RubySoho
Winston
Why We Shouldn't Execute Child-Raping Scumbags: An Opinion
April 21st 2008 21:39
Here in America (more specifically, in the gumbo-loving state of Louisiana) there is a debate going on regarding the proper penalty for child rapists. The Louisiana State Legislature, apparently with the support of their constituency, is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to be allowed to use capital punishment in cases of child rape where the child survives. I would be hard pressed to think of a more emotionally-laden, loaded issue.
First, full disclosure on my part, so that you understand the point of view from which I'm approaching the topic. I am pro-death penalty in very limited circumstances. In instances where premeditation is demonstrated, or in cases of extreme sadism and brutality, wherein there is no reasonable doubt (i.e. there are witnesses or forensic and circumstantial evidence that is practically incontrovertible) I support the state's right to execute an individual. In those cases, my position is simple. When you callously remove an individual's right to life, you forfeit the right to your own. The punishment is amenable to the crime. This is where I am now, although I continue to evaluate my support of capital punishment. Who knows, at some point I suppose that I could come to oppose the death penalty in any circumstances, even the limited ones I described, but I'm not there yet.
With that being said, do I have any sympathy at all for someone morally bankrupt enough to rape a child? No, not even a sliver. Nor, I imagine, does anyone of sufficient character. At my own baser level, I have no personal problem with visiting the worst punishments imaginable upon someone who is capable of abusing the body and crushing the psyche of an innocent young boy or girl. But our baser levels are of poor service to us when it comes to making rational decisions. Let me elaborate.
The term "slippery slope" is often (too often, perhaps) employed in matters such as this, wherein there is speculation that one decision/law/behavior will lead to another of the same type but of a higher (or lower) magnitude. For example, gay marriage opponents speculate that legalizing gay marriage will open the door to normalizing other taboo types of relations, such as bestiality or even incest. There is little reason to give credence to this argument. It is carried out to an absurd conclusion, with no credible evidence that such an outcome is likely or even possible. Slippery slope arguments are generally best avoided, as they provide little heft outside of idle speculation. However, there are times when it is necessary to ruminate on the possible outcomes of our actions. In the case of executions for rapists, the slippery slope argument could well lead to executing people for any number of non-lethal crimes, up to and including loitering. The only limit to a ridiculous argument is one's ability to imagine ridiculous things. Long before one reaches asinine territory, though, there are some real minefields to be traversed. Foremost of these is: once we approve State executions for crimes in which the victim was not killed (nor intended to be killed by the perpetrator), how do we draw a line as to which crimes are not punishable by death?
The word "rape" carries extra emotional baggage, even when compared to words like "beat" or "murder". Rape is such a supreme violation of another human being that, even though there are other, equally devastating forms of violence out there, it just seems worse. Still, if child-rapists are to be executed, why not non-sexual child abusers? Beating a child to within an inch of his life is every bit as malicious and cruel as sexually damaging a child. Another point to ponder is at what age would we choose not to pursue the death penalty? The child in the case linked to above is eight. Do we set the cap at ten? Twelve? Sixteen? At what age is violent rape not worthy of capital punishment? Once rape of children is punishable by death, it would be a logical step for a rape victim's advocacy group to lobby to extend that punishment to all rapists. At this point others may wonder why any violent crime is not punishable by death, if the severity merits it. Where is the line? I fear that this argument in the state of Louisiana is being fueled by an emotionally charged word rather than by a real analysis of the facts and repercussions.
It is not unlikely that at least some of the above scenarios might come to pass. And why shouldn't they? Why should a rapist who targets a ten-year-old girl be executed, while someone who rapes an eighteen-year-old girl might get ten years in prison? Is the act made any less violent or cruel by virtue of the victim being a little older? Does a girl of twenty have fewer nightmares, suffer less? Why should someone who beats a child or an adult, and possibly cripples them permanently, not be subject to the same punishment absent a sexual element to the crime? We, as a society, must make a decision. Either rape is punishable by death, regardless of the age of the victim, or it isn't. In order to make that decision, we must conclude whether or not it is justifiable to punish by death any crimes in which a life was not taken. In my opinion it is not. We have for some time now used that criteria as the measure of when it is acceptable to use capital punishment, and, although our judicial system has some significant flaws, the reasoning behind that criteria is obvious: no less a crime than the taking of another life is punishable by death. The line is drawn clearly for all to see. But if the sand shifts and the line is wiped out we risk opening some doors leading to places we should not tread. The answer to this question could have far-reaching consequences for our nation. It is not a conversation to be taken lightly, and our answers must be consistent. Otherwise we risk falling down that slippery slope over yonder.
