Supreme Court rejects death penalty for child rape cases

reply to post by BlackOps719


Well, let's just round up and torture all the ugly guys who look like pedophiles. Just to be on the safe side. We all KNOW what these HIDEOUS monsters COULD DO TO LITTLE CHILDREN. This is ludicrous.

reply to post by BlackOps719


I saw that news article yesterday...It truly sickens me that monsters such as this are able to conceal their heinous crimes for so long. I am glad they were finally caught, and can only hope that they suffer at least as much as the children they abused.

As a parent, this particular subject gets me pretty riled up.

When I was younger, I was very much against the death penalty at all, mainly for the reason that state sanctioned execution is still murder, and how can we punish murderers by committing murder ourselves? Not to mention the potential for innocent people to be executed.

However, as I have grown older, I have realized that life is too short and precious, and our collective resources are too limited, that I really don't care to share the planet with people who have such an obvious disregard for humanity. Murderers, rapists, and other violent criminals (including presidents who start wars based on lies, which result in hundreds of thousands of deaths), should all be killed as quickly as possible, if only to keep them from repeating the offense, once rock-solid evidence of their guilt is presented to a court of law. Now, for those cases where it is not possible to clearly establish guilt, death should not be the penalty, just in case the accused is actually innocent. However, with modern forensic science, it has become possible to be 100% sure about a suspect's guilt (in some cases, anyway). It would be a start, anyhow, and help relieve some of the burden on the taxpayers of having to support this scum that we don't want around anyway.

Sorry for the rant.

Originally posted by Ismail
reply to post by BlackOps719

 

Well, let's just round up and torture all the ugly guys who look like pedophiles. Just to be on the safe side. We all KNOW what these HIDEOUS monsters COULD DO TO LITTLE CHILDREN. This is ludicrous.

Those are your words friend, not mine. Im not a fan of arresting people for any crime based on looks, that is a ridiculous notion. In the Texas case there was overwhelming evidence that these people are guilty of the crimes they are being charged with. My point was that the guy in the photo certainly does look like a stereotypical child molestor. Sorry if you disagree.

Originally posted by Ismail
reply to post by BlackOps719

 

This getting better and better. Oh he "looks" like a pedophile does he ? The last guys who decided to sentence you to death because of the way you looked ( a crooked nose for example), were the the nazis.


[edit on 25-6-2008 by Ismail]

Ismail, I have two words for you: "Godwin's Law"

Just because you invoke the dreaded "nazi comparison" does not make you correct, or even in the same ballpark.

No one is saying to do anything to anyone that has not been properly convicted of child rape. Personally, I think that if the evidence is rock-solid, and there is no possible doubt as to who-dun-it, then the monster should be killed immediately, no appeals (OK, maybe one, just to be absolutely sure, but that's it). Kill them, put us out of their misery, and prevent another life from being destroyed. Kill one to save many. And money. Which has more value to me than the life of a child rapist.

Punishments should be proportionate to the crime. The perpetrator should be raped again, and again, and again (in a very dark room, by a very well endowed man). Child molesters operate off of a need to have power or dominance over another individual...that's why (most) of them target children. Why not turn the tables on them and use their own psychological deficiency against them? It's only "fair".

reply to post by BlackOps719


I think he just looks like an ugly redneck. Plenty of them, everywhere. Turns out he's a pedophile. Yep. So ? Believing people can be put into look based stereotypes is dangerous and best left to the third reich. If he was good looking, would you have said "Oh, my, who would have thought ?".
Do you have some kind of a gene based theory behind this ? Just curious...

Originally posted by BlackOps719
reply to post by aleon1018

 

Sex offenders are segregated from general population while in prison. They typically are housed away from other inmates and placed in what they call a special needs yard. Mostly reserved for snitches and gang drop outs and sex offenders. Typically people who can not live among the other inmates due to safety concerns.

Pedophiles, or 'Mo's" as they are called, generally do not last long in general population. They come in with a target on their backs, and it is considered the highest honor for another inmate to attack and or kill a "Mo". Gang members earn points within their own clique for killing a child molester.

There is a definate heirarchy and an honor system among convicts. They despise child rapists because most have kids on the outside. It strikes me as funny how a group of cons who are supposedly no good in the eyes of society can often times display a higher sense of honor and have a better understanding of right and wrong than most judges, D.A.'s and supposed criminal advocates.

[edit on 6/25/08 by BlackOps719]

They don't have a higher sense of honor, they just like hurting people and know that some people will excuse their actions as justifiable. It is like a free pass to murder, plus you get gang points.

Why should other criminals who have done other heinous crimes themselves get satisfaction from killing someone while they are incarcerated. This is not higher justice, it is BS.

A better understanding of right and wrong? They are in prison for breaking the law. How can you put these people on a pedestal? They are doing what you think is right but they are doing it for the wrong reasons. And in doing so it makes their jail time easier. How is that justice?

reply to post by keeb333


So invoking a moraly unquestionable subject "raping children is wrong", makes you right ? Yes it is wrong. So is killing another human being.

Originally posted by CallMeMaury
Also, you must wonder. If the person knows they stand to get the death penalty when they rape a child, they have no incentive to leave the child alive. Same punishment, no witness.

A raped child is better off than a dead child.

Just because someone rapes a child does not mean that they are murderers too. They are 2 different crimes. That would be like saying a murderer would probably rape if he knew that there was a death penalty attached to murder. "Might as well do all kinds of crimes since im going to die anyways". That is not how it generally works.

