digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

See the original image at news.yahoo.com

Court Rejects Death Penalty For Raping Children

news.yahoo.com — The Supreme Court has struck down a Louisiana law that allows the execution of people convicted of a raping a child. In a 5-4 vote, the court says the law allowing the death penalty to be imposed in cases of child rape violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • dayal911, on 06/25/2008, -19/+219Not sure how I feel about this. As conservative as I am, I've never really liked the death penalty. Now with DNA evidence overturning many convictions, I can only think that several people have been wrongfully executed.

    I don't think a man has the right to take another man's life; there's always uncertainty about evidence, but no uncertainty about death.
    • Socram, on 06/25/2008, -7/+97I have to agree. There have been a number of people on death row who have been exonerated which leads me to believe the system is not perfect. How many people did not get the chance to prove they are innocent due to bad testimony, poor defense lawyer, etc.

      There are only a few countries left who still use the death penalty, namely China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq and the USA. How can anyone be proud to be on that list?
      • jiqiren, on 06/26/2008, -20/+9What about Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Botswana, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Japan, Kuwait, Libya, North Korea, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Vietnam, and Yemen?

        At least try to cut/paste from wikipedia correctly...
        • Spudster, on 06/26/2008, -3/+17Great to see such a nice list of respectable countries that the United States can place its name next to...
        • artfiend77, on 06/26/2008, -3/+18@ Spudster

          As I'm sure there are a few countries in that list saying: "*****, we're in the same list as the US"
        • seraph582, on 06/26/2008, -9/+2^ nope
        • Lukesed, on 06/26/2008, -3/+7Japan, I suppose. But that is probably the best example of a country that is technologically advanced and socially backward.
        • Socram, on 06/26/2008, -2/+4jiqiren,

          While those countries *allow* the death penalty, I'm not sure if they use it. I do not know if they actually have executed anyone in recent times. However, I will give it to you, there are more countries than I originally listed.
      • temporaryescape, on 06/26/2008, -5/+6We should have remote islands designated for specific criminals. All child rapists that have DNA evidence proving they committed the crime should be put on the lawless island with only a coast guard to ensure no one escapes. This accomplishes a few things - they are removed from a society in which they clearly cannot function (and placed into a society in which they belong); we are not sentencing anyone to death; the prospect of being banished to a terrible place would deter many prospective rapists; reality television just got better. Okay that last one was just for fun... but seriously.
        • kansoki, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4what if they had kids? given that there are female child molesters...
        • itsme92, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_transportation
        • AntzNZ, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5Sounds a bit like prison...
        • DeathfireD, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4Ya, I agree with Kansoki, what if they have kids lol? Do you expect the government to make two islands and isolate all the men from women? The island Idea only works for killers not child predictors. What we really need is an island full of dinosaurs. Then we can just drop off all the killers and rapists on the island with a knife or sword and watch them try and survive. All we need is this to happen http://digg.com/general_sciences/Jurassic_Park_Com ...
        • iticu, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4So, like Australia?
        • darkamster07, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1If they had kids, assuming the sexual contact was non-violent, and they had no society to imprint the wrongness of it into their minds, they might turn out just fine.

          I worry about the time when banishment becomes acceptable for even minor crimes, but then again there aren't that many islands, and a closed society of potheds might be great.
      • justastatistic, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4The actual list of countries that practice capital punishment is a lot longer than what you have mentioned.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punish ...
      • autc04, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0This sounds like the list of countries that - a few years ago - executed people for offences they comitted when they were less than 18 years old. I believe the US has finally removed itself from that list a few years ago.
      • misguidedmonkey, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0What if you find the man's semen in the girl's vag?
        Would that be enough to kill him?
        • bono4u, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1not if his wife placed it there to get rid of him
    • michael4lsu, on 06/25/2008, -9/+24Furthermore, the entire process of capital punishment costs a lot more than a life prison sentence. It also does not serve as an effective deterrent. Also, in the specific cases regarding rape of a child, this goes beyond the eye for an eye limitations, since the punishment is by far worse than the crime. There's absolutely no reason why we should have the death penalty in a civilized society where we can always have enough prison space to hold such heinous criminals.
      • Reasonableguy, on 06/25/2008, -23/+7So, not only would you like to pay for these criminals to be housed, fed, and entertained, but you also say that death is far worse than being violated as a child? I don't quite agree with you on either point.
        • Lukesed, on 06/26/2008, -2/+18You seriously believe that being molested is worse than death? If you knew a child was about to be molested, and your only opportunity to intervene was to kill the child, would you do it? If not, then you believe death is a worse than being violated as a child.
        • ExitMoose, on 06/26/2008, -2/+10@Lukesed

          That's actually a pretty powerful question you've written there. I wonder how many of the pro-death penalty crowd here would actually answer in the affirmative.
        • kmolleja, on 06/26/2008, -5/+4@Lukesed

          Nice straw man argument you've got there. The situation you describe would only appear in those rape-torture-porno movies like Saw or Hostel.

          While I would not be able to take the life of a child to save them from the horrible act of rape, I would gladly push the button to fry the jerk who raped the child.

          While child rape may not be worse than death, a person who voluntarily rapes a child deserves to die.
        • Lukesed, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3How is my argument a straw man? If somebody thinks that being raped as a child is worse than death, it is morally just for them to kill a child to save it from the greater harm of rape.
      • dayal911, on 06/25/2008, -16/+8Well, I disagree with some of your points. I don't buy that it's cheaper to house the prisoner than it is to execute him. I'm sure there's a far left study out there that says so, but I seriously doubt it's accurate.

        Isn't one of the arguments for drug decriminalization is that prisons are overly crowded with petty drug convicts?

        Like I said, I don't like execution, but I don't really believe your argument.
        • eir574, on 06/25/2008, -0/+21Regarding cost, part of the problem is that death penalty cases are far more expensive to litigate than others. In addition, not all death penalty cases result in death sentences, and many death sentences are overturned on appeal. Beyond that, the costs of a death penalty case are incurred up front, whereas the cost of life imprisonment is spread over many years.
        • provost, on 06/26/2008, -0/+13no, he is actually right. its because of the appeals process.
        • ExitMoose, on 06/26/2008, -1/+10An appeals process that we shouldn't talk of discarding lightly, given the fact that it's often the only thing that stands between us and murdering an innocent man.
      • jamesdew, on 06/26/2008, -5/+1Well obviously that would depend on how old the prisoner is, if he is 20 then 60 years or so in prison I should imagine is quite a lot more than the death penalty. If he is 55 then its probably a lot cheaper to keep him in prison than excecute him.
        • Issius, on 06/26/2008, -2/+4No, it's a common mistake to think that imprisonment is more expensive. The litigation that comes with he death penalty (if you were getting fried, you'd appeal as much as you can wouldn't you?) makes it more expensive. On that note however, I believe rape (such as at gunpoint to a stranger rather than boning a drunk chick) and child rape (not necessarily molestation) should be dealt with by death, every time. Obviously you need good evidence and it shouldn't be taken lightly, but I have no tolerance for anyone who could even think of raping a child. I have also considered the possibility of reanimation, so that we can kill them multiple times because I don't think just once is quite enough of a punishment.
      • Serial0Hacker, on 06/26/2008, -7/+2No the death penalty is to rid society of these monsters. It's not punishment or a deterant
        • ExitMoose, on 06/26/2008, -2/+11There is such a thing as life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
        • Issius, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2There's also such a thing as escape. Also, they get "outside time." I think I could live with them being kept in solitary for life though...that could also make for an interesting study.
        • Serial0Hacker, on 06/27/2008, -1/+0ExitMoose - Why do you want to keep these darlings alive?
    • GhostyBoy, on 06/25/2008, -4/+68Thanks for an intelligent comment.

      I was expecting to open this thread to all manner of people foaming at the mouth with their opinions, and sometimes it's a nice surprise to see a moderate, thoughtful point of view right at the top.
      • ssn697, on 06/25/2008, -1/+27This had 3 diggs when I first came to the story this morning. I was so close to posting a fairly moderate opinion on why they were right, then decided I didn't want to spend all day in this thread, precisely for what you mention.

        Such has Digg become. I am glad to see this didn't turn into a 500 comment "burn the witches" thread.
      • misguidedmonkey, on 06/26/2008, -2/+0shet up whore.
    • whatthefu, on 06/26/2008, -6/+14I don't personally think the state should have the right to take another man's life, either.
      • Nitesmoke, on 06/26/2008, -0/+9The main thing that surprised me about this ruling was Obama's position on it. He says he is against the supreme court's ruling. I usually associate pro-execution attitudes with conservatives, and anti-execution attitudes with progressives. Its interesting how people don't always fit into the roles they're labeled as. I must say, in this instance, I disagree with Obama, I do not think we should be executing anyone, rapists or otherwise, but I respect him not going along liberal flow and giving his actual decision, that may turn out to be controversial, especially in the middle of a heated election. I'm curious how hard core Obama supporters feel about his position. Do they agree with him or not? Obama has been a strong supporter of the death penalty.
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080625/ap_on_el_pr/ob ...
        • DogBotherer, on 06/26/2008, -1/+7A death sentence on rape (even of children) seems problematic to me. It makes a perpetrator far more likely to kill a potential witness to their crime.