First, full disclosure on my part, so that you understand the point of view from which I'm approaching the topic. I am pro-death penalty in very limited circumstances. In instances where premeditation is demonstrated, or in cases of extreme sadism and brutality, wherein there is no reasonable doubt (i.e. there are witnesses or forensic and circumstantial evidence that is practically incontrovertible) I support the state's right to execute an individual. In those cases, my position is simple. When you callously remove an individual's right to life, you forfeit the right to your own. The punishment is amenable to the crime. This is where I am now, although I continue to evaluate my support of capital punishment. Who knows, at some point I suppose that I could come to oppose the death penalty in any circumstances, even the limited ones I described, but I'm not there yet.
With that being said, do I have any sympathy at all for someone morally bankrupt enough to rape a child? No, not even a sliver. Nor, I imagine, does anyone of sufficient character. At my own baser level, I have no personal problem with visiting the worst punishments imaginable upon someone who is capable of abusing the body and crushing the psyche of an innocent young boy or girl. But our baser levels are of poor service to us when it comes to making rational decisions. Let me elaborate.
The term "slippery slope" is often (too often, perhaps) employed in matters such as this, wherein there is speculation that one decision/law/behavior will lead to another of the same type but of a higher (or lower) magnitude. For example, gay marriage opponents speculate that legalizing gay marriage will open the door to normalizing other taboo types of relations, such as bestiality or even incest. There is little reason to give credence to this argument. It is carried out to an absurd conclusion, with no credible evidence that such an outcome is likely or even possible. Slippery slope arguments are generally best avoided, as they provide little heft outside of idle speculation. However, there are times when it is necessary to ruminate on the possible outcomes of our actions. In the case of executions for rapists, the slippery slope argument could well lead to executing people for any number of non-lethal crimes, up to and including loitering. The only limit to a ridiculous argument is one's ability to imagine ridiculous things. Long before one reaches asinine territory, though, there are some real minefields to be traversed. Foremost of these is: once we approve State executions for crimes in which the victim was not killed (nor intended to be killed by the perpetrator), how do we draw a line as to which crimes are not punishable by death?
The word "rape" carries extra emotional baggage, even when compared to words like "beat" or "murder". Rape is such a supreme violation of another human being that, even though there are other, equally devastating forms of violence out there, it just seems worse. Still, if child-rapists are to be executed, why not non-sexual child abusers? Beating a child to within an inch of his life is every bit as malicious and cruel as sexually damaging a child. Another point to ponder is at what age would we choose not to pursue the death penalty? The child in the case linked to above is eight. Do we set the cap at ten? Twelve? Sixteen? At what age is violent rape not worthy of capital punishment? Once rape of children is punishable by death, it would be a logical step for a rape victim's advocacy group to lobby to extend that punishment to all rapists. At this point others may wonder why any violent crime is not punishable by death, if the severity merits it. Where is the line? I fear that this argument in the state of Louisiana is being fueled by an emotionally charged word rather than by a real analysis of the facts and repercussions.
It is not unlikely that at least some of the above scenarios might come to pass. And why shouldn't they? Why should a rapist who targets a ten-year-old girl be executed, while someone who rapes an eighteen-year-old girl might get ten years in prison? Is the act made any less violent or cruel by virtue of the victim being a little older? Does a girl of twenty have fewer nightmares, suffer less? Why should someone who beats a child or an adult, and possibly cripples them permanently, not be subject to the same punishment absent a sexual element to the crime? We, as a society, must make a decision. Either rape is punishable by death, regardless of the age of the victim, or it isn't. In order to make that decision, we must conclude whether or not it is justifiable to punish by death any crimes in which a life was not taken. In my opinion it is not. We have for some time now used that criteria as the measure of when it is acceptable to use capital punishment, and, although our judicial system has some significant flaws, the reasoning behind that criteria is obvious: no less a crime than the taking of another life is punishable by death. The line is drawn clearly for all to see. But if the sand shifts and the line is wiped out we risk opening some doors leading to places we should not tread. The answer to this question could have far-reaching consequences for our nation. It is not a conversation to be taken lightly, and our answers must be consistent. Otherwise we risk falling down that slippery slope over yonder.
| 75 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Mvsevm of Skin
Personally, though, I don't have a real opinion on this topic. For me, when it comes to crime and punishment, I'm a huge proponent of Hammurabi's Code.
