Should rapists who rape a child be put to death?

[Cainkane1]

Unless the child is murdered I say no. Not because the perp doesn't deserve death but I believe if the perp was facing the death penalty they would be more likely to kill the kid after the crime. Leave the death penalty up to the other inmates.

[bigred]

???

Yes in fact hell yes.

[Rufo]

I don't think anyone should be put to death, but that is because it is not practical to use death penalty. Since child rapists are often individuals psychologically damaged beyond repairibility, however, I can agree that we might consider the theoretical benefits of putting them to death.

I also disagree with your logic. I don't think child rapists are as cold and calculating as you think them to be. The risk of them killing the child is more dependent on them than on the punishment they are facing.

[baron]

I've never been in favour of the death penalty, not least because the act of being killed is not, in my eyes, a true punishment. How are you meant to reflect on the error of your ways if you're dead?

Lock them away for life.

I'm not in favour of prioritising crime by the age of the victim either. Rape is rape. Murder is murder. Child or pensioner, it's irrelevant.

[bigred]

I've never been in favour of the death penalty, not least because the act of being killed is not, in my eyes, a true punishment. How are you meant to reflect on the error of your ways if you're dead?

Lock them away for life.

I'm not in favour of prioritising crime by the age of the victim either. Rape is rape. Murder is murder. Child or pensioner, it's irrelevant.Sorry but I find your logic bizarre. Death isn't a "true punishment?" Raping or killing a child is the same as doing so to an adult? Hardly. Also punishment does not equate to reflecting on the error of one's way. Punishment is a negative action done to someone because of something they have done.

[Drudgewire]

Yup. Don't care if it's a deterrent, don't care if there are other avenues available. Kill them and put a urinal by their gravesite.

[steverino]

I vote "no."

A lot of these trials use the child's testimony. The kid could be 4 years-old.
I'd hate to risk the gas chamber because Tommy pointed at me and said, "Mommy. THAT man touched me."

I was once named in a law suit when an elderly man who was being helped by a hired security guard hit his ankle on my camera bag that I'd set down to help open the door for him. He fell and injured himself. By the time his lawyers got through with me, the perception they created was that I pushed an old man over my bag. It was all a big lie to get money from me & my insurance, which worked.

[baron]

Sorry but I find your logic bizarre. Death isn't a "true punishment?"

That's what I said, yes. If I kill you now, you're dead. You can't reflect on your wrong-doing and neither can you suffer or experience remorse. That's a pretty poor punishment in my book. Some might say it's letting the perpetrator off lightly. Of course, there's the 20 years on death row but that's another story.

Raping or killing a child is the same as doing so to an adult? Hardly.

Why is that, then? And what are the thressholds at which murder changes from "appalling", maybe, to just "outrageous"? Does it ever go down to "not very nice", for a pensioner maybe?

Also punishment does not equate to reflecting on the error of one's way.

No, but it should allow reflection, as I've already said.

Punishment is a negative action done to someone because of something they have done.

Well it shouldn't be. Punishment should be a positive action to counter a negative act.

[Irony]

I'd say no. Especially since given current laws concerning what "rape" is, two sixteen year olds having sex together could both face execution.

[DanishDynamite]

As usual I will use the Bible as my moral guidance. Now, given the principle of "an eye for an eye", I say the perp should be raped in turn (preferably by a huge guy called Brutus).

[baron]

Now, given the principle of "an eye for an eye", I say the perp should be raped in turn (preferably by a huge guy called Brutus).

You may be joking but I would actually be in favour of this. Not doing it personally, you understand, but standing back and allowing the perpetrator to get a taste of his own medicine, so to speak, if the occasion arose.

[bigred]

I vote "no."

A lot of these trials use the child's testimony. The kid could be 4 years-old.
I'd hate to risk the gas chamber because Tommy pointed at me and said, "Mommy. THAT man touched me."I would certainly expect more/better evidence than that....


That's what I said, yes. If I kill you now, you're dead. You can't reflect on your wrong-doing and neither can you suffer or experience remorse. That's a pretty poor punishment in my book. ie you agree that it IS a punishment, though. OK.

Some might say it's letting the perpetrator off lightly. Some might need their heads examined.

No, but it should allow reflection, as I've already said.Agree to disagree.

Well it shouldn't be. Punishment should be a positive action to counter a negative act.That varies greatly with the specifics, to say the least. Not in this case. You cannot "counter" raping a child in some positive way.

Punishment is about paying for one's crime, be it in a "positive" or "negative" way.

[CFLarsen]

???

Yes in fact hell yes.


You may be joking but I would actually be in favour of this. Not doing it personally, you understand, but standing back and allowing the perpetrator to get a taste of his own medicine, so to speak, if the occasion arose.

Really?

I take it that the both of you also think that murderers should be executed?

Should arsonists also have their property burnt down?

Should arsonists who, by way of them setting fire to buildings, thereby killing people, be burned alive?

Should drunk drivers be killed by a car running over them?

I've never been in favour of the death penalty, not least because the act of being killed is not, in my eyes, a true punishment. How are you meant to reflect on the error of your ways if you're dead?

I have never been able to understand why skeptics-who-are-also-atheists could possibly argue that death is a punishment. If you are an atheist, you don't believe in an afterlife - so, how is death a punishment? You don't feel anything when you are dead.

Lock them away for life.

Absolutely. Having your freedom taken away from you...isn't that worse than having your life taken away from you? "Give me liberty or give me death" and all that?

Sorry but I find your logic bizarre. Death isn't a "true punishment?" Raping or killing a child is the same as doing so to an adult? Hardly. Also punishment does not equate to reflecting on the error of one's way. Punishment is a negative action done to someone because of something they have done.

Yup. Don't care if it's a deterrent, don't care if there are other avenues available. Kill them and put a urinal by their gravesite.

What punishment do you feel when you are dead?

As usual I will use the Bible as my moral guidance. Now, given the principle of "an eye for an eye", I say the perp should be raped in turn (preferably by a huge guy called Brutus).

These days, it's "Bubba". As in "Bubba's bitch".

[TragicMonkey]

Would the victim feel burdened by their rapist being put to death? And before I get attacked by a slew of furies, please recall we're talking about children here. They might be more sensitive, and the psychological impact on top of what already occurred might not be desirable. "Hey kid, are you sure this is the right guy? Cause we're going to kill him if you say he is." No pressure!

Also, mightn't a severer penalty raise the risk of the guilty getting off, because a jury would be less likely to convict if they thought there was no way to undo what might be a mistaken verdict?

[Undesired Walrus]

Should rapists who rape a child be put to death?

As in contrast to a non-rapist who rapes a child?

As for your question: No.

At what stage is a man qualified as being bald by general consensus? When 44.2% of his hair is gone or 44.3%?

[DanishDynamite]

You may be joking but I would actually be in favour of this. Not doing it personally, you understand, but standing back and allowing the perpetrator to get a taste of his own medicine, so to speak, if the occasion arose.
I was only slightly joking. As a general rule, the "eye for an eye" isn't that bad, in my view. I just suspect that for many Americans, who seem to have a love affair with capital punishment, "an eye for an eye" would not be enough.

[Irony]

I noticed no one responded to my other post. Perhaps it sounds a bit too far fetched?

Well then, what about an 18-year old who had sex with his 17-year old girlfriend, or an old man who grabbed a young girls arm to scold her after she ran out in front of his car. Both of these events really happened, and both of these men are "child rapists" according to the law.

Both would be executed under this hypothetical.

People who go "hell yeah" to questions like this without thinking of the consequences are the reason such travesties of justice happen.

[fuelair]

Sorry but I find your logic bizarre. Death isn't a "true punishment?" Raping or killing a child is the same as doing so to an adult? Hardly. Also punishment does not equate to reflecting on the error of one's way. Punishment is a negative action done to someone because of something they have done.

Actually, If I am involved in it the perpetrator will be screaming for death long before that request is finally granted - but they will have plenty of time to reflect on what they did wrong. The process is very educational - and involves education in the functions of various parts of their organ systems combined with reiteration of why these lessons are being provided for their edification.

