In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Death Penalty for Repeat Child Rapists

Lauren

Zuzu’s post below reminded me of the most-thought provoking bit of news I found yesterday, particularly because the young men in this awful OC rape trial (documented expertly for some time by PFH) were only sentenced to six years apiece for violently gang-raping an unconscious young woman, videotaping it, and smearing her name across the country’s newspapers using the same old argument we always use against rape victims: She was a slut and she wanted it. But I digress.

My ears perked up when I saw this bit of news on television yesterday evening. The Oklahoma Senate has approved the death penalty for repeat child molesters and could be signed into law any day. The bill, brought by Democratic senator Jay Paul Gumm, was approved by a bi-partisan majority and is expected to be on the desk of the governor next week.

Under the bill by Sen. Jay Paul Gumm, D-Durant, a second sex offense against a child could subject someone to execution or life in prison without parole.

Some senators questioned the bill’s constitutionality since the U.S. Supreme Court had required aggravating circumstances to be present in murder cases that lead to the death penalty.

To the chagrin of many readers and friends, I am not against the death penalty. I agree with many of the problematic points people have laid out — many of which Jill details in this post and even more points hashed out in the comments — but I’m ultimately not concerned with whether or not the death penalty is a deterrant for the crimes of others, especially when it comes to sexual assault.

For obvious reasons, I have zero sympathy for perpetrators of sexual assault, especially repeat offenders, and their apologists. As a parent I’d want to see the fuckers fry, not merely sentenced to a decade in prison. I’m human.

Nonetheless, this bill debatably unconstitutional not only because of the “aggravation” terms for the death penalty mentioned above, but also because of Coker v. Georgia. (Calling all lawyers.)

Issue: Whether the crime of rape committed by a criminal with past serious criminal record can be punished by a death sentence.

Holding: No

Rationale: The court ruled the death sentence was too excessive for the crime of rape. The court considered the statistics of how states were stepping away from death sentences in rape cases and used these statistics to back up its ruling. The court reasoned that death sentence in itself is not cruel and unusual, but this sentence in a rape case is too disproportionately excessive. The court stated: “a punishment is excessive and unconstitutional if it 1. makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment and hence is nothing more than the purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering; or 2. is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime.” In the current case, an adult woman was raped and even though it was a serious crime, but still it was not as serious as a murder. So the death sentence was simply too harsh. Sentence reversed.

Years ago, my therapist, who also doubled as a sex therapist, told me that preferential child molesters are essentially unable to be rehabilitated. Unlike situational child rapists, who enact their lifelong patterns of violence on anyone around them, man, woman, or child, preferential child rapists prefer children as their sexual “partners.”

These offenders have a sexual preference for children and usually maintain these desires throughout their lives. Preferential child molesters can have an astounding number of victims and these crimes can remain undiscovered for many years. … One long-term study of hundreds of sex offenders found that the pedophile child molester committed an average of 281 acts with 150 partners. These types of offenders wreak havoc upon society far out of proportion to their numbers.

Perhaps the precedence is set for the current bill to be challenged and overturned.

But you won’t see me challenging it.

UPDATE: Amanda posts on the subject and perfectly explains why I can’t get worked up about the death penalty and “tough on crime” crap.

I’m not exactly going to wail and bemoan if the government actually starts taking sexual abuse and assault seriously, even though the trend seems to be in the other direction. But that’s the problem with legislation like this is that increasing the penalties for crimes is mostly a feel good exercise so politicians can look tough without actually doing shit all to actually reduce the crime rate.

That’s my problem with the death penalty in general. It’s not about reducing crime or helping victims or even about justice. It’s about politicians grandstanding and making sure that the scariest kinds of crimes, which are also the rarest more often than not, are in the news and you and yours are scared and keep voting for them because they look tougher.

That and innocent people get drawn up in the public outcry to see blood. But I still can’t drudge up much sympathy for predators of any vein.

108 thoughts on Death Penalty for Repeat Child Rapists

  1. Wow. Great minds think alike. I made a comment about instituting death penalty on repeat offenders in sexual assault at basically the same time on zuzu’s post.

    I’m wholly convinced that problems with the death penalty can be solved, especially with “repeat offender” throwing the “executing an innocent” to even-more miniscule probabilities.

  2. No objection here. I think the court was right on the rape of adults not constituting a DP offense – but repeat offenses there would seem to push the needle over, at least as far as I’m concerned.

  3. This is definitely a sticky issue for me. I can certainly understand the perspective of someone who, because of his or her own experiences, is unsympathetic to offenders like the ones covered in this bill. Hell, I’m unsympathetic to vicious criminals too.

    At the same time, I’m not as optimistic as some that the problems with the death penalty can be resolved, nor am I yet convinced that any risk, however small, of wrongful execution is an acceptable one.

  6. Pingback: What, does OK have a rash of child molesters all of a sudden? at Pandagon

  7. I like the life imprisonment w/no parole part of it, but not the dealth penalty part. What’s the benefit of the death penalty for this? Besides satsifying (understandable) blood lust? Also- are some people wanting child molesters to fry because for two convictions or because they assume that two convictions probably means hundreds of other victims?

  8. One long-term study of hundreds of sex offenders found that the pedophile child molester committed an average of 281 acts with 150 partners

    Does this figure give anyone besides me pause? I mean, I’ve had sex with around 30 willing partners in my life. Not counting one-night stands, that would put the number of sexual “acts” I’ve had in the thousands, easily. And hey, it ain’t like I’m bragging.Because, I ain’t. I just cannot picture a pederast “committing acts” that equal less than twice per victim.

    Plus, do the math. If one person out of every 8 is a PRACTICING child molester, that means we’ve all been molested.

    *shudder* don’t get me wrong, and please don’t confuse me with an apologist for pedophile, but doesn’t this seem not very factual?

    Huge anit-death penalty proponent here. For anyone with an IQ over 75, life in prison (with no possibility of parole) is obviously much worse than dying.

  9. What’s the benefit of the death penalty for this?

    Guaranteed non-recidivism. And before we rehash the whole lifetime-parole-prison guard-escape thing again, death is the only guaranteed non-recidivism mechanism.

  10. I’m generally in favor of very tough sentences for child rapists, but like Chet above, I’m concerned by how a child is defined. When we see a 17 year old boy in prison for 10 years because he had oral sex with a 15 year old girl then the child protection statutes are not serving the best interests of justice.

    It is a night and day comparison between the monsters who rape a 3 year old child and a 15 year old teenager who has sex. ISTM, we could use a staggered sentencing guideline. For victims under 12, very harsh sentence. For 12-14 when the age difference is between 2 and 4 years, up to 2 years in custody. Over 4 years age difference, up to 10 years in prison. Keep in mind that I’m simply thinking about statutory rape here, so I don’t want to see a 14 year old boy who is playing doctor with a 13 year old girl do any prison time. An 18 year man fooling around with a 13 year old girl is a whole different story though.

    From 14-16, this is getting trickier because kids are more sexually active at this stage in their lives. I absolutely hate seeing teen boys sentenced to prison for having sex with their girlfriends, so I’d say a crime of statutory rape would occur if the age difference was greater than 4 years, and the sentence should be up to 5 years.

    What’s the benefit of the death penalty for this?