          I guess you can argue that some things are worse than being killed, but at least a rape victim has the potential to go on living their life.
        • maffiou, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Isn't this just an attempt from Obama to appeal to the centre right people ? He's also made a pro-gun statement that seems to indicate that this is what he's trying to do...

          I'd be carefull if I was him: he's playing with fire...
      • Issius, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1What's your stance on the father of a rape victim killing the rapist then? I, honestly, consider it OK. (This could be the husband/bf/mother/gf/etc. really, but I'm referring to one specific case I happened to read)

        I say either kill them, or let those affected by it kill them and let them go in peace. Obviously, I don't think rapists should be allowed to live, but that's just my opinion.
        • autc04, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0IMO, Revenge killing is murder. With extenuating circumstances, maybe. Slap the father with a European-style prison sentence (i.e. outrageously short by American standards).

          If the guilt of the alleged rapist is not 100% proven, then maybe the punishment for the revenge killing needs to be worse in order to work as a deterrent against vigilantism.

          But then I'm European (Austrian) myself, and around here, the tradition that the state has the "monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force" (see Wikipedia) is quite strong. Definitely stronger than in the US.
        • Nitesmoke, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3NO thats not a good idea because people LIE. There have been many many instances of children claiming to have been raped or molested. The "pedophiles" are quickly arrested and jailed, only to be released when the children grow up and admit they had lied. Remember the story of the day care where something like 30 kids accused the teachers of having ritual sex with all of them. Turns out the "investigators" were coaching them on what to say and how. If a kid said "no, he never did that to me," they would tell the child "yes he did." Children can easily be brainwashed to believing things that didn't happen. Imagine you or someone you know and love were accused of raping a kid. They get convicted and under your plan, they get murdered. 20 years later the kid grows up and admits she just liked all the attention she got for saying those things. Child rape does happen and it is horrible. But false convictions still happen all the time, and until we invent a perfect legal system where no one is wrongly convicted, we don't need to be killing anyone.
        • darkamster07, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2perfect response Nitesmoke, to bad it probably won't be seen, but you just summed up the whole issue. better to stay on the safe side and murder no-one, because I have no hope for a perfect legal system.
        • Issius, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Well...in the case I was talking about, the father of the son walked in on him or something like that. Point is, he witnessed it in some way (I don't remember the specifics). Obviously we can't be sure 100% of the time, and maybe death isn't the way to go ALL the time. But there are definitely circumstances when there is no doubt about what happened.

          Anyway, I guess what I'm hoping for is a perfect legal system, which, as darkamster said, it hardly the case. It's why I like movies like the Punisher...
    • Dumbledorito, on 06/26/2008, -0/+11There's also the reasoning of the court that the death penalty is reserved for when the victim dies, which has pretty much been the precident.

      But isn't treason (and I mean that in the legal sense, not the way it's bandied about politically) a capital offense as well?
      • lacronicus, on 06/26/2008, -0/+8It is, but you have to keep in mind what treason usually entails. In the legal sense, treason is aiding and abetting the enemy, which usually only takes place at war, which in turn means that you're helping kill your own soldiers.
        • Dumbledorito, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1Ah. A flavor of "accessory to murder," then. Got'cha.
    • lamiaconfitor, on 06/26/2008, -14/+15That is odd, as liberal as I am, I would have no problem whatsoever with taking the life of a rapist. Especially if the victim was a child. I would gladly personally rip the throat out of anyone I meet if I knew they raped a child. But they can go to prison with real murderers and have that done to them without any detriment to me...
      • c0mputar, on 06/26/2008, -3/+11That's not the issue. You kill a man in the act of doing such an act and people may have sympathy you. However, one must realize that something fcked up probably happened to them to make them that way, and it was probably out of their control. However, when it's a bunch of people sitting around a table then it's just wrong to give them power to end ones life when the system is not perfect.
        • lamiaconfitor, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1I admit there is a giant difference between the act of a human in an act of passion and an act of the state. Though, I seriously have no problem with the state execution of rapists.
        • kmolleja, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3"out of their control"?

          That is possibly one of the most retarded things I have ever heard. Lots of people have problems, really bad ones, and yet somehow they are able to restrain themselves from raping children.

          I am so sick and tired of people blaming their actions on others. I will admit that there are some situations in which a person might not legitimately have control over their own acts. That being said, it applies to probably .01% of the people who claim it wasn't their fault and try to blame it on "the man", their circumstances, their family or anyone else. Giving people excuses for the crimes they commit doesn't help anyone.
        • Dumbledorito, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Rape is also something that is too difficult to prove to the extent that would warrant death, in most cases.

          I've seen rape charges falsely filed time and again (I grew up in a small college town, and the local girls often hooked up with the college boys), either by one party to the sex act, or by disgruntled parents over the objections of their offspring.

          Rape is a heinous act, to be sure, and one that should he harshly punished and dealt with, but to open up the death penalty to it would, in my opinion, cause more harm than good.

          And as a weird aside about our justice system; possessing certain substances is punished more harshly than rape OR murder in the US. Food for thought.
        • c0mputar, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1kmolleja, it doesn't help anyone, not even the offender because we don't take that into account in the court of law. The fact of the matter is, that is what made these criminals, and more often then not, those that influenced the creation of this criminal were criminals or lived in criminal rampant areas.
      • blqysmg, on 06/26/2008, -1/+12You have to be careful about saying, "It's okay to take the life of a rapist." The basic premise is good, but look carefully at what legally constitutes rape. Historically, rape was an act of sexual violence, where a man used sex to hurt and humiliate a woman, often accompanied with physical abuse and threats of death. Today, however, one can be on a date with a girlfriend, have consensual sex at HER REQUEST, then have an argument later. She takes proof that you've had sex to the police and cries rape. You go to jail.
        Also, Child Rape isn't as clear cut as most people think. Any sexual contact with a minor by someone who is NOT a minor is Child Rape, no matter what level the sexual contact rose to, or who initiated it.

        Take this example (adapted from the headlines a couple of years ago.) A precocious 16 year old girl dancing around topless in a group of 18 year and 19 year old friends. A couple of 18 year old girls offer oral sex to some of the guys, and the 16 year old joins in. She is not pressured into it. The moment her lips touch a penis, whether the owner of that penis knows her age or not, he has become a Child Rapist, and a particularly vile one since, believe it or not, in many states oral sex is considered a worse offense than vaginal sex.
    • cnot3, on 06/26/2008, -2/+36"Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

      If Gandalf is against the death penalty then so am I.
      • gofalcons, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2Thank you cnot3! The debate is now over, Gandalf has spoken!
    • thelif, on 06/26/2008, -0/+28One of the main reason why this decision was made was that child molesters are often family members and experts believe that if they knew that coming forward would lead to the death penalty they may hesitate.

      "Many victims' rights groups surprisingly joined Kennedy's defense in this case. They said because so many rapes of children are perpetrated by family members, it's unthinkable to ask a child to implicate a parent or relative, when doing so means possible execution."
      from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story ...
      • blqysmg, on 06/26/2008, -2/+6May hesitate, hell! Should hesitate. Uncle Barry got drunk one night and touched Genny in a way he should not have. She's upset, but not physically harmed. She'll have to come to grips with that night, and might need some therapy to have a normal sex life later. Meanwhile, word gets out that her Uncle, that she loves and has forgiven, did something wrong. She gets COMPELLED by the courts to tell everyone what happened, and they KILL HER UNCLE because of it. DEAD. Her guilt (that all rape victims feel, oddly enough) will be compounded ten-fold.
        • imsoclever, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1I'm pretty sure that the death penalty would not be on the table in the scenario you just described.
        • autc04, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1I'd go one step further.
          If I had to testify for the prosecution in a court case where the death penalty is possible, I would feel seriously guilty about it. If my testimony leads to a conviction, then *I* am (partly) responsible for the death of a human being (Yes, human. Saying they aren't human anymore is a very slippery slope). If I lie in court or find some other way of avoiding the above outcome, then *I* am (partly) responsible for any further crimes that the criminal commits.
          This is not an alternative I would like to face in a civilised society.
      • glxyjones, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1As much as this sounds like it would work by causing the would be criminal to hesitate for fear of death. Most of the criminals do not even consider the consequences of their actions, they are usually mentally ill and don't even think they will be caught.
      • flashingcurser, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3This and if the rapist is a stranger, I know a very small percent, he may as well just kill the child and take his chances that the body will never be discovered. The penalty is the same.
    • dexter411, on 06/26/2008, -11/+3"Now with DNA evidence overturning many convictions, I can only think that several people have been wrongfully executed."

