trespass God’s moral law ourselves by adopting violent language and endorsing sadistic retribution. God did not tolerate Jehu’s unrestrained zeal to kill the enemies of God, nor will He give us a pass because the evil we hate is so evil.
If we cross the line we reveal our own sinful nature’s propensity to be man-centered in our hatred of sin.
Comment by Bob Bixby — 05.29.07 @ 12:15 pm
Because I believe in a safe and stable society, I believe that child rapists need to be removed from the rest of us, permanently.
Because I’m a Christian, I believe that child rapists will receive their due punishment at the hands of God.
Therefore, I believe child rapists (when proved to be so via DNA so as not to make mistakes) should be executed immediately but humanely.
Get rid of them, and let God take care of the rest.
Comment by Jen in Durham — 05.29.07 @ 12:44 pm
I can’t support the drawn-out public torture outlined by La Shawn because, well, I want to be able to take my preschool niece and nephew for a walk downtown or the local park without them having to see blood and pain and people who feel good about inflicting it. Hell, *I* don’t want to see it. If the whole point is to protect them, why risk exposing them to different psychological horrors? And I don’t want them to think it’s good, or normal, or fun to kill someone slowly, even in retribution.
I’m kind of creeped out by that. Just because killing is occasionally necessary–justice, war–doesn’t mean it should be done gleefully.
OTOH, I have no problems with putting solemn, necessary executions on pay-per-view television, so adults can choose to view them. I’m not against the public viewing, I just want it somewhere it can’t accidentally be seen by a family of tourists with small children.
Comment by Radish — 05.29.07 @ 12:44 pm
1) In general, I am in favor of capital punishment. While, as a Christian, I am PERSONALLY commanded to forgive as God has forgiven, turn the other cheek and all that, I recognize that the context of these Biblical mandates does not apply to government. The very purpose of a government is to safeguard the public from threats both external and internal.
Capital punishment serves two goals in fulfilling that purpose. First, it serves as a deterrent. The more clear-headed (and I use the term lightly) of criminals truly do consider the risk of punishment if they are ever caught. This is also one of the reasons why gun ownership drives down certain types of crimes. Second, capital punishment permanently removes entities from society who can only contribute negatively. There should be no such thing as a life sentence without the possibility of parole. The only use of such a sentence is to permanently remove the criminal from society. But in the mean time, they cause a net loss of resources to our society. Let me take a breath, before I really get going…
In any case, I would have a couple of criteria for the proper execution (pun intended) of the death penalty as part of our legal system. It must have a robust threshold of evidence to ensure that only the most solid convictions will send someone to his or her death. And it must have a greatly reduced lag time/appeals process. The former should contribute to the latter.
2) The rape or repeated molestation of a child should be given the death penalty 90% of the time. Special provisions should provide an out for statutory rape convicts, but even then, it should be minimally used. We should go back to gallows and firing squads. Why should the dregs of our society whom we deem worthy of a state-sponsored execution be allowed to die peacefully in their sleep?
Comment by Gabe — 05.29.07 @ 12:53 pm
While I share your passion for outrage against such vicious predators, I do not share your blood lust.
I be happy if these predatory pigs were locked up in a mental ward or medium security prison for all their earthly days.
Are you listening politicians, judges & prosecutors?? They cannot be rehabilitated! Just lock ‘em up until they are dead.
After that, God can deal with them, …and I pity their miserable souls.
Comment by locomotivebreath1901 — 05.29.07 @ 1:02 pm
Lucy#23…
As a Catholic, I support the death penalty. If I had any disagreement, it would be with the present justice system. It seems to me that we have made a farce out of trials, limiting the evidence in such a way that it protects the guilty more than it defends society. Yes, it’s possible that an innocent person gets found guilty, but less so and less so as more scientific methods are used.
I’m against the extended use of appeals. I’d be in favor of establishing a panel of judges that provide an automatic review of the legal aspects of any death case in order to assure that an individual’s rights have been protected and the law has been followed, but unless some significant legal defect has been found, that should be the end of the appeals. Get it done within a year of the completion of the trial, and then put the person to death. I have no problem with _justice_. Let God provide the mercy. You and I have no right to forgive someone - that’s the perogative of the victim, the victim’s family and God. It’s easy to forgive someone when you haven’t been greatly offended.
Shade…”willing underaged teenagers”. Personally, I’d put that in a totally different category. Statutory rape, not rape. Not pedophiles either, although certainly predatory.
One of the interesting things about the Catholic priest scandal is the way it was presented in the MSM…it has been presented as pedophilia, but in fact, according to the lawyer who has represented many of the individuals pressing charges, most (about 80%) of the cases were not pedophilia, but pederasty…that is, sexual activity with pubescent youths, not children. The difference is more like your presented situation - that is willing youngsters, and usually more related to homosexuality than psychological disturbances. Neither are acceptable, but preying on children who have no sexual awareness is certainly a greater offense, imo. It has been postualated that due to the high number of homosexuals in the MSM that it was presented as pedophilia - totally unacceptable to most people - rather than as pederasty, which is common among homosexuals, and portrays homosexuals in a predatory light. I have no way of knowing if that’s true, but it’s a thought. Pedophilia is also a more common term than pederasty.
I fostered a young woman for awhile who was one of those “13 going on 30″ individuals. Sexual molestation was a problem in the family going back at least 3 generations, according to her mother. Her mother suspected the girl had been molested as well, but had no proof. I think that often young women who are promiscuous have been earlier victims of sexual molestation. On the other hand, some young women are just “early bloomers” and we should recognize that nature has made humans capable of reproduction in the early teen years, even if our society has generally delayed it until the early-mid twenties. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t enforce the laws we’ve made as a society, but it certainly should be taken into account.
Comment by suek — 05.29.07 @ 1:02 pm
Willing to suspend logic eh?
Well at least you’re honest about it.
I’ve yet to find a problem or circumstance that was best handled by giving in to hysteria. If someone is a child rapist, lock them up and throw away the key. Life in prison, no parole. If someone is a child murderer, have them drawn and quartered or cook them up in a brazen bull, preferably on national TV.
Comment by Lee — 05.29.07 @ 1:23 pm
Factors to consider:
1) The death penalty is in the Bible. All over the place. If God doesn’t oppose it, neither should we.
2) Most of the aforementioned examples had the penalty carried out by stoning. Not exactly quick or “humane,” as is the emphasis today.
Few things are as completely senseless as the movement to make life easy for death row inmates and inmates in general. Why the constant push to give jailbirds a better life than some law-abiding people get (cable TV, free degrees, etc.)? Why the constant preoccupation with keeping executions antiseptic and “humane,” if not opposing executions entirely? Lest we forget, we’re talking about CRIMINALS. By committing the illegal act(s), they forfeit a number of their rights. This is how it should be.
Not only am I in favor of the death penalty, I think the execution should match the crime that gets the criminal on death row in the fist place. If you shoot someone, you should be shot. If you shoot someone who doesn’t die instantly, you should be shot in a vital organ other than the brain and be allowed to bleed to death. If you hack someone to pieces, you should expect the same treatment. I do really like the banishment to Antarctica idea.
Again, we’re talking about criminals. Obviously we shouldn’t maim people over parking tickets. But criminals should be treated like criminals, not exalted people like they are now.