I mean, just look at it. The things you could do to a bastard.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
How unusual in this age of terror.
I don't agree with the death penalty in any circumstances. I've never understood how any state could punish a crime by committing the exact same act as the crime in question with a straight face. It's not justice, it's biblical vengeance.
But I agree with your argument here.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
interesting that you bring up the slippery slope with homosexuality as i believe it would be a decision that may be used to persecute the queer community . . . a 19 yo boy with a 17yo boyfriend charged with statutory rape and sentenced to death due to homophobia, i can see it all now
although i couldnt morally agree with the state executing rapists or pedophiles i would expect leniency towards "revenge crimes" of passion by the victims and their families . . . and financial compensation from the perpetrator and the state
unfortunately you cant undo a crime, not even with the death of the criminal . . . we can remove him from society to prevent him from hurting others, and we can try to stop the cycle of abuse in our culture with education, accountability, and keeping the issues out in the open
i really enjoyed your arguments of the issues, it was a rational and valuable discussion
Comment by Cheryl J
Funny Videos
Rhythmatism
Zentertainment
There are certainly people in society who by their actions certainly deserve death but as Morgan stated, you cannot undo a crime even with the death of the criminal. I have absolutely no problem with them locking them up and throwing away the key though. And if someone receives a life sentence, it should mean life, full stop. The only good thing about child rapists living out their sentences is that other prisoners have a very special place for them in their heirarchy and most often the punishment really does fit the crime.
Thanks for putting forward a well thought out, sound argument.
Comment by Mvsevm of Skin
As desensitized as I am to most things, the horrors that occur in-film (and off) is absolutely revolting. Not only do females, both old and young, get repeatedly gang raped by both militants and non-militants alike. They are later mutilated and tortured at the hands of their attackers, sometimes via way of sticks and gun butts. Torn insides, destroyed bladders, the burning of anuses, etc. There was even one instance where a mother was forced to eat her dead child.
Luckily, the U.N. is there to keep things safe and sound. :-/
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
This was a tough one. It's purely subjective, as I can't possibly pretend that my thoughts on this are any better or worse than anyone else's. I tried very hard to look at it rationally, but it wasn't an easy thing to do. As I stated, my reasons for not wanting execution for these monsters has nothing to do with any concern for their well-being -- I could really care less what happens to them (I think Cheryl summed that feeling up rather nicely). It's more my concern for the precedent we would set and how it could impact the law.
My wife's best friend works for DSS (Department of Social Services) in the state of New York. She specializes in cases of abuse involving children. I don't know how she does it, as she has some bad stories. I'm going to share one of the worst here, in as little detail as possible. This case involved a baby, maybe six months old or so. The baby had been sexually abused, not just once, and not in a fit of passion or compulsion. This man, realizing the physical problems involved in abusing such a young child, knew that he had to stretch out the girl's vagina in order to accommodate him. So he spent weeks using ever larger implements (a pencil, then a pen, then a marker, and so on) until he could perform sexual acts upon her himself. I think of that and I wonder, why shouldn't that man die? The cold, methodical nature of his crimes is completely inhuman. Justice and mercy seems wasted on scum like him. I realize that it is critical that justice is given to everyone, even those undeserving of it, but it isn't always easy. You mentioned vengeance, Ruby. There are instances where it's hard not to want it. I still don't know that it isn't sometimes merited. I may never be able to fully reconcile my thoughts on that. With that being the case, I tend to err on the side of caution. If something like this were ever to hit closer to home with me, who knows what I might think then?
Thanks to all of you for your comments and opinions.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
I view it the same way I view torture- if we advocate it, then we are also inhuman. As you yourself put it, where will it end?
Comment by Mvsevm of Skin
But I completely respect your viewpoint, Ruby; a head like yours helps keep my own in check.
Comment by Anonymous
-Execution or torture as punishment? Promoting those would make us no better than the perpetrator, right?
-Life in prison? Better build a lot more prisons, then, and be prepared to have your tax dollars tapped into for that. Also, if the perpetrator has no concept of the rights/feelings/freedoms of others, how do we even know life imprisonment is punishment to this person?
