Thoughts? Opinions?

High court weighs death for child rape (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2008-04-07-court_N.htm)

High court weighs death for child rape

By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will weigh the constitutionality of the death penalty for child rape next week, in the case of a Louisiana man convicted of raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter.

The dispute, closely followed by state officials, social workers and defendants' rights groups, marks the first time since 1977 that the justices will consider whether rape can be punished by death. The justices said no in the case three decades ago, involving a 16-year-old married woman whom the court referred to as an adult.

Several states, including Missouri, have signaled that if the court permits the death penalty for child rape in Louisiana, they may try to enact such laws. Five states already plainly allow capital punishment for raping young children. Social workers warn that if the court sanctions the penalty for child rape, it could further discourage reporting of the crime because in the majority of child sexual assaults, the attacker is a relative or friend of the victim.

The dispute the justices will hear next Wednesday arises as prosecutors nationwide are obtaining significantly fewer death sentences annually than a decade ago. A de facto moratorium on capital punishment is also in place while the Supreme Court considers a separate dispute over lethal injection.

Louisiana argues that national outrage over sex crimes against children, along with efforts by some states to make rape a death penalty offense, should lead the court to uphold a Louisiana death sentence for Patrick Kennedy.

The trend, asserts Juliet Clark, assistant Jefferson Parish district attorney, "strongly supports imposition of the death penalty for this exceedingly grave offense."

Kennedy's lawyer counters that there are signs that society believes death is excessive for rape, including that no one in America has been executed for any rape in more than 43 years. "Although rape is a very serious crime," attorney Jeffrey Fisher says, "no rapist should be punished more severely than the average … murderer, who by definition is not subject to capital punishment." The death penalty has traditionally been reserved for the worst of society's criminals.

The justices' view of such societal trends will matter in Kennedy v. Louisiana, because the court looks for evidence of a national consensus when deciding whether a sentence violates notions of decency embodied in the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

In recent death penalty cases, the court has noted state trends in exempting the mentally retarded and teenagers from the ultimate punishment. In 2002, the court struck down the death penalty for mentally retarded defendants, and in 2005, it invalidated capital punishment for defendants who were under 18 at the time of their crimes.

After police were called to investigate the rape of the girl on March 2, 1998, Kennedy's stepdaughter initially told them that two neighborhood boys had raped her after dragging her from her garage to a side yard. Police, however, found evidence of blood in her bedroom that Kennedy apparently had tried to clean up. The stepdaughter testified later that Kennedy had raped her and urged her to relate a false account.

A jury convicted Kennedy in 2003, under a statute that permits the death penalty for anyone found guilty of raping someone under 12. The Louisiana Supreme Court rejected Kennedy's appeal that his death sentence violated the Eighth Amendment. It emphasized the need to protect children.

In Kennedy's appeal to the Supreme Court, Fisher, a Stanford University law professor, says that since the 1977 case of Coker v. Georgia, the court has not allowed capital punishment for any crime involving "person-on-person violence" that did not lead to a death.

Clark, who will argue for Louisiana, counters in her filing that times have changed. She says several states and the U.S. government have authorized the death penalty for non-homicide offenses, such as espionage. She also points to the recent enactment of "Megan's Laws" requiring sex offenders to register in their cities as a reflection of concern about child sexual assault.

Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz, who will argue on behalf of nine other states supporting Louisiana's position, says, "The Constitution permits democratically elected legislatures to choose to allow the most serious punishment for the very worst child rapists."

The states that have signed Cruz's brief are Texas, Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Washington.

Among the groups siding with Kennedy, who is African-American, are the American Civil Liberties Union, which emphasizes the South's history of executing blacks for rape more often than whites, and the National Association of Social Workers.

Joining the social worker group, Judy Benitez, director of the Louisiana Foundation against Sexual Assault, said most sexual abuse is committed by victims' relatives or friends. "This can lead to ambivalence on the part of the victim and her family about reporting the abuse," Benitez said. "We believe that if the specter of the death penalty is out there, it will lead to more underreporting. The victim might think, 'I wanted the abuse to stop, but I didn't want him to die.' "

Thoughts? Opinions?

High court weighs death for child rape (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2008-04-07-court_N.htm)

High court weighs death for child rape

By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will weigh the constitutionality of the death penalty for child rape next week, in the case of a Louisiana man convicted of raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter.

The dispute, closely followed by state officials, social workers and defendants' rights groups, marks the first time since 1977 that the justices will consider whether rape can be punished by death. The justices said no in the case three decades ago, involving a 16-year-old married woman whom the court referred to as an adult.

Several states, including Missouri, have signaled that if the court permits the death penalty for child rape in Louisiana, they may try to enact such laws. Five states already plainly allow capital punishment for raping young children. Social workers warn that if the court sanctions the penalty for child rape, it could further discourage reporting of the crime because in the majority of child sexual assaults, the attacker is a relative or friend of the victim.

The dispute the justices will hear next Wednesday arises as prosecutors nationwide are obtaining significantly fewer death sentences annually than a decade ago. A de facto moratorium on capital punishment is also in place while the Supreme Court considers a separate dispute over lethal injection.

Louisiana argues that national outrage over sex crimes against children, along with efforts by some states to make rape a death penalty offense, should lead the court to uphold a Louisiana death sentence for Patrick Kennedy.

The trend, asserts Juliet Clark, assistant Jefferson Parish district attorney, "strongly supports imposition of the death penalty for this exceedingly grave offense."

Kennedy's lawyer counters that there are signs that society believes death is excessive for rape, including that no one in America has been executed for any rape in more than 43 years. "Although rape is a very serious crime," attorney Jeffrey Fisher says, "no rapist should be punished more severely than the average … murderer, who by definition is not subject to capital punishment." The death penalty has traditionally been reserved for the worst of society's criminals.

The justices' view of such societal trends will matter in Kennedy v. Louisiana, because the court looks for evidence of a national consensus when deciding whether a sentence violates notions of decency embodied in the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

In recent death penalty cases, the court has noted state trends in exempting the mentally retarded and teenagers from the ultimate punishment. In 2002, the court struck down the death penalty for mentally retarded defendants, and in 2005, it invalidated capital punishment for defendants who were under 18 at the time of their crimes.

After police were called to investigate the rape of the girl on March 2, 1998, Kennedy's stepdaughter initially told them that two neighborhood boys had raped her after dragging her from her garage to a side yard. Police, however, found evidence of blood in her bedroom that Kennedy apparently had tried to clean up. The stepdaughter testified later that Kennedy had raped her and urged her to relate a false account.

A jury convicted Kennedy in 2003, under a statute that permits the death penalty for anyone found guilty of raping someone under 12. The Louisiana Supreme Court rejected Kennedy's appeal that his death sentence violated the Eighth Amendment. It emphasized the need to protect children.

In Kennedy's appeal to the Supreme Court, Fisher, a Stanford University law professor, says that since the 1977 case of Coker v. Georgia, the court has not allowed capital punishment for any crime involving "person-on-person violence" that did not lead to a death.

Clark, who will argue for Louisiana, counters in her filing that times have changed. She says several states and the U.S. government have authorized the death penalty for non-homicide offenses, such as espionage. She also points to the recent enactment of "Megan's Laws" requiring sex offenders to register in their cities as a reflection of concern about child sexual assault.

Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz, who will argue on behalf of nine other states supporting Louisiana's position, says, "The Constitution permits democratically elected legislatures to choose to allow the most serious punishment for the very worst child rapists."

The states that have signed Cruz's brief are Texas, Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Washington.

Among the groups siding with Kennedy, who is African-American, are the American Civil Liberties Union, which emphasizes the South's history of executing blacks for rape more often than whites, and the National Association of Social Workers.

Joining the social worker group, Judy Benitez, director of the Louisiana Foundation against Sexual Assault, said most sexual abuse is committed by victims' relatives or friends. "This can lead to ambivalence on the part of the victim and her family about reporting the abuse," Benitez said. "We believe that if the specter of the death penalty is out there, it will lead to more underreporting. The victim might think, 'I wanted the abuse to stop, but I didn't want him to die.' "

I might be for it, but I'm not sure. I am all for the death penalty if somebody kills another person, it is harder to decide when no death was involved. However, I have heard that many women who are raped feel as though there lives were taken from them. Child rapists are certainly not what I'd call a contribution to society, and maybe if the punishment was death, there would be less cases. I don't know.. I'll be waiting to read others thoughts on this.

is there a cliff note version

ok i didnt read the whole thing but just going by the title, giving this rapist the death penalty is the easy way out. Make him serve his time and sentence him to life without parol regardless of good behaviour.

ok i didnt read the whole thing but just going by the title, giving this rapist the death penalty is the easy way out. Make him serve his time and sentence him to life without parol regardless of good behaviour.

Why should taxpayers be burdened with the expense???

nope. cut their penis and fingers off.

I don't feel death is excessive but I do not believe in a government sanctioned death penalty.

Why should taxpayers be burdened with the expense???

Death penalty is not cheap either. In my opinion prison needs to be a lot harsher than they are today. Well this is a controversial issue, if it had been a child of mine (if i had one) i would be for the death penalty (bias). :dontknow: im on the fence on this one, i just dont like the idea of killing ppl.