Comment by James — 05.29.07 @ 1:30 pm
Stonings? How cruel and inhumane. They deserve no less than to be impaled.
People who hurt children have declared themselves to be unworthy of life and should be treated accordingly.
Comment by Sir Michael Foley — 05.29.07 @ 1:31 pm
I’m not an expert, but it seems the molesters work is that they progress from simple voyeurism to molestestation to rape. The ones that are caught are imprisioned, let out, and then realize what awaits a child molester in prison, they kill their victims to eliminate the evidence. So if LaShawn’s suggestion for the death penaly were taken, I don’t believe that more molesters would kill their victims than occurs now.
They do deserve death, but I can’t approve of the death penalty until our justice system proves the cases can be handled fairly.
Since they claim they can’t be cured, I say that we dump them in prison and throw away the key like Lee stated. The only issue would be that it’s a real prison - no TV, music, no more material goods than an American GI gets in the field in Afganastan.
Space Puppy
Comment by Space Puppy — 05.29.07 @ 1:38 pm
RedBeard, I second your comment to Paige. I would have no trouble sticking the needle in if it were my beautiful granddaughters that were harmed.
Comment by Patsyj — 05.29.07 @ 1:44 pm
1) My only opposition to the death penalty is the fact that once that bell is rung it is impossible to unring it. But that being said I do think that there needs to be a way to seperate criminals who will be released from those doing life +.
2) I would have to oppose such and idea on a couple grounds. First in our system a person accused of a sexual offense against a child is guilty until proven innocent (and sometimes even after). A prime example is the McMartin case. Second is that to me the death penality is too easy on the offender, given the fact that the victim will suffer throughout their lifes.
My thought on prisons and ounsihment in the US is that prisons should not be a vacation. The longer the sentence the harsher the experience should be. No cable TV, wieghts etc. Prison should consist of hard labor and a bare minimum of neccesities to survive, no store no goodies. Prisoners serving long sentences should be housed in a seperate facility from those serving short sentences. This will allow the opportunity to rehabilite those that we wil have to release back into society while warehousing those that will never see the light of day again.
Comment by Jim — 05.29.07 @ 1:50 pm
In response to #16..
I would go as far as to say any prosecutor who knowingly withheld evidence or did things such as what the Duke attorney did, and those things led to an innocent person being put to death?
They too need to be put to death or get life in prison.
How I wish we could have that “old testament” kind of law on the books today.
The death penalty should be expanded to include child rape, elderly rape, disabled persons rape, etc. Maybe just rape in general.
False accusations of rape? Life in prison. If a child falsely accuses? — at least 15 years.
Comment by lukeNC — 05.29.07 @ 1:57 pm
Something else that I think I need to address here is the disturbing trend towards labelling consensual sex between two teenagers as abuse and/or pedophilia.
In one particular case in Utah, a 13 year old girl and her 12 year old boyfriend were both found guilty of delinquency (the juvenile equivalent of a felony) and labelled as sex offenders for the “crime” of having consensual sex. This is a perfect example of why hysteria never leads to anything but sorrow. In this case both were simultaneously labelled as “victim” and “perpetrator,” a mutually exclusive arrangement whose preposterousness could not have been lost upon officers of the court involved.
I’m 34 years old now. Back when I was a teenager in the late 80’s and early 90’s, sex between teenagers was seen as an undesirable but ordinary fact of life. If a young couple was found to be sleeping together, they might be in trouble with their families, but they would not be in trouble with the law. Somewhere along the line this changed. Now in many places a young couple who sleep together are risking serious jail time, callous and even malicious misidentification as “victim” or “abuser” by mental health professionals and the judicial system, and the life-long stigma of being painted as a sex offender. All for doing what our ancestors did at that age throughout 99.9% of human history.
I grew up in the south, and I’m just barely old enough to have gotten a sense of how teenaged sexuality was seen and dealt with in years past. My generations that my grandparents and great-grandparents belonged to didn’t have any illusions about when sexual desire began to manifest itself in a person’s life. In those days the biggest problem with teenaged sex was not that two teenagers were having sex, but whether they were married at the time they were having it. In other words the issue was not sex at a young age, but sex outside of marriage. If the couple was married, which in those days many teenaged couples were, their sexual relationship was not a problem.
In today’s world, the idea of two 15 year old’s being married is almost absurd, and in many placed would likely land their parents in legal trouble. Today people that age are not seen as young adults, but as children, which is dreadfully unfortunate. They are infantilized and forced into mental and emotional roles that they have either already outgrown, or are quickly in the process of outgrowing. Part of this mischaracterization is the demonization of their sexuality. Children are not supposed to be sexual after all. Those children who are sexual are seen as having something wrong with them. When teenagers are miscast as children, their sexuality is similarly labelled a dysfunctional. Those teenagers who defy this label and express their sexuality are punished and made to feel that their normal sexuality is an emotional and mental disfigurement, a sign that they are mentally diseased and tainted with the indelible stain that comes with being branded a sex offender.
Don’t believe me? Watch the news.
The sexual abuse of children is a serious crime, among the worst that society has to deal with. But when society begins gnawing upon itself in trying to deal with this problem and begins persecuting the innocent for the crime of being young, the only thing that is created are more victims.
Comment by Lee — 05.29.07 @ 2:08 pm
There’s an interesting discussion going on today at La Shawn Barber’s Corner today about extending capital punishment to child rapists.
Pingback by Wilfong — 05.29.07 @ 2:14 pm
Pedophiles inflict years (often a lifetime’s worth) of pain and guilt on the children they molest.
Since they often ruin a life, they should pay with their own.
I believe that if such a law was put up for referendum, it would pass by at least 2 to 1 in his country, predictably with places like NYC, D.C., San Fran and other such Liberal meccas being the only places it might fail.
Comment by JMK — 05.29.07 @ 2:24 pm
If God himself grieves for sinners who die outside of his grace (Ezekiel 18) then who are you to take such perverse and wicked pleasure in the suffering and mutilation of another sinner? La Shawn, you’re my sister in Christ, so allow me to be blunt with you before I write a fuller post on the matter on my own blog. Outside of Jesus, you deserve the same fate as the men and women you describe above. There is nothing in you or about you, except Jesus, that separates you from them in the eyes of God.
I am well aware of that fact, and nowhere in my post do I imply that I am better than child rapists in the eyes of God or that these rapists can’t be forgiven by God. And I didn’t say I’d enjoy stoning child rapists.
It’s funny how those quickest to criticize demonstrate the poorest reading comprehension skills. Thanks, “brother.” - Admin
Comment by MikeT — 05.29.07 @ 2:52 pm
Uh, LaShawn, you’re starting to sound a little bit like a biblical Jew . . . and I like it!
Definitely PRO CAPITAL PUNISHMENT here!! Personally, I am for it even in cases of rape of an adult woman, providing it is a clearcut case of rape and not the all-too-often frat house/ drunken girl type scenario because guilt in those cases is too ambiguous. A true rape destroys a woman’s peace of mind forever, and changes her personality irreparably. In a sense, her life AS SHE KNEW IT, is over. The rapist should die for that. Furthermore, rapists only serve a few years, if that, and then they are released on the streets to rape again.