    A guy who rapes 200 kids, all of whom are under the age of 12, with most being 3 to 6, is a walking weapon of mass destruction. Keeping him alive in prison is going to cost $50,000+ a year. Yes, that’s a very utilitarian answer, but I’m not keen on up to a million dollars of tax funds being spent on keeping a waste of human skin alive for 20 years.

  11. You will run into a problem with the death penalty absent aggravating circumstances for any particular crime. Life without parole, however, doesn’t seem to be within the purview of Coker.

    And child molesters are at the bottom of the prison food chain.

  12. Also, for a preferential child molester prison is more of a punishment than for nearly anyone else. No children to interact with at all, and they find it nearly impossible to form social relationships with anyone but children. They utterly deserve the punishment of this deprivation, but don’t think they’re getting off easy.

    It does lead to a problem with the concept of paroling a PCM – as children are the only people they can even conceive of interacting with socially as well as sexually, it is almost impossible for them not to violate restraining orders regarding contact with children, and the likelihood of them reoffending is inordinately high.

    Life without parole must be the minimum for these offenders, but then you come up against TangoMan’s utilitarian argument about the expense of housing non-rehabilitable offenders for life. I’m anti-death-penalty, but this is a case where I find it harder to defend the principle than others.

  13. Why not rape them to death, so long as you’re engaged in a morally bankrupt punishment scheme?

    The prosecutor who seeks the death penalty is committing a greater moral wrong than repeat child molestation.

  14. Gotta agree with Robert; dead child molesters will never rape again.

    As you can guess, I’m not against the death penalty–on moral grounds. What worries me is that we have an imperfect judicial system with an irreversible sentence (in the case of Capital Murder, for now anyway).

    Consider all the prisoners exonerated after DNA-testing came about. Are we willing to send people to their death based on the testimony of a child? Do you consider any and every child a reliable witness? And if the person standing trial already has one child molestation charge on his/her record, making them an infamous “registered sex offender,” then how easy will it be to get a second conviction, regardless of the evidence (or lack thereof).

    Yeah, everyone hates baby rapists, and we all know they’re the classic “repeat offenders”, but wouldn’t it be better to keep them in prison for life with NO PAROLE? And I mean NONE. That may be a worse punishment than death–you know they LOVE child molesters in prison. That’s bad, too, if s/he’s wrongly convicted–but it’s reversible. Death ain’t.

  15. Tangoman, it’s widely accepted (among people on both sides of the death penalty debate) that the costs of securing and executing a death sentence exceed the costs of a lifetime prison sentence.

  16. Supporting prison for child molesters on the grounds that they will be tortured in prison is disgusting. If people are being abused and tortured in prison, that is wrong, and those responsible should be caught and punished–and the victims of such torture and abuse should be protected.

  17. then you come up against TangoMan’s utilitarian argument about the expense of housing non-rehabilitable offenders for life.

    If I’m not mistaken, it’s actually less expensive to house a prisoner for life in a general unit than it is to house them on death row for the years and years it takes for their appeals and habeas cases to work their way through the courts.

    My sister, who used to live on Marine Base Quantico, told me that there are an unusually high proportion of registered sex offenders, most of them child molestors, in the tiny village of Quantico, which lies entirely within the base. Seems like a good place for them, what with being surrounded by Marines and dealing mostly with adults (since the village doesn’t have its own schools or, apparently, any real population of children).

  18. karolena,

    Good point. Thanks. So, falling back on a utilitarian calculus, I’d say that we keep them in prison for life. If it’s cheaper, then it’s cheaper.

    However, perhaps the issue is really with the expense of the legal appeals process using too many resources. I’m not a lawyer so it boggles my mind that it can cost more to get a death sentence upheld through appeals than it does to keep a prisoner alive for a lengthy life sentence.

    A related issue is that the $50,000+ per year to keep a prisoner incarcerated might be brought down by means which lower the standards of comfort within prisons. First place to cut – medical care. If uninsured citizens have to deprive themselves of adequate medical care, then transplants, cardiac care and other expensive medical procedures for prisoners shouldn’t be paid for by the state.

    For death penalty opponents, the utilitarian calculus can be made more persuasive if the annual cost of incarceration can be lowered. Keep them alive in prison but don’t treat them better than law abiding citizens, even though they’re in our care.

  19. Why not rape them to death, so long as you’re engaged in a morally bankrupt punishment scheme?

    That would be fitting. However, it would require the state to commit an act (rape) not within its legitimate sphere of power. Killing people is a legitimate state action; raping them is not.

    The prosecutor who seeks the death penalty is committing a greater moral wrong than repeat child molestation.

    Go say this to the parents of a child trying to comfort their baby and explain that the bad thing isn’t going to happen anymore, and save society the trouble of explaining to you the error of your ways.

  20. Life without parole, however, doesn’t seem to be within the purview of Coker.

    Exactly. I’m especially surprised to hear liberals supporting the death penalty for sexual assault, given the history behind Coker and which states had those laws. Believe me, they weren’t for punishing white boys who had the tenacity to have sex with black women.

    I don’t think the death penalty will do victims any favors, either. If you’re a repeat child molestor and you think your latest victim might tattle, why not just kill her in the hopes of keeping the crime hidden? You’d have been facing the death penalty anyway, so it’s not like you’re going to be facing anything WORSE for the murder.

    “I know how I’d feel if it were my kid” isn’t a rational basis for making laws. If it were, I’d cheerfully support death by dismemberment for bullying, and I think even y’all can agree that’s a bit over the line.

    And surely I can’t be the only one who sees irony in the attitude that rape is not only OK, but laudable, as long as the rapist’s victim is a scumbag who no doubt deserved it.

  22. Killing people is a legitimate state action; raping them is not.

    Assuming your own conclusion is unpersuasive. I’m telling you neither are. Everything mythago says is absolutely right. The death penalty is a morally bankrupt, racist, sexist, classist institution, which (even if it could be cured of those things, which it canont) rests on an assumption that is wrong: that the state may kill.

    If you want to have a discussion about morality, then let’s have one. But please, spare me the faux-indignant “WUT? AH SWEAR IF EENYONE TUCHED MAH LITTLE GIRL AH’D KILL HIM WITH MAH BEAR HANDS MAN. AH TELL U WUT.” It’s tough to talk about the death penalty because of the sheer number of folks who appear to derive sexual pleasure from acting “tough” on the topic.

    Luckily, the march of time has us on a basically upward path. In time, the death penalty will vanish as drawing and quartering has. The existence of prison itself was a response to folks like those posting here, who viewed criminal justice as a bloodsport waged for the benefit of onlookers (rather than as an exercise in practical morality, as we now understand it).

  23. Assuming your own conclusion is unpersuasive. I’m telling you neither are.

    You are the state. You refuse to kill.

    We are an organized group of people who would like control of the state. We’re willing to kill.

    While you’re handwaving around the Oval Office trying to gather up enough non-lethal police power to stop us, we’re slaughtering you and yours. We win.

    States which will not kill cannot continue to exist. This is empirically true to the point of being axiomatic.

    Therefore, killing is an intrinsic role of the state. But for a state to be legitimate, it must use its power in defense, not only of its own privileges and existence, but in defense of the people which it governs.

    If you’d like to seriously argue for your position, please feel free to drop over to my blog, as we’re off-topic here.

  25. First, I should admit that if anyone molested my child, the only reason I might not want them executed or locked away for life is that I might want to kill them myself. Probably in a manner that would disgust Guantanamo hardened CIA agents. But that wouldn’t make it right.