As with much of my belief system, this was hard-wired in my youth from, not so surprisingly, the tales of the Brothers Grimm (not the rewritten versions) which seemed perfect in response to evil against others. (per ex.: try to wreck your stepdaughter's/sister's life and get her killed? Get put naked into a nail studded barrel, sealed up, rolled down a long hill and finish with sailing through the air out into the ocean. Sounded fair to me.:):))

[Drudgewire]

I was only slightly joking. As a general rule, the "eye for an eye" isn't that bad, in my view. I just suspect that for many Americans, who seem to have a love affair with capital punishment, "an eye for an eye" would not be enough.
It basically comes down to math. If we could set up an equation where the rapist got his "eye for an eye" taking the size difference of him and his victim into account and dishing out the penalty according to that ratio I could live with that.

For instance: Adult male to child = large tree branch to adult male.

*struggles to resist making brown eye for a brown eye joke and fails miserably*

[Ratman_tf]

No.

In the real world, innocent people are punished for things they did not commit.

While being locked away in modern jails is not a very appealing situation, it's at least possible to reverse a mistaken sentence and release the person.

Dead is dead.

That's the reason I'm against the death penalty in all situations.

[Undesired Walrus]

It basically comes down to math. If we could set up an equation where the rapist got his "eye for an eye" taking the size difference of him and his victim into account and dishing out the penalty according to that ratio I could live with that.

For instance: Adult male to child = large tree branch to adult male.

What is an adult and what is a child to you? A certain birthday? Puberty? First Job? Taking care of their sick mother and doing the shopping at 14 years old?

[KateHL]

I noticed no one responded to my other post. Perhaps it sounds a bit too far fetched?

Well then, what about an 18-year old who had sex with his 17-year old girlfriend, or an old man who grabbed a young girls arm to scold her after she ran out in front of his car. Both of these events really happened, and both of these men are "child rapists" according to the law.

Both would be executed under this hypothetical.

People who go "hell yeah" to questions like this without thinking of the consequences are the reason such travesties of justice happen.
We used to have these enormous billboards that read "STATUTORY RAPE IS A CRIME" with the pictures and names of people (always men) who had been convicted. Half of them looked no older than 18 and while it's possible the girls they slept with were prepubescent I'm sure some of them were convicted (and publicly humiliated) for sleeping with their high school girlfriends. That always makes me sad.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

No. They can be removed from society if they are placed in prison. Death is too permanent, and I think rather pointless.

[Sickly Crypsis]

I noticed no one responded to my other post. Perhaps it sounds a bit too far fetched?

Well then, what about an 18-year old who had sex with his 17-year old girlfriend, or an old man who grabbed a young girls arm to scold her after she ran out in front of his car. Both of these events really happened, and both of these men are "child rapists" according to the law.

Both would be executed under this hypothetical.

People who go "hell yeah" to questions like this without thinking of the consequences are the reason such travesties of justice happen.

Damn Skippy

Rape to me is too much of a he said/she said accusation to warrant something as hefty as the death penalty. Just Claims with no evidence whatsoever get a lot of attention.

Something with that much 'wiggle room' and blurred edges on its definition can't be a basis for killing another human being.

Put them in gaol for the rest of their lives and let them spend that time reflecting, developing true remorse and if their situation calls for it, trying to prove their innocence.

1) Get to work
2) Drink Coffee
3) Think heavily about child rape and execution
This is all too much, especially now that tonsillitis is setting in *pathetic cough*

[quixotecoyote]

I reject the concept of punishment as revenge.

I reject the concept of justice as revenge.

I endorse the concept of punishment as a deterrent to future behavior.

I endorse the concept of justice as protection and restitution.

If punishment will not deter future behavior the convict should not rejoin society.

The form of punishment is only important to its effectiveness (within a few limits). If rehabilitation programs make a convict less likely to reoffend, they should be widely used. If a program of brutal prison rape, torture, and deprivation makes a convict more likely to reoffend, it should be stopped regardless of the emotional thrill people get from their enemies' suffering.

If there is no way a sex offender, a murderer, an arsonist, a burglar, or a petty theif can reasonably be expected to exist peacefully in society (an assumption not warranted by the evidence I've seen), then that person should be either killed, permanently imprisoned, or exiled according to the options available to that society.

[NobbyNobbs]

I noticed no one responded to my other post. Perhaps it sounds a bit too far fetched?

Well then, what about an 18-year old who had sex with his 17-year old girlfriend, or an old man who grabbed a young girls arm to scold her after she ran out in front of his car. Both of these events really happened, and both of these men are "child rapists" according to the law.

Both would be executed under this hypothetical.

People who go "hell yeah" to questions like this without thinking of the consequences are the reason such travesties of justice happen.


Which law is it that defines an older man grabbing a younger girl's arm as "rape"?


As far as a true child rapist is concerned, just put them in the prison's general population and spread the word what his crime was. The situation will take care of itself.

[Sunni Man]

???

Yes in fact hell yes.

I second that!!!!!

[Beerina]

No. Why? Dead kids tell no tales.

If you're gonna be executed anyway...might as well remove the witness too.



But everybody else's ideas were good, too! Really! Positive strokes for the attempts!

[skeptifem]

there should be some sort of life long consequence, i think the death penalty isnt that great of a punishment. its only really worth a **** if you believe in an after life where people get theirs, and i dont.

[DanishDynamite]

It basically comes down to math. If we could set up an equation where the rapist got his "eye for an eye" taking the size difference of him and his victim into account and dishing out the penalty according to that ratio I could live with that.

For instance: Adult male to child = large tree branch to adult male.

*struggles to resist making brown eye for a brown eye joke and fails miserably*
Me too, size-wise.

[DanishDynamite]

We used to have these enormous billboards that read "STATUTORY RAPE IS A CRIME" with the pictures and names of people (always men) who had been convicted. Half of them looked no older than 18 and while it's possible the girls they slept with were prepubescent I'm sure some of them were convicted (and publicly humiliated) for sleeping with their high school girlfriends. That always makes me sad.
It makes me enraged. There is no rape if it is consensual sex. Claiming that an 18-year old understands "consensual" while a 17-year old or a 16-year old doesn't, is ridiculous.

ETA: And the proper definition of "consensual" seems debateable as well.

[Soapy Sam]

The death penalty may work as a deterrent, but not as a punishment.
It may also force someone to kill to remove a witness, or to avoid arrest.
On the other hand, sometimes it just feels right.
Honest answer? It would depend on whether I knew the kid, or the perp. It would depend how I felt on the day, on how sure I was of the evidence, on whether I liked the defence lawyer, on whether anyone in the local hospital needed a heart transplant with the same HLA spectrum, on all kinds of irelevant things.

[Ian Osborne]

I can't understand why people say the death penalty isn't a punishment. It might not be corrective or conducive to rehabilitation, but taking away the rest of someone's life damned sure is a punishment!

To answer the OP, no. As others have stated, three reasons:
• Possibility of executing the innocent.
• Might increase the chance of the rapist killing the victim, if the punishment is the same anyway.
• Might make juries reluctant to convict.

[DanishDynamite]

I can't understand why people say the death penalty isn't a punishment. It might not be corrective or conducive to rehabilitation, but taking away the rest of someone's life damned sure is a punishment!

To answer the OP, no. As others have stated, three reasons:
• Possibility of executing the innocent.
• Might increase the chance of the rapist killing the victim, if the punishment is the same anyway.
• Might make juries reluctant to convict.
Unbelievable that you didn't add: Ridiculous overkill! Equivalent to giving the death penalty for running a red light.

[Ian Osborne]

Unbelievable that you didn't add: Ridiculous overkill! Equivalent to giving the death penalty for running a red light.

Raping a child is the equivalent of running a red light? Have I misunderstood you, or are you trolling?

[Drudgewire]

What is an adult and what is a child to you? A certain birthday? Puberty? First Job? Taking care of their sick mother and doing the shopping at 14 years old?
While I like watching the busts on Dateline I have an ounce of sympathy for those idiots because let's face it, kids are growing up a lot faster than they used to and there's enticement going on. If you're asking me I'd set the bar at 12 but could be argued down to 9.

And this has nothing to do with "statutory" or any of that rot. I'm talking about a rapist who went after a kid. I'm talking clear-cut case of non-consentual violence with DNA and bruising and video if they've got it where there's no grey area.

I mean it's never going to happen so we're strictly talking hypotheticals here, but yeah I have no problem admitting I wish child rapists could be killed. Somehow I'm at peace with that. :)

[skeptifem]

There is no rape if it is consensual sex.

can an 8 year old consent?

youve said you think its ok to bang 12 year olds, so I just want to see where you draw the line.

[DanishDynamite]

Raping a child is the equivalent of running a red light? Have I misunderstood you, or are you trolling?
No. But requiring the death penalty for rape is close to it.

[DanishDynamite]

can an 8 year old consent?

youve said you think its ok to bang 12 year olds, so I just want to see where you draw the line.
Before we return to that chaotic hypocracy, let me ask you if an 18-year old can consent?

[monoman]

I reject the concept of punishment as revenge.

I reject the concept of justice as revenge.

I endorse the concept of punishment as a deterrent to future behavior.

I endorse the concept of justice as protection and restitution.

If punishment will not deter future behavior the convict should not rejoin society.

The form of punishment is only important to its effectiveness (within a few limits). If rehabilitation programs make a convict less likely to reoffend, they should be widely used. If a program of brutal prison rape, torture, and deprivation makes a convict more likely to reoffend, it should be stopped regardless of the emotional thrill people get from their enemies' suffering.

If there is no way a sex offender, a murderer, an arsonist, a burglar, or a petty theif can reasonably be expected to exist peacefully in society (an assumption not warranted by the evidence I've seen), then that person should be either killed, permanently imprisoned, or exiled according to the options available to that society.


I agree mostly with what you say though i'd never endorse a system of brutal prison rape and torture even if it did decrease the chances of re offence. I'd rather keep them locked up and protect society.

I never cease to be amazed at the responses i see to questions like this. Anyone who's gut reaction is to have the offender brutally raped should ask themselves the question - why do they do such things and why don't I?

(1) You don't have such urges. Then you're the lucky ones.
(2) You do have such urges but you manage to suppress them. If this is the case then kudos, but you're still a lucky one because, for whatever reason, you still have the ability to suppress those urges.

I suspect that many of the people who get angry fall into the second camp (not saying anyone here), because they think if i can do it, why can't they? It's like some 'rags to riches' people who think all poor people are lazy.

[gnome]

I want to address, as a side point, the ones here that speak up for torturing the perpetrators. As an angry revenge fantasy, well, whatever makes you feel better. Often enough it seems the perp deserves it. But there's something to discuss if some of you think that such a policy can be put into place seriously.

[DanishDynamite]

I want to address, as a side point, the ones here that speak up for torturing the perpetrators. As an angry revenge fantasy, well, whatever makes you feel better. Often enough it seems the perp deserves it. But there's something to discuss if some of you think that such a policy can be put into place seriously.Any policy at all can always be put into place, if enough people get behind it.

So discuss. Seriously.

[quixotecoyote]

I agree mostly with what you say though i'd never endorse a system of brutal prison rape and torture even if it did decrease the chances of re offence. I'd rather keep them locked up and protect society.


I liked your post, but for the record, I was criticizing the status quo, not making a suggestion.

[gnome]

Any policy at all can always be put into place, if enough people get behind it.

So discuss. Seriously.

Can/Should are different things, obviously.

An official policy of torture of any kind generates serious problems above and beyond the question of whether the perpetrator deserves it. For some that seems to be the only thing they care about.

[gumboot]

I am opposed to the death penalty. I also believe that incarceration is primarily for the purpose of protecting society, not for the purpose of punishing criminals.

[Smackety]

Life imprisonment is cruel, but how can we ever be totally sure someone will not re-offend? Killing prisoners might work, but what would that do to our society?
There are no good solutions after the fact. We need to focus on prevention. Do perfectly normal people just get up one day and decide to rape some kid? There must be some warning signs that friends and family could be educated about.

[bigred]

Rape to me is too much of a he said/she said accusation to warrant something as hefty as the death penalty. Just Claims with no evidence whatsoever get a lot of attention. It seems to me that the OP intended "what if someone who rapes a child" not "is accused of raping a child" ie there is exceedingly little if any doubt of their guilt.

I also think it would assume you're not dead-set against the death penalty in general, but then there's that thing about assuming (ie if you are then the crime is moot).....

[CFLarsen]

I can't understand why people say the death penalty isn't a punishment. It might not be corrective or conducive to rehabilitation, but taking away the rest of someone's life damned sure is a punishment!

How so? You're dead. You don't feel anything. You don't know that you're dead.

[Reeco]

Any form of punishment should:

1) Prevent the offender from committing the crime again.
2) Cost the taxpayer as little as possible.

And that's all it should do.

[Ian Osborne]

How so? You're dead. You don't feel anything. You don't know that you're dead.

So you'd have no objections to being dead? Judging by the lengthy appeals prisoners on death row go through, few people sentenced to death seem to share your view.

The defining characteristic of punishment is retribution, not rehabilitation. That's not to say rehabilitation is a bad thing - far from it. Merely that the death sentence is very much a punishment, even if (in automotive terms) it's a write-off rather than a repair.

[richardm]

I believe if the perp was facing the death penalty they would be more likely to kill the kid after the crime.

Why do you think this? Do you think that the rapist would reckon "Well, I'm going to get the chair anyway, I might as well see what murder feels like"?

[CFLarsen]

So you'd have no objections to being dead? Judging by the lengthy appeals prisoners on death row go through, few people sentenced to death seem to share your view.

Those are two different things: The knowledge of impending death, and actually being dead. The former, you are aware of, but not the latter.

What you are arguing is that people are being punished after the moment of their deaths. How is that different from arguing that you are conscious after death?

The defining characteristic of punishment is retribution, not rehabilitation. That's not to say rehabilitation is a bad thing - far from it. Merely that the death sentence is very much a punishment, even if (in automotive terms) it's a write-off rather than a repair.

I think that's what you are really arguing: That the death sentence in itself is very much a punishment. But not what happens after death.

Isn't that so?

[Georg]

Why do you think this? Do you think that the rapist would reckon "Well, I'm going to get the chair anyway, I might as well see what murder feels like"?

Maybe because a living child can identify a rapist easier than a dead one?

[Ian Osborne]

You're playing with words rather than dealing with issues. Ask yourself, 'is it better to be alive than to be dead?'. If you think it is, then why can't you see that death is a punishment?

[Cainkane1]

Why do you think this? Do you think that the rapist would reckon "Well, I'm going to get the chair anyway, I might as well see what murder feels like"?


There have been cases where serial killers only murder in states where there is no death penalty. Maybe I'm wrong but anything that helps a victim especially a child to survive an assault is worth it.

[CFLarsen]

You're playing with words rather than dealing with issues. Ask yourself, 'is it better to be alive than to be dead?'. If you think it is, then why can't you see that death is a punishment?

I am not playing with words. The issue here is, can a dead person be punished? That's what you are arguing.

How is that different from arguing that you are conscious after death?

[Ian Osborne]

The issue here is, can a dead person be punished? That's what you are arguing.

No, I'm arguing death can be a punishment.

How is that different from arguing that you are conscious after death?

Who argued that?

[Rasmus]

You're playing with words rather than dealing with issues. Ask yourself, 'is it better to be alive than to be dead?'. If you think it is, then why can't you see that death is a punishment?

I don't think "being dead" is either good or bad. When I die, I will cease exist forever. It will not even make sense anymore to refer to "me".

I might as well ask myself if I am "better off" now that I have been born as opposed to earlier, when I wasn't. But it still doesn't make sense.

I was not here since the beginning of time, and when I die I will no longer be until the end of all eternity. If you kill me for something I did, it will not change the nature of my being dead.

