Why death penalty for sex offenders is a bad idea.

[A random person]

I'm not much in favor of the death penalty, anyway, sex offenders or no. Either way, that story doesn't say anything one way or the other against the death penalty.

This. After a point penalties become redundant and do not prevent crime any better, not to mention a lot of criminals probably don't think too much about penalties. That and killing is bad, even if they did do something horrible.

 

[Lukirre]

I think that what it all comes down to is what bias you have.

If you're a parent that has discovered his/her child brutally raped, then you will want the blood of whoever did it as your wine that night.
But if you're outside looking in then you're able to provide a sober insight.

The problem that you run into is that the people who are providing that sober second thought oftentimes don't truly understand what it is the family is going through, or the torment that they may face. In all honesty, a lot of the time it's the equivalent to the child having been murdered.

At the same time though, the people experiencing said grief usually aren't capable of giving a rational decision.

Which is why it could bother me less if they do or do not execute proven sex offenders.
If they have concrete forensic as well as physical evidence, then I really don't mind eitherway.

When it does bother me is when people are wrongfully convicted and put to death, like in the example you gave.
These aren't the Middle Ages, people.

 

[LewsTherin]

A lot of girls will get drunk, have sex with a stranger, regret it and then call rape.

It's sad, but it happens. Rape is very gray area; the entirely innocent victim is a rare one.

The unfortunate truth. But, rape as an assault does happen, more often than you might think.

 

[Jaythulhu]

I'd support mandatory physical castration for repeat sex offenders...

 

[Del-Toro]

Yeah, they are bound to be the odd mistakes but we still shouldn't ruin it for the majority

How big an impact would you say that the death penalty would have? How much would it prevent?

It wouldn't prevent anything. What it WOULD do is save valuable money for the government which is used to keep thoose people in jail and well looked after.
If it warns off a few people who might be considering it, then thats great but its not what i think its there for

I agree with you 100% but I do feel I should add that executing 1st offenders right off the bat would prevent repeat offenses (parole being a factor in all that), so they could only rape once instead of two or three times. If the states is really going to socialize healthcare then that money will be really useful for treating people with diseases that are genetic and not their faults anyway as opposed to feeding people who made their choices and chose to harm others for pleasure.

At any rate the OP didn't put forward the arguement against the death penalty he intended, he put forward an arguement in favour of an objective police investigation service, something I agree with. His actual position, on the other hand, can go felate a shotgun barrel.

Then what is my argument?

The arguement you are trying to make is clearly that too many people are wrongfully convicted to justify capital punishment but it really comes accross more as an arguement for an objective, evidence based approach to policing, rather than they "we think it was him, to hell with forensics" approach that you described.

The problem is that you are calling out shoddy police work to justify your arguement. If you had expanded upon that and said something like "how many innocents would die if your ideas were to be put into practice" and read off some statistics involving wrongful convictions in order to put into perspective just HOW many "innocents" would die then it would carry more water and it would become more solid grounds for debate. Posting the link was a good idea but how do we know it's not an isolated case, you have to account for that in your arguement. Just a little bit of constructive criticism for the future.

In my opinon, as you may already have guessed, the death penalty is wrong because there is no way we can make up for a slip-up. This thread however is not aimed at the death penalty as it is today. This thread is aimed at the people that want to extend the death penalty to also include sex-offenders. When it comes to that i believe that the statistics is definately in my favor. I would also like to add something i said earlier in the thread.

"This could actually be a potent tool for anyone that want's to intimidate someone or kill someone. All you need is the wrong people at the wrong place and these things happen. According to the article the community is a bit racist hence why he could be proven guilty on such weak proof. Apparently around 2% of the people that live in the area are black. Imagine if someone would stage rapes with black people as the suspects, then tell the other black people to get out or we'll frame you too. Or just imagine a messy break-up and what could be the consequences of that."

In the case of blackmail just the possibility of someone being wrongfully convicted is enough for it to be a potent tool in the right hands. We would likely never even see how widespread that problem would be. At least with murder the victim can't provide a tearful testimony.