    However. That having been said, I have a number of qualms about this law. They include:
    1. As others have pointed out, the DP is actually more expensive than LWOP. And I’m reluctant to reduce the cost of the DP by reducing the number of legal protections for the inmates. There are enough false convictions as it is.
    2. Although, as Robert and others have said, the recidivism rate of a dead person is zero, some studies suggest that use of the DP is associated with an increase in the murder rate. Why that should be is not clear to me nor are the data unambiguous, but in the absence of a clear decrease in the murder rate (or the child molestation rate) associated with the DP I’d rather stick with the more humane and reversible option.
    3. AFAIK, the law doesn’t distinguish between sex with a 7 year old and sex with a 17 year old. Consider this, admittedly unlikely, scenario: An 18 year old man has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. He is convicted for child molestation, but because of the circumstances (obviously consentual sex with a woman only one year younger than him), he is only given parole. After this, the couple abstains until the woman’s birthday. At midnight on her birthday they have legal sex for the first time. Except that her birthday is March 1st and they forgot it was leap year. So she’s technically still a minor. Should this man get the death penalty or LWOP?
    4. I worry about a possible anti-gay subtext. For example, you may object that the scenario above is unlikely because of Romeo and Juliet laws. True, but most Romeo and Juliet laws don’t apply to gay couples. So we might suddenly see a bunch of 18-20 year old men being given the DP for consentual sex with their 16 or 17 year old boyfriends. In the wrong jurisdiction, I can see this happening quite easily.
    5. What is the definition of a sex offense against a child? I’ve heard it said that a sex offense against a child can include showing a child nude even in an obviously non-sexual context. So could parents receive the DP for having two baby in the bath pictures? Or two family portraits at a nude beach?

  26. Victims of child molestation live with serious and complex consequences for the whole of their lives. A murder victim does not. They simply no longer live. While the taking of life is extremely serious and should be treated as such by law.. To say that the same legal consequences of murder applied to child molestation is “grossly out of proportion”, however, is unto itself a GROSS exaggeration. And, exemplifies a lack of interdisciplinary comprehension inherent to the justice system and law makers. Or, so it seems.

    In fact, the consequences of early life molestation range from suicidal tendancies,life-long mental and / or emotional and / or physical health problems – to that of the creation of preferential child molesters in the first place.

    The Nation State (not the state’s population) reserves the right to use violence. This is the fundamental basis of the creation and existence of the nation state. Historically, this is what (most of) state law was founded upon – Justly or Unjustly. However, by granting it full and unharnessed priviledge to use force (whether by policy, law, arms or execution) against it’s own citizens – the population is basically agreeing to one or another form of authoritarianism. Undermining “democracy”, in principal alone as well as in practice, enevitably.

    Permitting state execution is a dangerous folly. Personal grievances, anguish, and feelings of revenge aside (all warrented of course)… Allowing the death penalty to exist has much larger implications. That is why it is so oft opposed. (despite the ever popular bleeding-heart-theory that surfaces so frequently)

    Cultural and social change, and attention to cultural / social issues (manifested through structural policy, law, education, and both preventative as well as rehabilitating programs etc) is the only “solution” that is both rational and constructive in regard to these issues. IF democracy is at all a valuable priority, that is.

    … my opinionated but yet still humble opinion… ; )

  27. States which will not kill cannot continue to exist. This is empirically true to the point of being axiomatic.

    There’s killing in the national defense and killing for punishment. Your statement holds for the first, but not the second. Or surely most of Europe would have collapsed by now.

  28. Your statement holds for the first, but not the second. Or surely most of Europe would have collapsed by now.

    This is a fair point and worth unpacking.

    But I’ll wait until you come up with a stronger buttress for the position than the stability of Europe. 😛 Nation states don’t collapse overnight.

  29. Maybe not overnight, but it can happen quickly. Read Jared Diamond’s Collapse for a few examples from history.

  30. Diamond’s work is intellectually unimpressive, as well as being wrong on a lot of facts.

    But very comforting for left creationists!

  33. Dianne,

    I’ve heard it said that a sex offense against a child can include showing a child nude even in an obviously non-sexual context.

    Child pornography can now be defined as taking pictures of fully clothed children but if the photographer had “bad thoughts” while framing the picture then it’s child porn.

    In the news last week was a story about one of those child modeling sites being busted for distributing child porn. The girls are 12-16 and modeling in all sorts of clothes and bathing suits. Also, IIRC, virtual computer models are also included in the defintion.

  34. Been a while since I looked at it, Zuzu. But I betcha TangoMan has taken it down.

    The thing I remember most is his just-so story about Easter Island turns out not to be the case. Their civilization was thriving, and went down owing to the usual European diseases and slaughter, not because they broke their environmental paradigm.

    As for the intellectual errors, see here for a quickie overview.

    But your underlying point was that civilizations can collapse quickly. True – but when they do, it’s almost always because a material cause (an invasion, a natural disaster) hit a society which had become weak because of internal problems. A lack of moral will to exert ultimate justice against wrongdoers is an internal problem that hollows out a society, not a Krakatoa which will finish it off.

  35. Do you have any examples to support this, Robert? How many societal collapses can you attribute reliably to lack of will to kill convicts?

  36. They simply no longer live

    Y’know, it’s one thing to acknowledge the suffering of abuse survivors. It’s another to blow off the suffering of murder victims because, hey, they’re just dead. (It’s also an insult to survivors–as if murdering them would have been only a minor increase in the immorality of what was done to them.)

    People who really want to debate capital punishment itself should pick up Scott Turow’s Ultimate Punishment.

  37. Child molestors do horrible, horrible things. But they are still human. To me each one is a tragedy. My father is a pedophle. I was one of his victims. I know him, his history. I have had glimpses of the terror he must have endured in his childhood as the son of a manic-depressive mother (she once beat me with a hair brush for coloring outside of the lines in a coloring book. I don’t recall being left alone with her again after that. He spent his entire childhood with her.). We must protect the innocent, but we must also maintain our own capacity for compassion. I wouldn’t want my father to be killed, or raped in prison. He basically wound up getting away with what he did, which was wrong too. I don’t know what the answer is. I have survived. I have a wonderful live – career, great marriage, an amazing beautiful son, yoga practice. I am happy. That is my victory. Peace is possible. Getting on with your live doesn’t mean that it wasn’t really rape.

  38. While I am of the opinion that anyone who molests a child deserves to die, I am just old enough to remember the hysteria surrounding the McMartin daycare case and other false allegations of abuse at daycares in the 1980’s and early 90’s. The worst crimes (understandably) often arouse the most anger in juries, judges, and prosecutors, and that anger can cloud people’s judgment.

  39. A lack of moral will to exert ultimate justice against wrongdoers is an internal problem that hollows out a society,

    I’d like some examples before I’m going to believe this. Which civilizations have collapsed for lack of will to carry out the death penalty? Since we’ve started in on Europe, perhaps we could compare two European countries and their stability versus use of the DP.

    Sweden abolished the DP in 1921 and hasn’t actually carried out an execution since 1910. Yet it has had a stable, continuous government during that whole time. Germany, on the other hand, didn’t abolish the DP until recently (I don’t have the date). Yet it has changed governments at least three times since 1910. Yes, there are other differences between Sweden and Germany besides their DP use, but how do you explain Sweden’s nearly 100 years of stability without a single execution if a lack of the DP leads inevitably to an unstable society?