Definitely believe in torture for child rapists. But I think dressing them in ruffly pink panties and housing them among the death row inmates, with a sign around their neck that says “I do little kids” would pretty much seal the deal. I prefer to keep the streets clean of blood and gore, is all I’m saying.
Comment by batyah — 05.29.07 @ 3:02 pm
I am very much in favor of the death penalty and it’s use against those that violate the laws of the great state of Texas as they reflect in relation to Murder and Capital Murder…
§ 19.02. MURDER and § 19.03. CAPITAL MURDER as defined under Texas law
And I personally think there needs to be a whole different method of execution for ANY animal that does harm to a child…
Comment by TexasFred — 05.29.07 @ 3:18 pm
Isn’t there some country that takes criminals out in a helicopter and drops them out over the ocean? I prefer that to dropping them off in the tundra. Saves on camping equipment and food, and why waste a perfectly good sleeping bad, not to mention the litter created in the tundra.
Seriously, much as I love LaShawn’s fantasy, I do agree that we cannot descend into torturing of criminals, EVEN THOUGH they deserve it. We have to maintain a higher level of behavior for ourselves, and safeguard our own spirit. That does not mean that we can’t CUT THE CRAP and have swift trials, no appeals that go on forever on the taxpayers dime, and zero tolerance for moonbats baying lovingly at the courthouse doors or holding candlelight vigils for psycho serial killers. We need to do away with the culture of sympathizing with the evildoer. We need to limit his exposure drastically. He gets a trial, and then he gets dead — out of sight, out of mind, all in a jiffy.
I am also much in favor of holding judges, defense attorneys, and parole boards responsible for their bad boys. If you, as a judge, attorney, or parole board member, are responsible for the release of a criminal AND he re-offends, that’s real tough titties for you — cause now YOU are going to do some cold, hard time. All these people will think a lot more carefully if they have to accept the consequences of their decisions, like, you know, THE PUBLIC DOES. Imagine how popular judges and parole board members would be with the prison boys.
If there is a prison space shortage, then that needs to be remedied. Maybe Al Gore and other Dems and Hollywood types could hold bakesales to raise funds for new prisons. Bottom line — NO prisoner should walk free because there isn’t enough space for him in jail. That is absurd.
Comment by batyah — 05.29.07 @ 3:21 pm
>>If you, as a judge, attorney, or parole board member, are responsible for the release of a criminal AND he re-offends, that’s real tough titties for you — cause now YOU are going to do some cold, hard time.>>
Hmmm. I don’t think I’d be in favor of this for the Judge or the attorney, but parole board? yep. Think I’d go for that one.
Comment by suek — 05.29.07 @ 3:53 pm
Torturing and raping children is worthy of the death penalty. Rape is not a small thing; it’s murder of the soul though the body lives on.
These children, and I make a distinction between 14 year olds having consentual sex and young children taken against their will, are damaged for life.
The only way to protect other children is to remove these people from the planet. This has nothing to do with vengeance, but everything to do with justice and promoting a civil society.
I think it immoral to waste public funds on the housing or rehabilitation of these convicted monsters. The fact that some of them ever manage to get out of prison is unconscionable.
Comment by Cedjan — 05.29.07 @ 3:55 pm
“For the Americans who support the death penalty, are you willingly to administer that punishment?
I ask because I can see the argument in certain crimes, but if I were asked to execute the punishment, I wouldn’t be able to do it. Therefore, I can’t support the death penalty.”
What if there are others who CAN do it Paige? You not supporting the death penalty on the basis of your own inability to carry it out is absurd! What if you had to sit in a court room (as Jessica Lunsfords father had to do) and see the pictures of your little girl, with her fingers poking through a trash bag, tortured, buried alive after having been sexually assaulted by some (expletive) loser in the most heinous ways….could you then pull the trigger, inject the serum or pull the electric switch? If it were YOUR children? You bet I could very easily! I’ve had to pull the trigger once before in my life back in ‘91 and guess what? No PTSD! I sleep good at night and would sleep even better knowing the person I’m taking out wasn’t just someone else shooting at me from across the sand but someone who has raped and murdered children for their own sick needs. I look at it like this: I’m sending this person on to be judged by God NOW…not after twenty years of cable T.v., endless appeals (Jessica did not get any appeals) and thousands upon thousands of tax payer dollars wasted on some piece of trash. A bullet is .50 cents. I’ll talk with God about it when it’s my time. I’m relatively sure he will see it my way. Sorry for the rant La Shawn!
Comment by Chucky — 05.29.07 @ 4:05 pm
Funny how you want to criticize “liberal democrats”–
I think parole boards do quite a good job. There are crimes that should not be considered for life in prison. Some people can be rehabilitated.
Many times you will see “conservative” courts convict a man who is later set free due to DNA evidence or other outrageous evidence that happened to be witheld.
I should say those who call themselves conservatives.
I once heard a conservative prosecutor in Atlanta, GA say that an innocent person should be sent to death row just to make the victim’s family feel better — closure for the family. He explained it as the “Greater good”. — hogwash. If I had my way, that attorney would’ve been on the gallows.
Only things that burns me up more than a killer going free is an innocent person serving years for a crime they didnt commit.
Comment by lukeNC — 05.29.07 @ 4:11 pm
Lighten up, will you please? Good grief. Here’s a better use of your time: go find a pedophile to preach to. - Admin
Comment by MikeT — 05.29.07 @ 4:22 pm
Out with Amendment VIII of The Bill Of Rights!
Nine more to go! Woo-hoo!
Comment by P. Anthony Allen — 05.29.07 @ 4:29 pm
As someone who was assaulted as a child, I can tell you from personal experience — it didn’t just affect me for a short time. No, in fact it shaped every decision I ever made up until the time I was wise enough to realise that I was making some really bad choices. So, I’d say that this person destroyed most of my childhood, all of my adolescence, and a good portion of my young adulthood. Death, frankly, is too good for a child rapist. Torture, yes.
I only thank God I was finally able to come to terms with what happened to me and I now know why I “ended up” the way I did. And I thank God I discovered it soon enough to change things around and make better choices, and make a better life. Much better than playing the victim. However, I’ll always struggle with forgiveness. I know God demands it, but He and I will have to agree to disagree on this one.
Comment by Carol — 05.29.07 @ 4:30 pm
To engage in acts of revenge is to open yourself to evil - Where would you stop? Could you stop? Do you think you posess the necessary wisdom? I have dreamed up equally gruesome punishments, but in the end I know that such fantasies drive me away from God. Those people who commit heinous crimes should be isolated from the rest of humanity - forever if necessary. Leave it to God to exact an ultimate punishment.
Comment by Mark — 05.29.07 @ 5:46 pm
Boy, I’d like to roll up my sleeves on this one.
1) DNA has to be proof positive. Nifong’s proof doesn’t met the bar, so no point in using him as a case study of why we shouldn’t employ a final solution for the heinous.
2) But in the event a future DA decides to force the death penalty thru hook & crook, he should pay for it in kind. The in-kind principle should apply across the board. If an alleged drunk driver/suspended license holder gets railroaded into a 45 prison sentence, when found out, the prosecutor gets the same sentence. Justice (God) will not be mocked, but it’s up to we the people to hold our legislators’ feet to the fire to not play footsies with justice (to wit, ACLU & friends watering down Jessica’s Laws).
