Court rejects death penalty for raping children

[robr]

I'm just playing devil's advocate here... I voted for Ron Paul too....

So, if a state decided that the death penalty was warranted for drunk driving or, god forbid, 3 speeding tickets in a year, that should be it?

 

[flaminio]

I'm just playing devil's advocate here... I voted for Ron Paul too....

So, if a state decided that the death penalty was warranted for drunk driving or, god forbid, 3 speeding tickets in a year, that should be it?

Good question. My inclination is that it's still up to the states, but those cases are clearly "excessive" and "unusual". I would hope the citizenry of any state that tried to enact such penalties would rise up and overthrow their elected officials.

 

[Sarge]

if you destroy a womans soul by raping her(or an 8year old girl WTF) death penalty should be availible, especialy in brutal cases, like an 8year old girl! wtf is wrong with people.

I can tell you what's wrong with people. Most of them are stupid. About 99% And when you have stupid people in large groups they vote for "like minded" politicians. AKA Retards who make these laws possible. Of course if they had a 8 yr old daughter that something terrible happened to they may think twice. But thats the problem, most of the children of politicians dont live in the real world. And most Law makers are SOOOO DUMB that even if A real tragic event was committed within their family...they would still stand behind their Law just to make themself appear moral and confident.

 

[naaman]

I can tell you what's wrong with people. Most of them are stupid. About 99% And when you have stupid people in large groups they vote for "like minded" politicians. AKA Retards who make these laws possible. Of course if they had a 8 yr old daughter that something terrible happened to they may think twice. But thats the problem, most of the children of politicians dont live in the real world. And most Law makers are SOOOO DUMB that even if A real tragic event was committed within their family...they would still stand behind their Law just to make themself appear moral and confident.

Here, here!

 

[robr]

Good question. My inclination is that it's still up to the states, but those cases are clearly "excessive" and "unusual". I would hope the citizenry of any state that tried to enact such penalties would rise up and overthrow their elected officials.

One could hope the citizenry would be that intelligent, but from what I know about it, CA's three strikes law is already something I'd consider excessive and unusual when using things like shoplifting and multiple charges resulting from a single crime as individual strikes. To me, the difference between life in prison and the death penalty is pretty minimal.

 

[naaman]

Yeah... but it's still up to the jury to convict the person.

OTOH, If the person knows he's risking life in prison by committing his third strike, you gotta ask yourself... does he even WANT to stay out of jail?

Some crimes are more "incidental" than others, of course, and do not really bring into question the moral/ethical character of the individual. That is the ideal of the trial by jury, no? For peers to judge whether that person is a burden or threat to society.

For crimes that are malicious in nature, I'd have no problem putting someone in jail for life. If the single crime contained multiple charges that counted against the three strikes, then I'd say that the possibilty of parol was madatory after (or at every) expiration of the "normal" sentence for the crime(s).

As to whether that's reality... well... :redface:

 

[robr]

Some crimes are more "incidental" than others, of course, and do not really bring into question the moral/ethical character of the individual. That is the ideal of the trial by jury, no? For peers to judge whether that person is a burden or threat to society.

But that's not the job of the jury. They are there to determine innocence or guilt. I would have to imagine if someone is up against strike 3 for shoplifting, the jury would be instructed that their job is to determine whether or not he shoplifted and leave the sentencing to the judge. They're supposed to be impartial, but really how can you be impartial in a case like that. I could never send someone to prison for life for shoplifting (unless strike 1 and 2 were heinous and violent and the jury may never even hear about those).

 

[naaman]

But that's not the job of the jury. They are there to determine innocence or guilt. I would have to imagine if someone is up against strike 3 for shoplifting, the jury would be instructed that their job is to determine whether or not he shoplifted and leave the sentencing to the judge. They're supposed to be impartial, but really how can you be impartial in a case like that. I could never send someone to prison for life for shoplifting (unless strike 1 and 2 were heinous and violent and the jury may never even hear about those).

Well, yeah... but I guess my point was that if multiple charges are brought up, the jury may find guilty on some and not guilty on others. Looking at my previous post I wasn't specific enough about that, though...

Oh well.

One other thing is that the advantage of the jury is that they can relate to the defendant (or to the plaintiff) and so can consider any "gray" areas.