  40. But I’ll wait until you come up with a stronger buttress for the position than the stability of Europe. 😛

    How about the stability of Costa Rica, which has not had a death penalty since 1887? While Costa Rica has had (and has) its problems, it hasn’t exactly been a hotbed of instability compared to its neighbors throughout the 20th century.

  41. Whoa, hold up there a tic or two. Just fry ’em all? Hey, that’s my dad you’re talking about. No, seriously…

    As an abuse survivor, I know that what I have to say doen’t reflect everyone’s viewpoint, or even every survivor’s, but since a few of you have spoken for some of us, I may as well give it a shot. For more than a decade, my father molested and raped and beat me (and before me, my older sister). Day in, day out: talk about hard time. Eventually I ended up in foster care.

    Society, of course, has its own interests in capital punishment. It may seem easier to eliminate a threat rather than deal with it, assuming, of course, that killing a handful of pedophiles would actually inflict a dent in adults not respecting the autonomy of children. Which is what sexual abuse is, at its core. Personally, I think two things:

    1) Death is too easy for men like my father.
    2) Participation in killing inches people and society closer to that same darkness.

    What does one survive horrors for, if not to learn something? What on earth makes people want to be more like the thing they despise? How about legislation that actually provides tangible rights or support to the minors in question? Economic relief? Education? Fucking christ on a stick, how do you think people get exploited, anyway?

  43. Mythago

    I am not at all ‘blowing it off’ – murder. Not at all. I am simply acknowledging the democratic (ideological) purposes of Justice. Which is supposed to be more attentive to the health and security of individuals of communities and society as a whole – as opposed to retribution. In both cases (murder and molestation) you have an offender whom is a threat to others. In one case, add to it the crime of unreasonable harm and cruelity (molestation abuse) – which is attributed to the survival of the victim at the time of the crime.

    When reviewing the two cases, why would one crime be deemed “grossly” more severe than the other? .. Is all I was ‘getting at’.

    If the state is permitted to found law upon retribution (which it is, in most cases), then what we see is that the criminal system will give a life sentance to a gun weilding bank robber (for attempting to or succeeding to steal money – not for murder) and alternatively, incarcerate a rapist for six to 15 months. Or, as we have seen, permit gang rapists to walk free.

    And. As noted above. History has shown, and continues to, that enemies of the state are subject to cruel and unusual “disproportionate” punishments, under these principals. These enemies can simply be the scapegoat of the day. Political prisoners, activists, oppressed sections of the population (whether people of colour, or of certain religion, gender, lifestyle, orientation).

    If ‘the People’ of any democracy cave in and allow the Justice system to be merely an arm of retribution (founded by and for the state) – than the principals of Justice will be distorted accordingly. To the benefit of the state, as opposed to the benefit of individuals of a community or society as a whole.

    Power is a manifestation of a complex ‘social contract’. Giving a state permission to wield autonomous power (divorced from that of ‘the People’) happens morsel by morsel (historical record reflects this and can be compared mark by mark to recent history) and the Death Penalty is one of very many morsels that has been granted by the People of the United States of America (one among many countries, of course).

  44. The argument Amanda makes isn’t a good one against DP. Because all you need is a politician who is working to reduce crime in general and helping victims, and is FOR death penalty, and the argument loses all weight. It’s basically an ad hominem that suspects the reason for supporting death penalty isn’t Enlightened enough.

    All this talk about Europe having no DP. Well, somewhat untrue. Get a foreign army to invade some country in Europe, and the penalty for the invaders is death (so the Nations consider some ultimate wrongdoers deserving of death, eh? Name one society that does not use self-defense [or is defended by someone else] against foreign threats to it’s independence. Go on.). Courts are banned of doing it, yet every single nation needs to deal death at times.. Also, there is organized crime which penalizes it’s opponents with death and keeps it’s members in line with it. What you have is raging hypocrisy: The governments are not allowed to punish domestic threats to the people with death, yet criminals who don’t give a shit (such as terrorists) use it to great effect to get what they want. If you have one guy with super-soaker and one with an assault rifle, guess who will win?

    The extremist ban against DP merely forbids the people who are accountable to the Laws of the Nation, and via elected legislators, to the will of the people, to use an effective tool in combat against serious threats towards against law-abiding citizens. Court of Law is the best place to ensure things proceed fairly.

    Empirical evidence for, or against, the benefit of having DP on crime rates can not exist. Societies are not controlled test subjects, it is impossible to rule out all other things which might cause an increase or decrease. IMHO crime in Scandinavia is not epidemic because social pressure strongly penalizes wrong-doers. There’s also the fact that a wrongdoer considered repugnant enough knows that he will probably be killed, laws be damned. Just not via a fair trial.

  45. If ‘the People’ of any democracy cave in and allow the Justice system to be merely an arm of retribution (founded by and for the state) – than the principals of Justice will be distorted accordingly. To the benefit of the state, as opposed to the benefit of individuals of a community or society as a whole.

    IMHO that is horseshit. The U.S is far less totalitarian and has less problems with state exercising too much power (U.S Constitution is one reason) than European nations who have banned DP. European Nations ban political parties and restrict Freedom of Speech and of Press.

    Power is a manifestation of a complex ’social contract’. Giving a state permission to wield autonomous power (divorced from that of ‘the People’)

    State, in democracy, is the manifestation of the will of the People. What ‘divorce’ would you be talking about?

  46. Tuomas,

    In fact the freedom of the press in Europe is excericized well beyond the lacky-self-as-well-as-imposed censorship reflected in U.S. press. Have you ever been there? Do you ever read their papers?

    If you are refering to the “cartoons” then, well, all I can say is that you’ve bought into the right-wing-wankosphere smoke screen for xenophobic and black propaganda.

    As for the Wil of the People… Really? You actually believe that you are living in a democracy right now? Is it the Will of the People to support policy that ensures poverty, destruction of the environment, illness, the abuse and murder of civilians at home and abroad? The causes of which all lead back to state investment and interest in Trade among the Elite? Aren’t most individuals more likely to “will” common wealth, healthy and secure environments, and as many guarentees to personal well-being as possible?

    In arguements surrounding “will”, one has to establish the level of awareness and power each participant has over the process and outcome.

  47. IMHO crime in Scandinavia is not epidemic because social pressure strongly penalizes wrong-doers. There’s also the fact that a wrongdoer considered repugnant enough knows that he will probably be killed, laws be damned.

    What’s your evidence for this? That is to say, what evidence do you have that extra-legal killings (ie lynchings) are more common in Scandinavia than elsewhere?

  48. The extremist ban against DP merely forbids the people who are accountable to the Laws of the Nation, and via elected legislators, to the will of the people, to use an effective tool in combat against serious threats towards against law-abiding citizens.

    And you conclude that it’s an effective tool based on, what, the emirical evidence you say cannot exist?

  49. I am not at all ‘blowing it off’ – murder. Not at all.

    Then perhaps you can go into a little more detail about what you meant by saying “Victims of child molestation live with serious and complex consequences for the whole of their lives. A murder victim does not. They simply no longer live”–with your rather strong implication being that murder victims are past suffering, so it’s not as though they’re all that much worse off.