Yeah amputate his penis so it wont happen again

Death penalty is not cheap either. In my opinion prison needs to be a lot harsher than they are today. Well this is a controversial issue, if it had been a child of mine (if i had one) i would be for the death penalty (bias). :dontknow: im on the fence on this one, i just dont like the idea of killing ppl.

Yeah amputate his penis so it wont happen again

I am pro-death penalty, but child rapists should be made to serve life in jail wearing a pink prison suit. That'll be far more punishing to him than giving him the easy way out with a quick death.

I'd be for the death penalty, but as awesome123 said this may be letting them off too easy. I say put them in jail for life, since most child offenders are usually targeted in the prison system. Most criminals don't care too much for child offenders and he may be dead by the hand of the other prisoners before the end of his full sentence or at least have the same pain he put the little girl thru done to him ten times over. The prison just seems more of a fitting punishment than a swift and painless death.

I am pro-death penalty, but child rapists should be made to serve life in jail wearing a pink prison suit. That'll be far more punishing to him than giving him the easy way out with a quick death.

Add the pedobear logo, for greater effect. ;)

Add the pedobear logo, for greater effect. ;)

Would a hole in the seat of the pants be overkill? :D

nope. cut their penis and fingers off. .

I agree 100%. Castration may be the trick to cut down this problem; men seems to fear castration.

It is a known fact these guys never rehabilitate; placing these type of offenders back into society = return of a cancer.

Would a hole in the seat of the pants be overkill? :D

Not unless you surround it with fringe or dinko balls.

How can one answer no without being accused of defending child rapists?

What if the death penalty caused the perpetrator to kill the child so there would be no witnesses?

Raping a child is heinous, but the punishment must fit the crime. I have no prob with chemical castration.

LIfe in prison without the possibility of parole should be the penalty for raping a child in my opinion. With the possible exception of Treason (as defined by art 3 sec 3 of the Constitution) and during a formally declared war, I do not support the death penalty in cases where the victim does not physically die. This is one of those cases where a person commits a very heinous crime, but doesn't kill their victim. Lock up the bastards and throw away the key, but I oppose mutilation (in all cases) and execution (in this case)..

Lock up the bastards and throw away the key, but I oppose mutilation (in all cases) and execution (in this case)..

Why even have a door to their cell? Brick them in and slide their food through a hole in the wall.

Why even have a door to their cell? Brick them in and slide their food through a hole in the wall.

Very interesting idea that would make for a much safer and cheaper prison environment. Although many criminal acts are consider an inhumane in action, people still feel they can not be treated inhumanely. I don't really get this, except for the fact that they may have the wrong person.

No, the death penalty should be reserved for heinous murderers and treason. Also, politicians irritate me with this constant need to one-up each other for criminal penalties. It's a cheap way to win votes because writing harsh laws is free, but the costs of incarcerating or executing all these prisoners passes on to later administrations. If they actually have to spend more money in their term to bulk up police forces, child protective services, or anything else, they often balk.

Why even have a door to their cell? Brick them in and slide their food through a hole in the wall.

Throwing away the key was meant as a figure of speech. It's cheaper to have cells that you can re-use, in the long term. It's cheaper to have a door, and you can use the cell for other prisoners in the future.

Throwing away the key was meant as a figure of speech. It's cheaper to have cells that you can re-use, in the long term. It's cheaper to have a door, and you can use the cell for other prisoners in the future.

You can re-use the cell, once the prisoner dies. I think the cost of replacing bricks (cinder blocks would actually be preferable) would be less than the cost of maintaining guards in a wing of highly violent offenders. Particularly in the event that it is only the size of a doorway that must be replaced.

You can re-use the cell, once the prisoner dies. I think the cost of replacing bricks (cinder blocks would actually be preferable) would be less than the cost of maintaining guards in a wing of highly violent offenders. Particularly in the event that it is only the size of a doorway that must be replaced.

If you don't allow the prisoners out of their cells, it's works out to be cheaper, to simply unlock the door, collect the body, and put a new prisoner in than to brick the prisoner in (and more practical) destroy the wall and rebuild it every time there is a new prisoner to put in or an old one to release. Iron bars are quite effective in keeping a prisoner caged, and is cheaper in the long haul than brick because they can be opened and closed. You still, however are going to have to pay to feed as well as clothe the prisoner whether the cell has a door or not. If you have prisons, which there is a need for in society, there are going to be expenses associated with running those prisons.

Iron bars are quite effective in keeping a prisoner caged, and is cheaper in the long haul than brick because they can be opened and closed. You still, however are going to have to pay to feed as well as clothe the prisoner whether the cell has a door or not. If you have prisons, which there is a need for in society, there are going to be expenses associated with running those prisons.

The intent of the bricks is for more than just utility. It is for punitive effect, as well. There is no door that can be opened and the prisoner will know they are going to live the rest of their life in a cage with no door.

There is no reason to have any doors installed, with the exception of an iron barred one at the beginning of the wing. Additionally, if there is a reasonable amount of warmth provided, clothing is not required, as they are never going to be directly exposed to other human beings. Why should we be concerned with dehumanizing the inhumane?

The intent of the bricks is for more than just utility. It is for punitive effect, as well. There is no door that can be opened and the prisoner will know they are going to live the rest of their life in a cage with no door.

They already know that they're not going to be let out when they're handed the sentence of life without the possibility of parole. Not having a door on the prison doesn't necessarily say that, since a even a brick wall can be broken down if necessary.

There is no reason to have any doors installed, with the exception of an iron barred one at the beginning of the wing. Additionally, if there is a reasonable amount of warmth provided, clothing is not required, as they are never going to be directly exposed to other human beings. Why should we be concerned with dehumanizing the inhumane?

Because we don't want to become the inhumane, only keep them from harming the law abiding citizens of our society.

If you aren't going to kill them, then do it the old fashion way. Make the cell 16 feet tall with no doorway. Leave an opening at the top through which food can be lowered down. When the guy dies, lower someone else in to clean the cell and ready it for it's new occupant.

Solves the debate about the cost of having a door versus tearing down and rebuilding a wall each time.

If you aren't going to kill them, then do it the old fashion way. Make the cell 16 feet tall with no doorway. Leave an opening at the top through which food can be lowered down. When the guy dies, lower someone else in to clean the cell and ready it for it's new occupant.

Solves the debate about the cost of having a door versus tearing down and rebuilding a wall each time.

plus, there's alweays the chance that they'll off themselves and save the state some money.

NO.

Child rapists should go to jail. They get treated bad enough in there. You can lengthen their terms, but no need for death. Their prison sentence will likely be worse than death.

I am against the death penalty 100% as I don't trust the government to not abuse that power.

I don't oppose the death penalty b/c if it was my child, I would want them dead. As for leaving them in prison, I like that idea too if we can put them in the pink jumpsuit :) :)

If you aren't going to kill them, then do it the old fashion way. Make the cell 16 feet tall with no doorway. Leave an opening at the top through which food can be lowered down. When the guy dies, lower someone else in to clean the cell and ready it for it's new occupant.

Solves the debate about the cost of having a door versus tearing down and rebuilding a wall each time.

Demosthenes9 for Attorney General!!! :woot:

NO.

Child rapists should go to jail. They get treated bad enough in there. You can lengthen their terms, but no need for death. Their prison sentence will likely be worse than death.

Most of them are placed in solitary or protective custody and will never have contact with the general populace. One can also request it, and if turned down, punch some officer in the face and get thrown in the hole. They are a lot more protected than you think. There was a story about a father in Missouri who didn't return his kids after visitation so they put out an APB. When they caught up to him a couple of days later, they couldn't find the kids so they charged him with kidnapping. For over two years, he wouldn't say what happened with the kids. Most people thought they were dead, others that he gave them to a relative to hide. Finally the warden and AG told him after 2 years, he had 24 hours to tell them where they were or that he would be placed in general populace (as he has been in segregatory protective wing of the prison). Needless to say, that broke him, he told them where the bodies were, and he got to remain in protective custody.

I am against the death penalty 100% as I don't trust the government to not abuse that power.

I don't trust some judge or liberal parole board not to parole him.

I don't trust some judge or liberal parole board not to parole him.

Have the state legislature pass, and the governor sign, a law requiring that those who rape children be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, as a mandatory minimum, and you don't have to worry about parole or sentencing. At least in this case it would make sense to have a mandatory minimum sentence.

Use the perp as a human organ bank, so when someone needs a lung, kidney, eye, bone marrow, etc., we have a ready source.

Oh, and the heart, too, when the other paired organs have been harvested.

I voted no because I don't trust the state to get it right 100% of the time.

I also made absolutely sure the strongly suspected pedophile who was around my children understood in no uncertain terms the penalty would be death if it were to happen to my child.

Jeez, after reading this thread I wonder if its the Eighth Amendment that people would rather execute.

I don't trust some judge or liberal parole board not to parole him.

But you trust some judge and a jury of 12 idiots with the death penalty :confused:

Jeez, after reading this thread I wonder if its the Eighth Amendment that people would rather execute.

no, its just lost its meaning now. anything, that might hurt the prisoners feelings, can no longer be done. And we should make sure they have cable TV and internet access. As well as state of the art health care.

Don't expect hard working americans to give a shit about child rapists or other criminals in this class. As far as I am concerned, they should work the crime off... no work, no food.

If there is proof beyond a shadow of a doubt then, Death Penalty!!!

A deli-slicer and a white hot piece of steel as the implements of execution come to mind.

Because we don't want to become the inhumane, only keep them from harming the law abiding citizens of our society.

i disagree with the later part. Getting them out of society is not the only motive to a prison sentence. If that were the case, then we would nee to remove them from society permanently. the point of punishment with jail time is just that, punishment. The sentence must be bad enough to discourage said illegal actions.

For a while in this area (don't remember which city though) there is a jail where the guards would inform the other prisoners if a child molester or rapist was coming into the jail. Then they would "accidentally" :evil: leave the new person unattended for "a little while":sly: with some of the other prisoners while they "filled out paperwork". :evil: A few guys ended up dead after that, so they changed their policy.

If you aren't going to kill them, then do it the old fashion way. Make the cell 16 feet tall with no doorway. Leave an opening at the top through which food can be lowered down. When the guy dies, lower someone else in to clean the cell and ready it for it's new occupant.

Solves the debate about the cost of having a door versus tearing down and rebuilding a wall each time.

Why bother cleaning the cell? :confused:

I'm anti death penalty period, so.. no.

....i voted for death penalty...and i say within 2 yrs of being sentanced...no more 10 yrs of waiting for death to come. i am so sick of paying for all the stupid stuff america puts up with. prices are outrageous and there is no exscaping any of them! and don't worry you won't have to put a damn penny towards the needle...i'll shoot the rapist myself. :nod:

i disagree with the later part. Getting them out of society is not the only motive to a prison sentence. If that were the case, then we would nee to remove them from society permanently. the point of punishment with jail time is just that, punishment. The sentence must be bad enough to discourage said illegal actions.

When it comes to this particular crime, and many of the violent ones, I have no problem with sentences of life without parole, which if executed as authored, amounts to permanent imprisonment for convictions for specific crimes.

no, its just lost its meaning now. anything, that might hurt the prisoners feelings, can no longer be done. And we should make sure they have cable TV and internet access. As well as state of the art health care.

Don't expect hard working americans to give a shit about child rapists or other criminals in this class. As far as I am concerned, they should work the crime off... no work, no food.

The people in this thread aren't talking about hurting the prisoner's feelings, they are talking about torturing a man to death. If what carebearluv wrote is true (and it very well could be) then it is already happening. Why not drop all the pretense, put the guy in an orange jumpsuit, and hacksaw his head off on YouTube?

The people in this thread aren't talking about hurting the prisoner's feelings, they are talking about torturing a man to death. If what carebearluv wrote is true (and it very well could be) then it is already happening. Why not drop all the pretense, put the guy in an orange jumpsuit, and hacksaw his head off on YouTube?

IlluminatusCU for Attorney General! :woot:

IlluminatusCU for Attorney General! :woot:

al-Zarqawi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Berg#Death) for Attorney General! :woot: He knew how to get things done!

The people in this thread aren't talking about hurting the prisoner's feelings, they are talking about torturing a man to death. If what carebearluv wrote is true (and it very well could be) then it is already happening. Why not drop all the pretense, put the guy in an orange jumpsuit, and hacksaw his head off on YouTube?
I agree that they should not have been killed.

and, the constitution says no creul or unusual. So, I figure we can keep it clean. Having said that, I also believe that sometime wiht some people, you have to get midevial on their ars. just my opinion from dealing with idiots back in high school. some people do not respond to anything except violance. :nod:

I don't trust some judge or liberal parole board not to parole him.

But you trust some judge and a jury of 12 idiots with the death penalty ? :confused:

well, sounds like we are headed in the right direction.

I'm for instant death, no appeals, for the convicted rape murder or abuse of any child.

al-Zarqawi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Berg#Death) for Attorney General! :woot: He knew how to get things done!

Difference is Zarqawi killed indescrimately...including his own people. I trust you to punish only the guilty. :hug:

I agree that they should not have been killed.

and, the constitution says no creul or unusual. So, I figure we can keep it clean. Having said that, I also believe that sometime wiht some people, you have to get midevial on their ars. just my opinion from dealing with idiots back in high school. some people do not respond to anything except violance. :nod:

On the cruel and unusual right, do you actually believe the framers of the Constitution wouldn't have hung or shot a child rapists? How about someone that rapes and murders and innocent woman and then chop her body up to feed to dogs? Can you honestly say that would have had an issue torturing those parasites?

But you trust some judge and a jury of 12 idiots with the death penalty ? :confused:

I do more than some liberal judge in Vermont! :nod:

Difference is Zarqawi killed indescrimately...including his own people. I trust you to punish only the guilty. :hug:



On the cruel and unusual right, do you actually believe the framers of the Constitution wouldn't have hung or shot a child rapists? How about someone that rapes and murders and innocent woman and then chop her body up to feed to dogs? Can you honestly say that would have had an issue torturing those parasites?



I do more than some liberal judge in Vermont! :nod:

I think you have my position reversed, I was being sarcastic about killing them. I'm against the death penalty in general, I think expanding it beyond murder and treason is cruel & unusual. Torturing criminals, even reprehensible criminals, is basically a revenge fantasy and not much better than the things we condemn terrorists and dictators for.

I think you have my position reversed, I was being sarcastic about killing them. I'm against the death penalty in general, I think expanding it beyond murder and treason is cruel & unusual. Torturing criminals, even reprehensible criminals, is basically a revenge fantasy and not much better than the things we condemn terrorists and dictators for.

I understand your position but I think of it not in terms of "revenge fantasy" but as a deterent. Rank the order you would most likely commit a heinous crime (assume you have the mindset to do so):

1) No chance of punishment
2) Moderate sentence (5-15 years)
3) Maximum sentence (life)
4) Death penalty
5) Ass sodomizing torture with daily vinegar/ethanol saturations of the wounds.

For me, it would be 1<2<4<3<<<<<<<<<<<<5

Now if I grew up in and out of prison, 3 and 4 would be reversed because I could still hang with my homies and I would know how to make the best possible life in prison.

On the cruel and unusual right, do you actually believe the framers of the Constitution wouldn't have hung or shot a child rapists? How about someone that rapes and murders and innocent woman and then chop her body up to feed to dogs? Can you honestly say that would have had an issue torturing those parasites?



hanging and shooting is different then torture I suspect in most people books. I believe they put the clause in to prevent torture (cruel and unusual punishment). Horrific crimes are nothing new they have happened sense the inception of humankind.

I do more than some liberal judge in Vermont! :nod:

How deep does your distrust for liberals go ?

hanging and shooting is different then torture I suspect in most people books. I believe they put the clause in to prevent torture (cruel and unusual punishment). Horrific crimes are nothing new they have happened sense the inception of humankind.

Hanging is not a quick death by any means and I think most people would deem it cruel (not me as an appropriate punishment for a heinous crime). Heck, there were instances of people head and legs being tied to two horses running in opposite directions for barbaric/treasonist acts back then....and I would much rather have lethan injection than that. I can guarantee that child rape and murders were far less common (and at the least less known about) then today. Of course back then, you could take 12 year old bride in your 20's/30's because you just have another decade/score or so of lifespan left.

How deep does your distrust for liberals go ?

For liberals with influence...very deep (the same goes for conservatives on the far right also). For Democrats who are more in the middle, I have no issues with.

al-Zarqawi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Berg#Death) for Attorney General! :woot: He knew how to get things done!

u r confusing the innocent with the guilty.

On the cruel and unusual right, do you actually believe the framers of the Constitution wouldn't have hung or shot a child rapists? How about someone that rapes and murders and innocent woman and then chop her body up to feed to dogs? Can you honestly say that would have had an issue torturing those parasites?

well, there should not be government supported torture (beatings, rapes... etc.etc.). Now, if it happens behind my back to child rapists, so be it. I do not mind. death penalty with shooting or hanging is ok with me... its not unusaul... they been doing it for years. besides, YOU KNOW ITS COMING, if you commit certain crimes. so I do not have a problem with that either. :look:

For liberals with influence...very deep (the same goes for conservatives on the far right also). For Democrats who are more in the middle, I have no issues with.

What is it about liberals that bothers you so much ?

How about "wood chipper".

u r confusing the innocent with the guilty.

Guilty as defined by whom? They certainly consider all Americans guilty.

Even American courts, the best in the world, convict the wrong guy sometimes.

I understand your position but I think of it not in terms of "revenge fantasy" but as a deterent. Rank the order you would most likely commit a heinous crime (assume you have the mindset to do so):

1) No chance of punishment
2) Moderate sentence (5-15 years)
3) Maximum sentence (life)
4) Death penalty
5) Ass sodomizing torture with daily vinegar/ethanol saturations of the wounds.

For me, it would be 1<2<4<3<<<<<<<<<<<<5

Now if I grew up in and out of prison, 3 and 4 would be reversed because I could still hang with my homies and I would know how to make the best possible life in prison.

Setting aside the Constitutional questions, torture as a deterrent is a dangerous precedent. The way I read your argument is: There are some crimes so horrible that we must do horrible things to the perpetrators to convince others never to do the same.

(This assumes that you don't want to torture to deter all crimes, thus recognizing that there are some crimes which are not so horrible as to justify this)

The danger in that reasoning is that the line of what constitutes a crime so horrible as to deserve torture is subjective. Thus, all that separates us from people who would torture just for the crime of being American is a matter of degree. I am not willing to cede the moral high ground so easily.

I wouldn't feel bad if a rapist was murdered, but I don't know how much I trust people to always be convicted correctly.


What about adult rapists? Are those people less bad because adults are supposed to "protect themselves" or something?

I pretty much put all rapists in the same category.

Well, it was decided.

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court has struck down a Louisiana law that allows the execution of people convicted of a raping a child.

In a 5-4 vote, the court says the law allowing the death penalty to be imposed in cases of child rape violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

"The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion. His four liberal colleagues joined him, while the four more conservative justices dissented.

There has not been an execution in the United States for a crime that did not also involve the death of the victim in 44 years.

The court got it right IMO, barely.

What is it about liberals that bothers you so much ?

That would take a very long time to answer.

The court got it right IMO, barely.For some weird reasons though. What is with the "evolving moral standards" part? It makes it sound like they're not deciding constitutional issues but more like deciding where popular opinion falls.

I agree with the decision, but I'm not sure I understand Kennedy's reasoning.

For some weird reasons though. What is with the "evolving moral standards" part? It makes it sound like they're not deciding constitutional issues but more like deciding where popular opinion falls.

I agree with the decision, but I'm not sure I understand Kennedy's reasoning.

Kennedy probably does not either. :lol:

I don't want the death penalty for any crime, but in general, I think the Supreme Court was wrong on this.

Starting with this gem:

But Kennedy said the absence of any executions for rape and the small number of states that allow it demonstrate "there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape."

How do you overrule Louisianna's state law on executions based on a 'national consensus'? What kind of crap is that?

Why not just say, "France doesn't do it, so we don't think we should either." Why stop at our borders?

I don't want the death penalty for any crime, but in general, I think the Supreme Court was wrong on this.

How do you overrule Louisianna's state law on executions based on a 'national consensus'? What kind of crap is that? That's what I'm wondering too.

For some weird reasons though. What is with the "evolving moral standards" part? It makes it sound like they're not deciding constitutional issues but more like deciding where popular opinion falls.

I agree with the decision, but I'm not sure I understand Kennedy's reasoning.

I don't want the death penalty for any crime, but in general, I think the Supreme Court was wrong on this.

Starting with this gem:



How do you overrule Louisianna's state law on executions based on a 'national consensus'? What kind of crap is that?

Why not just say, "France doesn't do it, so we don't think we should either." Why stop at our borders?

That's what I'm wondering too.
IMHO, the Court was using these as factors to consider when a punishment becomes excessive. In other words, the Constitution itself does not delineate exactly what constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment." So like most constitutional provisions, the Court must interpret this phrase, including determining what factors are relevant.

From Kennedy's majority opinion (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-343.pdf):

Whether this requirement has been fulfilled is determined not by the standards that prevailed when the Eighth Amendment was adopted in 1791 but by the norms that “currently prevail.” Atkins, supra, at 311. The Amendment “draw[s] its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 101 (1958) (plurality opinion).This is because “[t]he standard of extreme cruelty is not merely descriptive, but necessarily embodies a moral judgment. The standard itself remains the same, but its applicability must change as the basic mores of society change.” Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238, 382 (1972) (Burger, C. J., dissenting).

......

This is of particular concern when the Court interprets the meaning of the Eighth Amendment in capital cases. When the law punishes by death, it risks its own sudden descent into brutality, transgressing the constitutional commitment to decency and restraint.
For these reasons we have explained that capital punishment must “be limited to those offenders who commit ‘a narrow category of the most serious crimes’ and whose extreme culpability makes them ‘the most deserving of execution.’” Roper, supra, at 568 (quoting Atkins, supra, at 319). Though the death penalty is not invariably unconstitutional,
see Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153 (1976),the Court insists upon confining the instances in which the punishment can be imposed.

......

The existence of objective indicia of consensus against making a crime punishable by death was a relevant concern in Roper, Atkins, Coker, and Enmund, and we follow the approach of those cases here. The history of the deathpenalty for the crime of rape is an instructive beginning point.

So it's not as if the SCOTUS just decided to pull these factors out of its collective ass. They are the same factors used in determining the constitutionality of the death penalty in other cases.

I'd be fore it fore very young victims, but not for sexually mature but underage victims. There's a big difference between the two. I'm not saying it shouldn't be illegal to have sex with a 16 year old, but death is not an appropriate punishment. For an 8 year old though? Death doesn't sound unreasonable.

I'd be fore it fore very young victims, but not for sexually mature but underage victims. There's a big difference between the two. I'm not saying it shouldn't be illegal to have sex with a 16 year old, but death is not an appropriate punishment. For an 8 year old though? Death doesn't sound unreasonable.

If the perp is going to be put to death for molestation, even if he doesn't kill the victim, then there's no reason for the perpretrator to allow his victim to survive.

IMHO, the Court was using these as factors to consider when a punishment becomes excessive. In other words, the Constitution itself does not delineate exactly what constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment." So like most constitutional provisions, the Court must interpret this phrase, including determining what factors are relevant. And that sounds completely reasonable, but that's not specifically the part that confused me. The part that confused me was why he had to use terminology like "evolving standards" which implies that popular opinion sort of dictates interpretation of the Constitution.

I agree with his decision, btw, in that I think that the punishment very much does not fit the crime and is therefore "cruel and unusual." I just don't get why he had to use the words he did; I would think that it could be considered "cruel and unusual" regardless of the time period in which the standards were being examined.

So it's not as if the SCOTUS just decided to pull these factors out of its collective ass. They are the same factors used in determining the constitutionality of the death penalty in other cases.Totally not trying to insinuate that; just trying to gain insight into the terminology that was used.

And that sounds completely reasonable, but that's not specifically the part that confused me. The part that confused me was why he had to use terminology like "evolving standards" which implies that popular opinion sort of dictates interpretation of the Constitution.
While not completely determinative, popular opinion does *influence* this particular interpretation of the Constitution (i.e. what constitutes "cruel & unusual" punishment).

From Kennedy (quoting a prior decision):
This is because “[t]he standard of extreme cruelty is not merely descriptive, but necessarily embodies a moral judgment. The standard itself remains the same, but its applicability must change as the basic mores of society change.

I agree with his decision, btw, in that I think that the punishment very much does not fit the crime and is therefore "cruel and unusual." I just don't get why he had to use the words he did; I would think that it could be considered "cruel and unusual" regardless of the time period in which the standards were being examined.
Perhaps it would be. :dontknow:

But such a consideration would mostly be dicta, as the precedent for death penalty cases has already established that the courts are to use such "evolving standards."

Totally not trying to insinuate that; just trying to gain insight into the terminology that was used.
Totally not trying to insinuate that you did. :O Was just trying to be "cheeky". :P

(I should have included a smilie in the previous post! :doh:)

Muderers on the most part shouldnt be put to death because many times it was in the act of heat and tension at the time. Rapists in general are sick minded people that have a defect in them. No one should suffer because of a rapist. They should be put to death once found guilty.

Muderers on the most part shouldnt be put to death because many times it was in the act of heat and tension at the time. Rapists in general are sick minded people that have a defect in them. No one should suffer because of a rapist. They should be put to death once found guilty.In that kind of scenario, killing the victim would always be the preferable option for a rapist.

Muderers on the most part shouldnt be put to death because many times it was in the act of heat and tension at the time. Rapists in general are sick minded people that have a defect in them. No one should suffer because of a rapist. They should be put to death once found guilty.

So we should not put criminals who actually kill their victims to death, but we should put a specific set of criminals to death whose victims are not killed?

I find the positions and the language used to describe those positions from both candidates very insightful.



Senator John McCain (From the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/washington/26scotuscnd.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&hp)):
“That there is a judge anywhere in America who does not believe that the rape of a child represents the most heinous of crimes, which is deserving of the most serious of punishments, is profoundly disturbing”. He called the decision “an assault on law enforcement’s efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime.”


Senator Barack Obama (From the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/washington/26scotuscnd.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&hp) and MSNBC's First Read (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/)):
“I disagree with the decision. I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for most egregious of crimes. I think that the rape of a small child, six or eight years old is a heinous crime, and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances, the death penalty is at least potentially applicable. That does not violate our constitution.” He added that the Supreme Court should have set conditions for imposing the death penalty for the crime, “but it basically had a blanket prohibition, and I disagree with the decision.”



Since most of the people here agree with the decision, I am wondering what the reaction is to these statements from the candidates. There is a clear difference in how each candidate expressed his disagreement with the decision even though both basically disagreed.

Well they are both appealing to their particular audiences. Obama clearly doesn't want to say hes against the death penalty when the issue of a child being raped is brought up, though he still wants to appeal to the anti-death penalty crowd at the same time. McCain doesn't seem too concerned about the anti-death crowd since few of his supporters are probably a part of it anyways. My take anyways. Personally I'm against the death penalty in any situation, but I guess you give and you take.

I find the positions and the language used to describe those positions from both candidates very insightful.