      Just a point of information: not a single person in the United States has ever been executed and then exonerated after their death.
      • ph1sh55, on 06/26/2008, -0/+26Yes but I imagine once the person is executed they don't exactly continue to pursue that case, investigate, appeal etc. There's been doubts raised but it's not like they re-do the trial or keep pursuing evidence once the guy is dead.

        http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=2 ...

        Still though, ~130 on death row have been exonerated to this point in the US


        • SuperMoses, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Funny thing is, dexter411 wrote the exact same thing in another thread after this one. He obviously fails to see the fallacy in his argument and thinks he actually made a valid point.
        • dexter411, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1It's a valid point because other countries that have/had the death penalty HAVE exonerated convicts after their execution.

          --> You're stupid and wrong.
      • lamiaconfitor, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2look up the West Memphis 3. the state did not recognize DNA evidence, so they are 'guilty.'
      • da_bradler, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4umm because courts refuse to hear appeals after the person is dead??? come on now you can't be that dense.
        • dexter411, on 06/26/2008, -3/+2Wrong. Courts DO hear appeals filed after the death of convicted criminals. By your logic, a murder trial would be impossible because the victim is dead.
        • Lukesed, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1@dexter

          Criminal murder cases are prosecuted by the state, so the dead victim doesn't have to be around for the case to occur. I'm not sure how this follows from bradler's logic.
        • dexter411, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2And, similarly, an executed convict doesn't need to be alive to be exonerated by later evidence. See: Tim Evans from the UK.
    • sjl127, on 06/26/2008, -9/+3I have absolutely no idea how we're (as Americans) are going to survive... as a nation... with a ruling like this.
    • da_bradler, on 06/26/2008, -4/+7Why don't we just castrate sex offenders? seriously, it's a fairly simple operation and would completely kill offenders sex drive and lower aggression from lowered testosterone.

      If they are unable to function within society why is it so wrong to fix what is wrong with them? It wouldn't be so much a punishment as a solution to their problems.
      • gobbleplex, on 06/26/2008, -1/+9And once again, what happens when you castrate an innocent, falsely accused person? Does that not fall under cruel and unusual punishment?
      • kmolleja, on 06/26/2008, -4/+1I'm with you on that one.

        Then the punishment can fit the crime and ensure that they never do anything like that again
        • Issius, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Can we just bring back the lobotomy? They also won't ever do anything like it again.
      • richmondphotog, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2why stop there? cut off both hands. that would make rape impossible too. government sanctioned mutilation is making a comeback.
      • evilgourmet, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1We could start lobotomizing them, would that be enough?
    • Vigilo, on 06/26/2008, -10/+2If you rape a kid you should die. They have dna testing now so just don't make the ruling retroactive but for people caught after this the ruling if dna proves they raped a child they should die imo.
    • glxyjones, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5One of the strongest arguments against making raping a child a capital offense was if criminal knew that by raping the child it would lead to his death, he might think "I mind as well kill the child" because there is no greater punishment for that.

      If there is a greater punishment for killing the child after raping them, they might be deterred from killing. However, with no greater punishment, they might no hesitate to kill the child and try to cover up their crime.
    • smakaho2daflo, on 06/26/2008, -3/+0I was never for the death penalty until someone kidnapped my sister, attempted to rape her, then shot her and let her die on the side of the road. This was recent headline news. I would like to know hot these congressmen would like it if their daughter was brutally raped. Would they go up to the man who did it and give them a high five.

      Idiots
      • darkamster07, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2another obligatory "my (insert relation here)" argument. FAIL.
      • gofalcons, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1So it's not about justice for you, it's about state sanctioned revenge? *I'm not trying to be an ***** here, this is digg and I realize people lie about ***** like this all the time, but if that did happen to your sister for real, sorry for your loss. But that doesn't somehow shield you from debate if you decide to enter your views.*
    • Memitim, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1I certainly understand the concern about wrongful convictions, which is why, barring a guilty plea to a first degree murder or rape charge, I don't believe that the death penalty should apply to a first felony conviction. If someone freely admits to committing first degree murder or rape then go ahead and put a bullet in him/her. Spend a couple bucks on a .50 caliber round to be humane about it, because after seeing what one will do to an engine block I can assure you that it will be quick and painless. But otherwise give life in prison as the maximum penalty for a first time felon.

      However, I believe that if someone is found guilty in a court of law of a violent felony a second time, regardless of the crime, then he take's his bullet that night. I'm willing to accept that a person can be subject to a criminal investigation and a trial by jury and be found guilty of a heinous crime by mistake. But twice? Screw those odds; at that point he is a confirmed threat to everyone around him and needs to be put down like the animal he is.

      I just don't understand why those of us who have done nothing wrong have to continue to pay for the wrongs perpetrated by these pieces of waste, in both the financial sense by having to take care of them and in the personal sense as being part of their victim pool. Call me a monster but I prefer to reserve the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for those who do not deprive others of these rights.
    • Synova, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1The decision is fairly meaningless. The last time someone was executed for anything but murder in the US was Ronald Wolfe on May 8, 1964 (for rape). It doesn't happen anymore anyway.
    • funkywood, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1If you're going to have a death penalty it should only be used to stop further crimes by 'lifelong criminals' who have had a chance to reform after being imprisoned before but still go on to commit again and have a high chance of commiting further crime. Whether genetic predisposition should be a get out clause is a moral issue but then we're all victims of luck in who we turn out to be.

      It should never be used for a single crime, the chances of miscarriages of justice are too great. When it comes to the death penalty the punishment should depend on the person more than the crime.
  • IMJGaltstill, on 06/25/2008, -18/+96Being convicted of this crime is a death sentence no matter what SCOTUS has to say about it. These predators will be dealt with by the rest of the prison population upon their arrival.
    • DanThePainter, on 06/25/2008, -9/+16Unless state or even federal courts find that putting these people in general prison population is "cruel and unusual" and that special provision or separate facilities must be provided.
      • samthurston, on 06/26/2008, -0/+9shh. Don't give them any ideas!
      • Gemfinder, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1You mean stick 'em in an oublieyet? [Nodding] That works.
        No cage is too big for a monkey. Especially a very *lonely* monkey.
      • soupdawg30, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1"people"
        • ThndrShk2k, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3However you might want to seperate them from yourself, they're still people

          Disgusting repulsive people, but people none the less.
    • SpectreFire, on 06/26/2008, -4/+4Ah, good ole' prison justice.
    • bippitybop1, on 06/26/2008, -32/+0HEY DAYALL911. How would you like to buy a NEW TV for OVER 40% OFF LIST PRICE. THAT'S RIGHT! NO DOWN PAYMENT FOR AT LEAST 2 YEARS. Please call for details. Restrictions may apply.
    • EpicSelekta, on 06/26/2008, -3/+7It's probably better if they get a life sentence instead of death penalty. If you play by the "eye for an eye" rule, then a lifetime of torment and assraping is a better punishment for the lifetime of trauma that the guy (yes, it's almost always a guy) gave the poor whelp. If you believe in a heaven and hell, then after he does die, el rapisto and his coke-can-sized ***** will get a morning star shoved up his poop chute on an hourly basis.
      • helpfulcorn, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Wrong, considering only 2-12% is ever raped, and only once, it's more likely the criminal will be raping than being raped.
        • ThndrShk2k, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2It's actually more likely the criminal who rapes children will be beaten, maybe raped, and then shanked.

          Prison doesn't take kindly to child rapers, no matter how strong they are. Hell, they'll probably skip the rape part and just shank them in the ass.
    • Waterrat, on 06/26/2008, -0/+8 I have a friend who worked as a prison guard...Perpetual raping of certain types of criminals is a myth..It simply does not happen and some criminals are also segregated from others for their own protection as well.

