digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Child Rape=Death Penalty? Supreme Court to Consider it

reuters.com — The U.S. Supreme Court this week hears arguments about whether the death penalty can be imposed for child rape, taking up for the first time in more than 30 years whether a crime other than murder can be punished by execution.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • oboy, on 04/14/2008, -84/+161I say in some cases, absofreakinlutely.
    • ennTOXX, on 04/14/2008, -22/+7"*****" goes without saying... :||
      • jmpeagle, on 04/14/2008, -5/+5the worst child rapists though usually rape the victim to death so they are also guilty of murder. I say just put them in the general prison population where they will have the ***** kicked out of them and probably raped themselves for the rest of their remaing life.
        • Laughsatyou, on 04/14/2008, -6/+6too much of a cost burden on the tax payers. death would be much easier on the pocketbook.
          • Gir53457, on 04/14/2008, -5/+5I'd take 8 cents out of my paycheck every month to see this happen.
        • anarchyinthekr, on 04/14/2008, -2/+3@laughsatyou
          what about the costs leading up to putting someone to death? there are a ridiculous amount of people it has to go through w/ appeals and special death penalty procedures and such meaning HUGE court costs
          • Gir53457, on 04/14/2008, -2/+6Theres a better chance at being murdered by baller with a spike made out of rolled up newspaper than some one actually getting all the way to the death penalty.
    • str3ama, on 04/14/2008, -20/+81the death penalty adds nothing but a nice illusion that we're doing something to curb such acts. What needs to be done rather then trying to completely vilify these people as monsters, is understand what and why they feel the need to rape a child. Obviously there is some serious psychological problems involved here, but understanding what makes someone want to do this is more important then rounding up a lynch mob. The emotions involved are the serious hurdle, by just murdering them you're not helping in the least.
      • ngmcs8203, on 04/14/2008, -15/+20So you're saying that if we get a serial child rapist, like the guy they caught in California who raped over 150 kids needs to be "understood"? The first times he was caught and arrested, obviously his rehabilitation didn't work. Like the OP said, there are some cases where it is warranted. These people are sick.
        • makkaveli19, on 04/14/2008, -6/+18his argument is still valid. why shouldn't we try to see why people commit these crimes. you can punish them after, but death penalty will not prevent it from happening more often.
          • Gir53457, on 04/14/2008, -3/+5Some times theres an underlying psychological disorder. Some times it's out of pure malice. Some times they do it for the sake of, with a lack of a better term, doing it. I can see trying to understand a weak willed pedophile and executing the bastard, but what do we do with the guy who can understand right and wrong but chose otherwise?
          • jcr4nf, on 04/14/2008, -7/+4I'm sorry, but I don't feel the need to "understand" a predator. I do on the other had understand that they will do it again. When you victimize a child you are the worst kind of filth. You are worse than a murderer, because you've in effect sentenced this poor child to a life full of pain and distress. So no, I don't think they deserve to live. In fact I think what they do deserve is to die a slow, and painfully excruciating death. If it was my child who was raped I guarantee he would never make it to the court room.
          • makkaveli19, on 04/14/2008, -1/+3jcr4nf you are not fit to be a parent. with your attitude you're going to land in jail and make your child father/motherless. is that a better approach? why shouldn't we try to see why these people want to hurt children, why should we just accept that they are EVIL and want to hurt them just for the sake of it?
          • didiman, on 04/14/2008, -2/+1wtf is str3ama and you getting dugg up. You two morons live in the land of Oz.
        • rmanocha, on 04/14/2008, -2/+8Unless you understand the motivations behind him raping those children, how do you even attempt to stop something like that happening again. I Would imagine that for most psychopaths, death would not be a sufficient disincentive.
          • kosmoX, on 04/14/2008, -2/+17Well, dead people don't rape kids.
          • MudMan69, on 04/14/2008, -4/+10Neither do people serving life sentences.
          • litkaj, on 04/14/2008, -9/+5... but they do cost a million or so per year to keep incarcerated.
          • sparsely, on 04/14/2008, -1/+11litkaj: it costs way more to execute someone, what with appeals out the ass for years and everything else.
            It costs comparatively little to house a person.
          • sancho, on 04/14/2008, -1/+4There are multiple schools of thought that have nothing to do with cost (the myths surrounding the cost of execution vs. the cost of incarceration for life change pretty much daily.)

            One school of thought is that prison is for rehabilitation. The death sentence does not rehabilitate.
            Another school of thought is that prison is purely punitive. If this is the case, you can make an argument that life in prison is much more punitive than the death sentence. Particularly in US prisons, and particularly for crimes involving children, where the offender will likely be raped frequently.

            Then there's the idea that our legal system isn't perfect, and that people are periodically found to have been innocent as new technologies (such as DNA profiling) give us new information. A person may be exonerated later in life under some circumstances. You can't bring people back from the dead.
          • darkened, on 04/14/2008, -0/+5 litkaj you're very mistaken, it costs approximately 1 million to have a person serve a life sentence, it costs about triple that to execute them.
      • Smaulz, on 04/14/2008, -14/+13Fine, you hold his hand and rub his back... I'm gonna be kickin' his ***** teeth down his throat.
      • 3HackBug77, on 04/14/2008, -4/+7I partially agree with you, but in some cases it really isn't realistic to think the person can be rehabilitated. Some people are just screwed up. But you are right, our system of justice should be primarily based around rehabilitation. But moreso in cases that involve things like drugs and self-inflicted crimes, not necessarily ones that involve hurting others.
      • counterplex, on 04/14/2008, -2/+5I think the question is whether or not a judge/jury _can_ award the death penalty for child rape. This does not make death the only punishment for child rape but it puts it on the table. There will almost certainly be distinguishing characteristics similar to what happens for murder. Pre-meditated vs. manslaughter etc have punishments ranging from imprisonment to death and you see criminals get jail time for committing murder instead of being on death-row automatically. It's late and I'm not sure I've expressed myself clearly enough but you get the idea.

        Having said that, anyone who rapes a young child deserves to have his "human" classification revoked and dealt with accordingly. If you have kids you will understand.
        • Monotonousblob, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2I agree, but I find it hard to call non-statutory rape anything but premeditated, as I would find it hard for someone to explain that it was an accident or that they were just in the moment.
          • Gir53457, on 04/14/2008, -2/+1I think the Supreme Court needs to take a good look at how our laws define the legality of sex and sexuality and what the definition of rape is and it's punishments.
          • counterplex, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2I didn't mean to imply that there would be a pre-meditated clause to rape - that was just an example. It could be based on age difference etc.
      • cygnus2112, on 04/14/2008, -4/+7How exactly do you rehabilitate someone from raping children? "Hey you, don't do that!"
        • smotpoker, on 04/14/2008, -3/+2Are you suggesting that any form of criminally insane behavior is untreatable or that any person who commits a wrongful act has 0 chance of becoming the slightest asset/benefit to society (while being incarcerated)?

          Doing something that seems incomprehensible doesn't mean that the doer is completely unresolvable or that such thoughts/behavior is the only thing he/she is capable of
          • smotpoker, on 04/14/2008, -2/+1stupid timer... s/unresolvable/untreatable
        • jcr4nf, on 04/14/2008, -3/+2Well there are just some acts that don't deserve rehabilitation.
      • str1fe, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3Many child rapists were raped as a child as well. In turn, many of their victims become child molesters. The damage has been done and the cycle of abuse just keeps turning. Rather than killing them, we need to focus on stopping it before it happens (honestly, I don't know how to do that at all without blatant violation of privacy and incarcerating known offenders, but it's food for thought).