Senator John McCain (From the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/washington/26scotuscnd.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&hp)):
“That there is a judge anywhere in America who does not believe that the rape of a child represents the most heinous of crimes, which is deserving of the most serious of punishments, is profoundly disturbing”. He called the decision “an assault on law enforcement’s efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime.”


Senator Barack Obama (From the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/washington/26scotuscnd.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&hp) and MSNBC's First Read (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/)):
“I disagree with the decision. I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for most egregious of crimes. I think that the rape of a small child, six or eight years old is a heinous crime, and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances, the death penalty is at least potentially applicable. That does not violate our constitution.” He added that the Supreme Court should have set conditions for imposing the death penalty for the crime, “but it basically had a blanket prohibition, and I disagree with the decision.”



Since most of the people here agree with the decision, I am wondering what the reaction is to these statements from the candidates. There is a clear difference in how each candidate expressed his disagreement with the decision even though both basically disagreed.

I don't think this is the case... if you look at the original poll question of whether or not we should have death penalty for child rapists, the majority are for it. I don't think the majority have changed just because the scotus decided against it.

I don't think this is the case... if you look at the original poll question of whether or not we should have death penalty for child rapists, the majority are for it. I don't think the majority have changed just because the scotus decided against it.Oh, you're right. I didn't check the poll result. I was only looking at the posts here which seem to favor NOT having the death penalty.

Anyway, which candidate's statement comes closer to your views on the issue, susy? And, more importantly perhaps, which candidate you find came across more "presidential" through these statements? [I know you voted :dontknow: but in case you've made you mind].

Oh, you're right. I didn't check the poll result. I was only looking at the posts here which seem to favor NOT having the death penalty.

Anyway, which candidate's statement comes closer to your views on the issue, susy? And, more importantly perhaps, which candidate you find came across more "presidential" through these statements? [I know you voted :dontknow: but in case you've made you mind].


ah that is hard b/c both are against what the supreme court decided. Obama came across as more concerned about the way he worded it, but really I liked both responses. I think if a state makes a law that raping a small child can be punishable by death, then the supreme court should not overrule it based on what other states deem as appropriate punishment. I'm for it... rape can be worse than death b/c of the lasting mental damage that is done.

ah that is hard b/c both are against what the supreme court decided. Obama came across as more concerned about the way he worded it, but really I liked both responses. I think if a state makes a law that raping a small child can be punishable by death, then the supreme court should not overrule it based on what other states deem as appropriate punishment. I'm for it... rape can be worse than death b/c of the lasting mental damage that is done. Thanks. :)

I agree with you that rape can be worse than death. But, given the sex-saturated culture that we live in, and indeed we have created, I'm not sure if society can simply kill (death penalty) its way out of the this horrible crime. I have gotten myself in trouble for saying this before but I don't think it is sensible to assume that the fine line we've drawn between acceptable sexual behavior and unacceptable sexual behavior permits us (as a society) to be as harsh about this as we would like to be.

ah that is hard b/c both are against what the supreme court decided. Obama came across as more concerned about the way he worded it, but really I liked both responses. I think if a state makes a law that raping a small child can be punishable by death, then the supreme court should not overrule it based on what other states deem as appropriate punishment. I'm for it... rape can be worse than death b/c of the lasting mental damage that is done.

I would disagree with you for one reason, a rape victim, lives to tell about their ordeal, a murder victim does not.

Thanks. :)

I agree with you that rape can be worse than death. But, given the sex-saturated culture that we live in, and indeed we have created, I'm not sure if society can simply kill (death penalty) its way out of the this horrible crime. I have gotten myself in trouble for saying this before but I don't think it is sensible to assume that the fine line we've drawn between acceptable sexual behavior and unacceptable sexual behavior permits us (as a society) to be as harsh about this as we would like to be.

certainly there would have to be a fine line drawn and in writing. I'm not sure what exactly that line would be, perhaps actual rape of anyone under the age of 12? (not sexual assault, but rape) I dunno, but I'm ok with letting the states decide.
Another option that I would be fine with would be the castration and life in prison.

Another option that I would be fine with would be the castration and life in prison.

Yeah --- no prisonsex for the child rapists :shake:

I'm all for castration --- take away the offending agent.

I'm opposed to castration or any type of physical mutilation of any criminal for any crime under the law. I can support life in prison without the possibility of parole for rapists. I don't want the government chopping off body parts of people in my name. Life without the possibility of parole serves the apropriate function of removing the rapist from society where they cannot inflict future harm upon any more victims, and if enforced where life actually means life there is no risk of future harm to future victims.

I would disagree with you for one reason, a rape victim, lives to tell about their ordeal, a murder victim does not.

Is it always better to live and remember?? I think rape is the same thing as torture, particularly for a small child. Not to be too graphic, but we are talking small children w/small body parts, zero lubrication, etc. The adult male in this situation can cause damage to the reproductive organs and intense pain, not to mention the fear.

I'm opposed to castration or any type of physical mutilation of any criminal for any crime under the law. I can support life without the possibility of parole for rapists though. I don't want the government chopping off body parts of people in my name.

Well that is super, but I 100% disagree. Cut em off!

“That there is a judge anywhere in America who does not believe that the rape of a child represents the most heinous of crimes, which is deserving of the most serious of punishments, is profoundly disturbing”. He called the decision “an assault on law enforcement’s efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime.”
Exaggerated statement intended to appeal to emotion. McCain refers to the rape of a child as the *most* heinous, *most* despicable crime. I disagree. IMHO, the rape and murder of a child is even more heinous and even more despicable.

Also, I question his description of the decision as an "assault on law enforcement efforts". :scratchh: Would he so describe other constitutional criminal protections? Is Miranda an "assault on law enforcement efforts" to McCain? :dontknow:

“I disagree with the decision. I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for most egregious of crimes. I think that the rape of a small child, six or eight years old is a heinous crime, and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances, the death penalty is at least potentially applicable. That does not violate our constitution.” He added that the Supreme Court should have set conditions for imposing the death penalty for the crime, “but it basically had a blanket prohibition, and I disagree with the decision.”
Obama also appeals to emotion by specifically mentioning a "small child, 6-8 years old," but not quite to the hyperbolic extent of McCain. He's trying to sway the undecided, "independent", moderate Repub votes by taking a "hard on crime" stance, since those that are truly anti-death penalty aren't likely to defect to McCain.

I disagree w/Obama and support complete prohibition of the death penalty. Will that disagreement keep me from voting for Obama? :shake:

Since most of the people here agree with the decision, I am wondering what the reaction is to these statements from the candidates. There is a clear difference in how each candidate expressed his disagreement with the decision even though both basically disagreed.
Just to clarify, I *agree* w/the decision only in that it limits the application of the death penalty. I disagree w/the notion that the death penalty should *ever* be applied.... (but that's for another thread. ;))

I'm opposed to castration or any type of physical mutilation of any criminal for any crime under the law. I can support life without the possibility of parole for rapists though. I don't want the government chopping off body parts of people in my name.

castration wouldnt "chop off" parts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castration#Castration_in_humans). The external structures would be the same. A lot of criminals could undergo chemical castration with hormones instead of having their testicles removed. Nothing gets chopped off, but a couple of things get removed.

Basically, instead of removing their testicles, you could just give them anti-androgens and watch their sex drive plummet to zero while having them get some hot flashes and grow man boobs :eek:

This practice occurs in some states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration#Chemical_castration_in_the_Uni ted_States) already.

They deserve a shotgun blast to the head, i'm talking about real sex offenders, not guys who have sex with 14 or 15 year old girls that give consent. I'm not saying I like them, but if they are like 19 or 20 years old when they are with the girl I will cut them some slack

Is it always better to live and remember?? I think rape is the same thing as torture, particularly for a small child. Not to be too graphic, but we are talking small children w/small body parts, zero lubrication, etc. The adult male in this situation can cause damage to the reproductive organs and intense pain, not to mention the fear.!

Compared to the murder victim which has no potiential whatsoever for recovery compared to the rape victim who survives their assault. I would not want to be in either victim's position but I would think that the rape victim at least would be better off in that they have the potential to recover at least partially, if not fully, whereas the murder victim cannot recover at all. There is also the disparity of punishment. Is it really right to physically kill someone that did not physically kill their victim? It also takes away any incentive on the part of the person who would commit this particular crime to allow their victim to survive.

Well that is super, but I 100% disagree. Cut em off!

And when you find out later than you cut the wrong guy's balls off what do you do? The courts don't always convict the right guy. DNA has exhonorated several people on Death Row, because it turned out years later, that the wrong guy was in prison while person who actually committed the crime was not. Can you always be sure that you are punishing the right person? The court system is not infallible, and mutilation is not a good choice of penalty in a fallible court system.

Can you always be sure that you are punishing the right person? The court system is not infallible, and mutilation is not a good choice of penalty in a fallible court system.

Chemical castration FTW!

castration wouldnt "chop off" parts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castration#Castration_in_humans). The external structures would be the same. A lot of criminals could undergo chemical castration with hormones instead of having their testicles removed. Nothing gets chopped off, but a couple of things get removed.

Basically, instead of removing their testicles, you could just give them anti-androgens and watch their sex drive plummet to zero while having them get some hot flashes and grow man boobs :eek:

This practice occurs in some states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration#Chemical_castration_in_the_Uni ted_States) already.