      ..
      • solid12345, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3True, I don't get where people come up with the idea child rapists get killed in prison all the time, if they did why are there plenty of sex offenders who come out of prison and put on the list?
        • soomprimal, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Sometimes they are, but like many things that we see as a trend, this is not one.
    • IglooBurner, on 06/26/2008, -2/+3None of us have the rights to kill anyone really. I don't believe we can take away what we did not create. We can only lock individuals up for the safety of the general population. The decision for someone to live and die is not ours to make.
      • autc04, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0There should be more people on digg who remind everyone of this. Killing people in cold blood is just WRONG, especially when there is a better solution for the problem (i.e., to just lock them up).
      • Memitim, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Anyone who tries to kill or rape my loved ones, myself, or any other victim in the vicinity makes that my decision. Anyone who succeeds in perpetrating either of these acts makes that the decision of the people who have to live with that waste product. That's plain old reality with all of the philosophical trappings scraped away.
        • IglooBurner, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0Well the fact that you would want to kill him already puts you on his level.
      • Memitim, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1You must live a very zen-like existence, only having thoughts and feelings at a single level of intellect and emotion. Just to help you out, the rest of us experience a nice wide range. Makes being human a whole lot more interesting. So when the complete ***** nutter who would make the decision to commit murder or rape does so, I can't relate and have no desire to join in. Yet I would certainly relish the opportunity to kick that sick bastard off of the planet and rest a little easier knowing that a threat to the safety of everyone has been removed and the only actual consequence is that you regard me as a bad person.
      • gofalcons, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Actually it takes a whole range of emotions not to just pull some macho ***** out of your ass and say "ALL PEOPLE WHO DO "X" SHOULD DIE!!!!111".
    • ElAssoWipo, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3Sexual predators, especially pedophiles, are never mixed with the general population.

      They will never be in danger of anything.
    • s3pt1k, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Uh, not really. Most of the time they are segregated from pop and placed with other offenders.
  • SpillReviews, on 06/25/2008, -17/+135I'd rather die than be sentenced to jail for life
    • rwallen, on 06/25/2008, -15/+9Sure you can say that but would you really rather be dead? Even in prison you could make something of yourself.
      • TheOther1, on 06/26/2008, -2/+31Not once it is discovered you are a child rapist.
      • artfiend77, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Sure, if you call getting the living ***** beaten out of you then getting a broom handle shoved up your ass and broken while still lodged in there "making something of yourself"

        Raping a child is unforgivable, and if they do manage to get sent to prison, they have their own justice system behind bars.

      • drgmdp, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3yeah, you can be the bitch of the whole prison
    • 3242130193, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Agreed, but it's not like you get to choose your sentence if you're convicted - it's the judge and prosecutor that decide your fate then.
    • Halukard, on 06/26/2008, -6/+7I'd rather live in jail than die. It's better to only have freedom of the mind than to have no mind at all.
      • xxMarka, on 06/26/2008, -1/+24When all that you have is freedom of the mind, you go insane.
      • DarkShroud, on 06/26/2008, -1/+15Sure you'll have freedom of the mind and an free range anus.
      • Serpentine1618, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5Child rapists are the most hated of all criminals, especially amongst criminals. If you are a child rapist, you don't get released into general population because other inmates (especially those who have children themselves) WILL kill you just because of your crime. Your life is 24/7 in danger while you living in prison.

        I would argue that the threat of death/restrictions to movement is far more punishing than death itself. Of course, if you believe in God/Hell/Eternal Damnation then my point is moot.

      • RoccoMcTaco, on 06/26/2008, -3/+1"Freedom of the mind" - of a child rapist

        what about the mind and life of someone who was raped as a child?

        You 1. Raped 2. a child.

        Personally I think the suspect should be killed if they are without a doubt the suspect. They knew what they were doing.
        I'd say let the victim choose what they want to happen to the rapist, if they had a better concept of death, so let the rapist sit in prison until the victim is old enough to decide.

        PTSD is not fun and you don't know what it could manifest.

        I also don't see why I should have to pay for someone to sit in prison if they didn't need to be in prison in the first place (ie the wrong man, or a pot dealer) or for someone who should just be put to death for something like child rape.
      • gofalcons, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1And if it's later found out that DNA evidence linked that crime to another criminal rather than the one that was killed? "Is it just a whoops, my bad!!!"?
    • vault, on 06/26/2008, -2/+23Unless you're planning to escape one day, I don't see the point of being alive for life imprisonment.
      • offput, on 06/26/2008, -3/+4"The unexamined life is not worth living." -Socrates

        He wasn't talking about climbing mountains.
      • Lukesed, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Even in the worst prisons you can get a hold of books, and TV is required to be available in most cases. Prison life doesn't look great but they can't stop you from thinking.
        • vault, on 06/26/2008, -3/+8Yeah in between the fights and prison rape, you can in fact watch TV. Don't really see the point of that.
        • richmondphotog, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1in the prisons that i went into to, working as a news cameraman (no i am not a convict) there is one tv in a shared area. i don't think you are going to be watching anything that you want to watch.
    • rasprenkle, on 06/26/2008, -2/+0agreed
    • feliks2, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4Id like for you to try to say that on the table or chair or whatever it may be, with imminent, inevitable death looming just around the corner.
    • acegi, on 06/26/2008, -4/+2Especially as a child rapist.

      His ass won't see another day it won't bleed.
    • smackjack, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Sure you may say that now, but why do you think that almost everyone tries to exhaust every appeal and get their sentence commuted to life in prison?
      • normalkid0615, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Almost everyone. Look at the 9/11 mastermind. He WANTS the death penalty. He knows he will do more to rally his support by death then to sit in a tax-payer funded prison system.
      • helixhdr, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0Actually, in the United States, if you are sentenced to death, the court system is required to give you an appeal.
    • Kaitsu, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1That's just you though, and you'd eat your words too if the time came to decide.
    • DreKor, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2That's why I favor life in prison over execution for criminals. Death is quick, but imprisonment is forever. Seems like a better way to go if you plan on punishing someone.
    • FLarsen, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1Then kill yourself, it shouldn't be the government's job.

      I'm against the death penalty, and even though raping children is wrong on so many levels, I won't be a hypocrite and say "I'm against the death penalty, but they should kill child rapists anyway."
  • GidsR, on 06/25/2008, -11/+16Louisiana justice isn't known as the best the world has; probably the right decision for the wrong reasons.
    • michael4lsu, on 06/25/2008, -0/+9So please tell us, GidsR, what is Louisiana justice known as? I'm just curious. This question coming from a Louisiana resident to a Great Britain resident.

      And by the way, I personally am against the death penalty.
      • WiseWeasel, on 06/25/2008, -10/+6A bunch of crooked, old-boy-network-reinforced racist rednecks... That's if the Dukes of Hazard are to be believed (OK, that was Georgia, but close enough)...
        • hansk, on 06/26/2008, -3/+4yeeehaw! hey boys its bout' dat time, we aint got nuthin else tah do might as well string us up a neegrah !
        • 0011002, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5wow yeah close enough you only have Mississippi and Alabama Between Louisiana and Georgia. Also your assumptions that seem to be about southerners being good ole boys racist rednecks is very narrow minded of you. Try moving around a little bit and meeting people because in my experience those "rednecks" are more inclined to help others than non-rednecks seem to be.
        • WiseWeasel, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4Hey, the question was how it was known as, not what it actually is... Are you saying the Dukes of Hazard lied to me?
      • cajungator2, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4I second that question. What does britain know about Louisiana justice. The only justice in Louisiana is American Justice and a taste of Napoleonic Code. This coming from a fellow Louisiana resident.
    • hansk, on 06/26/2008, -2/+3The death penalty has long been proven as a poor method of preventing crime. The British Empire in the 18th century made dozens of previous petty crimes capital, and that had no effect number of reports or convictions of such crimes.
      The United States, I believe, has gotten away from rehabilitation in the early 1970s (Clockwork Orange maybe seen as the previous style of rehab - albeit this is an extreme example) and has moved to a removal from society style of punishment. Nothing could be more of a removal from society than death I suppose. Though there is the theory out there that there is no difference to society if the criminal is physically dead or removed from society with no outside contact,
      • kmolleja, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1But you can at least make sure that criminal doesn't hurt anyone else ever again. Deterrence is only one of the reasons for the death penalty
        • Memitim, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Yeah, never understood the deterrence argument. Name me one single criminal who victimized another human being after receiving the death penalty. 100% success, 0% recidivism. If it happens to scare some other piece of garbage who was also considering ruining someone else's life then I'll call it a bonus.
    • AhniTipesh, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1The Louisiana Justice System uses Napoleonic Common Law, as they were once a colony of France and chose to keep the system, while the vast majority of the rest of the nation uses the British Common Law system. I'm not saying this is bad, but it is why some people might be a little confused about the Louisiana Justice System.
      • autc04, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0Isn't that difference just about civil litigation, not about criminal justice?
    • BetterOffEd, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2I'm gonna have to go ahead and call ***** on that one Señor Limey...

      Angola is widely known as one of the toughest prisons on the planet. The recidivism rate is quite low there...

      ...because people rarely even get out alive.
  • republicker, on 06/25/2008, -50/+5I guess judges don't mind child rape. Of course a 17 year old girl is not a child to an 18 year old boy.
    • michael4lsu, on 06/25/2008, -2/+36By your logic, they don't mind ANY crime that doesn't have the death penalty as a consequence.
      • BrewBeau, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1Yes, by not allowing the death penalty, the only other alternative is freedom.
    • Boryenka, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1In Louisiana a 17 year old 'girl' is not a child to an 18 year old boy. There must be greater than a 2 year difference for carnal knowledge/ statutory rape. In addition I think child rape is defined as someone under 12 in La.
  • splinter09, on 06/25/2008, -24/+10Yeah no death sentence, chop their willies of, that better..........
    • Spudster, on 06/26/2008, -3/+3Before you digg him down, this is actually a good idea.