        I think the Law and Order SVU episode where the lady has a brain tumor that ruins her impulse control "causes" her to rape one of her students brings up some things to think about on the topic.
        • IdevInull, on 04/14/2008, -2/+1Kill them and you end the cycle.
          • str1fe, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2To repeat my last comment, the damage would have already been done. You're suggesting that we kill the victims of child abuse because they, too, might become abusers one day.
      • IdevInull, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2People that want to understand rapists and who want to remove any true penalty for them are most likely themselves rapists.
    • Ajajadude, on 04/14/2008, -8/+57It won't deter anyone from committing such acts. Sorry, I know that's not a popular stance, but it's the truth. People who rape kids are seriously ***** up in the head. No sane person is going to do something like that. Only someone with some seriously crossed wires in their brain can even conceive of doing something like raping a kid. Digg people down all you want who don't think this will change anything, but you're just deluding yourself into thinking people with faulty hardware in their brains are going to be deterred by this.
      • mesasone, on 04/14/2008, -4/+2*****
        • smotpoker, on 04/14/2008, -3/+4They say execution is more expensive. Not only from profiteering prison systems but costs from the court system due to appeals processes (which must remain in place, especially in death sentencing, if you hope to keep even the semblance of a fair justice system)
      • Nitrodist88, on 04/14/2008, -2/+3I don't agree with people saying that it deters anyone from doing it either. However, I still think that the death penalty is just for murderers. ***** 'em, they took the life of another person, they deserve to die.

        However, when you get into the issue of child rape, I don't think that the death penalty should be an option. It used to be that rape cases had the option of the death penalty, but it was discovered that there were a lot of people who were wrongly convicted of it and so forth, so they outlawed it. I believe the same will be held true for child rape as well.

        Having the death penalty for anything other than murder isn't right, in my opinion. I'm all for life sentences, though.
      • Dagarik, on 04/14/2008, -2/+7"you're just deluding yourself into thinking people with faulty hardware in their brains are going to be deterred by this."
        So many of these sick bastards are repeat offenders, I think the death penalty would at least put an end to this.
        • bjornski, on 04/14/2008, -2/+9Yup. There is a ZERO percent recidivism rate with the death penalty.
        • Abomonog, on 04/14/2008, -7/+4This type of crime actually has the least amount of repeat offenders of all of them. Less than 5% actually commit the crime again. This has nothing to do with our legal systems efforts to stem the crime. It is the drug offenders that are the most likely to repeat with thieves a close second. The assumption that all sex criminals are repeat offenders is a myth.
          • jcr4nf, on 04/14/2008, -3/+2You just pull that number out of your ass?
          • PdxPhoenix, on 04/14/2008, -2/+3His ass? No... The US Dept of Justice, perhaps.
            Sex offenders (who've gotten treatment) are actually among the least likely to reoffend. Not that it isn't horrible when they do, it's just that most all other classes of criminals are more likely to commit another crime.
            Look it up for yourself, it's easy to do what with the internets & all.
            http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm
            http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism
            Among the items:
            "Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders."
            Just because re-election driven politicians & ratings driven media tell you something is true, doesn't necessarily mean that it is. Don't let their fear mongering rule your life.
          • str1fe, on 04/15/2008, -2/+1WHAT?

            No, look at facts. You lost all your credibility with that second sentence.
      • cygnus2112, on 04/14/2008, -4/+2The point of capital punishment isn't mainly a deterrent. It's a cost-effective way of removing a true danger to society from the streets. Too many people let their emotions run high. But considering it costs $30,000+/year to house a rapist and similar costs for appeals, court process, etc.. it would make sense from society's point of view to use the death penalty more often, considering it costs $1.2 million per life term (40 years) per prisoner not even counting court costs/appeals.

        You can pay for 2-3 college students to get their education for free for each criminal. I just see it as backwards to let true psychopaths rot in jail cells.
        • cygnus2112, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3p.s. the $30,000/year is actually a low-ball figure. In Canada, it costs $80,000/year per male federal inmate, $130,000+ for female federal inmates.

          You can do a search and find higher figures based on prison costs, etc. So we might be talking several millions per prisoner.
        • smotpoker, on 04/14/2008, -2/+4Prison-system reform should be your priority. It only costs $1-2 per meal to feed those inmates and most don't receive any sort of medical treatment for years at a time. At the same time they and their families are paying highly inflated prices for any food/products that isn't provided by the government.

          In actuality, it costs not much more than $5-10k per year to keep most prisoners. The additional cost is from inflated numbers and averaged in medical expenses of a fraction of inmates
          • bjornski, on 04/14/2008, -1/+4And remember. They're "for-profit" industries now.

            Profit margins and dividends have to be taken out of that too. Plus any CEO perks.

            Imprisonment should NEVER be a profitable "job".
        • Abomonog, on 04/14/2008, -4/+2It costs 2.5 million to put someone to death after all the appeals have run out. This is twice as much as your 1.2 million to hold him in jail for life.

          We need a better system. It fails everyone and actually encourages crime.
    • netdroid9, on 04/14/2008, -14/+3Would you rape a kid to save an orphanage of kids from being raped, even at the expense of your life? 'Cause that's what you'd honestly, beyond a doubt *know* if you had really bad Schizophrenia. We need better health care, better rehabilitation, not more advanced forms of punishment.
      • netdroid9, on 04/14/2008, -4/+2Also just want to note that, at least from memory, a lot of Schizophrenics respond really well to treatment.
        • Gir53457, on 04/14/2008, -5/+1And vicious rapists respond well to severe DC electric shock therapy. Most of them are cured in one treatment, but some times it takes a little bit more.
        • Abomonog, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2Except DC current is harmless. Remember the Westinghouse wars. The car battery in the shower scene is a myth. EST uses 240 volt low amperage AC current. Don't worry. You won't remember a thing.
      • netdroid9, on 04/14/2008, -3/+3On another note, we also had a case down here in Australia where a young girl was gang-raped by a group of teenagers, between 12-19 years old. Should we kill the 12 year olds? What about the 13 year olds? 15s? They might have known what they were doing, but who's to say the adults hadn't been threatening to rape them if they did anything? These were aboriginal kids too, so they probably weren't all that willing to give information out in the investigation.
      • NoStoppingUs, on 04/14/2008, -4/+4you're replying to your own comments. i think someone here might be schizo themselves. (and its not me..)
        • bjornski, on 04/14/2008, -1/+6Or maybe he had an afterthought. You don't have to be schizophrenic to do that.
    • woohalladoobop, on 04/14/2008, -0/+6But how would you decide on which cases?
      • PhilLesh69, on 04/14/2008, -3/+5The same way we do it now. The darker the skin, the more evil the person is. Or, the more disgusted we are by the action of that person, the more we want to kill them rather than punish them.

        The death penalty should only exist for cases where someone has shown willful and direct disregard for life, where that person has chosen, consciously and calculatedly, to take another human life.

        Unfortunately, as it stands, the death penalty only exists to placate the anger and hatred of the citizen mobs.
    • afx1, on 04/14/2008, -14/+7kill em all!! child molestation deserves castration at least.
      • quickbarn, on 04/14/2008, -10/+4heck yah..they took something from the kids so lets take something from them....Their junk....chop it off and make them eat it...
        • 3HackBug77, on 04/14/2008, -5/+7sorry guys, there is a little clause people like to call "cruel and unusual punishment"
        • Tahiri, on 04/14/2008, -9/+4How is it cruel considering what the person used it for?
          • 3HackBug77, on 04/14/2008, -4/+10Just because the guy molested somebody doesn't give someone else the right to torture him, if that were the law, revenge would be a never ending cycle.
            Just to be clear: I would soooo support castrating him, but unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) You can't
          • Gir53457, on 04/14/2008, -1/+6I wish we could but for the same reason I am against torture, we're America and we are above these sort of punishments. Shoot them, shock them or inject them but never excessive suffering.
          • cygnus2112, on 04/14/2008, -4/+4It doesn't have to be "cruel". Just a simple medical procedure, like neutering a pet, complete with anaesthesia.
          • cygnus2112, on 04/14/2008, -4/+3I think people are looking at surgical neutering/castration in two different ways. 1) As punishment - eye for an eye, penis for raping or 2) Medical / Psychological reasons and reducing aggression.

            It works on a variety of domesticated animals to cure a vast number of health and psychological issues. Yet, why are people so reticent to discuss it as a form of rehabilitation for aggressive or serial rapists?
          • DucoNihilum, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2Chemical castration has been somewhat effective for rapists.
      • AndreMA, on 04/14/2008, -1/+5The problem with that is "what if someone is convicted in error"? If they're imprisoned for 8 years before it being shown they were innocent, the State can at least make an attempt at compensation. In death penalty cases, once the defendant has been executed very seldom will there be any further efforts to prove him innocent -- so while we know that there have been a number of people on death row subsequently determined to be not guilty, we don't know how many were actually executed in error.