-Counseling--does this really work? I've yet to find any solid proof that counseling works for pedophiles. Can anyone out there cite an example or two?
I was raped by an 18-year-old when I was 4. From my side of the issue, I would agree with Immanuel Kant as well as ancient Hebrew society and say respectively, "If the guilty are not punished, justice has not been served" and "Let the punishment fit the crime".
My innocence cannot be replaced by money or blood. I would like to see punishment harsh enough to deter would-be rapists. Surgical castration (not painful/torturous-simply anesthetised removal of the sex organ) isn't too harsh in my opinion, Fits the crime and ensures no repeat performances. Also prevents the spread of a bad seed.
Just my opinion; I am a diehard pragmatist above all else.
D. Armenta, still on the road.
Hi Winston!
Comment by Mvsevm of Skin
And I agree. Chemical castrations and other methods are completely outside the boundaries of what one would consider cruel and unusual punishment (though some people truly deserve the Fist). When pedophiles themselves are requesting castrations, well, it only shows how deep the river runs, and how we can't treat it with anything but the damming of the source, even if it needs to be of the surgical kind.
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
I agree with you wholeheartedly. As I vacillate back and forth on how I feel about this issue, one of the things that I keep coming back to is that I truly think that the hardcore cases are beyond the reach of counseling and therapy. So, we can't kill them, and we can't "rehabilitate" them. House them for a few decades on the State's dime? To what end, other than lots and lots of taxpayer money? The best solution, then, is just as you've stated. If you have a poisonous snake that you want to render harmless, remove the fangs. Not only is that solution pragmatic (as I expect from you), it is the most just.
Thanks so much for weighing in, and please come back to Orble soon!
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
Hi Skin--yeah, my lizard-brain would love to take care of that with a rusty butter knife, but I don't allow my lizard-brain to dictate my actions...chemical castration? I'm going to check out your link-haven't heard of it before. Sounds more effective and less costly than surgery.
Thanks all-back soon.
Comment by Cheryl J
Funny Videos
Rhythmatism
Zentertainment
The castration is a great idea, as long as it's not chemical castration and they take everything off so that the bastards have to pee via a bag. Chemical castration relies on the taking of or administration of drugs. If they skip town and go on the run then they are perfectly able to start again. There is also the worry that quite often the sexual abuse of children is not always a sexual thing, it is, like most rape, a power trip. If they cannot use their own genitalia they would, as in the above examples resort to using implements.
I can't even type this out without feeling sick and a thorough sense of rage. If I had children and somebody raped them, I know that I would hunt them to the ends of the earth to exact revenge. Rational? Absolutely not but I think something like that would send me insane.
This has been one of the most thought provoking posts I have read in a long while Winston. I'll be pointing a number of my non-orble buddies to read it.
Comment by Mvsevm of Skin
And I agree with not using chemical castrations, pretty much for the very reasons you stated. Personally, I say off with their heads. But we have to remember; like anything, there are degrees involved with child sex offenders. Some people do in fact deserve the Fist. Others, however, have issues that run far deeper, yet which are far more innocent than those of the sadist. These are the people who live in that gray area, the one that begs us to ask, "just what the heck do we do with these people?"
[Child sex offenders'] motives vary. For some offenders, it's about control; for others, an opportunity was simply present; while quite a few develop a sexual deviance that compels them to seek a specific type of victim. Sex offenders with adult victims generally have one of three motives - anger, power and sadism - but child sex offenders present four basic types:
Regressed - usually a one-time offender who feels inadequate
Naïve - an offender who does view their act in terms of right and wrong
Fixated - offenders stuck in adolescence who claim to "love" children
Mysopeds - offenders who seek to hurt someone
Click here to see how Crime Library further breaks down the Child Sex Offender
Comment by Mvsevm of Skin
And there's nothing wrong with a tiny, reptilian brain, as long as it's being used to full capacity. Plus, who wouldn't want to be Lizardman for a day.
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
Try not to overanalyze things, folks. Permanent castration would stop or deter a lot of sexual crimes.
Skin--the lizardbrain is only a minute portion of my massive, freakishly huge thinking organ. See my photo? That's not my neck-it's my thorax.
Damn, did I just say that? Now my secret's out.
Comment by Mvsevm of Skin
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan