|
|
Post by debster on Apr 17, 2008 11:01:04 GMT -5
okay, as you probably all know, the supreme court has been given the task of deciding whether the state of louisiana has the right to execute a 43 year old man. the crime he committed was the rape of his 8 year old step daughter. now, from all i've heard, this rape wasn't text book penetration, it was so savage that the girl had to undergo surgery to repair all of the damage, and yet will probably have multiple physical (not to mention the mental) problems for the rest of her life. the bastard really did a job on her.
i'm not opposed to the death penalty, and have seen, in my lifetime, some really sick fucks that truly did not deserve another breath of life. however is this a crime that warrants the death penalty?
|
|
|
|
Post by sharpie marker on Apr 17, 2008 11:08:32 GMT -5
Frankly, I don't like the idea of the government having the right to kill anyone. Life in prison is no fun, especially for a crime like this, and that's good enough in my book.
|
|
|
|
Post by debster on Apr 17, 2008 11:24:40 GMT -5
in most instances i would totally agree with that. and more times than not a really sick fuck gets knocked off in prison anyway, but.... there have been instances where people have committed some crimes that are just so mind bogglingly disturbing that sending them to their room for a life-long time-out just doesn't seem fitting. joseph mengala comes to mind first. the couple that thought it was fun to kidnap a little girl and keep her in their basement while torturing her daily and performing different "experiments" just to see if she could survive them until they finally killed her by injecting her with draino? nope. life is precious and some people don't deserve that gift. in my humble opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharpie marker on Apr 17, 2008 11:33:58 GMT -5
Like I said, to me it's not about whether someone deserves to live or die. It's whether the government has a right to make that choice. I don't like that they have that power, regardless of who they apply it to.
|
|
|
|
Post by surfer5 on Apr 17, 2008 11:47:40 GMT -5
okay, but back to the original question. to answer the question asked, you would have to assume that the government does, in fact, have the right to perform executions for haneous enough crimes. the question wasn't one of the fairness and appropriateness of government's taking lives. the question is, assuming that they do, does this person deserve that treatment?
in my opinion (again, assuming that the government is entitled to such rights), i believe this crime fits the bill. it was deliberate. it was horrible. it physically and mentally permanently scarred an innocent defenseless 8 y/o girl. and, probably worse of all, the girl was someone that he had dominion over. he was supposed to protect her from animals like him.
so, if the government should have the right to capital punishment, then light his ass up. if not, then hand him over to the rest of the family and let them deal with it. if it were my family, the only objection i would have is that someone killed him and it wasn't me.
|
|
|
|
Post by surfer5 on Apr 17, 2008 11:47:55 GMT -5
and, for the record, i am against capital punishment.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharpie marker on Apr 17, 2008 11:59:48 GMT -5
Nope, sorry. In the specific or the general, I do not think the government should kill people under their control. Regardless of crime. So, no, I don't think the government should kill this dude.
Anyway, some convict would off the guy soon enough.
Are you asking if I believe he should be killed, regardless of who does it? I don't feel like that's my call, but it wouldn't make me frown if someone shanked him, that's for sure. I would be very sympathetic toward a member of her family if they caught and killed him.
|
|
|
|
Post by debster on Apr 17, 2008 12:28:41 GMT -5
and, for the record, i am against capital punishment. so noted. but here's the real kicker to this question. whatever decision the courts make, whether to execute or life in prison, where is the line drawn? a heinous crime, right? what made it made it heinous? the fact that she had to have her uterous reconstructed or the fact that she sustained lifetime injuries? would psychological injuries be included under that same umbrella? and wouldn't the fact that it was the rape of a child be considered heinous? and what if the girl was not 8 but 15? still considered legally a child. and what if the rapist was not 43, but 17? the problem is that this case will set a precedence. rape is an unconsciousable crime, and this one was especially brutal. but not all rape cases deserve life imprisonment. so where do you draw the line? the case that i heard used as an example was of a 17 year old boy who spent 2 years in prison for receiving consentual oral sex from his 15 year old girlfriend. ridiculous, right? yet what the supreme court decides for the case before them now could potentially add years to what this young man would've served. my heart tells me that this douche-bag deserves to have his balls served to him on a dirty paper plate. but my head tells me that the state of louisiana should have approached this as something other than a "rape against a minor" case. |
|
|
|
Post by surfer5 on Apr 17, 2008 12:37:30 GMT -5
well that is the problem with the court system. if they can't distinguish between a 17 y/o boy getting consensual head from his 15 y/o girlfriend and a 43 y/o man brutally raping his 8 y/o daughter, then they have no business guiding justice in this country anyway. statutory rape is not rape in this sense. and, until fairly recent times (relative to the history of civilized society) statutory rape wasn't even a crime. hell, jerry lee lewis married his 15 y/o cousin in the 50's.
there is an obvious distinction to me. if my 15 y/o daughter got caught having consensual sex with her boyfriend i might get pissed. probably tell her to break it off and all of that other irrational parent crap. but if my 8 y/o daughter got raped and the damage was so significant that she had to have her reproductive system re-engineered by surgeons? that guy would hope to be caught by the police first. there is a difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharpie marker on Apr 17, 2008 12:39:24 GMT -5
Of course there is a difference. But there are plenty of religious nutjobs out there who would love to see any sex not sanctified by holy marriage listed as a major crime, which leads to shit like two teens hauled in for mutual stat.
|
|
|
|
Post by debster on Apr 17, 2008 12:53:57 GMT -5
exactly!! i don't want to see this guy end up with a whack-to-the-pee-pee any more than anyone else does, but the way it's being approached is from a very "broad stroke" (no pun intended). and there ARE a lot of religious nutjobs out there and a few of them are sitting in judges robes in a very high court. and there are several other states (montana, texas, wyoming) trying to put pressure on the courts to put this guy in a chair so that they can handle their cases similarly. i know i don't have to worry about rape charges of any kind being charged against me in my lifetime, but this is an interesting (in a very distasteful way) case. if i were a 17 yr old boy, i'd be watching this one very carefully.
|
|
|
|
Post by surfer5 on Apr 17, 2008 12:59:40 GMT -5
i don't know. i don't see the issue. to me, saying that its scary what they to do this guy because it might affect underage consensual sex is like saying im worried what they will do with ted bundy because it might affect someone who kills someone to save their life.
trust me, i KNOW the scary shit about statutory rape, okay? and i know this country is ape-shit way over the line on most of that stuff. but these are apples and oranges. and if someone tries to execute some 17 y/o kid for having sex with his girlfriend, im moving to mexico with hank's mom.
|
|
|
|
Post by debster on Apr 17, 2008 13:31:22 GMT -5
hey, i got first dibs.
i'm not saying that they're going to start executing people for statutory rape charges. what i'm saying is that we are way over the line with some of these things and that by approaching this case the way that they are approaching it they are trying to drag it even further over that line. it's a huge jump to go from 15 years in prison to the death sentence for a rape case. and if they agree that execution is fitting judgement for a rape against a child, what will the cause and effect be for other cases that in anyway involve rape, of any kind? once a life is on the line some very distinct lines will have to be drawn. and i'm glad i'm not the one with the pencil. but we do have a very conservative supreme court right now and it will be interesting to see if and where those lines are drawn.
|
|
|
|
Post by surfer5 on Apr 17, 2008 13:45:17 GMT -5
yea, i see your point. more clearly now than before. and that part does scare me. adding fuel to an already irrationally high fire is scary. okay, i get your point.
|
|
|
|
Post by debster on Apr 17, 2008 14:05:42 GMT -5
i still feel like this guys deserves..... (*&#%%*&#(*%($#%*(&#!!!!!! it just shouldn't be handled as a rape case.
but as a result of this case texas just passed a law that states someone raping a child under 14 is eligible for the death penalty (although that will still have to be upheld by the supreme court). don't know about you, but i know a lot of girls that lost their virginity at 13. i'm sure they won't get it in most cases, but the fact that they can attempt to is pretty daunting.
|
|