You are right, such a policy is open to abuse, but then again so is just about everything. You can frame someone for theft and murder yet these crimes are still prosecuted, murder sometimes by execution. Eyewitness testimony is widely considered unreliable and many cases have had the witness' testimony disregarded because the actual evidence called their bluff, if anything, a real investigator will use witness testimony as a starting point, or to figure out if someone is lying. I get the concern with executions being a one way trip but if we know beyond all reasonable doubt, and if the conviction is evidence based then why is it a problem? They aren't getting out of jail anyway and it would be cheaper for everyone if they were gone. You're probably in favour of socializing healthcare, well, all that money has to come from somewhere, if you can free up that money to use on your law abiding citizens then it makes sense. We can't downgrade the prisons there are standards that have to be met.

 

[Epifols]

If prisons worked better all our problems would be solved.

Hahaha, nice one

Prisons are human institutions, and in order to improve them we must improve the way we run things on a fundamental level. So if we were capable of improving those institutions, we could also then fix things like healthcare, courts, aid the the poor, schools, etc. Which would bring a decrease in crime anyway.

The problem with capitol punishment is that it's too tedious and still kills innocent people. The solutions would be to just kill them on the spot upon being convicted. Bullets are cheap, no need for elaborate drugs. No need to have them automatically go up for appeals. No several year wait in line wasting money.

 

[ElephantGuts]

Wait, what does this have to do at all with sex offenders?

Shouldn't the message be, "Don't sentence anyone to death if you aren't sure"?

 

[Hedberger]

Yeah, they are bound to be the odd mistakes but we still shouldn't ruin it for the majority

How big an impact would you say that the death penalty would have? How much would it prevent?

It wouldn't prevent anything. What it WOULD do is save valuable money for the government which is used to keep thoose people in jail and well looked after.
If it warns off a few people who might be considering it, then thats great but its not what i think its there for

I agree with you 100% but I do feel I should add that executing 1st offenders right off the bat would prevent repeat offenses (parole being a factor in all that), so they could only rape once instead of two or three times. If the states is really going to socialize healthcare then that money will be really useful for treating people with diseases that are genetic and not their faults anyway as opposed to feeding people who made their choices and chose to harm others for pleasure.

At any rate the OP didn't put forward the arguement against the death penalty he intended, he put forward an arguement in favour of an objective police investigation service, something I agree with. His actual position, on the other hand, can go felate a shotgun barrel.

Then what is my argument?

The arguement you are trying to make is clearly that too many people are wrongfully convicted to justify capital punishment but it really comes accross more as an arguement for an objective, evidence based approach to policing, rather than they "we think it was him, to hell with forensics" approach that you described.

The problem is that you are calling out shoddy police work to justify your arguement. If you had expanded upon that and said something like "how many innocents would die if your ideas were to be put into practice" and read off some statistics involving wrongful convictions in order to put into perspective just HOW many "innocents" would die then it would carry more water and it would become more solid grounds for debate. Posting the link was a good idea but how do we know it's not an isolated case, you have to account for that in your arguement. Just a little bit of constructive criticism for the future.

In my opinon, as you may already have guessed, the death penalty is wrong because there is no way we can make up for a slip-up. This thread however is not aimed at the death penalty as it is today. This thread is aimed at the people that want to extend the death penalty to also include sex-offenders. When it comes to that i believe that the statistics is definately in my favor. I would also like to add something i said earlier in the thread.

"This could actually be a potent tool for anyone that want's to intimidate someone or kill someone. All you need is the wrong people at the wrong place and these things happen. According to the article the community is a bit racist hence why he could be proven guilty on such weak proof. Apparently around 2% of the people that live in the area are black. Imagine if someone would stage rapes with black people as the suspects, then tell the other black people to get out or we'll frame you too. Or just imagine a messy break-up and what could be the consequences of that."

In the case of blackmail just the possibility of someone being wrongfully convicted is enough for it to be a potent tool in the right hands. We would likely never even see how widespread that problem would be. At least with murder the victim can't provide a tearful testimony.

You are right, such a policy is open to abuse, but then again so is just about everything. You can frame someone for theft and murder yet these crimes are still prosecuted, murder sometimes by execution. Eyewitness testimony is widely considered unreliable and many cases have had the witness' testimony disregarded because the actual evidence called their bluff, if anything, a real investigator will use witness testimony as a starting point, or to figure out if someone is lying. I get the concern with executions being a one way trip but if we know beyond all reasonable doubt, and if the conviction is evidence based then why is it a problem? They aren't getting out of jail anyway and it would be cheaper for everyone if they were gone. You're probably in favour of socializing healthcare, well, all that money has to come from somewhere, if you can free up that money to use on your law abiding citizens then it makes sense. We can't downgrade the prisons there are standards that have to be met.