(Of course, I do care about it. I enjoy being alive and want to be alive for a good while longer. Killing me would take that away from me. My death could be painful and that wouldn't be any fun at all, either. But I think those are answers do a different question.

[Ian Osborne]

(Of course, I do care about it. I enjoy being alive and want to be alive for a good while longer. Killing me would take that away from me. My death could be painful and that wouldn't be any fun at all, either. But I think those are answers do a different question.

Those are excellent answers to the actual question, which is about whether death is a punishment.

[CFLarsen]

Those are excellent answers to the actual question, which is about whether death is a punishment.

Ahhh....now we are getting closer. I think.

Are you saying that the punishment is not being dead as such, but that you are going to die and how you actually die?

You get sentenced to death: Punishment.

Your actual death: Punishment.

After you are dead: Not punishment.

Is that what you are getting at?

[Ian Osborne]

You could argue the time between execution and what would've been your natural death is the punishment, because that's what's been taken away from you, but you're on the right lines.

I can't believe I'm wasting wear and tear on my keyboard for this :rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

You could argue the time between execution and what would've been your natural death is the punishment, because that's what's been taken away from you, but you're on the right lines.

I can't believe I'm wasting wear and tear on my keyboard for this :rolleyes:

Ah! Then, the punishment is not death itself, but how you die.

Since that is the case, why don't you kill prisoners using the most barbaric methods conceivable?

[Ian Osborne]

Ah! Then, the punishment is not death itself, but how you die.

No, it's when you die.

Since that is the case, why don't you kill prisoners using the most barbaric methods conceivable?

Stop trolling.

[Cainkane1]

I wonder if putting a child rapist in the general prison population would be a deterent? No official death penalty but no protection in prison from fellow inmates might be a better deterent than an actual legal death sentence.

[Rufo]

There have been cases where serial killers only murder in states where there is no death penalty. Maybe I'm wrong but anything that helps a victim especially a child to survive an assault is worth it.
You are right to focus on the victim rather than the assailant (there has been too little of that in this thread, aside from TragicMokey's post), but I think you're missing a point. Serial killers are killers. Morality is not as simple as being better or worse - someone who rapes a child can find it a completely outrageous thought to murder one, even though their crime is only mariginally less despicable from my point of view. Just because they are severely psychologically damaged doesn't mean they are necessarily psychopaths.

I wonder if putting a child rapist in the general prison population would be a deterent? No official death penalty but no protection in prison from fellow inmates might be a better deterent than an actual legal death sentence.
Isn't that basically how it works? I frequently hear that child rapists get hell in prison from the other inmates, but as far as I know that may just as well be a myth. Does anyone have any facts on this?

Regardless, I think that's a bit of an obsolete, even barbaric, view on how to handle criminals. Sure, there's apparent poetic justice in letting the 'evil people' destroy each other, but again, it's simplifying morality. Also, it seems to me like a way of creating a hell on earth to replace the hell you no longer believe in, which raises the question of whether the concept of hell was really such a desirable institution to begin with.

[Thurkon]

I've never been in favour of the death penalty, not least because the act of being killed is not, in my eyes, a true punishment. How are you meant to reflect on the error of your ways if you're dead?

I think by the time an adult commits rape or murder, they are far beyond reflecting on the error of their ways.

Lock them away for life.

That would be preferable if prisons were foolproof. They aren't. People sometimes escape and continue to hurt others.

Add to that, all life isn't sacred. Forget punishment...let's call it pragmatism. A danger to society should be eliminated. Rapists and murderers whose guilt cannot be called into question should be removed from a peaceful society. That simple. I don't want to pay for facilities, guards and food to sustain these douchebags for another sunrise.

I don't even want to pay for an expensive execution. Do it on the cheap and let the peaceful members of our society continue on with their lives.

I don't get all the moralizing behind this issue. In a defensive war, you kill your enemy to protect the ones you love. Call it self defense.

[CFLarsen]

No, it's when you die.

The time between the death sentence and the exact moment of death?

[Ian Osborne]

The time between the death sentence and the exact moment of death?

Anyone got any pictures of kittens? :rolleyes:

[fuelair]

Those are excellent answers to the actual question, which is about whether death is a punishment.

And, my argument is that death is an insufficient punishment by itself. (for certain crimes - of which rape of a child is one and rape of any person could well be).

[CFLarsen]

Anyone got any pictures of kittens? :rolleyes:

If you don't want to explain what you mean, fine with me.

[chulbert]

The time between the death sentence and the exact moment of death?

What an interesting thought. If a convict was convinced they would be executed and the punishment was simply the emotional anguish and fear up to that point, would it be necessary for the state to actually follow through with the act? You could tie them to the bed, swab the arm and inject something inert. "Just kidding! Your debt to society is repaid. You can collect your belongings on the other side of that door."

[chulbert]

You get sentenced to death: Punishment.

Your actual death: Punishment.

After you are dead: Not punishment.

In order for an act to be considered punishment the recipient must be aware of its application. It therefore stands to reason that only certain methods of execution can be considered punishment. For example, if one is unconscious during the act it's not really punishment.

[skeptifem]

I wonder if putting a child rapist in the general prison population would be a deterent? No official death penalty but no protection in prison from fellow inmates might be a better deterent than an actual legal death sentence.


I dont think that prisoners should be encouraged to be violent against anyone. they have enough problems controlling violence without encouragement, and what you describe happens anyway.

[zooterkin]

That would be preferable if prisons were foolproof. They aren't. People sometimes escape and continue to hurt others.

Add to that, all life isn't sacred. Forget punishment...let's call it pragmatism. A danger to society should be eliminated. Rapists and murderers whose guilt cannot be called into question should be removed from a peaceful society. That simple. I don't want to pay for facilities, guards and food to sustain these douchebags for another sunrise.


Oh, I see, so while prisons aren't foolproof, the justice system is?

[Cainkane1]

I dont think that prisoners should be encouraged to be violent against anyone. they have enough problems controlling violence without encouragement, and what you describe happens anyway.


His crime was putting his hand inside a boys bathing suit. That sure doesn't constitute rape. He was tortured and strangled to death in protective custody as I recall. He was only sentenced to ten years in prison.

[Ian Osborne]

And, my argument is that death is an insufficient punishment by itself. (for certain crimes - of which rape of a child is one and rape of any person could well be).

I'm not personally in favour of the death penalty. I'm just bemused by certain people here who try to argue - with a straight face - that it isn't a punishment.

[Almo]

The Death Penalty is wrong under any circumstances.

[chulbert]

I'm not personally in favour of the death penalty. I'm just bemused by certain people here who try to argue - with a straight face - that it isn't a punishment.

If you aren't cognizant of the fact you're being punished, are you being punished?

[Ian Osborne]

If you aren't cognizant of the fact you're being punished, are you being punished?

Ask the people on death row who desperately appeal against their sentences.

[chulbert]

Ask the people on death row who desperately appeal against their sentences.

That's not what we're talking about. Yes, the living wish to remain that way, and those on death row are unquestionably being punished by the threat of execution. However, at the point you lose consciousness you no longer care, and if you don't care you're not being punished.

Only the living fear death; the dead don't mind it so much.

[soylent]

It basically comes down to math. If we could set up an equation where the rapist got his "eye for an eye" taking the size difference of him and his victim into account and dishing out the penalty according to that ratio I could live with that.

For instance: Adult male to child = large tree branch to adult male.

*struggles to resist making brown eye for a brown eye joke and fails miserably*

Well... There was this guy in the news a few years ago who reportedly died from busting his colon after letting a stallion have sex with him.

[Ian Osborne]

Of course a punishment ends with death, but bringing that death forward is the punishment. And the endless appeals from those on death row seem to imply the prisoners consider it a worse punishment than life without parole.

Why are we splitting hairs like this anyway?

[Almo]

I think by the time an adult commits rape or murder, they are far beyond reflecting on the error of their ways.

I doubt that's true in all (or even most) cases.

That would be preferable if prisons were foolproof. They aren't. People sometimes escape and continue to hurt others.