      Give rapists this offer:

      Get castrated and be released now or serve 20 to life in jail. Your choice.
      • rakous, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4Rapist could still rape children.
        • Spudster, on 06/26/2008, -4/+3They're dicks aren't functioning, they have no sexual attraction anymore... How could they rape? Many say that the condition is a sexual problem, almost medical in nature. By castration, we're treating the problem.
        • twiztidsinz, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Who says they have to rape them with their own penis? objects have been used to rape before... and now they are injured they have all the more anger built up.
        • Spudster, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Their*

          Dammit!
        • Murdats, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2its not always about sexual attraction, and they can always use something besides a penis, which may be more hazardous.
      • artfiend77, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1True, but if all sexual attraction and impulses are taken away from them through chemical castration, they won't feel a need to rape their victims with objects. Personally I would choose dipping their nutsacks in battery acid, but hey, that's just me.
      • feliks2, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Your ***** stupid. That would be no punishment. They would be able to lead a mostly normal life. And they could still commit crimes, especially since without time in jail there is less chance that they would come to feel trully remourseful.
        • Spudster, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1They won't commit crimes if there is no sexual attraction. The most important aspect about prison is NOT that the detention is a punishment, but rather that the detention is keeping these people away from the general public. They are contained for public safety.

          Sexual predators have genuine problem with their natural sexual urges. Like a mental illness, if we treat these predators, they are no longer a threat to the public, as a result, the sentence for their crime after treatment must be much lower if not removed altogether.

          It would save money too.
      • CVL4317, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1what can you do to the female one?

        because i have speculation that most of the female rapers case are not reported. (a google or two should be enough)
        • Spudster, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1I'm not too up-to-date on this, but you COULD remove the clitoris to remove sexual satisfaction. That's an interesting question.
        • awesome01, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0you would have to get another woman involved so she could find it
      • sugarazor, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2Yeah, rape isn't about sex. It's about power and domination... which can still be accomplished with or without a penis.
      • Spudster, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1Those who say rape isn't about sex are lying to themselves. So I guess robbers rob a bank because they like holding a gun?
        • Murdats, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1sex is easy to get, if you cant pick up, pay for it.
          either way you dont have to use force, deal with legal worries and potentially endanger yourself.

          also I imagine trying to have sex while someone keeps trying to claw your eyes out isnt the most pleasurable.

          the sexual excitement comes from having enough power over another person that you can force yourself upon them and they can do nothing to stop it. It is a huge power trip.
      • sugarazor, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1Completely apples and oranges. A rapist does not rape a woman just so he can get off. A date-rapist, maybe, a guy that's pushing it and the woman says no and he goes on anyway... but a full on serial rapist is not doing it for the sex, he needs to dominate.
        • ThndrShk2k, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Maybe, but that seems a bit misconceived as a concept.

          It's a little more of having sex with specific women. Rapists usually don't randomly pick a girl's name from a phonebook. They look at them, follow them, fantasize about them, and finally rape them. It's mostly an aspect of lust and obsession. The power thing only comes into play that they KNOW they can overpower the girl and obtain what they want, which is to fulfill their fantasies about the specific woman.

          That doesn't mean some rapists do it for the power, and the sex thing is a display of that power, but a lot of rapists do it for other reasons
        • Murdats, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1that is a stalker, a lot of cases are some guy(s) jump some random chick.

          that isnt about planning and obsession.
      • Spudster, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1This explanation of domination is such an outdated notion that we've heard over an over again. Yes, power is an aspect of rape, but more importantly than power is the sex component. If rape was about power, how come rape cases seem to involve all the young good looking women and not the vulnerable grandma's?
        • Murdats, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1do you have evidence of average age and attractiveness of rape victims? do you have a list somewhere or are you just assuming based on the few select cases the media reports?
          also the domination would be from taking something that was never offered, for some old woman you wouldn't want to take it in the first place.

          basically
          normal person - I would like to tap that
          rapist - I WILL tap that and there is nothing that can stop me.
        • Spudster, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1I think it's pretty well documented that good looking people are the target of sexual assaults more than ugly people. Back to the original point: by castrating rapists (it would be their choice too, so it is perfectly unethical), they would have no will anymore to rape people because the sexual aspect is gone. When the sexual aspect is gone, the power aspect is gone with it.
    • temporaryescape, on 06/26/2008, -3/+4why is this dugg down? take away their weapon used in the crime, then imprison them.
      • Spudster, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1I would rather say it's a medical problem. Once treated, they should serve some reasonable time for the punishment aspect of their crime then be able to reenter society without any sexually active feelings.
      • nedzeve, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1For the rapist, it isn't about sexual arousal or vaginal penetration. Rape is a crime of force and power -- about submission. His penis isn't the weapon that enables them to commit the crime. In fact, he could penetrate you with an object more easily than he could with his penis.
        • Spudster, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1To deny the sexual component of rape is to deny the point of the whole act itself. How often do you hear about unattractive women or older ladies getting raped? Rarely, and that's because there IS a sexual component to rape.
    • nedzeve, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1The problem is, the justice system isn't perfect, and sometimes, for a variety of reasons, the wrongfully accused are punished. In some of those cases, evidence is later uncovered that exonerates the accused. Improprieties in the prosecution and investigation are uncovered. Sometimes accusers just make ***** up. What would be done in those cases?

      "Oooh sorry we suppressed that evidence that could have let you go. But we were under a lot of pressure put someone behind bars. You can understand the position we were in. You're free to go. And about your penis.... sorry... our bad."
  • spaztikenigma, on 06/25/2008, -9/+64There wasn't a lot of details on the overturned law in that article. I think one major reason it may have been overturned is because of the statutory rape factor, where republicker mentioned that an 18 year old male having sex with a 17 year old female is still considered statutory rape even if it's consensual. All the parents have to do is file a police report on the girl's boyfriend and he'd be put on death row. Something seems wrong with that. If there's grass on the field, play ball. Plus, if they really raped someone and not this statutory b.s., then they should be put in prison long enough for them to be raped by another inmate and then they are free to go.
    • avengingturnip, on 06/25/2008, -0/+13The law is about child rape (age 13 and below) not statutory rape.
      • pjpark, on 06/25/2008, -0/+10Death penalty applies only when victim is a child under 12.
        • avengingturnip, on 06/25/2008, -0/+3I saw one source that said 12 and another that said it had been changed to 13.
        • pjpark, on 06/25/2008, -0/+5Patrick Kennedy was convicted under the law prior to the change to 13. So, as the law applies to him, the death penalty is available only when the victim is a child under 12. It is now 13.

          http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2007/05KA1981.opn.pdf

    • ObamaWins08, on 06/25/2008, -8/+44"If there's grass on the field, play ball."
      If my daughters ever question why I monitor their Internet usage, I will simply show them your comment.
      • Phyltre, on 06/26/2008, -3/+12I wasn't monitored on the internet at a young age. I saw some porn, read some crazy stuff, and moved on. ...if you haven't raised your kids to be smart enough not to talk to strangers on the internet for more than a sentence or two, just monitoring their internet usage won't be enough.
        • Magnut, on 06/26/2008, -5/+4Sooner or later your children will grow up and have to deal with the real world, and they will be unable to cope properly because they were never tempered by the internet or other avenues. They'll probably end up on hard drugs selling themselves. Have a nice day
        • newms32, on 06/26/2008, -2/+6Thanks to Digg, your future children have been condemned to prostitution. Nice going.
      • normalkid0615, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2your daughter would totally get dugg on digg. ya digg?
      • Issius, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2You haven't been around the internet enough if you're offended by that comment.
    • Spudster, on 06/26/2008, -0/+17There's pedophilia and then there's ephebophilia.