    Why one is more ‘grossly’ severe than the other is that murder involves killing somebody. I really can’t make the point any simpler than that. A dead person cannot confront his abuser, cannot seek therapy, cannot go on to become a better person or lead a life that is not forever tainted by abuse. A survivor can.

    That, by the way, is why we use the term ‘survivor’, not ‘victim’. There is no such thing as a ‘murder survivor.’

  50. In fact the freedom of the press in Europe is excericized well beyond the lacky-self-as-well-as-imposed censorship reflected in U.S. press. Have you ever been there? Do you ever read their papers?

    I am European. Finnish. Oh, I occasionally read the rags that pass for newspapers (sorry Dad!). Stopped the subsciption of Helsingin Sanomat (the largest newspaper here), when the New Year -number had, in the good news of the year 2004 section, Madrid Train accident.You know, that accident where terrorist blew up innocents. It was “good” because it lead to withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq.

    What’s your evidence for this? That is to say, what evidence do you have that extra-legal killings (ie lynchings) are more common in Scandinavia than elsewhere?

    I didn’t claim that. I claimed that repugnant enough criminals would be killed if the legal penalty is unsatisfactory. Would probably happen anywhere. No such criminals lately. Dunno whether Scandinavians are different in that aspect (probably less prone to take law in won hands in relataviely minor cases). I know anecdotally that people here are very law-abiding generally, and getting into trouble with law would be a huge source of shame. Hence, low crime rates.

    As for the Wil of the People… Really? You actually believe that you are living in a democracy right now?

    Nope, I’m starting to believe I live in country well on it’s way towards being a totalitarian communist state.

    s it the Will of the People to support policy that ensures poverty, destruction of the environment, illness, the abuse and murder of civilians at home and abroad?

    I won’t bother to debate you on those things (whether Leftist policies are better to the people than Rightist). If you believe these are caused by the Republican policies, well, they got the most votes.

    And you conclude that it’s an effective tool based on, what, the emirical evidence you say cannot exist?

    Reasoning and common sense. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps you are.

    If you are refering to the “cartoons” then, well, all I can say is that you’ve bought into the right-wing-wankosphere smoke screen for xenophobic and black propaganda.

    No, right-wing blogosphere isn’t the reason. I have merely observed my President, Prime Minister, and Foreign Minister (Pres. And Foreign Minister “ex”-Stalinists, belonging to the youth group founded by Taisto Sinisalo that argued that Finland should join Stalin’s Soviet Union) all jointly say “Not us! Denmark! Please please don’t hurt us!” I have observed people get fired for making jokes on the subject. I know the history of banning “Anti-Communist Activities”, and putting people in jail for those here.

    It may be that the U.S has suffered/is suffering from the excesses of the Right (Joe McCarthy, Bush is some issues, etc.), but the excesses of the Left in Europe worry me much more.

  52. The inheritance tax became the “Death Tax” through endless repitition.

    The South Dakota move against abortion should be called the “Rapist’s Protection Act” at every opportunity.

  53. Eh, I see the people have already discussed There’s killing in the national defense and killing for punishment.

    But still, isn’t penalizing wrongdoers (foreign invaders) a death penalty of sorts? Or is it all about the rhetoric? Should death penalty get a more emotionally appealing name?

  55. Tuomas,

    How could you forget the case of the Tatu Vanhanen? The father of the Prime Minister being investigated for a hate crime simply for writng an economics book and noting the gdp/cap disparity between nations..

  57. Oh, that. PM Vanhanen was quick to pre-emptively remind everyone that he does not share his father’s thinking.

    Probably would have destroyed his career if he hadn’t done that. I always find it supremely ironic when socialists etc. play the “guilty by association” -game by calling their opponents similar to Nazis etc.

    But I digress.

  59. Tuomas,

    O.K. then.. let me reframe the question: Do you read the American press? We are talking about comparitives here…

    I’ll forego playing into commonly refered to definitions of “Right” and “Left” and instead simply say that, regardless of which hand one wants to attach their identity to – context and human and humane rights must be upheld through effort of individuals – and collectively – and cannot be left resting in the hands of an economic-political entity (such as is the State).

    The U.S. Republicans were voted in by barely half of just over half the population – that voted. Again. Speaking to “will” is much more complex than than simply pointing to election numbers.

    … but… you didn’t address any of those other points made. So I’m not sure I am clear on what point you, are addressing/ making here.

    This could be due to quick comment reading on my part, I admit.

  60. LA Times, Chicago Sun-Times, New York Times (via Internet). And plenty of American blogs on both sides of the political spectrum.CNN website, occasionally Fox (biased on the Right). They seem to have plenty of freedom in expressing opinions from many angles.

    and cannot be left resting in the hands of an economic-political entity (such as is the State).

    Sorry. Makes no sense. Free elections?

    Speaking to “will” is much more complex than than simply pointing to election numbers.

    In arguements surrounding “will”, one has to establish the level of awareness and power each participant has over the process and outcome.

    I am probably very simplistic in my thinking. So educate me: What would be the better way to determine the will of the people than one citizen=one vote combined with free election (if many people decide to not vote, isn’t that their own choice)? Council of Wise People who represent the authentic will of the people, perhaps?

  61. Aren’t most individuals more likely to “will” common wealth, healthy and secure environments, and as many guarentees to personal well-being as possible?

    “Common” wealth? Everyone equally poor :P…

  62. Council of Wise People who represent the authentic will of the people, perhaps?

    Screw that. Monarchy, with me as the King.

    BOW, MINIIONS!

  67. *Goes to hide in the forest using superior experience with the land*

    Damn peasants with their clever tricks.

    Oh well, at least we can seize his cottage and sell it and use the revenue to fund my constant foreign wars.

  69. But still, isn’t penalizing wrongdoers (foreign invaders) a death penalty of sorts? Or is it all about the rhetoric? Should death penalty get a more emotionally appealing name?

    No, no and no.

    Foreign invaders by definition can fight back, and there’s a risk that the defenders can be killed.

    Killing a prisoner who is in the exclusive control of the state, who can not escape, and at no personal risk to anyone doing the killing is not at all the same thing.

    Oh, and Robert? Still waiting for examples of hollowing out of societies that no longer have the death penalty.

  70. Foreign invaders by definition can fight back, and there’s a risk that the defenders can be killed.

    Killing a prisoner who is in the exclusive control of the state, who can not escape, and at no personal risk to anyone doing the killing is not at all the same thing.

    Okay. Having professional gladiators perform the executions (with the convicts handed weapons, but obviously there will be a difference in skill that will result in a desired result most of time) on an arena would address that concern.

    Besides, it might make for profitable TV.

    And if the defenders are really, really good (hypothetically so damn good they have no risk) would it make killing the invaders immoral?

  72. Uh, ensuring a death by stacking the odds in favor of the professional killers, and by, presumably, manipulating the diet and training of the prisoner to ensure weakness and lack of skill isn’t exactly an equal fight.

    You’re a big fan of bread and circuses, I take it.

    Killing invaders isn’t immoral, regardless of the relative skill levels, because they’re INVADERS. If they’re overmatched, they can pull out.

  74. Uh, ensuring a death by stacking the odds in favor of the professional killers, and by, presumably, manipulating the diet and training of the prisoner to ensure weakness and lack of skill isn’t exactly an equal fight.

    You’re a big fan of bread and circuses, I take it.

    Not really. I responded to the power dynamic concerns you raised. And from that response, am I to conclude that a fair fight would be ideal?