        With involuntary castration, though, there's the worst of both worlds... the damage is permanent, but the prisoner is still around and if proven innocent will be in a very good position to sue the State into bankruptcy.
        • DucoNihilum, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2Sue the state into BANKRUPTCY? Are you KIDDING ME?
    • SniperGX1, on 04/14/2008, -3/+3The death penalty doesn't help with crime because people don't think about the punishment before committing crimes. But on the other hand, if it makes us feel better, i'm down.
      • lamakui, on 04/14/2008, -2/+1really? so your saying that if someone is, for example, stealing a car, they never consider the lawful implications and consequence of their actions? Regardless of whether or not the death penalty is appropriate for this crime, it seems faulty to say that punishment for an action serves no purpose, because if this were so, the average crime rate would sky rocket due to people never considering the consequences of their actions.
        • RandomH3r0, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4So they know before hand they are going to get caught and still do it? I think most people who commit crimes do so with the thought they will get away with it.
      • PhilLesh69, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1You are only looking at the problem from the angle of those creating the problem. To say that penalties do not deter people from committing a crime because the criminally minded people are incapable of rationalizing the cause and affect of their actions misses the bigger picture. Law abiding citizens, people who are capable of making the connection between their actions and consequences that might follow, obey many rules they would perhaps otherwise break because they understand the consequences.

        For example, many people choose not to smoke marijuana, even knowing that it is not harmful to them. They do so only because they wish to avoid the possible legal consequences of it. Lots of people who have an overwhelming urge to urinate will hold it as long as they can until they can find a public restroom, rather than sneaking behind a dumpster or ducking into a building entranceway because they know that if a cop happens to drive by, they could get a ticket for urinating in public.

        Rational people do think about consequences. It is why we have any semblance of a society in the first place.
    • Rabscuttle, on 04/14/2008, -5/+30the moment a man convicted of murder is killed and proven innocent after the fact, everyone in the justice system would logically have to be killed
      • Abomonog, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4What kind of weapon do you want? Assault rifle? Machine gun? You have a lot of killing to do.
        • str1fe, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1And then he'd have to be killed for killing the justice system. There's a reason we don't have an "eye for an eye" policy.
        • gh0st3000, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Without a justice system, who could kill him? I guess you could just find a random person, but then he'd have to be killed in turn... ohmygodinfiniteloop
    • deanlowe, on 04/14/2008, -5/+2These things happen because the perps don't know what can happen to child rapists in prison. If people were shown the results, there might be less of this ***** going on.
      • cygnus2112, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2Is that really true? Or just common folklore to scare rapists? I would imagine it would have more to do with personal integration into that prison.
        • smotpoker, on 04/14/2008, -0/+6It's true. The key difference between people in prison and the average citizen is less to lose and inability to control impulsive behavior/aggression.
          They have wives/children/sisters/mothers/etc too

          I'd also like to point out that it has been pretty well established through MRI imaging and similar techniques that most, if not nearly all, inmates have hyperactivity in their primal/aggressive centers of their brain and the logic centers are usually underdeveloped (I cannot remember the exact names for the brain centers but it has been documented etc).

          This seems to imply, in my opinion at least, that much of their behavior is not only due to physiological/mental handicap, but that in many cases they could treatable by exposing them to environments/activities that stimulate logical decision making and/or empathy while removing exposure to environments that stimulate aggression and primal instincts.
        • PhilLesh69, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1There are all kinds of examples of this.

          Remember Jeffrey Dahmer?

          "Jeffrey Lionel Dahmer (May 21, 1960 – November 28, 1994) was an American serial killer. Dahmer murdered 17 men and boys between 1978 and 1991, with the majority of the murders occurring between 1989 and 1991. His murders were particularly gruesome, involving rape, necrophilia and cannibalism."

          "On November 28, 1994, Dahmer and another inmate named Jesse Anderson were beaten to death by fellow inmate Christopher Scarver with a bar from a weight machine while on work detail in the prison gym. Dahmer died from severe head trauma in the ambulance while en route to the hospital."
          • DucoNihilum, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1You have no idea why it happened. Just because he got beat up doesn't mean he got beat up for his crimes.
        • Abomonog, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1On the other side of the coin was John Wayne Gacy. He killed 33 boys over the years and spent his time on death row as a god in prison. This despite the fact that he murdered children AND was a career clown. He was executed in 94.
      • CarnivalOfDust, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1Yeah, the death penalty is probably pretty soft compared to prison. This is like cutting them a break:
        *Rapist crying*
        "I herby sentence you to death by lethal injection."
        *Rapist smiles*
        *Inmates have to find a new bitch*
    • StaticThunder, on 04/14/2008, -2/+6All it will do is make the families of the victims feel better. It won't act as a deterrent any more than the fact that these guys generally are put in solitary because the general population will kill them does.

      What this country needs, more than anything else, is more vengeance, apparently.
      • RandomH3r0, on 04/14/2008, -1/+4Yep, and if you don't go along with the mob, you must be one of them. Christian nation my ass.
    • Herostratos, on 04/14/2008, -2/+4Great. So now a bunch of people will get killed whenever someones "suppressed memories" of satanist rituals pops up.
      • PhilLesh69, on 04/14/2008, -1/+5That is a big problem, overlooked by the vengeful haters and frightened mobs.

        It has been proven that there is a high level of "suggestibility" in these "suppressed memory recall therapies". Many people accused of molesting a minor or taking part in satanic rituals have been later found completely and entirely innocent.

        It's just too easy to get all emotionally worked up over something you detest, and not allow reason and logic to override hatred.

        Not to mention, often the people who are most angry towards this sort of thing, and the prosecutors who are most vehement about trying these people are sometimes just as bad as the people they vilify. Spitzer serves as an analogous example. Vindictive prosecutor of prostitution, turns out to be also a very good client of prostitutes.

        Sorry, most people are not intellectually honest, so they will digg me down because in some abstract way, I am accusing them of whatever vice they seem to be unable to come to terms with.
      • Frost9999, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2Also, there are enough stories on Digg where people have been horrified when two minors engage in sex and one of them is convicted of rape. Should that rapist also be executed? Execution is barbaric and wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right.
      • IdevInull, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1The punishment for rape should be death. The justice system needs reform to so it makes sure that the person they are going to kill actually did it. Hearsay or "he said she said",should not be enough evidence to convict.

        Also for people that falsely accuse -- they should also be killed when found out. That will help keep that crime in check.
        • PhilLesh69, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1And over time, we should just begin to accept yet more reasons to kill people. Let's say if there's an epidemic of certain crimes. We could temporarily institute the death penalty in cases when that crime is getting out of hand.

          Ultimately, I hope this theory extends to people driving while talking on cell phones. If it gets them to stop, who could argue against it, right?
    • Asianwaste, on 04/14/2008, -3/+7I disagree. In many cases killing the assailant would further put guilt upon the victim and thus making the tragedy even more emotionally draining. Besides, child molesters are the biggest prison bitches. Long prison time would most likely be eye for an eye justice. The whole head for an eye is just going too far.
      • PhilLesh69, on 04/14/2008, -1/+7You are the first person to think about the victims, and to consider them in all of this.

        Everyone else is thinking only about their own hatred, disgust and animosity.

        Don't you just love that we apparently haven't evolved beyond the "off with their heads!" mentality of medeival or roman or assyrian times?

        Though, I have to admit, most humans haven't evolved beyond "I make sex, have kids, need food and ***** all the rest of you", even though we have this series of tubes that can provide us with all kinds of enlightening information.
    • cnot3, on 04/14/2008, -0/+11"Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf
    • RandomH3r0, on 04/14/2008, -2/+2Because there is nothing funnier then prison rape! Seriously, should anyone be forced through something like that? Try to curb your aggression a little, you don't want to look like the people you scream to be behind bars.
    • woodrow8292, on 04/14/2008, -1/+3Well in many cases these people were abused as children themselves. So start putting the needle in their arms when they are convicted and we can break the vicious circle of abuse. We don't need to help or understand these sickos, put em out of their misery so they can't harm any more children.
      • Abomonog, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2And at the time the system ignored these abuses. So these people get punished by the very same system that ignored their cries for help. How about finding these people and helping them before they commit crimes?