      Pedophilia is for young children and ephebophilia is for adolsecents/teenagers. I think we need to differentiate the two acts when we talk because the nature of the sexual attraction between both terms is different. Ephebophilia is a much more innocent affliction than pedophilia where its obvious that the sexual act is being committed against a child.
      • c0mputar, on 06/26/2008, -1/+7Never heard of ephebophilia and I would've thought that I would have heard it by now. Nice thing to know and I definately agree. Even in some cases an 18year old and 14year old can be together on their own terms although they are unusual and rare... some girls mature insanely fast. But the system would be a lot better if such things didn't have such a guilty until proven innocent mentality. Their needs to be actual evidence. A 2-3 year difference in teenage years, with the girl coming forward a couple weeks later with a testimony and 1-2 witnesses showing them leaving around the same time, can usually lead to a guilty verdict.
    • ripple123, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2I believe it goes "If theres grass on the wicket then you can play cricket"
    • pittpat, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3The case was where a guy raped his 8 year old step daughter. Little different from an 18 and 17 year old hooking up.
    • seabass341, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1In canada (where I live) you can have sex with anyone over 16 or someone under the age of 16 as long as there is an age difference between you and the persong of 3 years.
    • Boryenka, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1In La there must be more than 2 years between them for it to be statutory rape. That being said, an 18 year old guy can have sex w/ a 16 year old girl in La.
    • chucktownbluv, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0I think the whole statutory rape thing is *****, personally.
  • 471776, on 06/25/2008, -38/+9Total ***** *****. These sick bastards deserve *****' torture instead of some cushy injection, never mind loafing around in a cell while society pays for their three meals a day and accommodation.

    I know the death penalty has been used on innocent people before. But in the modern age of DNA testing and forensics, many wrongful convictions are being overturned, and far fewer people are being wrongly indicted.

    I don't see how you can claim the death penalty is an unconstitutional instance of "cruel and unusual punishment" for one crime, but completely legal, humane and normal for other crimes. To me, child rape is right up there with murder. I'd be hard pressed to name a worse crime you could commit.
    • Spudster, on 06/26/2008, -10/+7And sadly, Obama agrees with you.

      Put this next to the list of Obama flip flops. I think it'll sit right next to public financing and marijuana decriminalization.
    • ReinhartTR, on 06/26/2008, -2/+3Couldn't agree more. Child rape is the utter destruction of a child's world and has long reaching, catastrophic consequences for the child as they grow and mature. That kind of pain infliction has only one just consequence and that's to castrate the sick bastard and feed his genitalia to wild dogs in front of him while he bleeds to death.
      Maybe I'm a heartless, brutal prick for saying that but I don't really care there's some things in life you just don't ***** with and one of those is children, there's a reason even serial killers frown on scum like that.

      I hold child rape higher than murder because it is so psychologically damaging and a crime against the defenseless, I can't imagine ever going through that and being the same person I am now. I've known women and men who were molested as children and they're still messed up because of it, it's a horrible, unacceptable crime and should have a fittingly horrible punishment.
      • Tenlow, on 06/26/2008, -2/+3And who are you to decide who lives and who dies? That's what I thought. Just because it's something you find particularly disgusting it's ok to kill? What if I view pepsi drinkers the same way you view child rapists? Does that mean it's ok for me to kill pepsi drinkers? No. Because it is not up to me to make the decision who lives and who dies. Nobody has that right.

        He who is without sin and all that jazz.
        • 471776, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2You can say the same thing about every single crime we have a law for. If you follow that view through, it results in nobody ever getting punished for anything, because the same argument would extend to locking people up and fining people. I see where you're coming from, but your argument is very seriously flawed.

          Society decides most of the laws, especially criminal laws. Theft, assault, rape, murder - all punishable crimes because society does not want the people committing these crimes living among them. Flying a kite, jogging, eating, painting - not crimes, because society doesn't have a problem with these activities.

          Obviously not everyone agrees with every law, but a majority of society agrees with most laws. That's who decides. In some states, the people have decided that they want to enforce certain crimes with the death penalty. Other states choose not to do so. If society decides to add child rape to the list of crimes that are punishable by death, then they should.

          This case is a little complicated, because of the Supreme Court's involvement. I disagree with the ruling they made and their reasoning - I don't think the 8th amendment covers this. The Supreme Court has no business overturning a law without a valid reason, which they don't have in this case.
        • silveravnt, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Did you seriously compare drinking pepsi to molesting children? WTF
      • Magnut, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2Child rape should be treated as normal rape, but with a somewhat harsher penalty considering the emotional effects of the abuse. People blow these things incredibly out of proportion.
  • Rotzooi, on 06/25/2008, -17/+64Good decision by the SC. We should not be a backward eye-for-an-eye society. Before you know it, we're chopping off body parts.
    • michael4lsu, on 06/25/2008, -2/+7...and sending political/religious dissidents to concentration camps and gulags such as in several other countries.
    • Reasonableguy, on 06/25/2008, -5/+6Out of curiosity, what's so bad about an eye-for-an-eye policy? I think it'd be one hell of a deterrent if criminals were made to endure the same punishments that they inflicted on their victims.
      • buba1243, on 06/25/2008, -2/+4But who then administers the punishments. I don't know about you but I would have hard time killing someone. I think that's why firing squads are used with most of them having blanks.
        • artfiend77, on 06/26/2008, -3/+1How about the victims? Families of the victims?
        • lacronicus, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5Then we create a society based on vengeance. The law is meant to keep civility; having citizens harm one another, even in an attempt to secure that civility, is still uncivil.
        • ReinhartTR, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Even though I am in favor of capital punishment, hes right. Most people don't have the stomach for killing someone, even the victims and families of victims probably couldn't do it in most cases. Executioners, professional soldiers, they're all famous for eventually cracking under the implications of all of the lives they've taken.

          I've always thought we should let the convicted psycho killers do it though, gives them something to do and they won't hesitate to kill someone.
      • pilot3033, on 06/25/2008, -0/+5Or how do you determine what an eye for an eye is?
      • itsthebrod, on 06/26/2008, -4/+14An eye for an eye makes everyone go blind.
        • fxu1989, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2boohoo

          Get a prosthetic eye and learn the way of the deaf.

          Now, shall we resume to the killings?
        • j3one, on 06/26/2008, -3/+1That's what she said!
        • offput, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1We have two eyes people. We've got a freebie!
      • tribble222, on 06/26/2008, -0/+15Regardless of ethics, eye for an eye just doesn't make sense in a lot of cases. What if I accidentally run over your dog in my car? Does that mean you intentionally run over my dog? What if I don't have a dog?
      • BetterOffEd, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1What if you littered?

        Would the government send somebody over to your house to throw random ***** around your living room?
    • mikes1, on 06/26/2008, -1/+41Yes, it's the correct decision, but not for the reason you give.

      If it's the death penalty for either rape or murder, then a criminal has no incentive to NOT kill the victim. It's harder to prove murder with no witnesses than rape with a child witness.

      Yes, child rape is a terrible crime, but rape followed by murder can only be worse.
      • Spudster, on 06/26/2008, -0/+13You raise an incredibly good point. Never thought of that before.
      • innocentsinner, on 06/26/2008, -0/+14Very good point
      • 0011002, on 06/26/2008, -0/+7wow here i found myself disagreeing with most everyone until i read this. I didn't think of it that way but I am a father and it's my duty to protect my family which makes me think if someone did that to my child they deserve to die however again you make a very valid point.
      • cknyan, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1While it is a good point, if you've seen the life children live after being exploited you might compare it to a death sentence. Being violated in such a way leaves children with little self worth. In some cases the rapist had effectively taken away whatever decent life the child would have lead. The disgusting act has a huge impact on childs future, usually stifling dreams because of their natural inability to deal with past crime committed against them.

        When should a child rapist be executed? After the act, quite possibly ruining the childs life and future? Or later when the child gives up and commits suicide because of confusion about the past crime?
      • Memitim, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1So that's how they decide how to act. I didn't realize these turds sat around thinking, "so I can grab this eight year old kid and violate the everliving ***** out of her body and mind, but as long as I don't actually kill her then I'll only have to face years of prison time near the general population as a child rapist rather than decades carefully watched over on Death Row as a child rapist. Score!!!"

        Wait, I'm missing the incentive here.
    • johndoesovich, on 06/26/2008, -4/+4I guess the question here is whether or not you were raped as a child. Both of my brothers were raped/molested by a baseball coach. I've seen the damage this has caused to them as they've grown into adults and had to not only struggle as children dealing with it but dealing with it as adults when the horror and memories resurface after they had been buried.

      Why not give dna tests to those who are sentenced to death to guarantee? Seriously, why do people look through the eyes of the offender when there are those who are the victims who have a lifetime of tragedy to deal with. This man went on to rape dozens more and was eventually caught in a foreign country, spent a little bit of time in prison there and came back to the US only to do it more.

      And we're so concerned and focused on the civil rights of the prisoners? No shame, I feel nothing for them and wish the laws were tougher which would protect our children better.

      As a father of 2, I cannot imagine what I would if someone did to my children what happen to my brothers. Again, think about the victims a little more.
      • vtnerd, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4It's not the civil rights of the guilty that concern us. It's the civil rights of those who may one day be falsely accused. DNA evidence is not always available in every instance and witnesses and prosecutors can make mistakes, withhold evidence or do any number of things that can return a guilty verdict when the facts don't support it.