2) The distinction between forcible rape & so-called rape by the similarly aged youngsters needs to be clear. Likewise between pederasty & pedophilia. I’d go as far as to say that two willingly drunk people do not a rape make.
3) Once decided, families should have the right to chose the method of execution from an approved & predetermined menu.
4) What’s wrong with castration? For those concerned that the rapist might otherwise kill the victim. 1st offense, castration and/or hard time as appropriate. 2nd offense, death.
5) Is it just me, but aren’t the problems we have in justice gone wild a direct result of PC? Yet conservatives get the rap for ‘rising’ hate crimes, ever increasing numbers doing time in the name of getting tough. Truth is, getting tough on crime would actually reduce it.
Meanwhile, the liberal elites are laughing all the way to the bank, assured in the knowledge that should they ever get caught, they can plead their way out on “good works” credit. To wit, the ACLU director recently caught with tons of kiddie porn.
Gotta go
Comment by Andy — 05.29.07 @ 5:48 pm
@ 60, …45 prison sentence,… should have read …45 day prison sentence,…
Comment by Andy — 05.29.07 @ 6:55 pm
>>What’s wrong with castration?>>
It’s my understanding that rape is not so much an act of sexual drive as simply an act of assualt carried out sexually. If that’s true, then the assaulter would simply use a foreign object, I suspect, and castration would be ineffective.
>>Is it just me, but aren’t the problems we have in justice gone wild a direct result of PC?>>
Could be, of course, but imo, it’s more due to the fact that libs don’t believe in God and an afterlife, and are attempting to parcel out perfect justice in this world. Without perfect knowlege, it’s an impossible task, and in trying to “understand” all the incidents of a person’s nature or nurture, eventually they find that the pertetrator is not responsible for his/her actions. Upshot is…no consequences for crimes.
Comment by suek — 05.29.07 @ 7:49 pm
This is aside from my main point, but what’s wrong with castration is this: it doesn’t work. It’s been tried, and the men in question have not stopped their abuse, merely found new outlets for it. The real irony is that often pedophiles REQUEST castration in lieu of other punishments.
The real problem here is that there are many, many false accusations of child abuse. When I lived in San Diego a decade and a half ago, there was a young disabled gentleman named Dale Akiki who was falsely accused of ritual Satanic child abuse. He was imprisoned for two years awaiting trial; the trial itself was one of the longest and most expensive in San Diego history. It took the jury only seven hours of deliberation to acquit him on all of the dozens of charges.
All right, you say, but he was acquitted. Then consider the case of Jim Wade, which also occurred in San Diego, at approximately the same time. His daughter Alicia was viciously and violently raped in her bed. For thirteen months she swore the rapist was a stranger who climbed in her window. For thirteen months the county social workers insisted she must “tell a more believable story.” She finally acquiesced to their pressure and said that her father did it. He was arrested and plans were made to sever the family forever. At that point, diligent work on the part of the defense attorney unearthed DNA evidence that proved Jim Wade could not have committed the crime.
Yes, it is true that both these men were eventually released. But it is also true that prosecutors and police do not seek evidence leading to acquittals, although they are supposed to have a mandate to do so. Conviction rate is all that counts, even if the conviction is unjust.
Someone who rapes a child is a monster. But we are not at that stage of human affairs at which we can say with confidence that our justice is always just.
I have said before, and I say again: I will happily support both abortion and the death penalty the moment they become reversable.
Comment by Trish — 05.29.07 @ 9:26 pm
langtry (#28) said: …send them to Antarctica.
A perfect idea! But some environmental group will certainly object, saying that it causes global warming or ozone depletion or some other stuff and nonsense. And our imperial judiciary will side with the environmentalists.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 05.29.07 @ 11:29 pm
Re #58 (Carol): >
I sympathize. Likewise, I was raped as a kid. I know the price tag on losing that fight. But torture? As a society, we definitely have to keep them from repeating the offense. I’m not saying the guy deserves sympathy, or deserves kindness; he doesn’t deserve better than he treated the next person.
I’m saying there’s a line between justice and stooping to the same level. There’s a sense in which giving in to hatred is letting the s.o.b. win and still living under the shadow of that day, still having poisoned thoughts.
On the one hand, it’s kind of encouraging to see people doing the “righteous anger” thing on our behalf; the people offended on our behalf at least aren’t blaming us. But I have to say to those well-intentioned souls: once there was a creep who tried to dehumanize me. Don’t let your hatred of him dehumanize you. I’m not saying “let him go”, not remotely. I’m just saying that once all the creeps are out of the way of decent society, I want that decent society to still be decent, human, able to hold its head high. No torture, no “death is too good”, none of — what was that suggestion, have someone do to them what they had done to us? — none of that, nothing that makes society stoop to the same level. The same reason we want to remove the offender from decent society, that’s the same reason we have to safeguard our own decency in responding.
Take care & God bless
Anne
Comment by Anne — 05.30.07 @ 12:39 am
Submitted for Your Approval…
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for this week’s vote. Council li…
Trackback by Watcher of Weasels — 05.30.07 @ 1:17 am
To answer your questions:
1. I’m against the death penalty
2. I’m against the death penalty, period.
I’m a Michigan resident. Michigan abolished the death penalty around 1846. About 6 or 7 years ago, a police officer tried to push for the death penalty following the brutal muurder of a fellow police officer. Not even the police officer association backed the proposal.
Texas has executed about 394 people since 1976 and has a murder rate of 6.2 per 100,000 people.
Michigan has not executed anyone in more than 150 years and has a murder rate of 6.1 per 100,000 people.
There’s only one or two “majority white” countries that still have the death penalty besides the USA.
There’s only two other democratic countries besides the USA that still have the death penalty: Japan and South Korea.
The majority of countries that still have the death penalty are Islamic countries.
Most executions in 2006:
1. China (at least 1,010)
2. Iran (177)
3. Pakistan (82)
4. Iraq (at least 65)
5. Sudan (at least 65)
6. United States (53)
The largest single execution in the U.S. was in 1862 when 32 Indians were simultaneously hanged when one stroke of an axe cut the rope that caused the platform to drop and 31 of 32 were hanged. (The rope broke on one so that Indian had hanged separately after being strung up with a new rope.)
The second largest execution was in 1918 when 13 African American soldiers were executed in Minnesota. 10 others were spared when President Wilson commuted their sentences from death to life in prison.
Comment by Leon — 05.30.07 @ 1:20 am
First and foremost, any, and all crimes against children are heinous and despicable.
Yet allowing “cruel and unusual punishment” for such crimes definitely set’s the stage for a slippery slope. The possibility of false accusations (as in the Duke case) combined with a corrupt prosecution can [and has] left innocent parties in peril of public scrutiny, and far worse, imprisonment.
LaShawn, may I pose a few questions to you? Do you feel the same punishment (”Every day, all day, until he’s dead, people are allowed to throw at him whatever they can lift”) is appropriate for Chatholic Preist’s who molest children? Do we allow children to view or participate in the public execution? Will there be a test or a qualification for those who participate in the public execution? (Sadistic minded individuals could start “execution clubs”). What do we do if someone is found to be innocent after they’ve been mutilated? We can’t start burning witches again…..