    Killing invaders isn’t immoral, regardless of the relative skill levels, because they’re INVADERS. If they’re overmatched, they can pull out.

    *Applause*

    Exactly! And killing repeat murderers, rapists and child molesters isn’t (IMHO) immoral, because they are repeat offenders of the said very serious crimes. If they wan’t to not face DP, they can decide to not repeat their crime.

  75. They seem to be doing well. The euro is higher than the dollar. Their literacy rates are higher than ours, and their teenaged pregnancy rates are lower.

    Which countries do you have in mind, and what criteria are you using for hollowing out?

  76. Exactly! And killing repeat murderers, rapists and child molesters isn’t (IMHO) immoral, because they are repeat offenders of the said very serious crimes. If they wan’t to not face DP, they can decide to not repeat their crime.

    That’s not the logical conclusion of what I wrote. You’re still getting back to the prisoner/unequal problem. And the solution does not have to be death when life without parole will accomplish the same thing.

    So sorry.

  77. You’re still getting back to the prisoner/unequal problem.

    Please elaborate.

    And the solution does not have to be death when life without parole will accomplish the same thing.

    There are prison breaks. If the miniscule probability of executing an innocent is good for opposition to DP, then the miniscule probability of prison break and the said convict committing new crimes should be good enough reason for DP.

  78. It wasn’t meant to be a logical conclusion to what you wrote, but it was argument in the exact same format.

  79. Elaborate on “the exact same format.”

    Because you’re still putting a prisoner at the mercy of the state, not empowering a victim to kill the perp. The latter would be more closely analogous to an invader situation.

    And you still don’t get around the fact that LWOP is cheaper than the DP and serves the same purpose, permanent removal of the perpetrator from society.

  80. Killing invaders isn’t immoral, regardless of the relative skill levels, because they’re INVADERS. If they’re overmatched, they can pull out.

    killing repeat murderers, rapists and child molesters isn’t (IMHO) immoral, because they are repeat offenders of the said very serious crimes. If they wan’t to not face DP, they can decide to not repeat their crime.

    Quite close, eh? And, if you think about it, a murderer/rapist/molester is “invading” against the right to bodily autonomy of a member of the society/state.

    Because you’re still putting a prisoner at the mercy of the state, not empowering a victim to kill the perp. The latter would be more closely analogous to an invader situation.

    Murder victims can not be thus empowered, and I would have no problem whatsoever if the victims did the actual pulling the plug/injecting the needle.

    And you still don’t get around the fact that LWOP is cheaper than the DP and serves the same purpose, permanent removal of the perpetrator from society.

    That is somewhat compelling. Thoughts: American prisons are hell-holes practically (epidemic prison rape etc.). Cells for people on death row are bigger and have better security, thus more expensive. Shorter death row in clear cases, lousier cells to death row or better cells otherwise would probably make a difference.

    Permanent removal: Prisons are part of the society, however wretched. Prison guards etc. have to deal with the perp, as do other criminals (unless you get to even more expensive system).

  82. Zuzu, I’m not going to argue the doom of Europe with you. It’s obvious to those who have eyes to see.

    Shorter Robert: I pulled it out of my ass.

    Quite close, eh? And, if you think about it, a murderer/rapist/molester is “invading” against the right to bodily autonomy of a member of the society/state.

    No, not close at all. Unless you’re equating invasion with child molestation, in which case there’s an argument to be made that the US Army is full of child molesters.

  83. No, not close at all. Unless you’re equating invasion with child molestation, in which case there’s an argument to be made that the US Army is full of child molesters.

    Rape is not an invasion?

    And I’m really confused (not just playing stupid as a tactic). You know that equating US Army with child molestation is a pretty disrepectful thing to say (it makes them sound like monsters), yet invasion (as in Iraq or Afganistan, at least Afganistan being justified, Iraq so-and-so), in your logic is something punishable by death, while child molestion is not.

  84. It’s obvious to those who have eyes to see.

    Well, gun control laws aren’t nearly as strict as many American conservatives seem to think. At least not in Switzerland or Finland, those hotbeds of gun violence*. So at least people have technical means to defend themselves if things get really bad and governments refuse to do their duty (protecting citizens).

    * sarcasm

  85. Rape is not an invasion?

    Of course it is. But it’s an invasion of a person, not of a nation. Armed invasion of a nation is repelled by an armed defense. Killing someone in battle is a far cry from killing them in revenge, which is what the death penalty is, in essence. You don’t kill captured soldiers, even those who were captured while trying to invade your country. Someone who is being raped or in danger of being raped or killed can use lethal force to repel the attacker, but can’t hunt the attacker down later and kill them. You’re proposing that the state’s prerogative in killing armed invaders during battle extends to avenging the rape of one of the members of society after the fact. But the logic does not hold.

    And I’m really confused (not just playing stupid as a tactic). You know that equating US Army with child molestation is a pretty disrepectful thing to say (it makes them sound like monsters), yet invasion (as in Iraq or Afganistan, at least Afganistan being justified, Iraq so-and-so), in your logic is something punishable by death, while child molestion is not.

    See why the logic doesn’t hold? War and punishing criminals are two different things. You’re conflating them. This is the logical extension of your argument.

  86. Tuomas

    Rising up. For one. Making some noise, for another. Participating at all. Demanding that real issues be addressed in political platforms – or refusing to engage and cooperate. All of which are being done by considerable chunks by populations around the world. Unheeded. All of which could be further supported, if it were not for disenchantment and apathy.

    I’ve been writing on the topic of what could be done, for a long time now. And have several tactical as well as societal suggestions I could present to you.. But that isn’t the point here is it? Any further explanation, would merely be a distraction.

    The point, simply put, is that refering to an election doesn’t cut the mustard. And I’m pretty sure that you are well aware of the “why”s.

    What was being addressed is the question of state power and it’s authority over who lives and who dies.

    So.
    I’m still not sure I understand your position here.

    Is it simply that you believe in the premise of state power and think DP exemplifies a fine eg of state purpose and mandate? Is it that you hold a personal desire to see all “vagrants” of society elliminated, and that state authority will suffice on the definition of “vagrant”? Or is it that you simply fear “Left” -ist
    viewpoints and “values” from influencing state law?

    If it is the latter, well let us at least agree that sentiments toward this issue are definately NOT divided among so-called Leftists or Right-Wingers… One look at history (with an eye for the stereotypical left/right identifiers) can verify that.

    So… What’s the “deal”?

  87. Armed invasion of a nation is repelled by an armed defense. Killing someone in battle is a far cry from killing them in revenge, which is what the death penalty is, in essence.

    I’m curious, after 9/11 we didn’t repell any enemies. We invaded Afghanistan much later, in response to 9/11, but not in response to an immediate threat. Was it wrong to invade Afghanistan when they didn’t pose an immediate threat to us that warranted repelling them?

  88. But isn’t rape a part of systemic oppression of women, a kind of war on them? Feminist perceptive usually says so.

    Murder can be systemic too, when it is done with the explicit purpose of advocating certain policies and the benefits certain groups of people (fatwas, lynchings in the south…)

    If the actual people working for such systemic goal are pushed into it by threat of death from the criminals, and are not in a position to care about prison, would you then agree that the society would be perfectly justified of killing the fuckers, if it would work on balancing the situation, so to speak?

    War and punishing criminals are two different things. You’re conflating them.