        New concept alert.
        • IdevInull, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1Nobody says you shouldn't do this -- BUT after they commit the crime. Then they are no longer a victim....but a perpetrator and should be killed.
    • Firehed, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4Define when, then. In many locations, a 17- and 20-year-old having consensual sex is still legally raping a child. Will the law differentiate between that and some old pervert sticking himself in a six year old? I doubt it.
      • PhilLesh69, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1What's funny is that people used to be able to make that distinction. But the TV has gotten them all worked up over the general idea so they no longer can differentiate between the two.

        People blinded by emotion are incapable of thinking rationally.
    • rlbond86, on 04/14/2008, -1/+4Terrible idea! What's to stop a child rapist from murdering his victims? After all, the penalty would be the same. There's a reason that rape can't get the death penalty: it's to stop rapists from murdering their victims.
      • PhilLesh69, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1I wouldn't say that the point of not executing rapists is to prevent them from murdering, though I would definitely agree that once the penalty for either is the same, many rapists would choose to leave no witnesses in order to have a better chance of not getting caught.

        So, you brought up a good point, just the part about it being the reason there isn't a death penalty for rape is a little inaccurate. It is DEFINITELY a good reason to give pause in the deliberation on whether or not to.
    • themastersb, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1Cant rape the not unwilling.
      • PhilLesh69, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1can't reason with those unwilling to listen to reason, either.
    • robthom, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1More like is some cases mabey not.
    • iainc, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3A bit harsh. Physical castration and branding ought to be enough, oh, and a long custodial sentence. Heck, if you kick out all the weed smokers (who harm nobody) there'll even be room in the prisons.
    • steeeeve, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3Most of the "proven innocent after x years of prison time" cases were in prison for rape. That worries me about this.
    • IdevInull, on 04/14/2008, -3/+2ALL rape should have the death penalty.
      • iainc, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2If the judicial system were infallible then I would support you. Sadly, it has proved to be extremely fallible, therefore I could not support the death penalty.
    • FascistUtopia, on 04/14/2008, -1/+3Why do we allow the State the authority over who lives & who dies? Regardless of the horrific nature of some crimes, we can't give the State that much power. Abolish the death penalty.
    • Magwich, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1If it does nothing else, it stops those genetic from moving on more than they may have already.
  • SuperWinner, on 04/14/2008, -30/+159Ahhh I still think murder is a little worse than rape...
    • oboy, on 04/14/2008, -18/+40Death penalty for murders too. I'm not saying EVERY murder and EVERY rape, but there's a certain point where rehabilitation is no longer an option.
      • ennTOXX, on 04/14/2008, -4/+1*ditto* I say no more bolognas sandwiches for both of them.... :||
        • str3ama, on 04/14/2008, -4/+13rape actually is a bit worse, because after you've violated them - they're left living with the memory of what you've done to them. That's actually worse then murder IMO.
          • 3HackBug77, on 04/14/2008, -2/+1Depends on the case, some people recover from it, some don't. So it could be argued that in the case of the ones that do put their memories behind them murder would have been worse.
          • BabyWookie, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Yeah. I'm sure that people like Oprah (who was molested as a child) would rather be dead. Sure. Whatever.
        • Nitrodist88, on 04/14/2008, -3/+2Are you sure? The loss of the chance to experience, literally, a lifetime would be a lot worse than being raped, in my opinion.
          • GhostSniper, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2Well, you're not alive to know you've missed out on the chance...
        • cygnus2112, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1How about we agree that they're both bad and that given a person's situation, they might think death is better than being traumatized by rape .. or think that being raped is better than dying. In any person's shoes, I wouldn't want either to happen. And those who commit the aggressive acts on others are criminals that should be punished and/or terminated so they are no longer a danger to others.
      • gravityboard, on 04/14/2008, -9/+6an economically viable option, that is...

        I shudder to think what percent of our taxes goes to sustaining the incarcerated.
        • youtellme8, on 04/14/2008, -0/+14A much more effective money saver would be to legalize marijuana and other drugs. There are way more people in prison for drug-related crimes than anything else.
          • Foxoq, on 04/14/2008, -1/+10not to mention more humane? look i realize there are a lot of disgusting ***** out there but is anyone else apalled by this? washing the blood away with more blood isn't going to solve the ***** problem. i guess jailing isn't either... what really needs to happen is for everyone to start giving a ***** about their neighbours, about other people. i may be a bit of a dreamer, but having so much violence in a society is only going to bring more. executions aren't going to help your country, no matter how much they may deserve to die. besides, I'd say life in prison is a whole lot ***** worse than death anyways.
        • Ajajadude, on 04/14/2008, -2/+12Incarceration for life is cheaper than putting someone to death. Despite the fact that the death penalty has never been shown to be an effective crime deterrent, you have to factor in the court costs for decades of appeals plus the fact that you have to house the offender the entire time.
      • smacksaw, on 04/14/2008, -0/+5A good use of the death penalty is incarcerating them until they expire. Amazingly, that method allows for a margin of error or even rehabilitation if we ever figure out how to cure mental defectives who commit crimes we cannot comprehend.
    • SuperWinner, on 04/14/2008, -5/+115I have a strange feeling this law will only be used on men, not women, because men have a *****.
      • Nitrodist88, on 04/14/2008, -7/+2Strap on?
        • str1fe, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Women are something like 10% of pedophiles to begin with, though I have no idea how accurate that number is because of how understudied and under-reported it is.
      • kocurejd, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Depending on the wording of the statute, men are not necessarily the only ones who can commit rape, especially with a child. There are often different ways of committing this crime, which is usually something to the effect of "penetrating the sexual organ of a child". Having a penis isn't the ultimate deciding factor.
      • PhilLesh69, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2No male judge would ever allow a really hot school teacher to be executed for having sex with a 15 year old boy.

        The judge would be asking himself, "Damn! Where were teachers like her when I was in school???"
    • Lewie, on 04/14/2008, -8/+23It's argued that rape is very psychologically damaging. To some, it may be worse than death, because it creates a feeling of helplessness and total domination. Probably like being tortured.
      • PhilLesh69, on 04/14/2008, -4/+5There are a lot of things that create a feeling of helplessness.

        Have you ever been audited by the IRS? Should we execute IRS agents because they instill a feeling of helplessness on the poor sap being audited?
      • shreas, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2When some pedophile rapes a kid, he/she is sentencing that child to a life of psychological issues / suffering (although it may not solve the underlying issues, it seems like enough to warrant the death penalty).
        • Noods, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1Even though their pedophilia may have been caused because they were raped? But hey, we all know when it is legitimate to kill someone else!
    • Ockniel, on 04/14/2008, -13/+7I don't understand the controversy behind the death penalty. How about you just don't kill or rape anyone?
      • Rabscuttle, on 04/14/2008, -0/+12Potential innocence
      • mithrasinvictus, on 04/14/2008, -0/+111: innocent people have been put on death row
        2: government sanctioned murder sets a bad example
        3: These people could be locked up forever instead (the death penalty serves economic and vindictive purposes)
        • smotpoker, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4put on death row AND EXECUTED*
        • tnvwboy, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2I don't disagree with your points but #3 is a problem. These prisoners, regardless of how long they are in, are a tremendous economic drain on society. Too little is done to get these people to contribute back.
          I'm not suggesting that killing them is the solution but the economic impact of incarceration always comes up in these discussions but no one seems to correct it or come up with a new solution.
          • smotpoker, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2I've suggested several times throughout this discussion rehab/education and putting them to work for society... I think people shy away from the notion because they assume it mandates exposing/endangering society with them, that they are too stupid/unwilling to contribute or that they will take jobs that someone "more deserving" could be paid for
      • Yamoth, on 04/14/2008, -0/+124: It doesn't deter crime since most of the sick bastard that are out there doing this kind of stuff never expect to be caught.
      • Lewie, on 04/14/2008, -0/+25: Rapists/Murderers are generally psychologically damaged or just insane. It may not be a decision to 'just not kill or rape', it may be beyond their control conscious control. That is why they should be locked up in mental institutions, treated and studied.