Comment by P. Anthony Allen — 05.30.07 @ 2:18 am
Answer to Carol at #58.
Carol, I am so sorry for what you went through and are still going through. As for G-d demanding forgiveness, maybe it would make you feel better to study the Jewish approach to forgiveness, as it makes a lot more sense to our human natures than the Christian one (or at least, the Christian approach that I am most familiar with; perhaps there are others and someone can enlighten me). In Judaism, forgiveness is NOT demanded of the victim. Instead, the onus is on the offender to acquire forgiveness from his victim if he can. The offender is required to ASK the victim for forgiveness at least three times. Unless the offender receives forgiveness from his victim, HE WILL NOT RECEIVE FORGIVENESS FROM G-D! It is very clear in our laws and scriptures that one is not to go to G-d unless and until he has made an attempt three times to set things right with his fellow man FIRST. After the third time, the victim is urged to forgive but if a crime was so heinous that the victim is unable to forgive, then it is not required. That might be tough tooties for an offender, so it behooves everyone to be very careful about committing crimes for which it would be difficult to obtain a victim’s forgiveness. Naturally, G-d can make up His own mind about this, too, so it’s not entirely set in stone. If you refuse to forgive your sister for stealing your Easy Bake Oven in the third grade, even though she has begged you three times to do so, then I sincerely doubt that G-d would say “That’s a bummer, but, it’s Hell for you.” We’re talking about serious offenses where it would be very understandably difficult for the victim to forgive, and the offender’s repentance must be present in any case (not so in Christianity).
The point of these laws is to highlight that the offender has RESPONSIBILITIES toward the victim, not only to repent, ask forgiveness, and make practical amends, and that the victim also has some responsbilities to try to forgive, within reason.
Also, we are talking about a living victim and offender; NOWHERE in Jewish law is it said that a family member should forgive a murderer of their loved one. In fact, that is expressly FORBIDDEN, for you cannot give forgiveness to someone for a crime that was not committed against you. That would be highly inappropriate. It would be like telling someone who owes your brother money, “Oh, you don’t have to pay him back; I’m okay with you reniging on the loan. It’s okay between you and me.” You might say “I forgive you for the pain you have caused ME” but you may not say “I forgive you for murdering my child.” Only the child can profer that forgiveness, only she can’t, because she is dead.
Forgiveness, like love, is not something you can manufacture because someone tells you that you must. These are emotions, a state of the heart, and have to evolve freely and naturally. I question whether Jesus ever told someone they MUST forgive everything, or whether a forgiving heart was, rather, something to aspire toward. Big difference. I keep going back to the realization that Jesus was a rabbi learned in Jewish law; he would not have perverted basic Jewish principles. References to “turn the other cheek” had to be in regard to petty offenses that go along with daily living, rather than a response to life-threatening, soul-killing assaults. Otherwise, Christianity would be a pacifist religion, and it’s not.
The major difference I see between the two religions’ approach to forgiveness is that in Judaism, the offender’s repentence and restitution is an integral part of the process of receiving forgiveness from both the victim and G-d, and in Christianity, it is irrelevant. The offender can just apologize to G-d and he’s forgiven? That never made sense to me.
Comment by batyah — 05.30.07 @ 4:01 am
“We can’t start burning witches again”
All of civilization is reversible. Read the Malleus Maleficarum, a major historical work of ‘punishment as pornography’. There is no reason to believe that religionists wouldn’t go there again. Murderous sanctimony is a kind title for such behaviour.
If there is a problem with the legal system, then fix the legal system. There is no fix for the baying of blood other than more blood.
Regards,
John
Comment by JohnD — 05.30.07 @ 4:46 am
1) Death penalty in general? For several reasons, not necessarily related, I don’t like it: My Church opposes it (I’m Catholic), innocent people could die (and have died), I believe it is motivated by revenge rather than justice, and as much as my emotions would love to wreak revenge sometimes, my conscience tells me that revenge has no place in a “justice” system, and can only lead to more violence and chaos, eventually. Finally, going to purely emotional motives, in my state (PA) we have death by lethal injection–a person who commits heinous, violent crimes gets a nice sterile needle in the arm and drifts quietly off to sleep. Is that justice? In answering the 2nd question, I’ll add more to the last point.
2) No, I don’t believe in the death penalty for child molestors, for the same above reasons, but as a person who was molested when I was a small child, I can tell you I understand wanting revenge on people who do to children what was done to me, even to the point that when I see or hear of a “previously convicted sex offender” on television going to jail for doing again what everyone knows they will do again when they are let out of jail, it’s very hard for me not to picture myself with a big shotgun wreaking my own revenge on them for what they did. I do believe that they need to be removed from society, because as far as I’m concerned, an innocent child’s right to play safely in his or her backyard (or anywhere else) is a lot more important than some rapist or molester’s right to “pay their debt to society” (a joke) and be let out to victimize more people. Whether they be given life sentences, be banished to Antarctica or some other hellhole from which there is no escape or return to normal society, or be locked up in mental institutions for the criminally insane is all one to me, and as far as taxpayers footing the bill is concerned, that’s one thing I would be happy to pay for. If society has to pay one way or the other for these deviants, I’d rather it be with my hard-earned tax money than with our irreplaceable children and their lives and psyches. To add to that, I want to say I disagree with an above poster who said rapists murder people’s souls–my soul was wounded, but not murdered, and although I have had to deal with the effects of what happened to me all my life, even though it wasn’t my fault, I have come a long way toward healing through hard work, much prayer and spiritual renewal, and good therapy. Knowing that the person who did it to me was killed by lethal injection wouldn’t change anything I’ve had to feel or deal with because of what he did, and it wouldn’t bring me “closure;” that concept is a joke made up by pro-death penalty prosecutors as an excuse to send people to the chair, or the needle, or whatever method of death their state uses. The only closure I can ever find is what I find for myself, with the help of God, Whose love has helped me come a long way in my healing process. I wouldn’t wish the mental and emotional issues I’ve had to deal with because of what happened on anyone, and for that reason most of all I’m in the “ship them to Antarctica” camp. I don’t love them, nor do I care about them (I’m no bleeding heart when it comes to sex offenders) but although my emotions say “shoot them all” my conscience says they are human too (though their actions may not be) and as such, we can’t just kill them. Sorry that was so long but I have thought about this issue quite a lot, and couldn’t possibly condense my answers in 1 or 2 sentences. Peace.
Comment by Griz — 05.30.07 @ 5:29 am
Fix the lagal system, JohnD? I believe that’s what we’re proposing here. Stop the legal system from allowing child rapists to live at taxpayer expense, only to be released upon society as soon as some left-wing hand-wringing social-engineering judge decides to do so.
Comment by redbeard — 05.30.07 @ 6:54 am
Redbeard, you misread my comment. There is a whole world of scope between the proposed public torture/dismemberment/killing offered up here, and the liberality of your ‘hand-wringing’ Judge.
For instance, why should any rapist or murderer live at ‘taxpayer’s’ expense? Need that question immediately dissolve into:
“here we have in corner 1: a ‘liberal handwringing judge’ who lvoes to let felons go, and here we have in corner 2: A right wing fundamentalist with all the power, control of the public square, and bags of rocks.”
Such thinking is clearly wrong.