But that is STILL the crook committing a crime. It's better to let the occasional crook recommit crime through accident or failure than to have the state kill the occasional innocent person through accident or failure.

[Drudgewire]

Well... There was this guy in the news a few years ago who reportedly died from busting his colon after letting a stallion have sex with him.
Ah, good old Mr. Hands. The movie about him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo_(film)) actually won awards at Cannes last year.

For the record, if you want many, many nightmares search his name on ytmnd.com. Some of the tributes actually include the sound of his colon bursting. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/barf.gif

[CFLarsen]

I'm not personally in favour of the death penalty. I'm just bemused by certain people here who try to argue - with a straight face - that it isn't a punishment.

I haven't seen anyone argue that. Who are you talking about?

Of course a punishment ends with death, but bringing that death forward is the punishment.

But, since you don't think that torture-until-death is an option, what is wrong with chulbert's suggestion of fooling people into believing they are about to be killed?

Apart from the fact that, if it is never followed through with an actual execution, it loses its punishment factor.

Yes, I see your problem: Your idea of punishment by threatening with death is ineffective.

And the endless appeals from those on death row seem to imply the prisoners consider it a worse punishment than life without parole.

Prisoners who serve sentences of life without parole don't appeal?

[chulbert]

Of course a punishment ends with death, but bringing that death forward is the punishment. And the endless appeals from those on death row seem to imply the prisoners consider it a worse punishment than life without parole.

I can't really express this any clearer. The act of execution is not punishment because while the prisoner is deprived of life, they are also absolved of their will to live. Up until that point I'm sure the punishment is agonizing. But if the punishment of the death penalty is limited to the time leading up to the execution and not the execution itself, why must the state actually kill the prisoner? Is it simply to create a convincing story for the next inmate on death row?

If there existed a drug that induced the anxiety of imminent death and the state gave it to an inmate for the average amount of time spent on death row, wouldn't that inmates individual experience be identical to one actually executed?

[Ian Osborne]

I haven't seen anyone argue that. Who are you talking about?

Read the thread.

Prisoners who serve sentences of life without parole don't appeal?

I haven't seen anyone argue that. Who are you talking about?

[Rufo]

I'm a little late into the "is death penalty a punishment and how" debate, but I think the meaning of 'punishment' has been a bit limited here.

It seems the definition of a punishment used (at least by those who argue that death itself is no such thing) is to cause negative experiences to a subject. I disagree. I think it should be included in the definition of a punishment that it may consist of denying someone positive experiences, in addition to giving someone negative experiences. This means that no, since the subject does not necessarily have to know about the positive experiences which they are denied (the only purpose of that would be for them to have the negative experience of grieving over their loss), they do not need be aware they are being punished.

Since death penalty effectively denies a person all the positive experiences of the rest of their life, even the time after death is a punishment, even if they are not aware of it.

Of course, it's all totally semantics. :p That said, I don't care much for punishments either way.

[Ian Osborne]

Agreed, Rufo. A fine is a punishment because you couldn't spend the money on anything else. Does it become no punishment if you hadn't any set plans for it?

You're right about it being semantics too, though some people like to split hairs for the sake of it.

[bigred]

Any form of punishment should:

1) Prevent the offender from committing the crime again.
2) Cost the taxpayer as little as possible.

And that's all it should do.
So we can mark you down for a "yes" I take it. :cool:


So you'd have no objections to being dead? Judging by the lengthy appeals prisoners on death row go through, few people sentenced to death seem to share your view.

The defining characteristic of punishment is retribution, not rehabilitation. That's not to say rehabilitation is a bad thing - far from it. Merely that the death sentence is very much a punishment, even if (in automotive terms) it's a write-off rather than a repair.
What he said.

[Rufo]

So we can mark you down for a "yes" I take it. :cool:
That is debatable. There is more than a little debate going on about whether death penalty is cost effective or not. In the US, the legal processes tend to be extremely lengthy, and thus extremely expensive. There are other things to take into account which may nullify this, but it's not a simple matter.

Still, seems to me like a rather minor matter in a morally heavy question like this.

[bigred]

Why are we splitting hairs like this anyway?I can only think of 2 possible reasons: boredom or stupidity. Here's to boredom. ;)

[Damien Evans]

No, because I'm morally opposed to the death penalty.

I would not, however be opposed to locking him up for life with a guy named bubba, if you get my drift.

[CFLarsen]

Read the thread.

I have. Some have argued that being dead is not punishment. But I haven't seen anyone arguing that the death penalty isn't punishment.

I haven't seen anyone argue that. Who are you talking about?

I am asking you: Do prisoners who serve sentences of life without parole not appeal?

[El Greco]

Has any lawyer chimed in yet ? If yes, I suppose he must have explained why maximum sentences for sub-maximum crimes is a bad idea. Since a rape victim is perfectly possible to go on and live a happy life, rape is a submaximal crime.

[The Atheist]

Chemical castration.

Or docking rings - if it's good enough for sheep, it's good enough for a rapist.

[richardm]

Read the thread.

I haven't seen anyone argue that. Who are you talking about?

Ian, give it up, mate. You've heard that old saw about not mud-wresting with a pig?

[Ian Osborne]

Ian, give it up, mate. You've heard that old saw about not mud-wresting with a pig?

Yes, you're right. I'll let him be a butt-hole with someone else.

[CFLarsen]

Yes, you're right. I'll let him be a butt-hole with someone else.

I take it you won't answer the question, then.

[Ian Osborne]

I take it you won't answer the question, then.

<yawn>

Yes, Claus, prisoners who get life without parole appeal. Almost everyone who gets a stiff sentence appeals, hoping that sentence is reduced. In the case of a condemned criminal, the appeal hopes to get the death sentence reduced - yes, R-E-D-U-C-E-D - to life without parole. Get the picture?

But then you knew all this anyway, didn't you? You're simply being an ass...

[CFLarsen]

<yawn>

Yes, Claus, prisoners who get life without parole appeal. Almost everyone who gets a stiff sentence appeals, hoping that sentence is reduced. In the case of a condemned criminal, the appeal hopes to get the death sentence reduced - yes, R-E-D-U-C-E-D - to life without parole. Get the picture?

But then you knew all this anyway, didn't you? You're simply being an ass...

I'm merely going with what your argument is. You said earlier:

Of course a punishment ends with death, but bringing that death forward is the punishment. And the endless appeals from those on death row seem to imply the prisoners consider it a worse punishment than life without parole.

Since all kinds of prisoners seek to reduce their sentence, that's not a sound argument in favor of killing prisoners.

Do you have any comments to chulbert's post #86?

[Ian Osborne]

Since all kinds of prisoners seek to reduce their sentence, that's not a sound argument in favor of killing prisoners.

I am not pro-death penalty and advanced no argument in favour of killing prisoners. I merely stated that the death sentence is a punishment.

Do you have any comments to chulbert's post #86?

See Rufo's post #88, which I endorsed in post #89.

[CFLarsen]

I am not pro-death penalty and advanced no argument in favour of killing prisoners. I merely stated that the death sentence is a punishment.

See Rufo's post #88, which I endorsed in post #89.

They don't need to be aware they are being punished?

But then, you are not punishing them. Then, you are giving the victims (or the relatives to murdered victims) the good experience of knowing that the criminals don't have good experiences - or bad, for that matter.

That's a whole different issue than punishment.

If criminals don't need to be aware they are being punished, why send people to jail?

[Ian Osborne]

You don't think a premature death is a bad thing?

And if you can't - or pretend you can't - see how your post implies this, ask someone else to explain it to you, as I really couldn't be bothered.

[CFLarsen]

You don't think a premature death is a bad thing?

It makes no difference if you are dead.

If it doesn't matter if the criminal is aware he is being punished, then it isn't a question of punishment, then. It's a question of revenge.

Two very different things.

[Rufo]

They don't need to be aware they are being punished?

But then, you are not punishing them. Then, you are giving the victims (or the relatives to murdered victims) the good experience of knowing that the criminals don't have good experiences - or bad, for that matter.