You'll have to admit that it's harder to frame someone for murder and if nothing else it's a lot more risky. Either you risk getting convicted of murder or you waste your own life in vain. As for theft, there is no permanent punishment for that.

We can never be sure that someone is guilty. Let's not forget that this guy was found guilty beyond every reasonable doubt. All you really need if you want to kill someone, and this always true with the death penalty, is money and contacts. It's far from impossible to frame someone, whatever the crime. At least if you work/have worked as a police officer, attourney etc. As it is now you at least you to be a really big company/organization or the government to pull that kind of thing off. If you were to include rape in the list of offences that is punishable with the death penalty anyone could do that.

And as horrible a crime rape might be it just not horrible enough to warrant the death penalty. You can go on living a good life after getting raped. It's far from impossible.

Also, Life in prison is cheaper than the death penalty.

Edit: If it wasn't clear before i do not support life in prison for rapists either, too severe, just so you know.

 

[JWAN]

AI say lock them up in solitary confinement for the rest of their life.
The lights go on for 12 hours, 3 meals, the lights go off for 12 hours

 

[Jinoru]

Well, They don't need to be killed. Just remove the organs which bring about that kind of stimulation.

 

[shaltir]

hangings are cheap..and firing squads. just remove the excessive appeals process.

 

[Stephen Lea Sheppard]

hangings are cheap..and firing squads. just remove the excessive appeals process.

We already know for certain that some of the people being executed today are innocent, because the cascade of "We executed this guy last year, and it turns out we just found new evidence that proves it couldn't have been him" keeps popping up.

Not very often. Just enough to show that the current appeals process is not so much "excessive" as "not quite thorough enough."

A shorter, less expensive appeals process would result in more innocent people being executed. Is feeling good about killing a few criminals worth occasionally killing innocent people?

 

[jamesworkshop]

its a bad idea since almost anything can make you a sex offender these days, like the 15 y/o taking nude pictures of themselves

 

[Mockingjay]

Death sentence is over the top but I think rape is unforgivable.

 

[Soxafloppin]

In my book rape is up there with murder. If this guy is innocent then i feel sorry for him but we cant controll people twisting the law ever.

 

[TankCopter]

Personally I don't think the death penalty is worthwhile. For one thing, it's a very absolute punishment. Once it's done, it's done. If the dead guy was innocent, there's no way to fix it. With the number of innocent people convicted nowadays, it's impossible to say every death penalty handed down was correct and/or justified in its use. That and, from what I can gather, it seems to go against general conceptions of what power a government should have. People don't like the thought of someone they don't know or particularly trust being able to decide if they live or die.

As a punishment for a sex offender? This sounds worse to me. Sex offenders should have the chance for rehabilitation, reform, and a fresh start. Fair enough, if you have the same person repeatedly committing the same crime, then perhaps the death penalty could be justified. In my mind, the only crime you could really justify using the death penalty for is murder, and then only if the person obviously has no intention of reforming and would be a menace to society, or if the murderer was particularly cruel (I'm talking BTK, Ivan Milat kind of cruel) or a serial killer/ mass murderer (Ted Bundy, Zodiac, George Hennard.)

 

[Kiutu]

I only think people who try to murder many people (more so if they succeed). Murders of passion not so much, just anyone who may kill again if they ever got out of jail. Not a real person but still, if there were a man like The Joker, if he was caught he should be fried immediatly.

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

Yeah, I never got the way a lot of people on here seem to think rape is a worse crime than murder, and all the disgusting torture fantasies make me think how small a difference there is between accused and accuser.

Anyway, I think the death penalty is wrong, in any case.

 

[Zombie_Fish]

Personally, I'm all against the death penalty. I have never found a case where I have thought "This man deserves to be killed", and this case mentioned is one of the reasons why. No case ever has 100% final proof that someone did a crime, that's why in England we have the term "Beyond reasonable doubt". But because no case is ever 100% reliable, it's a bit hard to declare someone innocent and admit that they were wrong after having them executed.