        I don't support this decision because I want child rapists to live, but rather I support it believing (and hoping I'm wrong) that somewhere at some time someone will be falsely convicted of child rape and that person deserves the rest of their natural life to fight for their innocent and the clearing of their name IMHO.
      • normalkid0615, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2chop off someones ear for driving while talking on the phone. fair.
      • normalkid0615, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1chimera. 2 sets of dna.
        • gavin422, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Watching CSI does not make you a legal expert.
        • normalkid0615, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1it was discovery channel you windows user.
      • Spudster, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2The punishment does not fit the crime. It's that simple. Yes, rape is a terrible, terrible act, but ultimately people CAN rebuild their lives and live relatively normal lives afterwards. You do not give the DEATH PENALTY to cases that allow for people to live on again. Legally most don't even give the death penalty to murder alone. It is generally acknowledged that death should only be administered in the case of serial murders or particularly brutal rape/murders that far exceed the moral wrongness of killing the convict.

        I worry if you get satisfaction from the suffering of a criminal because revenge can never heal the wounds of a crime committed. The purpose of imprisonment should be correction and rehabilitation, and if not possible, to protect public safety by removing such people from society. It should not be revenge.
  • krait, on 06/25/2008, -24/+18Guess all those child molesting priests are relieved that their numerous prayers (and letters to the judges) were answered.

    But then again, I figured the Supreme Court would be reluctant to put judges in the uncomfortable position of sentencing their religious leaders to death.
    • michael4lsu, on 06/25/2008, -16/+1First of all, the majority of those priests who committed sex crimes were HOMOSEXUAL, and most of their victims were not children! They were teens and adults! This ruling does not help such homosexual sex offenders as much as the whole 'gay' agenda would. And by the way, have you ever seen this list of teachers who are sex offenders?
      http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=39783
      Looks like there is a far worse teacher sex crime epidemic than there is with a homosexual priest problem.
      • lydecker, on 06/25/2008, -0/+11The majority of those priests committed same-sex sex crimes, not necessarily the majority of the priests who committed crimes were homosexual. I don't believe there was information on their sexual orientation.

        And what are you referring to in saying adult victims?

        This ruling isn't about sexual orientation, there's no need to bring it in.
      • chicofaraby, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5"most of their victims were not children! They were teens and adults!"

        If two adults had sex it wasn't a crime.
        • artfiend77, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2"If two adults had sex it wasn't a crime."
          It is if one of the adults doesn't want it.
        • chicofaraby, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4""If two adults had sex it wasn't a crime."
          It is if one of the adults doesn't want it."

          That's not sex. It''s rape. Which brings us back, full circle, to this article... ain't Digg fun?
      • Murdats, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1"The majority of those priests committed same-sex sex crimes, not necessarily the majority of the priests who committed crimes were homosexual."

        so what do you call having sex with someone of the same gender?
        • lydecker, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Having homosexual sex. It says nothing about your sexual orientation.

          Also, having sex with someone of the opposite gender is having heterosexual sex. It says nothing about your sexual orientation.
  • psiege, on 06/25/2008, -23/+10I'm sorry, but I disagree with this ruling.

    I believe that the death penalty is not used nearly enough in this country. It should be in place for murder, attempted murder (assuming it's not self defense/accidental), child molestation, and rape. Why is it that we reward stupid criminals who couldn't "finish the job" in the first place? They attempted murder, why should that be any different than murder itself?

    Furthermore, I get sick of seeing on the news the countless repeat offenders (child molesters) who are harming the innocence of childhood. The vast majority of these wackos can not be rehabilitated. Period.
    • michael4lsu, on 06/25/2008, -9/+2Then we might as well punish people for thought crimes as well. If a person's intentions are enough to convict someone of murder even though they didn't carry out the murder, than merely THINKING about killing someone, or saying, "I'm gonna kill you!" should warrant the death penalty as well, by your insane logic. What a fine Stalinist you are proving to be!
      • psiege, on 06/25/2008, -3/+3Get real. Attempted murder as in I shot you, hit you in the chest because I have poor aim, instead of hitting you in the head, and you survived. Why should that person be rewarded with a lesser sentence? And, how is that remotely related to "thought crimes?"
      • gryphon50, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1what are you talking about? He is saying capital punishment for murder, rape, child molestation, and then you bring in "thought crimes"? WTF. I guess you couldn't think of any way to defend the perpetrators of those crimes so you just brought in extraneous sh**.
    • Lucas123, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1I understand what you're saying and I agree some punishments, particularly for child molesters, should be more harsh in terms of sentence lengths because to date we've had no success in rehabilitating these people. The longer we can keep them off the streets, the better. But, that said, as much as I'd like to believe in the death penalty because it cleans the slate and removes the problem, I can't. I can't judge someone unto death. And I do believe that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
  • Cheezo, on 06/25/2008, -21/+6rape a child? get raped yourself... that is justice...
    • r3negadeX, on 08/11/2008, -0/+3Yeah, that's why they send you to prison.
    • nedzeve, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Under sharia law, perhaps. In the west however, we don't equate revenge with justice.
      • silveravnt, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1He didn't say to let the child or the family do it. How is that revenge? It's called a punishment that equals the crime. That said, if one of my children was molested I would be looking for revenge. I'd most likely do things I wouldn't normally ever do for revenge.
  • avengingturnip, on 06/25/2008, -20/+6There are bound to be questions about proving a rape occurred based upon the testimony of a child in absence of convincing physical evidence but, in principle, how can anyone believe that death is not an appropriate sentence for the monstrous crime of child rape?

    Come on. Seriously?
    • michael4lsu, on 06/25/2008, -10/+3As heineous of a crime as it is, it's still not as bad as murder. Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth is the upper limit God placed on punishment. If there is no greater gift one can give to another than by giving his own life for them, then there is also no greater crime against another than by taking their life from them.
      • Simonft, on 06/26/2008, -2/+4I was fine with your comment before i noticed the god part.
    • 3242130193, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5How is that supposed to influence anyone's position? There's no argument there, other than calling child rape a 'monstrous' crime.
    • tribble222, on 06/26/2008, -3/+7Death isn't an appropriate sentence for anyone, regardless of their crime.
    • vault, on 06/26/2008, -1/+7Because if death penalty were the punishment for child rape, wouldn't rapists be a lot more likely to murder their victims since the punishment is the same as murder and they might as well not leave the best (and perhaps only) witness alive?

      I would hate to think this will result in more rape victims getting killed.

      Though you could make the states' rights argument, and I agree with that. They should be allowed to set their own capital punishment laws. I'm just not sure this one makes sense.
      • ssn697, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4We have this law in Montana. Your points were the same that came up. When you are talking about someone callous enough to rape a child, the whole "might as well kill them to avoid a witness" is not a stretch at all.

        Emotion is a tough thing to take out of this argument. There is no good answer on this.
  • ussoldier, on 06/25/2008, -29/+10You people are total idiots who have no understanding of the wickedness of the corrupt English based law system: The law is written to criminalize people who otherwise have committed no crime whatsoever.

    1. Anyone under 16 = "a child" under the law (though that is completely bogus arbitrary definition)
    2. Sex with anyone under 16 = statutory rape (irregardless if its 100% consentual)

    So, if a 19 year old has sex with a 16 year old, she/he should be executed as a rapist?
    If a 15 year old has sex with a 16 year old, both should be exectued as a rapist?
    If a 40 year old has sex with a 14 year old, and its 100% consentual and happy relationship, one of them should be executed as a rapist?

    Stop criminalizing sex. Stop calling any sex under the age of 18 "rape" because its not. Anyone who wants to have sex has that right, to have sex with anyone they want, at any age they want, because they have what I call "personal sovereignty". What I mean by this, is they have the right to rule themselves... they have complete domain over their own body and can chose to live within it how they please. Noone can dictate to you who or when you can make love with another person, as long as that other person feels the same regarding you, regardless of their age or mental capacity. Mental capacity is no arguement curtailing this right to decide for yourself... even retarded people can love, and many adults don't even have a 6th grade education.

    Further, do you realize, that up until recently, it was illegal (and in many states may still be):

    1. to have sex outside of marriage (yes, its true, illegal straight sex)
    2. to have oral sex of any kind (yes, I'm not joking, straight sex)
    3. to have anal sex of any kind (yes, indeed, illegal, straight sex)
    These things were called "sodomy" and "buggery"

    4. to have gay sex
    5. to have sex with animals ( still illegal in most places)
    6. and finally, to have sex with "children" (irregardless that children have sex with each other all the time)
    7. at one time, sex with yourself, masturbation, is criminal, and still is, if its public (in other words, people don't want to see it, so they make it criminal, even though they do it themselves)

    I imagine most of you here are under most state laws, a sexual criminal, having at least engaged in #1, if not several others.