That's a whole different issue than punishment.
Ah, but then you are taking the whole issue one step too far by speculating about the purposes of the execution. Who said the victims will know the criminals are executed?

Granted, in reality they do, and in reality the purpose of capital punishment is indeed often revenge. Which is a failure of society in my opinion. But we are being theoretical here. I never talked about punishment having anything to do with the victims of the crime, so why bring it up?

If you are not satisfied with my definition of punishment, what is your definition of punishment? It's all totally semantics anyway.

[zooterkin]

It makes no difference if you are dead.

If it doesn't matter if the criminal is aware he is being punished, then it isn't a question of punishment, then. It's a question of revenge.


They are not aware of anything once they are dead, which is what was being referred to. No-one was saying that they would not be aware that they were being killed.

Do you really not see that having your life ended prematurely is a punishment, even if you don't experience anything further once it has happened?

As well as being a punishment, it is meant to have a deterrent effect.


ETA: Ok, on re-reading Rufo in post 88, perhaps he is saying that the criminal should be executed without being told that is going to happen. That's another question, and a policy I'd object to on several grounds (apart from simply being opposed to the death penalty in general).

I still think that there is some semantic confusion about exactly what it is people are aware of.

[fuelair]

Has any lawyer chimed in yet ? If yes, I suppose he must have explained why maximum sentences for sub-maximum crimes is a bad idea. Since a rape victim is perfectly possible to go on and live a happy life, rape is a submaximal crime.
If the lawyer wishes to make that argument, someone (me for example) should be able to counter with any number of cases where the rape victim does not go on to live a happy life, due to the effects/after-effects of the rape , and then have the lawyer locked up with bubba and see if he/she still says the same thing some days later. Sort of like my feeling on any judge who says the average teacher must accept uncontrollably violent kids in a classroom (the judge should be required to be the direct, up close and personal guardian of such child for a year). Justice without direct experience - or the ability to learn well from indirect experience is not justice.

[CFLarsen]

Ah, but then you are taking the whole issue one step too far by speculating about the purposes of the execution. Who said the victims will know the criminals are executed?

Granted, in reality they do, and in reality the purpose of capital punishment is indeed often revenge. Which is a failure of society in my opinion. But we are being theoretical here. I never talked about punishment having anything to do with the victims of the crime, so why bring it up?

If you are not satisfied with my definition of punishment, what is your definition of punishment? It's all totally semantics anyway.

It is hardly semantics anymore when you start killing people.

They are not aware of anything once they are dead, which is what was being referred to. No-one was saying that they would not be aware that they were being killed.

Do you really not see that having your life ended prematurely is a punishment, even if you don't experience anything further once it has happened?

As well as being a punishment, it is meant to have a deterrent effect.

In which case, if you really want to punish those criminals, you should make their execution as painful as possible.

[Cainkane1]

I actually know of a woman who was raped and strangled and left for dead when she was 5 years old. She was injured so badly that she was never able to have children of her own. Her assailant was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 30 years. Thirty years rolled by and she went before the parole board and brought her medical records showing her injuries caused by the assault with her and showed them to the parole board. He was denied parole and had to wait another seven years before he was eligible again. Last I heard he was still in prison.

[zooterkin]

In which case, if you really want to punish those criminals, you should make their execution as painful as possible.

Really? Why?

Would you not regard it as a punishment to have your life cut short?

[Rufo]

It is hardly semantics anymore when you start killing people.
I think you misunderstood something here. I oppose death penalty. I think it's not practically possible to use it morally. I think there are a million reasons not to.

What we are debating is whether or not death penalty can be classified as a "punishment", not whether or not it's right. This is semantics. How do you define "punishment"?

[richardm]

How do you define "punishment"?

Oh god you are fearless:boxedin:

(either that or a glutton for punishment*.)

Edited to add: *By which I mean: you won't enjoy it.

[CFLarsen]

Really? Why?

Would you not regard it as a punishment to have your life cut short?

Of course. But think about it: For a limited time, I have to live with knowing I am not going to live anymore. After that - no more punishment.

So, in order for me to be punished more, I'll have to be kept alive longer. The longer incarceration, the longer punishment.

Which, in effect, is a life sentence.

So, following the logic that knowing that you will die is punishment...why not just keep people in jail for life? Why have the death penalty at all?

I think you misunderstood something here. I oppose death penalty. I think it's not practically possible to use it morally. I think there are a million reasons not to.

What we are debating is whether or not death penalty can be classified as a "punishment", not whether or not it's right. This is semantics. How do you define "punishment"?

I haven't seen any disagreement over what punishment is. Only if death is punishment.

[Undesired Walrus]

Consider locked-in syndrome, the star of the latest film The Diving Bell And The Butterfly. Wouldn't a far worse punishment than death be something like being trapped in a small, pitch black room the size of a bed for seventy years?

Would you choose death over that? I would.

I can also guarantee you that people would find that more inhumane than the death penalty, which shows you how it isn't the ultimate horror.

People who think death or painful torture is the ultimate punishment have no imagination.

[Undesired Walrus]

While I like watching the busts on Dateline I have an ounce of sympathy for those idiots because let's face it, kids are growing up a lot faster than they used to and there's enticement going on. If you're asking me I'd set the bar at 12 but could be argued down to 9.

So if a man has a thing for girls who have just turned 13 years old, and manages to rape one, would you not have them then killed by the state?

But if a man has a thing for girls who are 12 years, 364 days old (People have strange fetishes), then they get put to death?

Looking at this rationally, and you are forced to conclude it isn't simply irrational, it is superfluous.

[Rufo]

I haven't seen any disagreement over what punishment is. Only if death is punishment.
I understand. However, I have seen disagreement over what punishment is - that's why I was asking the question. I'll clarify what I considered disagreement.

Part of my definition, with point of dispute bolded:
It seems the definition of a punishment used (at least by those who argue that death itself is no such thing) is to cause negative experiences to a subject. I disagree. I think it should be included in the definition of a punishment that it may consist of denying someone positive experiences, in addition to giving someone negative experiences. This means that no, since the subject does not necessarily have to know about the positive experiences which they are denied (the only purpose of that would be for them to have the negative experience of grieving over their loss), they do not need be aware they are being punished.

Part of your definition, with point of dispute bolded:
They don't need to be aware they are being punished?

But then, you are not punishing them. Then, you are giving the victims (or the relatives to murdered victims) the good experience of knowing that the criminals don't have good experiences - or bad, for that matter.

I am saying that a punishment does not necessarily require that the subject is aware of it. You are saying, I believe, that it does. Our definitions are different.

If you do not think our definitions are different, and what I pointed out does not constitute a difference between them, I would like you to provide your definition to clarify the debate anyway.

ETA: Ok, on re-reading Rufo in post 88, perhaps he is saying that the criminal should be executed without being told that is going to happen. That's another question, and a policy I'd object to on several grounds (apart from simply being opposed to the death penalty in general).
Seriously, although I'm repeating myself, can not stress this enough: I am opposed to the use of death penalty. No one should be executed, and even less so without being told that it is going to happen. I am discussing whether or not death penalty is a punishment or not, and how. My opinion is that death penalty is a punishment, not that it is a punishment that should be used, ever.

Oh god you are fearless:boxedin:

(either that or a glutton for punishment*.)

Edited to add: *By which I mean: you won't enjoy it.
Why? Is CFLarsen reluctant to give definitions or terms? In that case, I'm afraid I can't contribute more to that part of the debate.

[Darth Rotor]

Leave the death penalty up to the other inmates.
No.

That is not due process of law, that is a government sponsored lynch mob, if the government turns a blind eye to that or allows it.

As to rapists being eligible for the death penalty?

Yes. Some cases certainly warrant that sentence.

DR

[Thurkon]

Oh, I see, so while prisons aren't foolproof, the justice system is?

Did I say or imply it was?

I also stated if the guilt cannot be questioned. Hard evidence, perhaps DNA, or somesuch. The BTK killer, for example. Just kill him.

[Thurkon]

The Death Penalty is wrong under any circumstances.