    But systemic crime can be used as a way to wage war on a society or some part of the society. The conlating of war and crime is not so far-fetched IMO.

    Killing someone in battle is a far cry from killing them in revenge, which is what the death penalty is, in essence.

    Parts of war can be revenge.If a foreign nation would commit a bombing run against a city, and leave it at that and celebrate the success, it would be perfectly fine to seek revenge on that. You can’t start a fight and then claim that you hate violence. Since modern warfare is far from pitched battles, the line is pretty flaky.

    But it’s an invasion of a person, not of a nation.

    Nations consist of inviduals, if death is appropriate (even in revenge, as I explained in the bombing run) against violation of a nation (large group of inviduals), then wouldn’t it, in some extreme cases at least, be appropriate on inviduals? That’s why I purposely conflate them – I don’t think it is appropriate to seperate war from other human interaction – often it is done and there’s an almost… religious feeling to it. Like it was some kind of… sacred (profane?), special kind of ritual between nations (rambling, not fully formed thoughts, it’s damn late).

    Revenge, IMO, is not teh bad. It serves an important humane function on setting limits for things, a sort of sending a message.

  89. Ricia.
    I’m saying this in all sincerity: I don’t think we can understand each other.

    I do not worship the state, but neither do I think it is intrinsically bad.

  90. I’m curious, after 9/11 we didn’t repell any enemies. We invaded Afghanistan much later, in response to 9/11, but not in response to an immediate threat. Was it wrong to invade Afghanistan when they didn’t pose an immediate threat to us that warranted repelling them?

    No, but that falls under “hot pursuit.” “Hot” being a relative concept when one is gathering an army. And it was perfectly moral for the Taliban to fight and kill our invading soldiers. But it’s not moral for our army to torture and kill captives once off the battlefield. See how that works?

    But isn’t rape a part of systemic oppression of women, a kind of war on them? Feminist perceptive usually says so.

    Murder can be systemic too, when it is done with the explicit purpose of advocating certain policies and the benefits certain groups of people (fatwas, lynchings in the south…)

    If the actual people working for such systemic goal are pushed into it by threat of death from the criminals, and are not in a position to care about prison, would you then agree that the society would be perfectly justified of killing the fuckers, if it would work on balancing the situation, so to speak?

    All men benefit from rape culture, whether they recognize it or not. Should we kill all men? I’d be a lot more receptive to your arguments if society at large gave a rat’s ass about the toll that rape culture takes on women.

    I am also highly skeptical that the death penalty has been a deterrent to anyone. If it did, the murder rate in Texas would be far lower than the murder rate in Michigan.

  93. Certainly. I was just looking for your take on whether the distinction was absolute or relative.I’m not too invested in the capital punishment issue, and I’m enjoying reading the back and forth on this debate, but ISTM, that when we’re dealing with relative distinctions it becomes impossible to make absolutist arguments and the relativist arguments are easier to nudge in one direction or the other compared to having to completely derail an absolutist argument. Does this make sense?

  94. All men benefit from rape culture, whether they recognize it or not. Should we kill all men? I’d be a lot more receptive to your arguments if society at large gave a rat’s ass about the toll that rape culture takes on women.

    I agree that society at large is somewhat unsympathetic to effects of rape. I think the “benefit” from rape to men isn’t that clear-cut: I do have the privilege of not getting told that I must dress “provocatively” etc. and other things, but I don’t think the fact prevalence of rape results logically in women having to treat men with suspicion and fear benefits men at all. Benefit as in “having things better than women on some aspects”, but it ain’t zero-sum – decent, non-rapist men would benefit too if rape was rarer. Killing all men does not logically follow from any of my questions and suggestions.

    I’d be a lot more receptive to your arguments if society at large gave a rat’s ass about the toll that rape culture takes on womenthat is not really that compelling argument – it is conceivable for a person to be for DP and not be a mere tough-on-crime poser, as you and Amanda suspect. I’m all for society giving a rat’s ass.

    I am also highly skeptical that the death penalty has been a deterrent to anyone. If it did, the murder rate in Texas would be far lower than the murder rate in Michigan.

    How can you rule out all the cultural factors and other variables? (I can not either)

    Anyone isn’t everyone – standard crime is usually done without forethought. Systemic crime such as terrorism serves directly (instead of inadvartedly, as rape for example) some stated purpose – I’d say the deterrant might work then. Point being that ruling out DP always, permanently and with no expections isn’t a good strategy to go with.

  95. Mind you, I’m not saying all it takes to be decent is to not be rapist. That would be a pretty low bar.

  96. Criminal prosecutions are a lot colder than warfare, mind.

    Tell that to my grandfather.

    Fucking -40.

  98. Tell that to my grandfather.

    Fucking -40.

    Well, that was bizarre. I don’t know what your grandfather has to do with anything or what you’re getting so tweaked about.

    Does this make sense?

    No, it doesn’t. Because your argument still seems to conflate warfare and criminal prosecution, which are two separate functions in society (note the vapors that the Bush folks got when John Kerry suggested that fighting terrorism was primarily a law-enforcement problem rather than a military problem). If warfare is analogous to anything, it’s the crime itself, and repelling an invading army is analogous to self-defense.

    But war criminals are put on trial, just as common criminals are put on trial. In each case, the immediate need for killing and/or self-defense is removed.

    How can you rule out all the cultural factors and other variables? (I can not either)

    Such as? These are two American states. Unless you’re saying that Texans are just naturally more murderous than Michiganders.

  99. Well, that was bizarre. I don’t know what your grandfather has to do with anything or what you’re getting so tweaked about.

    It was an off-topic half-joke directed against your comment that warfare is hot and criminal prosecutions are cold: The winter of 1939-1940 in Finland got as cold as -40 celcius (that’s -40 fahrenheit, too, so no confusion).

    I’ll spare you the history lesson, if you don’t see the grim joke in that then you don’t see it.

    So you’ll now dismissing my position as being “tweaked”?

    Such as? These are two American states. Unless you’re saying that Texans are just naturally more murderous than Michiganders.

    The state of the Bush family and all… 😛

    No, honestly. I don’t exactly know the differences, I’m not American. But are you saying that Texans=Michiganders, except for DP?

  100. Texas is famous for its high rate of executions; George Bush oversaw quite a number of them and routinely rejected clemency requests after cursorily glancing at summaries prepared by Alberto Gonzalez, summaries that routinely left out mitigating factors. Michigan does not have the death penalty.

    It was an off-topic half-joke directed against your comment that warfare is hot and criminal prosecutions are cold: The winter of 1939-1940 in Finland got as cold as -40 celcius (that’s -40 fahrenheit, too, so no confusion).

    I’ll spare you the history lesson, if you don’t see the grim joke in that then you don’t see it.

    So you’ll now dismissing my position as being “tweaked”?

    Frankly, I didn’t know what the hell you were talking about. Indicating that you were talking about temperature might have helped; otherwise you just seemed pissed off about something.

  101. Frankly, I didn’t know what the hell you were talking about. Indicating that you were talking about temperature might have helped; otherwise you just seemed pissed off about something.

    Well, Robert got it, so it’s not like it was incomprehensible. That said, no sweat, miscommunications happen.

    George Bush oversaw quite a number of them and routinely rejected clemency requests after cursorily glancing at summaries prepared by Alberto Gonzalez, summaries that routinely left out mitigating factors.