    Further, consider how easy it is to be convicted of a sex crime without having sex. You are asleep one morning, and your door bell rings. You stumbled out of bed in your shorts and t-shirt, to answer the door, and its a friggin girlscout dressed in uniform bright and early trying to sell you cookies. You mumble something about "well aren't you cute..." and she goes into her spiel to sell you cookies. Its too early for this crap, so you agree to something, but you're not wearing your wallet, so you tell her you have to go fetch it. You do that and when you come back she's stepped into your living room. She takes the money, you take the change and the cookies, and that is that.

    Or is it. Later that week you get a call from the police, asking you to come in for an interview. You're like, what the ? The little girl has accused you of being a pervert. The police office accuses you of flirting with her (outfit comment), exposing yourself to her (being in your shorts), enticing you in your house (what?), and making some lewd suggestion you'd pay her for her cookies if she engaged in sex with you.

    YOUR ASS IS FRIED. A JURY WILL FRY YOU. Yeah, you think you will just get up there and speak plainly, and explain you just woke up and it was girlscout selling cookies for christ sakes! Think again. You will be terrified out of your mind, and be like a deer in headlights, because your lawyer you had to shell out $15,000 for, tells you minimum you could get 30 years. The jury will see this, will see you as a lying pervert trying to save his ass... the prosecutor will make you out to be a sexual depraved pervert that stalks little girls.. etc. etc. Why? PROFIT. Big time profit. The criminal justice system makes $35,000 per year per inmate, and a 30 year conviction is a million dollars profit. In a depressed economy like that, that brings out some ferocious greed.

    Having sex is not a crime, no matter what your age. All people are born with a sex, and are sexual from the day they were born. You can make your own decisions for yourself. And so can other people. A kid can chose what they want for lunch, what they will study or not, what they will play, what books they will read, what they will watch on television, who their friends are... and rightly so, they can chose when and who and where and how they want to have sex (or not).

    Its not your damn business to tell them or anyone else otherwise, or to try and convict and criminalize people otherwise. Its just not your damn business to dictate other peoples lives like this, and lock them in concrete boxes if they chose not to live in fear of the state's and your ***** slander game.

    • atavena, on 06/25/2008, -4/+18We're not talking about statutory rape. We're talking about pedophilia. I get what you're saying here, but you wasted pages on something that isn't relevant here. unless you're facing statutory rape charges and wanted to get it off your chest. In that case, have at it.
      • jerrycurley, on 06/25/2008, -5/+4You don't understnad,,,you are TALKING to a pedophile. Read ussoldiers comment history and you will see that he is a pedophile. A dangerous one. And his comments on OTHER sites are even worse than what he admits to on Digg.
        • tehbored, on 06/25/2008, -1/+5Comments on other sites? Wtf are you doing, stalking him?!
    • brexians, on 06/25/2008, -9/+3rape is a crime
      pedophilia is the worst crime

      sex is a privilege but under certain conditions
      not under force or ignorance

      • pilot3033, on 06/25/2008, -1/+5sex is a right shared between two or more individuals.

        having sex without consent by all parties is a violation of those rights. Pedophilia is illegal because children don't have the mental or physical capacity to say no.
      • AndreiOttawa, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Sex is not a privilege, it's a right. Who are you (or the government) to decide what consenting adults want to do in a privacy of their homes?
    • avengingturnip, on 06/25/2008, -1/+5A second Louisiana man, Richard Davis was sentenced to death in December for repeatedly raping a 5-year-old girl in Caddo Parish, which includes Shreveport. Local prosecutor Lea Hall told jurors: "Execute this man. Justice has a sword and this sword needs to swing today."

      The high court's decision leaves intact Kennedy's conviction, but will lead to a new sentence.
    • dayal911, on 06/25/2008, -1/+5There's a difference between statutory rape, and this type of rape.

      I see your argument though, but I would tend to believe that they did differentiate between the two in the bill.
    • jerrycurley, on 06/25/2008, -4/+5Seriosuly...STOP trying to justify your pedophilia! You did NOT get convicted of raping a 5 year old girl through terrible circumstances. You got convicted of raping a 5 year old girl becuase you raped a 5 year old girl. You havbe REPEATEDLY said that there is nothing wrong with a 30 year old man having sex with a 5 year old girl "as long as she wants it too", so why would ANYONE beleive that you didn't have sex that time? And if you didn't that time, then surely you did other times. You have also admitted to secretly hanging out in teen webcam sites and then calling them bitches and ***** when they end the chat after realing that you are a dirty old 40 year old loser.
    • jerrycurley, on 06/25/2008, -3/+9My god...is everyone READING this guy's trash? He is blaming society for outlawing sex with children (again, becuase he was convvicted of raping a 5 year old girl) and thinks that people are uptight for not wanting to see people jerking off on Main Street!
      • Prodigal19, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2"again, becuase he was convvicted of raping a 5 year old girl"
        where are you getting this from? I cant digg you up if you are just spewing lies out about this guy :(
      • jerrycurley, on 07/14/2008, -0/+0Prodigal...read his comment history. He talks about it all the time.
    • tehbored, on 06/25/2008, -3/+2What, do you want to see people walking around masturbating in the streets?
      • ichbeineinrcg, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1Oh it doesn't matter what you wear
        Just as long as you are there
        So come on every guy, every girl
        Everywhere, around the world
        Will be jackin' in the streets!
    • TheOther1, on 06/26/2008, -1/+9Let me guess...NAMBLA member?
      • smackafiyah, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Guessing this guy raped a little girl, I would say he's more of a NAMGLA member (if that even exists)
    • frisk415, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Damn it TheOther you stole my comment. I'll say it anyways:

      "whatever nambla boy."
    • Unknown038, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2in what society could a 40 year old possibly have a "consensual and happy relationship" with a 14 year old?
    • r3negadeX, on 08/11/2008, -2/+2Just for that stupid comment, I'm for the death penalty if only to see you die, stupid *****.
    • mattmck, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1irregardless... cringe
    • brstilson, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2irregardless is not a word. Even if it was, it would mean the opposite of how you're using it.
  • pjpark, on 06/25/2008, -5/+35"It was not disputed that the victim was brutally raped. On the morning of March 2, 1998, the victim was transported by ambulance to Children's Hospital where she was examined in the emergency room. The victim's predominate injury was vaginal with profuse bleeding. Her entire perineum was torn and her rectum protruded into her vagina." Louisianna v. Kennedy. (LA Supreme Court, 2007). http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2007/05KA1981.opn.pdf

    The death penalty for rape in LA was for aggravated rape of children under the age of 12.

    § 42. Aggravated rape
    A. Aggravated rape is a rape committed upon a person sixty-five years of
    age or older or where the anal, oral, or vaginal sexual intercourse is deemed to be
    without lawful consent of the victim because it is committed under any one or
    more of the following circumstances:
    (1) When the victim resists the act to the utmost, but whose resistance is
    overcome by force.
    (2) When the victim is prevented from resisting the act by threats of great
    and immediate bodily harm, accompanied by apparent power of execution.
    (3) When the victim is prevented from resisting the act because the
    offender is armed with a dangerous weapon.
    (4) When the victim is under the age of thirteen years. Lack of knowledge
    of the victim's age shall not be a defense.
    (5) When two or more offenders participated in the act.
    (6) When the victim is prevented from resisting the act because the victim
    suffers from a physical or mental infirmity preventing such resistance.
    B. For purposes of Paragraph (5), "participate" shall mean:
    (1) Commit the act of rape.
    (2) Physically assist in the commission of such act.
    C. For purposes of this Section, the following words have the following
    meanings:
    (1) "Physical infirmity" means a person who is a quadriplegic or
    paraplegic.
    (2) "Mental infirmity" means a person with an intelligence quotient of
    seventy or lower.
    • cnot3, on 06/26/2008, -9/+7I don't believe that its ever right to take a life, regardless of the crime. Let them rot in jail. Executing a convicted prisoner is like shooting a caged animal, it just isn't right.
      • doubledmateo, on 06/26/2008, -2/+6What do you mean by 'it isn't right'? Why are you concerned with the welfare of someone that destructive. I understand the idea of not wanting to execute the wrongly accused, but when there are stacks of evidence, or when the person is being accused of multiple accounts of rape (which happens way too often) then it seems a fitting punishment. I just don't understand why people are okay with letting a man 'rot in jail' but are so horribly opposed to the death sentence.
        • caramba420, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1Nobody is sure as to the nature or source of consciousness. Also, nobody is aware of what the nature of non-existence is. Therefore, it is beyond the capacity of man to adequately determine whether this punishment fits any crime, because we can never be sure, qualitatively, of what it is to experience said punishment from a first-person perspective.
      • pjpark, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2You are entitled to your belief, and to voice it (so I Dugg your comment). You are also have a right to vote based on your beliefs and to encourage others to vote in a way that advances your beliefs. Lousianna voted on this issue and everyone had a chance to argu