        Although I see the point of ridding society of the incompetent, I just have trouble with whether anyone should have the right to end another's life.
      • EwMo, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1Yes. Ideal worlds exist. You live in one. It may be your own little world, but I'm sure you're happy...
      • sparsely, on 04/14/2008, -0/+36. Execution is nothing more than societal revenge.
        • JBish828, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1In some cases, it could be societal protection.
          • smotpoker, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Pre-emptive defense often equates to offense
    • bxblox, on 04/14/2008, -4/+11Nevertheless, I consider child rape much worse than other rape.
      • PhilLesh69, on 04/14/2008, -3/+11Nevertheless, I consider beating up a 16 year old cheerleader worse than beating up a 25 year old.

        We should also execute those idiot kids in Florida. Right? I mean, it's worse, because "it's a kid!!!!!", right?

        Think about the children. It's because of the children. It's for the children. We have to protect the children!

        I'm sorry, but most of the time, I don't think children have any more value than anyone else. Sure, they are younger, more innocent, and all that, but I think everyone should be afforded the same value and the same protection. Why should we ever make any group, gender, race, religion or age superior or more important than the others?
        • Bidger, on 04/14/2008, -1/+5Everyone knows that kids and rich white people deserve more protection
        • SteeleJK, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1So it's settled. We execute all rapists.
          Kidding.
        • dungbeetle, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Because after having something like this happen to them they grow up messed up causing that many more problems with society.
    • smotpoker, on 04/14/2008, -2/+14Those of you who assume rape is worse, you may or may not be right, depending on the parties involved or the circumstances. It is a completely subjective call with a lot of factors involved.

      That said, you have to remember that a lot, if not most, sexual assaults are carried out under the threat of death or beatings. I don't think many occur from actually being tied down etc. In other words, the women are forced into submission under threat of death/bodily harm and chose rape over death. Coupled with the fact that most rape victims do not subsequently succumb to suicide etc....

      I know it sounds callous etc, just trying to think of it logically/objectively. There are a lot of things worse than death IMO but I think fear of death is worst of all to most people.... anyway, not sure where i'm going with this, just thought I'd point it out. There are different degrees of rape and probably different mindsets that lead to it (both in the victim and the offender).
      • tnvwboy, on 04/14/2008, -2/+3Tell that to the women who were beaten to the edge of their life, raped anyway and then left for dead. They had no 'choice'.
        They then have years of rehabilitation, both physically and mentally. Flashbacks and leaving in fear of many things the rest of us take for granted. All the while their assailant is living, in jail, but comfortably knowing that once they get out their family will take them back in because they cannot believe their son would ever do that. While the survivors friends, family and neighbors all abandon her because 'maybe she was asking for it' and 'she just needs to get over it.'

        There may be rapes that do not cause this much harm, but don't kid yourself into thinking that rape isn't so bad just because you looked at some statistics. Go talk to some survivors and then come back to your argument.
        • smotpoker, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Uhh... those cases would probably be the minority of them and fall under the ""may" portion of "may or may not be right" clause.

          I've talked to several survivors, actually. Most people can tell you that rape, and I use the term losely as I'm sure most others do, is probably a lot more common than most people know. My first love lost her virginity in a rape encounter. When I was 17 I got kicked in the face from a girl who passed out drunk and had a flashback of a recent encounter. Me and my friends were scared ***** she'd break bones from flailing around and wake up accusing us

          I haven't really looked at any statistics on the issue, everything I've said was based on statements from people who have been victims of it. Several of them people I've known in real life, a few people I've known online, testimony on a few reality shows, debate/conjecture regarding some more well-known rape cases...

          I've heard of several date rape cases, which is supposed to be the most common form, where both parties were intoxicated to the point of not being able to properly determine the intent of one-another or the women felt intimidated into submission without direct threat

          There are a LOT of different criteria to consider before making rash generalizations about what is or isn't acceptable punishment. In fact, I don't doubt that the extreme hostility towards rapists is a DIRECT CAUSE of more victims not reporting their encounters, especially considering most rapes seem to occur by people the victims already have a relationship with or may not clearly remember the encounter due to substance abuse

          I think that the blame the victim and beaten nearly to death scenarios you describe are the most extreme minority of cases but even if they were the majority it still doesn't prove the "any form rape removes any chance of having a decent/happy life and is always worse than being murdered" theory.
    • teddyrux, on 04/14/2008, -7/+4Death by Snoo-Snoo? In all seriousness though, the likelihood of this going through is slim to none. Let's hope it stays that way.
    • xtekian, on 04/14/2008, -1/+5Your mostly right. But if this law gets passed, hopefully it will only be in the worst of circumstances, such as multiple rapes over a period of time, in which case I think that it is probably just as bad as first degree murder.
    • faskippy, on 04/14/2008, -2/+6I just think about the torture and utter horror the child endures at the time of the incident, and throughout the physical recovery. Then the torture involved with being threatened not to tell. Then the torture a victim goes through bringing that person to justice, IF they are fortunate enough. Then there's the torture of growing up, getting wiser all the time, and realizing just exactly what has happened to you. All of these are incidious, and last a lifetime. Then there's the big, grown up, sorry ass pervert who did all of this to an innocent little child, so that, pardon the expression here, he can get his jollies. ALL OVER A FRIGGIN ORGASM! That is the ultimate selfishness. So for him to be taken to a little room, have a needle placed in his arm, and go through a physically painless transistion to hell, well I'd say he's getting off light. Sorry, that's just the way I feel.
    • NecroDigg, on 04/14/2008, -4/+1Yeah I disagree on death penalty for rape though. The punishment doesn't fit the crime
      Rape is basically assault on the genitals, which would hurt pretty bad, but not worth death over.
    • robthom, on 04/14/2008, -3/+4Rape can mentally ***** somebody up for a lifetime and possibly create a domino affect that distorts their children also for generations. Every ***** up girl I've met came from ***** up parents. The collateral damage of rape can be worse than murder.
      I'd rather murder somebody.
      • NecroDigg, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1I don't understand how it could damage anybody mentally, unless you were really weak minded or something.
        • smotpoker, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1I think because most rapes are inflicted by people the victim knows... it stems from betrayal of trust and keeping that betrayal bottled up for years mostly. In the worst cases they think such behavior is normal/typical and causes them to react accordingly (fear being alone with people, inflict it on others etc)

          </laymanconjecture>
    • JayExToo, on 04/14/2008, -1/+0so kill the murderer a little quicker
  • Erich100, on 04/14/2008, -70/+155Pedophiles can't be rehabilitated, they do not respond to any treatment. The damage done to a child who has been raped is most likely to last a lifetime. These predators have no place in society. They must be eliminated by either life in prison or by execution.
    We must also reevaluate some classifications of rape and sexual crimes. A 19 year old having sex with a 17 year old should not be considered child rape and if you are caught urinating behind a dumpster you should not be charged with a sex crime. I don't know about all states but in Massachusetts, urinating in public will get you put on the sexual offender list. Behind a dumpster is considered in public.
    • WiseWeasel, on 04/14/2008, -29/+10You seem to know an awful lot about pedophiles for an innocent heterosexual... HE'S ONE OF 'EM, GET 'IM!
    • Vash265, on 04/14/2008, -7/+46That's entirely untrue. Pedophiles can and have been successfully treated with aversion therapy. The courts can't require that a person attends indefinitely as it can be costly, but if the sessions are consistent, then a natural aversion to any particular stimulus (in this case, sexual attraction to children) will occur. There's also hormone injections and neutering, for lack of a better term.
      • westdesertguy, on 04/14/2008, -7/+3Agreed, there have been many many successful rehabilitations of sex offenders.
        besides, pretty much everyone who is on the sex offender list is or has gone through
        treatment for their mental illness. but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be cautious.
        what you need to be careful of are those sex offenders not yet caught and not yet on the list.
        • flip2trip, on 04/14/2008, -1/+3I don't think we need to be taking a chance with known sex offenders--would you want your child to hang around one of the rehabilitated ones?
        • desqjockey, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3Not true- sex offender status is much broader than that.
      • TVarmy, on 04/14/2008, -2/+4Would, er, neutering be a constitutional option? Wouldn't it be cruel and unusual? It sounds like a decent proposal. If the criminal were to choose between neutering and other options, would that offer consent and thus make it not cruel and unusual?