Staffing a prison is one thing, but the heating, lighting, building, maintentance, mining, cooking, cleaning etc could be carried out by felons as part of their debt.
Rapists could spend waking life in a laundry room and a sleeping life in a cell with no comforts.
Basic medical assistance only given to prevent outbreak. No books allowed. No priests. No sunlight.
If I caught someone abusing my kid, I’d probably want to kill them as quickly as posssible with whatever I had to hand. That would be an impulse.
Does that make it right? I doubt whether I’d care in the heat of the moment.
But would I want to make a public spectacle and of this? Would I want to see my someone’s dirty old uncle dismembered in the street? Paedo-priests castrated and stoned in the public square?
Answer: No. I’d want a case-by-case judgement with full consideration for the victim and family involved.
Would I want to make a protracted public ‘bring-your-own-stones’ torture of this? And swift sentencing that allowed no mistake in the ‘legal’ process to be rectified?
Answer: No.
I find such concepts almost as offensive as the assaults themselves. No hand-wringing or stoning required. The legal system need not be about vengeance, torture, public spectacle or bloodlust.
Such is available today in Tehran, in an albeit watered-down version than is being proposed here.
La Shawn, the concept of a ’somber stoning’ is to my mind worthy of pillory by the Monty Python team, but little else.
Regards,
John.
Comment by JohnD — 05.30.07 @ 8:25 am
Batyah;
Growing up Catholic, I was always taught that restitution was a manifestation of truly seeking forgiveness, but I wonder if, in an effort to be a forgiving Church, the Catholic church has swung so far to one direction that the message has been lost.
One weird aspect of this whole scenario is the conundrum that most who abuse children were abused themseves. So, while we acknowledge that being abused as a young child does horrific permanent damage, often that damage results in acts that are absolutely untenable to society.
It’s worth thinking about because the children that I knew quite well that had been sexually abused were highly sexualized as if a switch got turned on and they often indulged in extremely inappropriate behavior.
Conversely, at the end of the day, it is fair to look at the vast majority who have been horrifically abused and and never turned around and repeated the offense.
Comment by jan — 05.30.07 @ 8:45 am
JohnD, I fully understood your position before. My comment was a bit sarcastic, but aimed directly at the ongoing problem of coddling vicious criminals. This has been going on for decades, with no end in sight.
Reforms of the type you suggest might help, but will never see the light of day. Much as in the case of the decline of society overall, liberals will never agree to get tough on criminals.
This figures, since liberals refuse to get tough on criminals, terrorists, or any other enemies of this republic. Liberals think that by being kind to thugs we can change them into model citizens and friends. Baloney.
Comment by RedBeard — 05.30.07 @ 10:08 am
So what you are saying Redbeard, is that LaShawn’s proposed public killings (with attendant government officials monitoring that the recipient doesn’t die too quickly) are the best way to ‘fix’ the legal system with regards to paedophiles?
That is the society you want to live in?
Comment by JohnD — 05.30.07 @ 10:17 am
JohnD, I know you want me to react with horror at the idea of killing child rapists, but I cannot. Some people have, by their own heinous actions, abdicated their humanity and given up their right to live. In other words, yes, society is better off with them dead.
But again, all this is hyperbole, since the liberals will never agree to anything remotely resembling harsh punishment.
Comment by RedBeard — 05.30.07 @ 10:42 am
Honestly, I think the hemming and hawing about the various “creative” execution methods and vicious torturous devices tend to be no more than vengeance fantasy. It’s not much different than expressing a “desire” to punch someone in the face who’s done you wrong. Of course, our upbringing, values and understanding of social propriety keeps us from doing or even advocating such things with any absolute seriousness. The point isn’t necessarily to dictate policy, but to illustrate an idea - in this case, the inhumanity we ascribe to a particular set of criminals.
I think the general consensus here seems to be along these lines:
1) Rapists and pedophiles should be permanently removed from society by state sanctioned execution.
2) The legal bar of such cases should be high enough to keep those with marginal cases from being given such a sentence - protecting the possibly innocent.
3) The path from initial conviction to execution should be simplified and shortened.
4) Execution methods shouldn’t be excluded simply because they cause some measure of pain or suffering for the condemned (i.e. hanging, firing squad, electrocution, etc.)
5) Executions should be available for public viewing.
I don’t see anything there that would indicate some uncontrolled bloodlust as some of the commenters seem to think.
As for the philosophy of being pro or anti-capital punishment, that’s a discussion for another post…
Comment by Gabe — 05.30.07 @ 10:51 am
“JohnD, I know you want me to react with horror at the idea of killing child rapists”In other words, yes, society is better off with them dead”
Redbeard,with respect, please do not do me the disfavour of mind-reding. You are wrong, I do not ‘want’ anything other than a straight answer to my question. I do not expect anyone to recoil in horror at public stonings, I just asked if you wanted them, and if you desired to live in the kind of society that maintained public killings and tortures as part of life.
The fact that you twisted my question and chose to answer your *own* version of it says enough.
Thanks anyway,
Regards,
JohnD
Comment by JohnD — 05.30.07 @ 10:59 am
Even though I’ve done a great deal of liberal-bashing here, I’ll still buy you a hamburger if we ever meet.
We’ll simply have to accept the fact that we’re on quite different tracks relating to this issue.
Comment by RedBeard — 05.30.07 @ 11:18 am
Batyah
>>The major difference I see between the two religions’ approach to forgiveness is that in Judaism, the offender’s repentence and restitution is an integral part of the process of receiving forgiveness from both the victim and G-d, and in Christianity, it is irrelevant. The offender can just apologize to G-d and he’s forgiven? That never made sense to me.>>
In Catholicism, it is required to be forgiven that you acknowledge your sin, that you are sincerely sorry for your wrongdoing, and that you firmly intend not to do it again and have a firm purpose of amendment. You must assume here that God does indeed know your heart, unlike us other humans who may just hear the words. That last part I understand to mean that you have to make your wrong right as you’re able to - which takes different forms, obviously, but I’d certainly understand it to mean that you had to ask the person you sinned against for forgiveness.
>>Unless the offender receives forgiveness from his victim, HE WILL NOT RECEIVE FORGIVENESS FROM G-D!>>
This is interesting from the standpoint that Christianity is based on Judaism but different. I think this is one of the differences - we are told to pray “Forgive us our sins as we forgive others”. It demands that we give up our thoughts of retribution if we don’t want to suffer retribution for our own sins. That doesn’t mean, though, that a society doesn’t have the right to protect itself from wrongdoers. I think that in this, the function of society is to provide justice for the wronged in order to alleviate some of the anger caused by having been wronged, without incurrring the temptation for revenge.
Griz…
>> I don’t like it: My Church opposes it (I’m Catholic),…>>
I’m Catholic, and I’m here to tell you that although the Church seems to oppose the death penalty these days, it didn’t always. If you research back some 40+ years, you’ll find that it did _not_ oppose the death penalty. Even today, although the Church encourages lawmakers to use other methods of punishment, it still recognizes the _right_ of a society/government to impose the death penalty.
I’ll also tell you that the Church is different in many ways today than it was some 50 years ago - and not for the better, imo. It has been influenced by the secular changes in Europe, I think. But that’s a different topic.
