Thursday, June 26, 2008

Kill 'em


The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that states cannot impose the death penalty on people who rape children. There's a debate in this country about whether we should have a death penalty at all, but since we do, why shouldn't the lowest forms of sexual predators be subject to it? To get an idea of the thinking behind the court's majority decision, here is an excerpt from an Associated Press story about the 5-4 ruling:

Rape and other crimes "may be as devastating in their harm ... but 'in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public,' they cannot be compared to murder in their 'severity and irrevocability,'" (Justice Anthony) Kennedy said, quoting from earlier decisions.

So, rapes can be as devastating as murder, but such crimes can't be compared to murder in their "severity." I'm guessing Justice Kennedy has never been the victim of rape. Nor have I. But while the suffering usually ends quickly for a murder victim, a person who is raped has to live with that horror for their rest of their life. And when a child is involved, it becomes even more heinous. I think it's highly appropriate to kill someone who would sexually assault a child, and I think the law approved in Texas in 2007 is a good framework for a national standard. The Texas measure allows imposition of the death penalty on a predator who is convicted twice of raping a child under the age of 14. The Supreme Court decision came in response to a case from Louisiana, where two men were under death sentences for raping girls under the age of 10. The author of that state's law, former Republican state Rep. Pete Schneider, had this to say to the five justices who overturned the measure: "When are you going to have the courage to stand up for what's right for all of the people - but especially the children ... that have been brutally raped by monsters?" That's a good question.

Labels:

6 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't agree with the death penalty, but I would apply the term "depraved" to a child rapist sooner than to a murderer.

June 26, 2008 at 12:48 PM  
Blogger PRIguy said...

I will NEVER understand why these liberal judges continue to side with the criminals! This infuriates me to no end.

Here's a simple summary of things:

We live in a civilized society. Even though we are free to do as we please, there are boundaries. When those boundaries are crossed, whoever crosses the line no longer is a part of civilized society, and thus subjects him or herself to the pertinent punishment AND treatment.

There should be mandatory death penalty for certain crimes. Rape, whether of an adult or a child is one. Murder is one. Child molestation is one. You can't rehabilitate a child molester or a rapist. These beasts are like a cancerous tumor. You might be able to slow a tumor's growth for a while, but you never really cure it. You must remove it. Thus, we must remove these animals from society. I promise you that when you put them to death, they'll never commit a crime again.

I don't want to hear about cruel and unusual punishment. Or the ridiculous argument that lethal injection is painful. Is there anything more cruel and unusual than raping a child??? Didn't that child suffer? And now some people want me to give a flying crap about a criminal's pain??? HELL NO!!! I want to see that animal killed. I want to see them suffer. I hope they suffer a hell of a lot.

You see, I live on the side of the boundaries where laws are obeyed, where human life is respected. The previous comment about life being respected doesn't pertain to criminals. Remember, they have chosen to commit a crime and thereby have voluntarily given up their rights to be treated like a human being.

We just have to quit coddling criminals. We have to start considering the victims. Until we get judges with a sense of decency and a moral compass, this horrible behavior will continue. I don't know how these judges can look at themselves in the mirror.

June 26, 2008 at 1:14 PM  
Blogger Ellipses said...

I am kinda busy today, Priguy... would you mind not beating around the bush and tell us how you really feel about it?

Thanks,
Ellipses

June 26, 2008 at 1:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thou shalt not kill. Unless you think there are Weapons of Mass Destruction in the country

June 26, 2008 at 1:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is Grog...half the time my identity username doesn't work??

Hey Gasa..I love these boards. But hate the subject matter of the post. It makes me sick and angry.

Castration, instead of killing these child rapists, might be the answer? It would not be killing these animals...thus staying within Christian boundaries. Then the perpetrators could live the rest of their lives knowing they harmed a child every time they look down at their genitals.

Maybe it would thwart some criminally insane SOB that contemplates raping a child, if he knew his balls were going to be hacked off??

Or better yet, send all the insane rapists to an island with no food and let them rape themselves silly. Maybe they could send the severed genitals of the incarcerated rapists to the island for food?

I have no sympathy or tolerance for anyone who harms a child....none!

June 26, 2008 at 3:40 PM  
Blogger PRIguy said...

I'm sorry ellipses. Sometimes I get a little bit shy and reticent. I'll mull it over and see if I can't express my opinion with a bit more pique.

Hi Grog. Consider castration. Rape is not a sex crime. It's a crime of anger, rage, control. Forced sex is merely the way the rapist vents his rage. To him, it's no different than someone shooting someone he's angry at or beating the hell out of someone.

So, if you castrate these men, not only do they no longer have an outlet, for want of a better word, for their rage, now it's bottled up inside them. What can that possibly lead to? These are not normal people. They will find a way to vent that rage. They have no remorse. If they did, they'd never repeat the crime. So you have to get rid of them. There's no reason to burden taxpayers by keeping them in prison for life. What are we keeping them alive for?

I know that every life is sacred, and so on, but again, that pertains to those who choose to NOT rape, rob, kill and steal. And while I understand your views, Grog, your last sentence seems to be hiding a little more anger than you might want to let on. Hmmm?

June 26, 2008 at 4:25 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home