Chemical castration FTW!

Chemical castration, big difference (I thought you were talking about physical castration before you specified otherwise). That's actually reversible, Susy however seems to be talking about physical castration. Not really a fan of that either, but at least Chemical castration, since it's reversible is defensible.

Chemical castration, big difference (I thought you were talking about physical castration before you specified otherwise). That's actually reversible, Susy however seems to be talking about physical castration. Not really a fan of that either, but at least Chemical castration, since it's reversible is defensible.

Well --- even physical castration keeps the external genitalia in place. You simply lose the testicles, which ensure you pretty much never get an erection again.

Well --- even physical castration keeps the external genitalia in place. You simply lose the testicles, which ensure you pretty much never get an erection again.

I'd be opposed to physical castration, it would be a form of mutilation. I cannot support the government doing that in my name. In addition the court system has been known to convict the wrong person, and you cannot put those back after you cut them off.

This also isn't exactly a subject that people think rationally on either, and they may be quick to convict on less than good evidence which makes me even more hesitant to want to impose either the death penalty or castration, or any type of penalty that is irreversible. I can support life without parole, since if we find out later that we put an innocent man in jail we can always let him out, but if we cut off his balls we can't put them back on, or if we kill him, we can't raise him from the dead.

I'd be opposed to physical castration, it would be a form of mutilation. I cannot support the government doing that in my name. In addition the court system has been known to convict the wrong person, and you cannot put those back after you cut them off.

Yeah. Well perhaps for repeat and egregious offenders, it could be a practice of last resort. For the garden variety offender, start with chemical castration.

I don't house alot of pent up hate around here or anything- but, to me- people that will hurt CHILDREN, are the worst of all. Murderers, I would rank LOWER than people that can hurt a child, it's just the ultimate sin to me.

So for me- putting them to death, go for it.

Of course- we'd screw it up and start killing teens having sex, the kid up the street that got caught with daddys girl, people whose mental capacity is equal to or less than those they are with... we'd bungle it big time. We're good at that. :(

I'd be opposed to physical castration, it would be a form of mutilation. I cannot support the government doing that in my name. In addition the court system has been known to convict the wrong person, and you cannot put those back after you cut them off.

This also isn't exactly a subject that people think rationally on either, and they may be quick to convict on less than good evidence which makes me even more hesitant to want to impose either the death penalty or castration, or any type of penalty that is irreversible. I can support life without parole, since if we find out later that we put an innocent man in jail we can always let him out, but if we cut off his balls we can't put them back on, or if we kill him, we can't raise him from the dead.

yeah but you can't "unrape" a small child either.
Look, you know how death row works, they get LOTS of appeals payed for by you and me. It is actually more expensive to put somebody to death than to keep them locked up for life b/c of it. So.. It isn't like one group of overzealous folks would get somebody killed. Every appeal would have to agree with the original jury. Also, I'm for either time of castration b/c I already stated that there would have to be a fine line that is crossed. In otherwords, it wouldn't be for just any Joe down the street who molested somebody. It would be for those who RAPED young children. They do not deserve to keep their balls if they cannot control themselves. To me, these people will NEVER be rehabilitated and are simply a drain on our society.

They do not deserve to keep their balls if they cannot control themselves. To me, these people will NEVER be rehabilitated and are simply a drain on our society.

Chemical castration wouldn't work for you? The side effects of androgen deprivation can be pretty nasty.

yeah but you can't "unrape" a small child either.
Look, you know how death row works, they get LOTS of appeals payed for by you and me. It is actually more expensive to put somebody to death than to keep them locked up for life b/c of it. So.. It isn't like one group of overzealous folks would get somebody killed. Every appeal would have to agree with the original jury. Also, I'm for either time of castration b/c I already stated that there would have to be a fine line that is crossed. In otherwords, it wouldn't be for just any Joe down the street who molested somebody. It would be for those who RAPED young children. They do not deserve to keep their balls if they cannot control themselves. To me, these people will NEVER be rehabilitated and are simply a drain on our society.

Whether or not you can unrape a small child doesn't matter compared to castrating or executing the wrong person for the crime. It's still human beings that determine whether pr not that person did the crime. In addition appeals courts tend to look, first and foremost at process, it's often difficult to get them to look at evidence, even and especially exhonorating evidence. Here's an example from Truth in justice.org.

'Frontline: The Case for Innocence'

Getting angry at television can be awful. If you hate what you see, you may feel there's little recourse.

But getting angry because TV informs you, stimulates you, teaches or alerts you is a whole other matter.

That's the kind of television producer Ofra Bikel makes — crucial, well-researched, astutely reported, real-life television about the injustices, inequities and inhumanity of our much-vaunted criminal justice system.

Bikel's new documentary "The Case for Innocence" will make you boil.

The true-life saga of wrongly imprisoned inmates premieres Tuesday on public TV's "Frontline."

"If you're told that innocence doesn't get you out of prison — what does that say?" Bikel said recently from New York. She was talking about Roy Criner, arrested 14 years ago in Texas for the aggravated sexual assault of murder and rape victim Deanna Ogg — despite the flimsy evidence.

After a minimal, miscalculated defense Criner was convicted by a jury and imprisoned. By 1996 his only hope of appeal lay with solid advances in DNA testing. He took a DNA test that showed the sperm found in the victim was not his. A second DNA test, conducted by the state, was also negative.

Yet — as you'll see in unsettling interviews — District Attorney Michael MacDougal and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decided the two tests did not sufficiently prove Criner's innocence.

By majority vote the appeals court decided not to grant Criner a new trial despite the tests' exclusion of him as a perpetrator.
In Bikel's documentary you'll see appeals court judge Sharon Keller call the DNA tests "negative evidence."

But — in what to most ordinary folks will seem a twisted catch-22 — she tells Bikel on camera that "If (the test) had come back positive it would have been important because it would have been more evidence."

MacDougal concurs: "It doesn't mean he didn't rape her, it doesn't mean he didn't kill her ... He's still in prison, and he will stay there."

RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE

Criner is only one of the chilling cases Bikel presents — testaments to the terrible effects of the so-called war on crime and severe new limits on appeals by prisoners who claim innocence.

She also gives us Earl Washington, a developmentally slow black man convicted of raping and murdering a white woman in Virginia.

A DNA test excluded Washington's DNA as evidence, in essence eliminating him as perpetrator. Yet Douglas Wilder, Virginia governor in 1990-94, allegedly hid the test results that might have set Washington free while he sat on death row, Bikel concludes.

Instead Wilder — who apparently wanted to seem tough on crime since he hoped to run for higher office — commuted Washington's death sentence to life in prison.

Washington's lawyers saw the negative test results only a few months ago after Bikel secured them.

"What really interests me about our legal system is the difference between perception and reality," said Bikel, who was born in Israel. In the '70s she was an executive producer for Israeli television and now regularly produces programs on criminal justice for "Frontline."

"People say this is the best system in the world and I say 'Why is that?' And they say 'I don't know really.'

"I think in a democracy the public should know what's happening — at least know what's going on.

"Washington — the governor hid the results. What can you say? Just one more black guy in prison," she said with bitter irony.

"I mean, the truth doesn't seem to matter, innocence doesn't matter. Criner will never get out. It's not his semen, it's not his DNA. They're still not letting him out."

SAVING THE SYSTEM

Bikel offers one happy ending, however. In 1981 black defendant Clyde Charles was convicted of rape by an all-white jury and sentenced to life without parole in Louisiana's notorious Angola Prison.

Last year Charles was finally granted a DNA test by Louisiana, through the efforts of Bikel and celebrated criminal lawyer Barry Scheck.

Scheck, part of O.J. Simpson's winning defense team on his double murder trial, takes pro bono appeals cases through the nonprofit, New York-based Innocence Project.

As Charles predicted, DNA tests excluded him as rapist.

He was recently released.

Good news, yes?

Bikel: "What bothers me more than anything is the randomness of it all. "The press gets it very wrong — 'here comes Barry Scheck and the guy goes free.' "

In fact, Scheck was interested in a different case when Bikel found Charles through the Innocence Project and persuaded Scheck to get involved.

"What is horrifying to me is Barry Scheck could have chosen another case. He has thousands of cases in the files, a four- or five-year waiting time. It was luck of the draw."

Earlier, Bikel's sharp reporting changed other lives. Her searing "Frontline" documentaries "Innocence Lost" (1991) and "Innocence Lost — The Verdict" (1993) dissected the twisted case of alleged child abuse at Little Rascal day care center in Edenton, N.C. They prompted the prosecuting attorney to dismiss charges against five of the seven defendants in 1997.

Now all seven are free, although most spent time in jail awaiting trial.

"The Case for Innocence" is thornier. It deals with the increasingly unavailable or intransigent appeals process.

"I wanted to show how hard it is to overturn evidence. DNA for me is a window of opportunity to see how much the (criminal justice) system wants to see its mistakes.

"Frankly even the lawyers are desensitized to the system. They say 'Well, that's just the way it is.'