Comment by suek — 05.30.07 @ 11:35 am
Gabe…
Good summation…
Comment by suek — 05.30.07 @ 11:36 am
“Even though I’ve done a great deal of liberal-bashing here, I’ll still buy you a hamburger if we ever meet.”
Cool! But being a ‘liberal’ (i.e: questioning the benefits of public stoning/glassing etc) surely you might want to make it a beanburger (cruelty-free), just like I wouldn’t buy a Jew a pork sandwich, even if I didn’t believe in his supernatural friend.
I’m cool with that. Now, I give up asking futile questions here, but let it be known I will fight any attempt in my country to make public torture and killings/sharia law part of any judicial system.
That’s the kind of leftie freakazoid I am.
Comment by JohnD — 05.30.07 @ 11:47 am
Batyah:
Not all Christians agree with unconditional forgiveness. I have read some who think that it is improper to forgive the unrepentant. Most of those that do believe that forgiveness is always the best course emphasize that it is a process and are much more concerned with the effects of failing to forgive on the victim than on the perpetrator. Here is one link to someone who does not advocate unconditional forgiveness: http://buriedtreasurebooks.com/weblog/?p=1671
I have a simple idea that I think can make accusations of rape far easier to process: if you aren’t married, and you have DNA evidence, it’s rape. No lengthy trial; no appeal or excuse. Simple, isn’t it? What better way to teach young men self-control?
I have a problem with killing people who bear the image of God. I go back and forth on the death penalty. I don’t think it should be retributive, and I don’t think it should be a cost-cutting measure (to my understanding, in the current system, the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison anyway). Life in a little cement cell with no human contact is not humane, but it is also not our place to take life. For those who say death is too good, it can be argued that this approach is worse. I also feel for the consciences of those who must assist in the execution. Those criminals who can safely earn their keep, however, should do so.
Unless the field of mental health makes strides toward actually curing these people, this is the best solution for pedophiles. However, the death penalty is probably better than releasing them.
Comment by ycw — 05.30.07 @ 12:38 pm
Having lived in the Middle East where public stonings, whippings, beheadings, and amputations were carried out, I cannot imagine that we would want to go down that path because I think it does something to the folks that watch.
I could be wrong.Any comments?
Comment by jan — 05.30.07 @ 1:19 pm
Beanburger? Uh oh. Now we’re REALLY on opposite sides.
Sincerely,
RedBeard the Carnivore.
Comment by RedBeard — 05.30.07 @ 1:37 pm
Jan,
After watching only a few moments of a woman being stoned for adultery in (I think it was Iraq) last week, I don’t think I could take watching other public punishments. I don’t know if it makes it right or wrong, I just couldn’t watch it.
Space Puppy
Comment by Space Puppy — 05.30.07 @ 2:01 pm
If a Catholic priest, Imam, Rabbi, Reverend or a creepy relative were found guilty of child molestation I would be more than happy to pour acid into his eyes, set him afire, draw and quarter and hang his head on public display.
Comment by NeoLibertarian — 05.30.07 @ 2:07 pm
Those who choose to enter the abyss of “sub-human” behavior and commit the heinous kinds of crimes discussed here do not deserve normal punishment, reserved for humans.
James (comment #39) put it best - the method of execution should match the way in which the crime was committed. I don’t care whether it’s public or not, just so it’s swiftly executed. These servants of satan deserve nothing less.
Comment by Dave in AZ — 05.30.07 @ 2:22 pm
>>Unless the field of mental health makes strides toward actually curing these people,>>
You make the assumption that these people can be “cured”. That assumption is one that attributes wrongful action to disease, rather than choice. In other words, there is no responsibility because there is no ability to choose. These people, therefore, do not have free will.
I think you’re wrong. I think they _do_ have free will, and are capable of making a decision to commit wrongful acts or not. If that’s the case, there are no medications that will change them.
Comment by suek — 05.30.07 @ 3:23 pm
Thank you to everyone who explained more about the various Christian teachings regarding forgiveness.
As for the death penalty, it has been interesting reading the comments here and many are thought provoking. I have always been “pro,” but I do find that as I get older, I have more conflicted thoughts and emotions about it. I recently realized that I wouldn’t engage in revenge fantasies so much IF our justice system were more concerned with victims and less concerned with criminals. Liberals, many of whom are opposed to the death penalty, ironically give rise to vigilante sentiments and calls for the death penalty simply because they promote lenience in the penal system and that frustrates the rest of us. It feeds the appetite for justice, and I admit, that can get out of hand. I only wish that more liberals could understand this dynamic, and stop being so lenient and apologists for criminals.
Revenge as a motivation does not particularly disturb me. I am not sure why revenge is such a bad thing, but, let’s pretend like it is for a moment. There are other reasons why capital punishment is useful: it saves taxpayer money (assuming long and costly appeals are no longer allowed); it absolutely prevents repeat offenders; it sends a message to society that certain behaviors will not be tolerated; it affirms the worth and value of the victim’s life; most importantly, it rids the world of an evil spirit and energy. I’m sorry if that sounds too “woo woo” but I really believe it. G-d repeatedly tells us to excise evil from our midst. That’s important to think about. However, yes, I DO get concerned about raging mobs, about innocent people being convicted wrongly, and I really don’t want to see heads on posts in public squares, etc. But surely we can do better than we are currently doing.
Comment by batyah — 05.30.07 @ 3:57 pm
If Lashawn will forgive me for what may appear to be a threadjack, this video is worth every second of your time. It is such an extraordinary tribute to the human spirit in what could be the most “bitter” of circumstances and it directly confronts the notion that circumstances dictate our path in life.
http://dopejam.multiply.com/video/item/6
Comment by jan — 05.30.07 @ 4:39 pm
Batyah @ 69: “The offender can just apologize to G-d and he’s forgiven? That never made sense to me.”
You’re absolutely right and I hope to address that here below. Nor does that make sense to the God who inspired all scriptures in the first place.
I concur with Jan’s assessment that the modern Christian has swung too far on the subject of forgiveness. In fact the common notions of forgiveness has been tainted by pop culture because we have drifted from the strict ‘constitutionalists’ interpretations of the Bible in an attempt to be hip.
Hey, Jude, where does this nonsense come from? I say it comes from Satan the Deceiving Angel of Light (Jude 1:3-25)!!!
Sort of the same way that pop culture elevates no talents, we’re afflicted by our share of pop Christianity. Unfortunately, using the parable of the sower (Matt 13:18-22), it is the unrooted who gets prime time. I apologize on behalf of all who have diluted and/or misconstrued the message of forgiveness, NOT.
Nowhere in the NT is there an imperative that we must forgive at all costs, regardless of the offender’s attitude.
The onus is on the offender to seek forgiveness and has always remained so. To wit:
1) When Jesus said “Father forgive them for they know not what they do“. This is not to say we should write a blank check of forgiveness for every wrong. Take a closer look at the scene of the crime. They really didn’t know what they were doing.
a) The Jews, stirred up by the priests, truly believed that they had condemned a heretic and for which the law justly proscribed death.
b) The Romans didn’t really believe that Jesus intended to usurp Ceasar, but since the Jews were in a “holy” rage, it was convenient for Pilate to nifong Jesus in order to placate the local community. Likewise, had the insurrection threat been real, Pilate would never have allowed “King of Jews” to be slapped up on the cross. (Matt 2:2, Matt 27)
c) Jesus forgave the one thief who acknowledged him as Son of God and not the other who mocked him. Furthermore, only Jesus has the power to forgive and remove the mark of sin that prevents sinners from entering heaven. We don’t.