        It sounds like a great option otherwise.
        • Nitrodist88, on 04/14/2008, -0/+5Eugenics isn't smiled upon these days, so it'd definitely be an issue.
        • desqjockey, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Yes, but generally it is elective and the prisoner either gets a shorter sentence or released from his post sentence confinement.
      • Spartycus, on 04/14/2008, -5/+5How do you explain the sheer number of registered sex offenders (who have offenses against children) who have chosen to live as close as possible to schools? - based off megans law maps
        • bjornski, on 04/14/2008, -0/+7Wait until laws like this pop up all over.

          http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articl ...

          "Under the bill, if someone is arrested for viewing children in a public place, it would be a Class D felony if the child is between 12 to 14 years old and a Class C felony if the child is under 12, according to Alexander."

          Visual Aggression? "You looked at my baby! Arrest him!"

          ***** scary. Look at a kid for a moment too long, and you risk lifelong classification as a sex offender.

          And as for the "living as close as they can to schools"? That's crap. Many places, it's hard to find a residence AWAY from a school. Most "affordable" housing has a school nearby. Basically, they're being run out of town.
        • PdxPhoenix, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3Just look at google maps & turn on the school layer... Every town in America is literally littered with schools. But that's the point, to make it easy for children to get to schools...
      • mithrasinvictus, on 04/14/2008, -3/+4Would you have them babysit your children?

        Some have been rehabilitated and some were recidivists, too bad you will only find which it is when it is too late.
        • chrispr, on 04/14/2008, -2/+5No, but there are plenty of jobs in society that don't have a child as part of them.
        • woodrow8292, on 04/14/2008, -1/+3But there aren't a lot of places you can go with out being around children.

          So by saying no to having a "reformed" child molester baby sit your kids you are really saying that you don't think they can be changed. If they can be rehabbed then why worry?
        • desqjockey, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Thats a false dichotomy. I believe Bush can be made to see the consequences of his actions but Im not willing to let him run the country again.
    • Verz, on 04/14/2008, -7/+57"Pedophiles can't be rehabilitated, they do not respond to any treatment. "
      I stopped reading there. That is simply untrue. Where did you get this idea from?
      • smacksaw, on 04/14/2008, -2/+16Joseph Goebbels? Can't let facts in the way of a good lynching!
      • mithrasinvictus, on 04/14/2008, -12/+4Can't be rehabilitated RELIABLY. There, i fixed it.
        • Verz, on 04/14/2008, -1/+6Where did you get this, then? You can't pull these facts out of your ass when you're talking about killing someone.
          • mithrasinvictus, on 04/14/2008, -3/+2I don't want to kill anyone.
            I have yet to see a link here to a study that confirms that these mentally ill offenders can now be be treated and released back into society without risk.
            Who's pulling facts out of their asses?
          • Verz, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1There is no link to a study saying that pedophiles can "now" be treated for their mental illness because they have always been able to get treated, just like anyone else with a mental illness. Saying that pedophiles or that any other group of people with a particular disorder are somehow an exception to the effect of psychiatric treatment is just ignorant.
      • chrispr, on 04/14/2008, -1/+4Faux news
      • robthom, on 04/14/2008, -9/+1***** a pedaphile. Buried for sticking up for child rapists.
        • pilot3033, on 04/14/2008, -1/+7buried for missing the point
          • robthom, on 04/14/2008, -3/+1There where only 2 sentences, I didn't miss the point.
    • XBSHX, on 04/14/2008, -6/+8I say life in prison, solitary confinement only. The death penalty just seems like it would be the easy way out.
      • mithrasinvictus, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3I'd say let them serve the normal term and then lock them in a less severe environment for the rest of their life (and give them suicide pills if they want them)
        • bjornski, on 04/14/2008, -0/+5I personally think that's an option we should make available to every death-row inmate.

          Hell. Every citizen, for that matter.
        • desqjockey, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1That is basically the situation. You get a sentence and then often an indefinate period of civil confinement afterwards where they live on trailers outside the main prison.
      • groberts1980, on 04/14/2008, -1/+3Life in prison, yes. Solitary confinement, no. Put them in gen-pop. Let prison justice take care of it.
        • Vash265, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2Yeah, rape is okay as long as it's in prison!
        • PdxPhoenix, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1But that wouldn't be justice... At best it'd be vigilantism. Might have been fun for Charles Bronson; but not in real life.
      • robthom, on 04/14/2008, -1/+3I dont have the money to feed, cloth, house and guard someone thats done something so egregious that they're never getting out. Life sentences are a waste of time and resources.
        • JBish828, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2Agreed. And don't say the death penalty costs more than keeping someone in prison for half a century, because that's ridiculous.
        • docbob84, on 04/14/2008, -0/+0That would depend on the prison, I suppose. If you're offering cable, a college education, four course meals, yeah it could be expensive. But bread and water are cheap, and a 6foot by 6foot cell doesn't take up much space. I've never understood how it can be "cruel and unusual" to meet someones nutritional and hygienic requirements but withhold any comforts of modern life. It's cheaper and it would serve as a better deterrent than the prisons we have now.
    • mrhedges, on 04/14/2008, -11/+3Castration. With a spoon. I think that's a better punishment than lethal injection.
    • Pillage, on 04/14/2008, -1/+18But, it isn't always entirely the child rapists fault. They are acting on impulses that were hard wired into their brain either at birth, or when they were molested as young children. A lot of sexual abuse is a cycle, and if you don't become a perpetrator you are likely to become a victim and allow your children to become victims. That is why we need a lot more therapy for children who have been molested so they don't turn into the molester.
      • bjornski, on 04/14/2008, -1/+6And the hyper-sexualization of our youth isn't helping either. Beauty pageants with swimsuit competitions for 5 year olds. 10 year olds with stick on "tramp stamps". 12 year olds in "***** me" shoes dressing like they're ready to pick up johns on the corner. The absolute over glorification of sexualizing youth, but punishing sexuality as "bad".

        It's not always the rapists fault for finding someone in those categories to be sexually appealing. Hell, it's being marketed to us every day.

        But it IS their fault for acting upon it.

        But then on the other hand, if you let a drunk work at a liquor store, the temptation can be just too much to resist. Whose fault is that? The drunk for acting on it? Or the provider of the "treats"? "He's been dry for years! I've seen his rehabilitation coins from AA!"

        Welcome to the US. Liquor store of sexuality.
      • nib000, on 04/14/2008, -2/+3Alot of child molesters were molested as children themselves.. Therefore, we should execute both the offender and the victim. If we take a hard line on this, without a couple of generations, this problem will be stamped out completely.
        • Pillage, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1Well maybe for the offender, but like I said if you give the victim lots of treatment they have a chance to turn out ok.
      • flip2trip, on 04/14/2008, -6/+2Here we go, it's starting already--50 years ago you couldn't find anybody that accepted homosexuality as normal, now today society and pseudo science has said gays are born that way. Now we are starting this same discussion about pedophiles--I just thank God I'll be dead before that is normalized as well.
        • Pillage, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Ehhh..the jury is still out on whether you can be made gay or not.
        • TsuruchiBrian, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3It's not "normal" to be gay or a pedophile. Both of these things in my opinion are conditions that are deviations from what is normal. Saying that someone might be predisposed to having these conditions does is not the same as saying it is normal.

          The key difference between being gay and being a pedophile, is that being gay doesn't really hurt anyone. It might be "normal", but whats the harm. I guess the same could be true of pedophiles who never act on their impulses.

          This is not true for people who actually molest kids. These people are HURTING other people. They need to be removed from society. Regardless of whether they were once victims, they can not be allowed to continue the cycle.
      • tomservo51, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1So do you act on EVERY impulse you have?
        • Pillage, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Well, I've heard a lot of cases, ranging from impulse to what one guy who said that it was easier getting off heroine than to resist that impulse,
    • jerryparid, on 04/14/2008, -3/+3Wtf, 12chan begs to differ
    • chris1012, on 04/14/2008, -3/+10there shouldn't be a death penalty for anything! Life in prison is a better alternative.. do you trust the gov't to do all of your taxes correctly? no.. so why would you trust them to murder the right person with the death penalty?

      Very few people understand that murdering a murderer makes one equally guilty of murder... idk why that's so hard to grasp for so many people. Murdering a pedophile with the death penalty is just the same.