    Here you go: Texans are more murderous. Leaving out mitigating factors (assuming those are reasonable and, more importantly,recognized by the law) just to ensure someone gets executed isn’t something I can approve.

    DP is something that requires care, fair trial and sincere respect for law, not sloppiness and political ambition to appear tough. But I’d still like the option to exist.

  103. Looks like most of the talk here is over, but I just read this post, and wanted to put in my two cents.

    As an aside, if anybody else is still reading these threads, I would love to hear some more responses to the several survivors of abuse who chimed in that they think state executions of child molesters is wrong–that’s more interesting (to me!) than a discussion on whether or not Europe is set up to fall because they don’t perform enough executions.

    Disclaimer: As a person who hasn’t been a direct victim of sexual abuse (though I have, like most people, known survivors, and my life has in that way been keenly affected by abuse), it may be that my take on things has many blind spots that I am…well…blind to. I put forth the following in the spirit of discussion, but recognize that I am not an authority, especially not an authority from direct experience. I am trying here to be as sensitive to the issues at hand (and to the survivors of abuse) as possible–please feel free to email me if you can point out my blind spots to me (or, of course, in further comments).

    First of all, far be it from me to suggest that maybe statistics/opinions from a CourtTV website might be skewed, but it seems at the very least that the causes of pedophilia as well as the rates of recidivism aren’t things that have been settled in any definite way. Where Lauren says her therapist says that child molesters are incapable of being rehabilitated, other sources suggest that recidivism rates for child molesters, while not encouraging, are very far from 100%, as is often suggested–one study says as low as 7%. The point of the article I cite is actually that nailing down whether child molesters can be rehabilitated is the most tricky sort of guessing (made more difficlut, of course, by the potential damage being wrong about it can do)..

    But let’s say for the benefit of the doubt that Lauren’s therapist is correct. Further, let’s take very seriously the amount of damage, both in pure numbers of people sexually abused as well as the immesurable damage done to anybody who is sexually abused. Given these two things (the first of which is not resolved in actuality, but for sake of argument), it seems more than reasonable that we as a society ought to make very sure that when a person has been found to be a child molester, that he (mostly he’s) is kept from ever being in a position to do so again.

    Now, there may be compelling cost-benefit arguments to explain why execution is better than keeping them locked up for the rest of their lives; but there also seem to be compelling cost-benefit arguments to support the converse. We can never set aside the cost of either, in reality, but Lauren’s position doesn’t seem to, on the face of it, care much about the accounting of the situation–rather, she’s pointing out that it’s the right thing to do to execute child molesters.

    But given her opinion that the molesters can’t change, combined with the fact that the main causes that are currently advanced by people ‘in the know’–not unlike Lauren’s therapist–are that molesters may have higher testosterone rates and/or were molested/observed molestation as children, seems to me to suggest that Lauren’s position is that once a person becomes a molester, even if becoming that is largely the result of chemical reactions he has no control over (at least on the face of it) and/or the result of having been molested himself, then basically the position boils down to: Because the crime is so horrible, it doesn’t matter that the molester was a person who had no control (possibly) over becoming what he has become, and has no control over it now–he should be killed.

    I’m not here advocating the position that these men (mostly) shouldn’t be held accountable for their crimes. (In fact, I’m of the opinion that molesters can change, and do so in greater numbers than is suggested by Lauren’s therapist.) But if one holds the position that they literally can’t do otherwise–that is, the possiblity of rehabilitation is zero–then how is it that you think you can hold them accountable? According to that position, they can’t be anything different than what they are…and, of course, as such, I would advocate for life in prison without the possibility of parole. Keeping them from molesting agian is the right thing to do. But how can killing somebody for doing something that you yourself think they couldn’t have avoided doing in any way just?

    I think about it this way: What if a son of mine was (heaven forbid) molested. What if, further, he happened to have higher testosterone levels than normal? What if he grew up so screwed up because of what happened to him that he became a molester? According to how I see Lauren’s position, such things wouldn’t be, at some point, under his control (no rehabilitation, remember?) I would certainly want him to be removed from the general population (again, if it is the case that such people can’t be rehabilitated), but I wouldn’t want the state to kill my son simply for doing that which he couldn’t do otherwise.

  104. Jeff, I’m a survivor of sexual abuse as a child and sexual assault later in life. And I agree with every word of your post. Very thoughtful. You point out so many fallacies that people make in debates like these–debates I ordinarily stay out of, because they make my blood boil. (No, not all survivors support the death penalty, so make your case for it without dragging all survivors–and therefore, me–into it, mmkay?)

  105. jeffislivehere:

    But if one holds the position that they literally can’t do otherwise–that is, the possiblity of rehabilitation is zero–then how is it that you think you can hold them accountable? According to that position, they can’t be anything different than what they are…and, of course, as such, I would advocate for life in prison without the possibility of parole. Keeping them from molesting agian is the right thing to do. But how can killing somebody for doing something that you yourself think they couldn’t have avoided doing in any way just?

    Nice strawman. “We must believe people can change”.

    In your long and admittedly somewhat thoughtful post, you did not once touch the repeat child molester part that is crucial to Lauren’s post and the position some of the pro-DP in those cases -folks here.

    To put it simply:

    NO ONE argued:
    phase 1:An adult sexually abuses a child
    phase 2:The adult is executed because we believe he/she can not change.

    What was argued is:

    phase1:
    An adult sexually abuses a child
    phase 2:
    The adult gets prison and (IMO essential) compulsory sex therapy, and gets a second chance.
    phase 3:
    The adult is supposedly cured, and a changed man or woman.
    phase 4:
    The same adult repeats the crime,
    phase 5: DP.

  106. Lanoire–Thanks for the kind words. I get it about blood boiling–that’s actually one reason why I haven’t commented over here ever since I got into a bit of a heated ‘debate’ which just got me angry and didn’t really lead anywhere useful with zuzu.

    Tuomas–
    Thanks for pointing out a glaring error in my discussion. Of course the law is a ‘two strike’ law, which is different in an important way from just writing people off the first time around.

    My main point was to examine what it means to hold somebody accountable for an action (in this case, by first imprisoning them, giving them counseling, giving them one more chance, and then, if they don’t change, killing them) while at the same time acknowledging that you don’t believe that they can possibly change. If the ‘second chance’ offered is sort of lip service–it seems clear to me from Lauren’s original words that she (and her therapist) think that it’s (virtually?) impossible to change in these cases–then I think the whole idea of holding somebody accountable for something they can’t do otherwise still seems sketchy.

    Again, I think they should be removed from the general population, because we want them to not hurt anybody else. This is an unfortunate fact of the world, I suppose, that they aren’t, in some sense, responsible for their actions (can they be responsible if they literally can’t do otherwise? I’d say no), but we have a responsibility to protect others from further harm, so we do the lesser of two evils, we imprison them. But why go as far as killing them? (Of course we may now invoke other sorts of reasons–financial and the like–but I was trying to address the basic point I thought Lauren was trying to make, which I saw as not needing any other arugument regarding financial cost/benefit stuff.)

  108. zuzu:
    Yes, OR. I prefer DP, you prefer LWOP.

    jeffislivehere:
    I see your point. I do also believe that change is possible, but I sceptically think that an abuser usually places more value on whatever pleasure he/she gets out of it than changing. Saying that the vast majority does not change is not the same as can not change.

Comments are currently closed.