Is death wrong under any circumstances? Any?

Death for killers and rapists could be thought of as an extension of self-defense for our society.

[Drudgewire]

So if a man has a thing for girls who have just turned 13 years old, and manages to rape one, would you not have them then killed by the state?

But if a man has a thing for girls who are 12 years, 364 days old (People have strange fetishes), then they get put to death?

Looking at this rationally, and you are forced to conclude it isn't simply irrational, it is superfluous.
OK you win. I'm convinced.

I'm now down for all rapists being killed. :p

[Thurkon]

I doubt that's true in all (or even most) cases.


You think most rapists and killers seriously regret what they've done? You know in quite a few cases rapists and killers fantasize about their previous acts afterwards and even get off on the memories?

But that is STILL the crook committing a crime. It's better to let the occasional crook recommit crime through accident or failure than to have the state kill the occasional innocent person through accident or failure.

That's apples and oranges. Of course the justice system needs an overhaul, and the death penalty should only apply with an overwhelming amount of evidence.

But if the evidence is solid, we kill them. Not as punishment, but as a deterrent to recidivism.

I also find it funny that there are those on this board morally opposed to the death penalty, but are fine with convicting someone to a lifetime of rape...as long as the "state" doesn't do it. Now, I'm all for both, but I find that contradiction amusing.

[Thurkon]

I can't really express this any clearer. The act of execution is not punishment because while the prisoner is deprived of life, they are also absolved of their will to live. Up until that point I'm sure the punishment is agonizing. But if the punishment of the death penalty is limited to the time leading up to the execution and not the execution itself, why must the state actually kill the prisoner?

Well, you could take him to the Dune Sea and cast him into the pit of Carkoon, the nesting place of the all-powerful Sarlacc, where he will find a new definition of pain and suffering as he is slowly digested over a thousand years.

[CFLarsen]

I am saying that a punishment does not necessarily require that the subject is aware of it. You are saying, I believe, that it does. Our definitions are different.

If you do not think our definitions are different, and what I pointed out does not constitute a difference between them, I would like you to provide your definition to clarify the debate anyway.

Excuse me, but it is up to you to argue for that quite silly definition of yours. Punishment doesn't require you to be aware that you are being punished?

That completely turns the whole idea of punishment upside down.

[zooterkin]

Did I say or imply it was?

I also stated if the guilt cannot be questioned. Hard evidence, perhaps DNA, or somesuch.
Who gets to decide what is unquestionable evidence?


The BTK killer, for example. Just kill him.

Not someone I've heard of.

Regardless, I don't think the death penalty is acceptable in a civilised society, nor do I agree with some of the other barbaric proposals in this thread.

[Undesired Walrus]

OK you win. I'm convinced.

I'm now down for all rapists being killed. :p

Well, I'm not entirely sure if this is a victory for my side...

But at least I have made your position consistent! ;)

[Rufo]

Excuse me, but it is up to you to argue for that quite silly definition of yours. Punishment doesn't require you to be aware that you are being punished?

That completely turns the whole idea of punishment upside down.
It completely turns your idea of punishment upside down. That is why I wanted to know what your idea is. I get your point - I suppose if I'm telling you that I want a definition from you, I should give you mine as well. I just thought it wouldn't be a problem to tell me how you defined the word, since I asked you politely.

I define punishment as a the causing of negative feelings, or denial of positive feelings, administered to a subject as an effect of their actions. It can be used, for instance, as a deterrent for the subject to repeat the action, a deterrent for others to commit it, or - unlike your definition - as a method of revenge. Because the purpose can be different, the subject may not necessarily be aware that they are being punished.

I make no statement here about what punishments are good or bad. Only what constitutes a punishment, in my definition.

I could try to guess from your comments what your definition is, but then I would be making a strawman. I am asking you for a definition because I think it would be the best way to express your opinion on the matter, and it might settle the argument. It was meant as a friendly request, not as a demand. How do you define 'punishment'?

[CFLarsen]

It completely turns your idea of punishment upside down. That is why I wanted to know what your idea is. I get your point - I suppose if I'm telling you that I want a definition from you, I should give you mine as well. I just thought it wouldn't be a problem to tell me how you defined the word, since I asked you politely.

I define punishment as a the causing of negative feelings, or denial of positive feelings, administered to a subject as an effect of their actions. It can be used, for instance, as a deterrent for the subject to repeat the action, a deterrent for others to commit it, or - unlike your definition - as a method of revenge. Because the purpose can be different, the subject may not necessarily be aware that they are being punished.

I make no statement here about what punishments are good or bad. Only what constitutes a punishment, in my definition.

I could try to guess from your comments what your definition is, but then I would be making a strawman. I am asking you for a definition because I think it would be the best way to express your opinion on the matter, and it might settle the argument. It was meant as a friendly request, not as a demand. How do you define 'punishment'?

Where do you have this definition of yours from?

[Ian Osborne]

How do you define 'punishment'?

Where do you have this definition of yours from?


It's started...

[Rufo]

From? It's my experience of how the word is used. When I say punishment, I mean this. I may not exactly fit a dictionary definition, although it is close, but I'm not trying to prove my definition is objectively right. I just want to discover the differences. Your definition might be better, if using it will help me communicate more efficiently.

What is the reason that you refuse to respond to my inquiries about your definition of the term? Is there some specific reason why you do not want me to know about it, or are my questions just not worth your time? Or is it something else?

[Drudgewire]

Well, I'm not entirely sure if this is a victory for my side...

But at least I have made your position consistent! ;)
It's Miller time. :alc:

[Undesired Walrus]

Arthur Miller? He's dead you know (And as it turns out, a massive bastard in his personal life).

[fuelair]

I actually know of a woman who was raped and strangled and left for dead when she was 5 years old. She was injured so badly that she was never able to have children of her own. Her assailant was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 30 years. Thirty years rolled by and she went before the parole board and brought her medical records showing her injuries caused by the assault with her and showed them to the parole board. He was denied parole and had to wait another seven years before he was eligible again. Last I heard he was still in prison.
:( for her :Dfor him(with the proviso I would prefer he have no parole (eating, breathing)needs.

[fuelair]

You think most rapists and killers seriously regret what they've done? You know in quite a few cases rapists and killers fantasize about their previous acts afterwards and even get off on the memories?



That's apples and oranges. Of course the justice system needs an overhaul, and the death penalty should only apply with an overwhelming amount of evidence.

But if the evidence is solid, we kill them. Not as punishment, but as a deterrent to recidivism.

I also find it funny that there are those on this board morally opposed to the death penalty, but are fine with convicting someone to a lifetime of rape...as long as the "state" doesn't do it. Now, I'm all for both, but I find that contradiction amusing.
I kind of agree - it's like you can pretend he's just in jail but can gloat about what will really happen. I prefer making sure it happens (or worse).

[Undesired Walrus]

Out of interest Drudgewire, do you think there are things worse than death?

[DanishDynamite]

Can/Should are different things, obviously.

An official policy of torture of any kind generates serious problems above and beyond the question of whether the perpetrator deserves it. For some that seems to be the only thing they care about.
Even if the "torture" is simple an eye for an eye?

[DanishDynamite]

I am opposed to the death penalty. I also believe that incarceration is primarily for the purpose of protecting society, not for the purpose of punishing criminals.
Thanks for your, uh, input.

[DanishDynamite]

Life imprisonment is cruel, but how can we ever be totally sure someone will not re-offend? Killing prisoners might work, but what would that do to our society?
There are no good solutions after the fact. We need to focus on prevention. Do perfectly normal people just get up one day and decide to rape some kid? There must be some warning signs that friends and family could be educated about.
Excellent post! :)

[DanishDynamite]

It seems to me that the OP intended "what if someone who rapes a child" not "is accused of raping a child" ie there is exceedingly little if any doubt of their guilt.

I also think it would assume you're not dead-set against the death penalty in general, but then there's that thing about assuming (ie if you are then the crime is moot).....
So, if someone "raped" a child, statutory or not, you would rightsouly seek the death penalty, no matter the facts of the case?