"I'm not saying change our system. Just don't assume that this is the best system in the world and we should trust it completely. Understand the system and how innocent people can indeed be imprisoned. It's horrifying — but it's happening."
http://www.truthinjustice.org/case-innocence.htm


Evidence of innocence doesn't necessarily mean that one is going to receive justice. A system that we cannot trust completely to get it right with respect to imprisoning ONLY the guilty definitely cannot be trusted to physically castrate ONLY the guilty. Castrating an innocent man, even one innocent man is absoutely unacceptable.

Shouldnt this be a matter left to the states?

Shouldnt this be a matter left to the states?
Not if the SCOTUS finds the practice unconstitutional. The states do not have the unfettered ability to exercise their police power in whatever manner they see fit. Just as the SCOTUS can prohibit the execution of mentally challenged murderers, it can similarly prohibit the execution of child rapists on the grounds that such behavior violates the Eighth Amend.

Not if the SCOTUS finds the practice unconstitutional. The states do not have the unfettered ability to exercise their police power in whatever manner they see fit. Just as the SCOTUS can prohibit the execution of mentally challenged murderers, it can similarly prohibit the execution of child rapists on the grounds that such behavior violates the Eighth Amend.

hmm thanks for the insight. I had forgotten that the SCOTUS, for the most part, can choose to hear any case they want that is appealed to them.

Chemical castration wouldn't work for you? The side effects of androgen deprivation can be pretty nasty.

I'd be fine with chemical castration really..but the outraged mother in me would want it cut off.

Whether or not you can unrape a small child doesn't matter compared to castrating or executing the wrong person for the crime. It's still human beings that determine whether pr not that person did the crime. In addition appeals courts tend to look, first and foremost at process, it's often difficult to get them to look at evidence, even and especially exhonorating evidence. Here's an example from Truth in justice.org.



Evidence of innocence doesn't necessarily mean that one is going to receive justice. A system that we cannot trust completely to get it right with respect to imprisoning ONLY the guilty definitely cannot be trusted to physically castrate ONLY the guilty. Castrating an innocent man, even one innocent man is absoutely unacceptable.

I think the same could be said for imprisoning a man, particularly on child rape charges. Yet we still have this system... it is imperfect.

I think the same could be said for imprisoning a man, particularly on child rape charges. Yet we still have this system... it is imperfect.

Except imprisoning an innocent man, can be undone, castrating an innocent man cannot be undone. You can let the innocent man out, and compensate him financially for the wrongdoing of putting him in prison, you cannot re-attach his balls.

Except imprisoning an innocent man, can be undone, castrating an innocent man cannot be undone. You can let the innocent man out, and compensate him financially for the wrongdoing of putting him in prison, you cannot re-attach his balls.

she said she was fine with chemical castration, and it appears so are a few states. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration#Chemical_castration_in_the_Uni ted_States)

Except imprisoning an innocent man, can be undone, castrating an innocent man cannot be undone. You can let the innocent man out, and compensate him financially for the wrongdoing of putting him in prison, you cannot re-attach his balls.

I think your problem is not with the actual punishment, but rather, your problem is with our justice system in general. If a person was PROVEN to have raped a child, you have the DNA, they admit it, etc. then?? Then would you be ok with castration as a punishment?

certainly there would have to be a fine line drawn and in writing. I'm not sure what exactly that line would be, perhaps actual rape of anyone under the age of 12? (not sexual assault, but rape) I dunno, but I'm ok with letting the states decide.
Another option that I would be fine with would be the castration and life in prison.

Do you think there has been an surge in enthusiasm to punish child sex abuse (whether it is rape or assault)? It seems curious to me that while our children are becoming more sexually active we, as a society, are becoming harsher when it comes to punishing sex offenders.

Could it be that we are taking our anger with regards to how our children are behaving on these nameless, faceless sex offenders?

I think your problem is not with the actual punishment, but rather, your problem is with our justice system in general. If a person was PROVEN to have raped a child, you have the DNA, they admit it, etc. then?? Then would you be ok with castration as a punishment?

No, I would still not be okay with castration as punishment, but I would be okay with life in prison without the possibility of parole. Castration is not necessary to protect society from sexual predators, since imprisoning them, for the rest of their natural lives can do the same thing without mutilating them. Simply change the laws so that the prison sentences for rape of a child carries life without parole, and there's no argument for mutilation, beyond revenge or emotional arguments.

Do you think there has been an surge in enthusiasm to punish child sex abuse (whether it is rape or assault)? It seems curious to me that while our children are becoming more sexually active we, as a society, are becoming harsher when it comes to punishing sex offenders.

Could it be that we are taking our anger with regards to how our children are behaving on these nameless, faceless sex offenders?

umm...maybe?? But, I'm 26yrs old and have no kids. I haven't really given any thought to them having sex younger, so at least in my case, the answer is a very loud NO. I am not taking the behavior of children and trying to punish nameless, faceless sex offenders. I think that the push for harsher punishments has come from a more educated public. The news now reports these things much more often, and frequently discusses sex offenders who were let out of prison only to attack again.
I have to say, that this is one of the more unusual things I've heard...

No, I would still not be okay with castration as punishment, but I would be okay with life in prison without the possibility of parole. Castration is not necessary to protect society from sexual predators, since imprisoning them, for the rest of their natural lives can do the same thing without mutilating them. Simply change the laws so that the prison sentences for rape of a child carries life without parole, and there's no argument for mutilation, beyond revenge or emotional arguments.

That is partially true, but I would argue that sex offenders who are in prison could also benefit from having the "urge" to abuse others taken out of them. BTW... it would not be mutilation to chemically castrate them.

That is partially true, but I would argue that sex offenders who are in prison could also benefit from having the "urge" to abuse others taken out of them. BTW... it would not be mutilation to chemically castrate them.

Then again I'm also opposed to prison rape. Rape is always wrong regardless of who the victim is. I have no problem with having prisoners be required to do hard work while in prison though, like making license plates, or clean the roadways or make big rocks into small rocks, etc. Chemical castration, I'm not a fan of either, but it's less objectionable than physical castration. I'd like to know a bit more about long term medical effects of messing with someone's hormones before I could approve. I am quite okay with them having highly regimented lives with lots of supervision while they're in prison and lots of work. I'm opposed to them having cable tv and luxury, it's supposed to be prison.

umm...maybe?? But, I'm 26yrs old and have no kids. I haven't really given any thought to them having sex younger, so at least in my case, the answer is a very loud NO. I am not taking the behavior of children and trying to punish nameless, faceless sex offenders. Got it.

I think that the push for harsher punishments has come from a more educated public. The news now reports these things much more often, and frequently discusses sex offenders who were let out of prison only to attack again. True. It may just be that the eye of the camera has turned toward this problem and that's why someone like me (who is not directly engaged in these matters) is noticing them more than I used to. Or, it may in fact be a change in attitude ... or both.


I have to say, that this is one of the more unusual things I've heard... Sex is very curious subject. Especially in a country founded on the principals of individual freedoms ... by Puritan pilgrims.

If the perp is going to be put to death for molestation, even if he doesn't kill the victim, then there's no reason for the perpretrator to allow his victim to survive.

True, but I'm not sure that logic and reasoning abilities are high among murderers' and rapists' decision making process.

That is partially true, but I would argue that sex offenders who are in prison could also benefit from having the "urge" to abuse others taken out of them. BTW... it would not be mutilation to chemically castrate them.

thats your bright idea?

I thought TREASON was also punishable by death, but we have plenty of people that had commited some sort of treason and is sitting pretty happy in jail right now...

And then we have two men who has commited treason on numerous occations and is still currently working as leaders of our country...go figure that out...

Sam Alito need to shut the f*** up, he has no right to be sitting ontop of the highest court and making moralistic comments like the one he gave as a dissent... The law is suppose to be FAIR and in line with the rights laid out in the constitution... He should also be investigated for incest because last time his wife lokks very very similar to him... I still think he married his sister or some female lookalike... He makes me sick

Besides who really has the moral authority to kill another man? Do individual? Do groups? or worst GOV'T have the right to end a life???
When gov't say they are the only entity to have the right to take a life, it gives them a power to even go further in controlling its people.. A gov't that kills is no different then a thug that kills... Governments are NOT and NEVER absolute...

Reason prison are setup is so we can use them to lock the really bad people away..

thats your bright idea?

yes..castration. :)

I thought TREASON was also punishable by death, but we have plenty of people that had commited some sort of treason and is sitting pretty happy in jail right now...

And then we have two men who has commited treason on numerous occations and is still currently working as leaders of our country...go figure that out...

Sam Alito need to shut the f*** up, he has no right to be sitting ontop of the highest court and making moralistic comments like the one he gave as a dissent... The law is suppose to be FAIR and in line with the rights laid out in the constitution... He should also be investigated for incest because last time his wife lokks very very similar to him... I still think he married his sister or some female lookalike... He makes me sick

Besides who really has the moral authority to kill another man? Do individual? Do groups? or worst GOV'T have the right to end a life???
When gov't say they are the only entity to have the right to take a life, it gives them a power to even go further in controlling its people.. A gov't that kills is no different then a thug that kills... Governments are NOT and NEVER absolute...

Reason prison are setup is so we can use them to lock the really bad people away..

You should probably start a different thread, like.. on the death penalty in general. This isn't the place for that.