2) So how does “I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven fit in? Here again, Jesus did not usurp the law, rather he embraced and extended upon it. Somehow, we’ve conflated ‘ever-forgiving’ with ‘all-forgiving’. Again, look at the context. Jesus was asked how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus then illustrates that as we are forgiven, so should we compassionately forgive WHEN asked, NOT carte blanche! (Matt 18). It is also key to note that the non-forgiving wicked servant was seized and given over to his tormenters until his debt to society was paid.
3) As you have pointed out, that forgiveness can only be granted by a living victim. A relative cannot step in on behalf of the dead victim and grant forgiveness.
Repentance is the 1st party act. Forgiveness is 2nd party. And the Bible emphatically warns us against taking offense as a by-standing 3rd party.
4) That brings me to another peeve. That we’ve confused ‘granting’ forgiveness with ‘offering’ forgiveness. I can not find one example in the whole Bible where anyone offers another forgiveness. Can anyone? Otherwise, who are we to offer it?
Moving on from forgiveness to punishment.
5) By the same token, there are always some who roll out the “vengeance is mine, saith the Lord” as an excuse for not imposing harsh or even capital punishments. Well, the truth is a double-edge sword and those who think that retributive justice via government is immoral are ignoring the other side of the equation. As agents of the Lord, governments are empowered to extract that vengeance , both on behalf of the victim & the Lord (Roms 13).
Furthermore, there is a heaping dose of God’s wrath for those in authority who abuse justice. And for us Christians, even when Kings abuse us, the Lord is with us (Acts 12).
6) Finally, some assume that we should just turn our cheeks or just roll over. Nonsense. Only when it is applicable. Jesus turned his cheek as it were because he was on a mission. On the flip side, Paul was just as adept in using logic & the legal system to play off both sides, those who would kill/punish him (Acts 17, 18 & 23).
Why? Because he too was on a mission, and just rolling over would have only given victory to his enemies and cut his apostleship short. Not that God couldn’t have sent a multitude of angels to save him. In fact, God did on occasion step in to rescue Paul, but only after all options were exhausted.
Tangential to this, the often repeated notion in some Christian circles that an occupation of a people by a foreign govt is somehow immoral is laughable — tell that to the Children of Israel who time and time again were subjected to the will of their enemies on account of sin. In fact, might makes right (Matt 20:25, 1Tim 2:2-3).
Or that as Believers, we can be selective about who we obey because we’re only passing thru this life is also silly (1Pet 2:11-23) The only two things that God really requires on the rule of law is we obey and that rulers be consistent & even.
It is perfectly normal to disagree over any of the points, but it helps if we’re either talking from the same point of reference or comparing it with others. Even better, when buttressed with cross-references. Sorry, “My Church…yadi, yada”, doesn’t cut it. This is how half-truths and misconceptions get out into the public square and take on a layer of conventional wisdom.
For God’s your sakes, people, read your Bible and seek understanding from God (Eph 6)! The church can’t form your worldview. In other words, be like the Bereans (Acts 17:10-12) and go to the source code, it’s all there in black and white waiting to be read all over again and again.
Comment by Andy — 05.30.07 @ 5:20 pm
suek/Trish. I bring up castration because I wanted to spark a discussion on that as a viable tool in protecting agaist sexual predators.
I realize that the crime of sexual abuse is insidously perpetual in that one doesn’t get over it as we would with a stolen easy-bake oven and that previously innocent victims now view the world in a sexual context.
I’m mindful of
Mat 18:6 But whoever shall offend one of these little ones who believes in Me, it would be better for him that an ass’s millstone were hung around his neck, and he be sunk in the depth of the sea.
Mat 18:7 Woe to the world because of offenses! For it is necessary that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!
Mat 18:8 And if your hand or your foot causes you to offend, cut them off and throw them from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
Mat 18:9 And if your eye offends you, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into the hell of fire.
Mat 18:10 Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I say to you that in Heaven their angels always behold the face of My Father in Heaven.
By substituting out hand/foot, I’m making the case that castration is actually an act of Christian compassion and second chances. Particularly since Judhaic law proscribes death for rapists. On the other hand, enunchs have a history of tending to be non-violent, a true girly-man. But if, IF, in spite of the physical castration, not chemical, the offender strikes again, then off with his head — permanently. A lifetime imprisonment is still a burden to society. This solution takes care of the question of ‘reversal’ of punishment in that a life was spared on strike one, however there shouldn’t be any 3rd chances for anyone.
By failing to protect the little ones in a misguided attempt to show PC-inspired compassion and multi-kulti diversity/appreciation for Namblas and perverts, we subject unknowable number of potential victims to the same perp. Not to mention there are some mightily po’d guardian angels.
And the seculars call that justice? Yeah, it’s par for course to call evil good & compassionate and to call righteousness narrow-minded and mean-spirited. Fact is, these bleeding hearts are so open-minded, their brains all leaked out :(.
Comment by Andy — 05.30.07 @ 5:26 pm
Thanks, everyone who offered kind words — I sincerely appreciate it. Batyah, it’s interesting that you mentioned Judaism and the rules surrounding forgiveness. I’ve gone back and forth for years between converting to Judaism — I like the rules. All….600+ rules, if I remember correctly.
Sorry for the hijack — carry on.
Comment by Carol — 05.30.07 @ 5:32 pm
Normal sexual desires are physical and as such, castration would reduce testosterone and result in a reduction of sexual desire. Abnormal sexual desires are psychological in nature, and reducing testosterone isn’t going to help.
Comment by suek — 05.30.07 @ 6:48 pm
I beleive that christians are forbidden vengance.
I support capital punishment not for deterrence but for retribution. Retributive justice, baby.
Does black girl speak with forked tounge?
Pro - I do not beleive we can kill someone, all we can do is send him (or her?) to meet his maker.
Con - Its awfully hard to say you are sorry.
Ask the criminals - Actual quote - “you don’t want to do that in texas, they kill people in texas”
1) What are your views on the death penalty in general?
In theory, I’m for it. In practice, as The Innocence Project is showing, mistakes and sometimes “rogue†prosecutions are taking place. I can’t support the death penalty as it currently stands.
2) What are your views on the death penalty for child rapists, whether or not they murder the children?
If I supported the death penalty, I’d say kill them.
Comment by DarkStar
That is quite good sir. I don’t quite agree but admire the mind that can express itself so concisely. I will not consider the death penality (indeed, the entire justice system) properly administered until the same punishment is given to those that frame someone.
Of course “lock em up forever” just takes a few years longer till they are free to prey upon others. Severe punishment, yes. But “cruel and unusual punishment” bans are to protect you and I, not the criminal.
Comment by Ted Moore — 05.30.07 @ 9:13 pm
Oh, sorry but to address another point of view. Inmates do have too many pleasures open to them. Ask any guard. But allowing a priviledge to be worked for and earned - not given but earned - is a concept that makes a guards life somewhat safer. Doing it right would not cost much more than the way we do it n