[CFLarsen]

From? It's my experience of how the word is used. When I say punishment, I mean this. I may not exactly fit a dictionary definition, although it is close, but I'm not trying to prove my definition is objectively right. I just want to discover the differences. Your definition might be better, if using it will help me communicate more efficiently.

What is the reason that you refuse to respond to my inquiries about your definition of the term? Is there some specific reason why you do not want me to know about it, or are my questions just not worth your time? Or is it something else?

Why on Earth do you think anyone should spend time on your self-invented definition?

Do you think we can just make up our own definition of every word there is?

Don't waste my time.

[Rufo]

Why on Earth do you think anyone should spend time on your self-invented definition?
I never said it was self-invented. I said this is how I understand that the word is used, and thus the way I use it. I base this on experience. I don't think I invented it myself. As for why anyone should spend time on it, no other definition has been suggested. A bit like an argument with no counterargument made against it.

Do you think we can just make up our own definition of every word there is?
We can, but it will probably impair our communication, so in most cases it's a very bad idea.

Don't waste my time.
I don't feel I'm wasting my time any more than you're wasting mine. Should I take your comment as a response to why you do not answer my questions? That they are not worth your time?

[gnome]

Even if the "torture" is simple an eye for an eye?

Yes indeed. Such a policy would require--if torture were a common crime, for example--the state to hire torturers on the payroll. Which brave and decent individuals should receive taxpayer money for this honorable job?

[Drudgewire]

Out of interest Drudgewire, do you think there are things worse than death?
I do, but we won't be implementing them as legal forms of punishment any time soon so death works for me in cases it's warranted.

I certainly think death is worse than life in prison though if that's what you are asking.

[Cainkane1]

I do, but we won't be implementing them as legal forms of punishment any time soon so death works for me in cases it's warranted.

I certainly think death is worse than life in prison though if that's what you are asking.


Death is worse than life in prison. You get to read, write, marry some stupid woman who digs imprisoned men and perhaps father a child. You can converse with fellow inmates and watch TV. Sounds better than deat to me.

[ravdin]

Death is worse than life in prison. You get to read, write, marry some stupid woman who digs imprisoned men and perhaps father a child. You can converse with fellow inmates and watch TV. Sounds better than deat to me.

I disagree. If you're locked up in prison with no chance of release, no friends, and you're at the absolute bottom of the social heap because your crime is universally reviled even among your fellow inmates- I just don't see what you have to live for.

I think life imprisonment is the harshest alternative, which is why I support it in these cases. You'll die in prison in any case one way or the other.

[Drudgewire]

I disagree. If you're locked up in prison with no chance of release, no friends, and you're at the absolute bottom of the social heap because your crime is universally reviled even among your fellow inmates- I just don't see what you have to live for.

I think life imprisonment is the harshest alternative, which is why I support it in these cases. You'll die in prison in any case one way or the other.
And yet very few Death Row appeals relate to actually disputing the guilt or innocence of the criminal. It's usually an attempt to keep them alive. And deals are made all the time where someone pleads guilty and accepts a life sentence to prevent the possibility of lethal injection.

Clearly TO THEM life is not as bad as a death sentence, and that's who are affected by these laws. I'm going to operate on the assumption you'll never be committing capital murder so it's a lot easier to hypothisize than when you're not awaiting sentencing.

[slingblade]

Well.

I keep thinking about the ones who hurt me, most of whom must surely be dead by now.

Would I have wanted them executed? I don't think so. Imprisoned for life? Possibly, probably, so they couldn't do this to others. Most of all, though, I'd want their stuff. All of it. I'd want a significant cut of any paychecks they may earn. I'd want them to support me off the sweat of their brows, for the remainder of their lives.

Why? Because I think taking people's money hurts them worse than taking either their lives or their liberties. Yes, I'd want them to be my wage-slaves. Make those selfish bastards work for me, instead of against me. For decades. They didn't take away my self-confidence, so much as they took away my ability to develop any.

For that, they should have paid. And paid, and paid, and paid....

[ravdin]

And yet very few Death Row appeals relate to actually disputing the guilt or innocence of the criminal. It's usually an attempt to keep them alive. And deals are made all the time where someone pleads guilty and accepts a life sentence to prevent the possibility of lethal injection.

Clearly TO THEM life is not as bad as a death sentence, and that's who are affected by these laws. I'm going to operate on the assumption you'll never be committing capital murder so it's a lot easier to hypothisize than when you're not awaiting sentencing.

Far be it from me to understand the criminal mindset. I still think the prolonged suffering and decay of a life sentence is crueler than the existential dread of Death Row, which will be over comparatively quickly. You're probably right that given the choice, most people would choose the former- but I have a very difficult time understanding why.

[Psiload]

I second that!!!!!

Let me see if I've got this straight... you would condemn the Prophet Mohammad to death?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/025-Muhammads-sex-life.htm

Muslim (8:3311) - The girl [Mohammad's nine-year-old wife] took her dolls with her to Muhammad's house (something to play with when the "prophet" was not having sex with her).

[Sickly Crypsis]

Most of the arguments I'm reading are either
a) Trying to define if death is or is not a punishment, which leads to
b) Defining what's worse, Death or life imprisonment.

Most of us don't want to die, thus I can see it being a punishment but if we're aiming for what's worse why don't we just burn them alive or have them sodomised daily? (at an uncomfortable level).

Not a lot of talk for Rehabilitation, not ALL child rapists are serial, unchangeable, werewolves, a lot are Uncle Fink who gave in to a sick compulsion he had and couldn't control. He has a mental illness and should be treated for it, not piled in with the worst and exterminated like vermin.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not on "their side" per say, punishment has to be applied (hence jail time, fines) and I know the emotional damage to the child may be significant, but killing the one responsible doesn't help the child and to lust after someone to be killed or tortured in this fashion is a very privative and barbaric notion indeed.

[Cincinnatus]

I perfer a lobotomy.

[Soapy Sam]

The problem with rape- as stressed in the other thread on the subject- is proof.
Without physical evidence, can we trust the accusation of a child? Children are known to make stories up. It's normal behaviour.

Convicting solely on the testimony of a child seems questionable.

The issue of punishment seems important to many posters. Insofar as a crime like rape is one society as a whole strongly disapproves of , is there not an argument for simply removing the perpetrator from society, without any form of punishment? (At least in a case where guilt is not in doubt).

I should add that for once I agree with Claus. Being dead is not a punishment. It is, however, a permanent solution to the possibility of reoffending.
The potential use of organs for transplant after painless execution (flood a chamber with nitrogen for five minutes) as a "payment" of debt to society seems like a reasonable use of what would otherwise be a criminal waste of resources in the context.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Actually, If I am involved in it the perpetrator will be screaming for death long before that request is finally granted - but they will have plenty of time to reflect on what they did wrong. The process is very educational - and involves education in the functions of various parts of their organ systems combined with reiteration of why these lessons are being provided for their edification.

As with much of my belief system, this was hard-wired in my youth from, not so surprisingly, the tales of the Brothers Grimm (not the rewritten versions) which seemed perfect in response to evil against others. (per ex.: try to wreck your stepdaughter's/sister's life and get her killed? Get put naked into a nail studded barrel, sealed up, rolled down a long hill and finish with sailing through the air out into the ocean. Sounded fair to me.:):))

And what happens if it is subsequently discovered that the person you tortured so severely is innocent, as happens so often?

I think a world where prisoners who are possibly innocent yet tortured by sadists who don't understand the concept of mis-trials by corrupt or incompetent officials as has happened so often in the USA and elsewhere would be a completely sick world. Luckily there are decent groups of countries like the EU where it will never be allowed

[gnome]

I believe everyone will realize, once they think about it, that what they'd fantasize doing to someone who horrifies and angers them so extremely, does not make practical or just real-world policy. Some things are better left to the imagination.

[Cainkane1]

As usual I will use the Bible as my moral guidance. Now, given the principle of "an eye for an eye", I say the perp should be raped in turn (preferably by a huge guy called Brutus).
I like that.