      And rehabilitation does work a lot of the time.
      • flip2trip, on 04/14/2008, -4/+4And just how many rehabilitated pedophiles have you invited to live next door to you?
      • RockSlice, on 04/14/2008, -1/+3Killing a murderer via the death penalty does not make you a murderer. Murder is killing in cold blood, for your own reasons. For the death penalty to be assigned, the person has been tried in court, by a jury of his peers, and has been found guilty.
        Is life in prison a better alternative? I'm not sure it is. For one thing, the taxpayers must foot the bill for something that is not their fault. For another, is keeping a person locked in a cage without any freedoms for the rest of his life better than killing him?
        • PdxPhoenix, on 04/14/2008, -1/+4But an execution is done in cold blood... Not from the heat of the moment... It's well thought out, planed, & timed event Just like any other premeditated killing.
        • Noods, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1Either way, there is nobody on this earth that has the clout to decide when someone else should be killed.
    • yahoofrom, on 04/14/2008, -0/+15The reason a 19 year old having sex with a 17 year old should not be considered child rape is that the 17 years old is not going have a damage that lasts lifetime. But what if that 17 year old loved a 50 year old man or woman and had sex? It's the same. I don't think the 50 year old is suddenly deserving death either.
      • bjornski, on 04/14/2008, -4/+4I kind of agree with you, but you're edging into creepy territory.
      • Firehed, on 04/14/2008, -0/+8Well that's because 17-year-olds know perfectly well what they're doing. I'd argue that's true down to age 13 or so (if not younger these days, given the promiscuity of many young girls), though *that* is certainly well into 'creepy'. So long as its consensual on both sides, there can't be a ton of damage done - though I'll be the first to point out that such a statement hardly applies to all situations.
      • frsrblch, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3Yeah, I'd fix the broken underage sex laws before lumping on the death sentences.
      • PhilLesh69, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Well, you are right, as far as you have taken the concept. Sure, it is the same, being consensual, and all.

        However, a 50 year old should know better than to act upon that desire. Even though it is consensual, there is still something wrong and out of balance in the equation. Not to mention, there are LAWS against it. The 50 year old shouldn't buy alcohol for underage people, and he shouldn't have sex with underage people. Sure, we all know those underage kids are drinking and having sex anyway, but that doesn't make it right to take part in either behavior with a minor.
    • ghostoftomjoad, on 04/14/2008, -1/+7Basic fact: most child rapists were molested or raped themselves as children. At what point do these people stop being victims (you said yourself that the damage done by child rape lasts a lifetime) and start being worthy of being killed? Its basic psychology--the circumstances of their illness were out of their control. These people are sick and they need help
      • flip2trip, on 04/14/2008, -1/+3"These people are sick and they need help"

        The point is they know themselves that they are sick--In every instance I've ever seen the pedophile, when caught, professes deep feelings of guilt because they knew what they were doing is wrong. They have to realize this BEFORE they act on these feelings and seek help. It is THEIR responsibility, if they choose to act on their feelings for young children then they have to pay for it--it does NOT matter if it is an illness, if your sick don't you go to a doctor? The statement, "It's not their fault they have an illness," doesn't hold water and deep down everyone knows that whether they want to admit it or not.
  • WiseWeasel, on 04/14/2008, -14/+77As long as this doesn't include those cases of an 18 year-old sleeping with a 16 year-old and such... There have been some fairly controversial convictions of young adults in relationships with minors that should be dealt with separately from child molestation cases. For the latter, however, string 'em up!
    • mattlohkamp, on 04/14/2008, -7/+7Really? 18 with a 16 year old is okay? What about a 17 and a 15 year old? How about 15 and 6 months? You can't make arbitrary numbers for when people are allowed to start having sex. When does it become rape? Do you really want to kill people over an issue so incredibly convoluted as human sexuality?
      • Youreallinsane, on 04/14/2008, -3/+4Amen.
      • AndreMA, on 04/14/2008, -1/+5Most of the proposals I've seen to change the law in this area rely on age differentials. I think the most logical would be that the age difference be less than 10% of the age of the elder -- for someone 18y6mo old, the cutoff would be 16y8mo; for someone 15y3mo it'd be 13y8mo. With an arbitrary "no over 13 with under 13". Or pick your own numbers; those seem a little too flexible to me.
        Any such system must, however, avoid cases in which something that was considered not_rape yesterday becomes rape today because someone had a birthday (eg, a 17 year old with 16 year old girlfriend turns 18 and behavior previously engaged in becomes a felony for, say, 3 months and 22 days until the girl turns 17... that's just insane) Of course the over/under 13 prohibition I mentioned potentially does just that, unless you also treat any sex between a pair of 12 year olds as a felony as well. While that should be discouraged, I'm not comfortable with it being a felony.
      • bpoteat, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2That's the point. He's not saying it's ok, but it's hard to argue an 18 year old raping a 6 month old is the same as an 18 year old and a consenting 16 year old. Under many current laws, they fall under the same legal umbrella, which is rape. Would you argue they both could be considered for the death penalty? That's all the guy is saying. Laws can easily be distorted so you try not to open up the worst case scenario.

        Re-reading both of your posts, I think you guys are in agreement.
      • PhilLesh69, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Why are you so quick to generalize and not look at nuances? Do you just love the idea of government controlling the behavior of people you don't approve of?

        Underage people within the age of pubescence should be allowed to have sex. Or, sorry, not allowed to, but there should be no government regulation restricting it (other than in instances of forced sex).

        Why should a government that abides the US Constitution be able to dictate the behavior of two consenting people?
    • bjornski, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2I posted this link higher up, but it fits your argument VERY well.

      http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articl ...

      Don't watch those kids play ball. You might get a felony on your rap sheet and have to greet your neighbors with a knock on the door and have to greet them with "Pursuant to Megans Law...."
    • Mysk, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4This was my thought, Wise. We've seen some terrible cases lately where kids have been convicted as sex offenders simply for being two or three years apart from one another. Wasn't a recent one concerning a 16 year old? I don't have time to research it this morning. Anyhow, this law is horse *****. It will get knee jerk reactions from people, but I do hope that the people in charge use their heads rather than worrying over how the news may slander them for not enacting such a nightmare.
      • PhilLesh69, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Yeah, but that kid was black, so it's okay. Genarlow Wilson, a 17 year old, was given oral sex by a 15 year old girl. Since he was black, he got a 10 year mandatory minimum sentence. (which was later overturned, thankfully. Though he did spend over two years in prison.)

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_v._State_of_Ge ...
    • robthom, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2I agree with that. I've seen some ripe 13 year olds that would be easy to mistake for a full grown floosy. Not that that should be legal or anything, but it would be easier to explain. But for any sicko's that rape babies or toddlers, I say wipe em off the earth and make some room for fresh air.
      • PhilLesh69, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1It's the Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone in milk, from Monsanto that is causing early puberty nowadays (could Rumsfeld be a pedo? He was CEO of monsanto when rBGH was patented.)
  • tehbored, on 04/14/2008, -25/+348No. ***** that. I hate child rapists as much as the next guy, but to this I say absolutely not. Why? Because the courts suck at making reasonable distinctions. If they allow the death penalty for "child rape" then you can bet your ass that in a few years there will be a story right here on Digg about a 25 year old who had consensual sex with a 16 year old and was sentenced to die. The death penalty is not the answer, it never is.
    • carlnewton, on 04/14/2008, -6/+80"The death penalty is not the answer, it never is."
      Thanks for that. It was just what I signed in to say. How is it reasonable that we punish people for taking someone's life by taking their life? Doesn't set the best example now does it.
      • Ajajadude, on 04/14/2008, -8/+7Depending on who you ask, an eye-for-an-eye is very much acceptable in this country.
        • RandomH3r0, on 04/14/2008, -1/+9An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
        • pyrator, on 04/14/2008, -0/+5'an eye-for-an-eye is very much acceptable in this country'
          Oh yeah like we really need to look to the old testament to guide us in dealing with law and justice. If you are a Christian then you should know that Christ argued against this. If you are a Moslem then even your scholars argue that you should promote forgiveness.
          If you, like me, are not religious, then you probably agree that in recent years we have made progress in eradicating some of the more primitive laws that were given us by religion, and will agree that they have no place in a modern society. Capital Punishment has been eradicated in many countries for good reason, based on many years of research and discussion and not some knee jerk reaction to terrible events.
        • tehbored, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately you are right. You can see it right here on digg every time there is a story about a particularly heinous crime.
      • diggrnumber1, on 04/14/2008, -0/+16especially when almost no other modern democracies do it anymore
        • travis1982, on 04/14/2008, -0/+5Try no other democracy or first world countries. I'm in Canada, and we are doing pretty well with crime here. It has been proven that the death penalty does not have a specific or general deterrence in any way. Sexual offenders, for the most part, cannot be fully rehabilitated, but the field of research is growing and progress is being made. We all agree that sexual offenders commit horrid acts, and many people want justice, but the fact is, killing a sexual offender would not be any different than killing a mentally handicapped person, minus the moral aspect, in the sense that they cannot help what they do, some are born with brain abnormalities, some from traumatic childhoods. It is wrong to kill ANYONE for something that they cannot help, hopefully with advances in rehabilitation, and maybe even genetic manipulation, sexual offenders will be helped for their disorders and not punished while receiving no rehabilitation at all.
        • Kythas, on 04/14/2008, -5/+2The death penalty is absolutely a deterrent. The person being put to death is guaranteed to never kill anyone else.