True, but I'm not sure that logic and reasoning abilities are high among murderers' and rapists' decision making process.

In some cases that's probably true. There are probably at least some cases where they (perps)do know that rape will not get them death but murder will, in those cases, maybe they might let their victim live. Make rape punishble by death, and you remove that incentive to let the victim survive in those cases. Some rape victims surviving is better than no rape victims surviving.

In some cases that's probably true. There are probably at least some cases where they (perps)do know that rape will not get them death but murder will, in those cases, maybe they might let their victim live. Make rape punishble by death, and you remove that incentive to let the victim survive in those cases. Some rape victims surviving is better than no rape victims surviving.

I can somewhat agree with this? I think that most of the time, people who rape do so for the "control" while that may not quite carry over to murder for them. I would also think that very few believe that they'll actually be caught.. I'd LOVE to know more about the mindset of a rapist for the sake of this part of the discussion.

I can somewhat agree with this? I think that most of the time, people who rape do so for the "control" while that may not quite carry over to murder for them. I would also think that very few believe that they'll actually be caught.. I'd LOVE to know more about the mindset of a rapist for the sake of this part of the discussion.

So would I. I don't think that many criminals think that they will actually be caught either. The discussion here does become quite hypothetical at this point, but I don't think that it's that unreasonable that at least some criminals have the possibility of being caught in the back of their minds, they may not want to admit it to themselves.

I can somewhat agree with this? I think that most of the time, people who rape do so for the "control" while that may not quite carry over to murder for them. I would also think that very few believe that they'll actually be caught.. I'd LOVE to know more about the mindset of a rapist for the sake of this part of the discussion.

So would I. I don't think that many criminals think that they will actually be caught either. The discussion here does become quite hypothetical at this point, but I don't think that it's that unreasonable that at least some criminals have the possibility of being caught in the back of their minds, they may not want to admit it to themselves.
This article address the four most-typical types of rapists, and is similar to what I learned as a sexual assault/victim's advocate:

Four Types of Rapists (http://www.crime-safety-security.com/rape-escape-options-rapist-types.html)

Gentleman Rapists (a.k.a. Power Reassurance rapists) comprise roughly 70 percent of all rapists – and most acquaintance rapists. They capture and control a victim through verbal threats, just enough physical force to succeed, or through weapon intimidation. With fragile egos and seemingly harmless, they may suddenly become violent. They think women "play hard-to-get," don't really mean "No!" and crying is merely part of a woman’s act. Often they don't think of forced sex as rape and may actually believe you’re both simply having a good time “making love.” Afterward, he may again act kindly toward the victim as though no rape occurred.

Make it absolutely clear that you do not want sex. In a firm voice, threaten him with police and prison. If that doesn't stop him, immediately attack him with total intent to hurt him enough to allow your safe escape.

Control Freak Rapists (a.k.a. Power Assertive rapists) comprise 25 percent of all rapists – and some acquaintance rapists. They feel a "super-masculine entitlement to dominate women." They're more macho, bragging, violent, domineering, and cruel than Gentleman rapists. They, too, think women are merely their playthings.

Try to get him to see your basic human rights and feelings. Talk and talk until he relents. If that doesn't stop him, immediately attack him with total intent to hurt him enough to allow your safe rape escape.

Revenge Rapists (a.k.a. Anger Retaliatory or Danger Excitation rapists) comprise 3-5 percent of all rapists – and most stranger rapists. More violent than the first two types, they usually strike suddenly and use physical brutality and humiliation – possibly including urination or defecation on the victim. Usually sexually impotent during the attack, they seek a discharge of anger more than sexual pleasure. These attacks are usually brief – striking, assaulting, and fleeing. Immediately attack him with total intent to hurt him enough to allow your safe escape.

Sadistic Rapists comprise 1-3 percent of all rapists and are usually stranger rapists. They delight in the victim's torment and anguish. Ritualistic mutilation and murder often fulfill his fantasy. The sooner you attack him with total intent to grievously hurt him to allow your safe escape, the better. Fighting Options and Ultimate Rape Prevention help prepare your rape escape.

That's just a brief outline of the four different types. There's much more detailed information available if anyone is so inclined. ;)

So would I. I don't think that many criminals think that they will actually be caught either. The discussion here does become quite hypothetical at this point, but I don't think that it's that unreasonable that at least some criminals have the possibility of being caught in the back of their minds, they may not want to admit it to themselves.

certainly,...
I still think that the death penalty should be kept open as an option in the states that want it, as a possible punishment for child rapists. I don't think it has to be mandatory sentencing or anything, but in cases that are heinous enough, I'd want that choice as a juror.. to just rid our society of this person all together.

certainly,...
I still think that the death penalty should be kept open as an option in the states that want it, as a possible punishment for child rapists. I don't think it has to be mandatory sentencing or anything, but in cases that are heinous enough, I'd want that choice as a juror.. to just rid our society of this person all together.

Locking them up permanently keeps them out of society just as effectively and saves tax dollars in legal fees & court costs. (it actually costs more money to effectuate the death penalty than life without parole).

Locking them up permanently keeps them out of society just as effectively and saves tax dollars in legal fees & court costs. (it actually costs more money to effectuate the death penalty than life without parole).

I understand that.. I mentioned that in a previous post.. however, we've seen that there are many judges who don't have a problem letting the person out early. Also, I see the fact that life in prison is cheaper than death penalty as a problem with our system. I'm all for a quick and cheap bullet. The long prison waits and excessive appeals are pointless and expensive imho.

I understand that.. I mentioned that in a previous post.. however, we've seen that there are many judges who don't have a problem letting the person out early. Also, I see the fact that life in prison is cheaper than death penalty as a problem with our system. I'm all for a quick and cheap bullet. The long prison waits and excessive appeals are pointless and expensive imho.

The legislature can solve that problem without the death penalty. "Life without parole" as a mandatory minimum does the job just fine, for this specific crime (I could also support this for armed robbery, carjacking, home invasion, and rape or an adult as well as a few other violent crimes) and takes away the issue of judges releasing prisoners early.

Appeals are necessary to ensure that corners aren't cut and that innocents aren't put to death, or kept in prison for crimes they didn't commit. Without appeals, innocent men on death row would have been wrongfully executed, men that have been in prison for years on wrongful convictions would have remained in prison, so I think that we should keep appeals around, at least until such a time time that we can insure that a jury trial can get the verdict right 100% of the time without failure or bias, something I don't think that humans will ever be able to do.

The legislature can solve that problem without the death penalty. "Life without parole" as a mandatory minimum does the job just fine, for this specific crime (I could also support this for armed robbery, carjacking, home invasion, and rape or an adult as well as a few other violent crimes) and takes away the issue of judges releasing prisoners early.

Appeals are necessary to ensure that corners aren't cut and that innocents aren't put to death, or kept in prison for crimes they didn't commit. Without appeals, innocent men on death row would have been wrongfully executed, men that have been in prison for years on wrongful convictions would have remained in prison, so I think that we should keep appeals around, at least until such a time time that we can insure that a jury trial can get the verdict right 100% of the time without failure or bias, something I don't think that humans will ever be able to do.

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not for removing the appeals process, I'm for removing the excessive appeals.
One of the problems, in my opinion, of keeping violent offenders in prison rather than executing them, is the in prison deaths that occur. Prison guards, and other inmates are murdered by violent people. The high security prisons have to isolate the prisoners to the point where they are literally in a box for life. These boxes have to have plexi glass around them to keep the poo and other bodily fluids from flying at the guards. There are handmade weapons used on the other inmates and guards. Also, the violent gangs that are beginning to spill out of the prisons and wreak havoc in the streets of many urban cities... If we used execution more frequently, and didn't wait so long after the appeals were done, then I believe that crime would go down drastically. I know that death seems like such a huge step, but think back 50yrs.. crime was not what it is today, kids could ride their bikes into town!! Women could go for a walk and not be afraid of being raped etc. We have to figure out some way to get it back under control.

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not for removing the appeals process, I'm for removing the excessive appeals.
One of the problems, in my opinion, of keeping violent offenders in prison rather than executing them, is the in prison deaths that occur. Prison guards, and other inmates are murdered by violent people. The high security prisons have to isolate the prisoners to the point where they are literally in a box for life. These boxes have to have plexi glass around them to keep the poo and other bodily fluids from flying at the guards. There are handmade weapons used on the other inmates and guards. Also, the violent gangs that are beginning to spill out of the prisons and wreak havoc in the streets of many urban cities... If we used execution more frequently, and didn't wait so long after the appeals were done, then I believe that crime would go down drastically. I know that death seems like such a huge step, but think back 50yrs.. crime was not what it is today, kids could ride their bikes into town!! Women could go for a walk and not be afraid of being raped etc. We have to figure out some way to get it back under control.

Get rid of the war on drugs. You would reduce the prison population dramatically, and the burden on the court system for starters.

Get rid of the war on drugs. You would reduce the prison population dramatically, and the burden on the court system for starters.

100% agree with getting rid of the "war on drugs"...

100% agree with getting rid of the "war on drugs"...But ... that's just letting the drugs win! :D

But ... that's just letting the drugs win! :D

But there is no war per se.

Let's not forget evidence that NSC Staff Supported Using Drug Money to Fund the Contras.