And most child rapists dont think they will get caught anyways. So, I dont think they are having rational thoughts in the head "well, since I will probably get caught and fried to death, I might as well murder too."

reply to post by Torsten


I think that they might have machines that could be used for this purpose (I won't link to one, just to maintain decorum, but some people use them for pleasure)...I don't see why part of the sentence could involve being strapped face-down, spread-eagled on a table for several hours a day with a machine. Now that's justice!! Heck, why limit it to several hours? Make them serve their entire sentence being robo-raped!

The thought that many of the elite, judges and jury who also may be high society freak shows makes me wonder who really pulls the strings in this country. Do the wrong thing and your name goes into a lottery of set ups. Planting evidence and using their own child prostitutes to wrongly convict someone?

Seriously, who is actually running this freak show on earth? It sounds more and more like hell to me. Imagine not believing you're in hell as the biggest lie.


I've heard about elite swingers clubs that also bring their children or someones children. I wonder how many are foster homes in Texas?

My two kids were taken away from my ex wife and the one told me a few stories about these. Many of these kids are also abusers. Just a kiddie prison of sorts.

When I heard about the kids taken away from the FLDS ranch and sent to foster homes, I thought that was even worse.

Why does this ruling suprise anyone????

The "liberal court" just came up with the decision of giving "terrorists" the same rights as U.S. citizens.

They have now made it "okay" to convey the rights of a U.S. Citizen on a person who is not a citizen.

How can we expect anything reasonable from them?

And these are supposed to be some of the most intellegent people in the country....I think not...

This was a no brainer and they can't figure it out.

reply to post by CallMeMaury




Because child rapists are the scum of the earth and they get what they deserve. Even a convicted criminal has enough sense to know what is basically right and wrong. They don't kill these people because it gets them a better life in prison, they do it because they recognize these dogs for what they truly are. Sub-human. Everyone knows that there are different levels of right and wrong, and some lines you do not cross.

Anyone who hurts or rapes a defenseless child deserves whatever can be thrown at them, and if they die in prison, oh well. Sorry but thats how I see it.

As far as the punishment of a child rapist.....death penalty is TOO EASY. But life in prison is NOT a punishment either. Not when you see the luxury life that some live within a prison.

The only solution is to throw them in a hole in the ground and let them slowly die there. No food and water. No contact with anyone. A slow torturous suffering death. They are useless and a danger to society and should never be part of it again.



[edit on 25-6-2008 by greeneyedleo]

Originally posted by Ismail
reply to post by keeb333

 

So invoking a moraly unquestionable subject "raping children is wrong", makes you right ? Yes it is wrong. So is killing another human being.

Agreed. The nazis were wrong, too. However, certain types of criminals are not able to be "cured" or reintegrated safely into society. These monsters should forfeit their lives by the very nature of their crimes. Greater harm is done to society by turning these things loose than by killing them outright. Once you rape a child, there is very little that you would NOT do thereafter, and as such it is in the best interest of humanity as a whole to rid ourselves of these elements. Someone mentioned exile, but since that does not appear to be an option, we are left with execution, which many would argue is too quick and easy considering the magnitude of the crime committed.

Yes killing another human being is wrong, but when that killing is being effected for the purpose of saving other human beings, it is justified.

reply to post by keeb333


Conviction does not equal "guilty". Are you ready to take the risk of killing an innocent if it may help save others ? And I redirect you to the study I quoted. 1,5% of pedophiles "do it again". So 98.5 will not. Who are you protecting by killing them ?

reply to post by Ismail


It's a bit difficult to for me to read the study you quoted as I do not read French and could not see an English translation. With my knowledge of Latin, I was able to pick out some words here and there, but for all I know that article could be about anything. At any rate, the statistics for repeat (and first) offenders are difficult to measure accurately, because they are only reflective of the ones that are CAUGHT....most never are, and many that are released from a first conviction go on to offend again, but are never caught. How should we deal with these cases, if not to nip the behavior in the bud by executing the perps?


Also, if you would bother to read my posts, you would see that I am only advocating death for those who are absolutely proven to be guilty (which is in fact possible using modern forensic methods). If there is any doubt at all, then they should not be executed until all facts are resolved and undisputed. So, in my hypothetical world, such a conviction would be equivalent to guilt. Once such guilt is proven, then execution should be dealt swiftly.

Besides, anyone that would perp on a child just does not deserve to live. I don't see how any rational person could argue with that.

[edit on 25-6-2008 by keeb333]

reply to post by Ismail



Why wouldn't they? It is no different than imposing the death panalty for capital murder cases. I believe it should be a case by case basis, and if the crime is horrific enough and the evidence is overwhelming then they should have to pay the ultimate price for their actions.

To be honest I see child rape as more deserving of the death penalty than a lot of cases of murder, because in extenuating cases there are legitimate or at least understandable reasons for killing another person.

There is never a situation where it is ok in any way shape or form to molest a little kid. Never. Ever. End of story.



[edit on 6/25/08 by BlackOps719]

Originally posted by BlackOps719
reply to post by Ismail

 

There is never a situation where it is ok in any way shape or form to molest a little kid. Never. Ever. End of story.

That pretty much sums up my feelings, too. Not sure I could have put it any better!



How can anyone argue otherwise with a straight face?

reply to post by keeb333




I dunno....I think some of these people must work for the ACLU part time or something. I am all for equal rights and human rights and just about any other rights, but to try and defend people so vile and repulsive is an abomination to common sense and human decency.

You know what they say though, even a werewolf is entitled to legal representation.