          So are we now going to pass laws by consensus of what "everyone else" is doing? It's fine to be against the death penalty in the abstract, but what if a family member of yours was murdered? Your husband, wife, child? Would you not scream for the head of the person who did that and ripped your family apart, for the person who stole someone's very existence on this earth?

          travis1982, I can't believe you're an apologist for pedophiles. You equate someone who practices pedophelia with someone with a mental handicap, and they're not the same at all. Pedophiles KNOW they're wrong for what they do, and still choose to perform their acts.

          Personally, I think the death penalty is wrong for someone who hasn't taken another life. The proper punishment, IMO, is life imprisonment with no possiblity of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

          But saying we shouldn't have the death penalty just because other countries don't is asinine.
          • PdxPhoenix, on 04/14/2008, -1/+3A deterrent implies that they have the CHOICE to not do something again.. If they are dead you've removed the possibility that they would choose not to. To say that "the death penalty is absolutely a deterrent" is wrong. it might be, more reasonably called a preventive measure... but definitely not a deterrent.
          • Kythas, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2deter

            Main Entry:
            de·ter Listen to the pronunciation of deter
            Pronunciation:
            di-ˈtər, dē-
            Function:
            transitive verb
            Inflected Form(s):
            de·terred; de·ter·ring
            Etymology:
            Latin deterrēre, from de- + terrēre to frighten — more at terror
            Date:
            circa 1547

            1 : to turn aside, discourage, or prevent from acting
            2 : inhibit


            To deter someone from performing an act does not necessarily involve a choice on the part of the actor. To deter is to prevent or inhibit, whether that prevention or inhibition is voluntary or involuntary.

            So, yes, the death penalty is, in fact, a deterrent for the person being put to death. He is deterred from ever committing murder again.
          • Eezyville, on 04/15/2008, -2/+01) Paedophile =/= child molester. That is a media term. Not all paedophiles molest random children but they deal with their sexual preference all their lives. So are you gonna punish someone because of their sexual preference? They might not even control their preference but they can control their urges. Child molester cannot control their urges and they are not always paedophiles. So will you punish someone for not controlling their urges? Yeah but you have to teach them how to control them or you've punished them for nothing.

            2) Maybe the other countries don't do it for a good reason. An eye for an eye leaves the world blind and other countries probably realized this.

            3) You are right they should serve jail time but only life sentences for the most heinous crime. Study them, understand them, and make sure that society doesn't create more. Child molesters aren't always dirty old me but sometimes are successful people and completely removing them from society will just leave a gap.
        • travis1982, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1YES. I meant to put in prison as well when explaining deterrence....I know dead people can't commit crimes...god damn it.
      • theblt, on 04/14/2008, -0/+10I used to be for capital punishment, but it really is an awful thing. According to Wikipedia, there have been 39 wrongful executions that we know of. 1 is too many, but 39? Minus the fact that it's morally wrong anyways.
      • macaddct1984, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4"Why do we kill people who kill people to prove that killing people is wrong?"
        • PhilLesh69, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Because the people who find pleasure and satisfaction and safety from this idea are not thinking rationally, they are acting on emotion.
      • liquiddarkness, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1I also like the hypocrisy argument but what ever happened to "Treat others the way you want to be treated"? We all know the consequences of our actions. That includes murder.
    • youtellme8, on 04/14/2008, -2/+40Definitely dug up. There is nothing more philosophically arrogant than taking another's life.
      • Kythas, on 04/14/2008, -4/+1Yep, which is why we should execute murderers.
        • str1fe, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3Please re-read your comment and tell me what is wrong with it.
          • Kythas, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Nothing wrong with it. If you maliciously take another person's life - you steal their very existence when you do that - you forfeit your right to live.

            Let me ask you this - do you support abortion?
    • Louis11, on 04/14/2008, -27/+5Simple solution: don't have sex with a minor, consenting or not.
      • ngmcs8203, on 04/14/2008, -10/+3I have no idea why you are being dugg down. Louis is just stating the truth. I smoked pot for a long time and never got caught, but if I wanted to be 100% sure that I never got in trouble for it I shouldn't have been smoking it. It is illegal and if you want to make sure you don't get in trouble, don't sleep with a minor. Easy solution.
        • thrallie, on 04/14/2008, -2/+6except I've had weed planted on me during a trip to Arizona, I was not punished and the cop was reprimanded, and he had to make a formal apology. So whats stopping someone from framing another person for child rape?
          And yes, I smoke weed, however I smoke it here in California only, where most of the time possession of small amounts wont even get you a record.
      • c0mputar, on 04/14/2008, -0/+6Screw off to the people who get the guilty verdict on testimony alone, ***** kill em /sarcasm

        The death penalty eliminates the consideration that the convict could be innocent.
      • lukifer, on 04/14/2008, -0/+13People are wired to start having sex when they hit puberty, and some of them are going to do it, period, dot. Keep it illegal if you must, but it is a grossly different scale of offense than actual rape. A 20 yo shacking up with a 15 yo might warrant community service and a restraining order, but not years in prison (or the death penalty).
    • Jeepy, on 04/14/2008, -1/+10It has been pr oven again, and again, and again that the death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent for violent crimes. There's even correlations between the absence of death penalty and reduction in national per capita violent crime, for instance in Norway http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wfbcjnor.tx ... .To say that anyone is beyond rehabilitation is ignorant and quite frankly presumptuous. Death row is a cash cow for our national prison systems and they're a huge lobby in Washington. Executing one prisoner can cost upwards of 2 million dollars depending on the number of appeals, that's YOUR tax dollars.

      With the amount of people serving 25-life sentences in this country and the amount of prisoners on death row its a little naive to think it is all about justice. I for one will be proud of my country when it is again a safe place to live and a beacon of hope for the world free of Draconian traditions.
      • RandomH3r0, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1The sad thing is, it is safe. Actually very safe but with over hyped media stories and a unsuccessful war on drugs that has doubled the prison population with mostly non violent criminals you wouldn't think so.
        • flip2trip, on 04/14/2008, -1/+3"It has been pr oven again, and again, and again that the death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent for violent crimes."
          I know one person that won't be committing the same crime again.
    • ghostoftomjoad, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1absolutely agree. not to mention that the victims of these child rapists will most likely be executed for the same thing down the road--sexual abuse spawns more sexual abuse. Hard to say you care about the victims if you want to take their lives because of circumstances out of their control
    • harmonik, on 04/14/2008, -3/+3Yeah, I agree. No death penalty.. But castration..Hell yeah! If you can't keep your dick out of a kid, you don't need to have a dick..or a kid.
    • PS3Camaro, on 04/14/2008, -2/+1Just as everyone else saying, gotta agree 110%, the courts suck at using common sense, personally... I hate child rapists as much as anyone else, but it's like everyone is saying, we will have 18 yr olds being put up for the death penalty for sleeping with there 17 yr old GF that they have been with all throughout high school... but if they would set a low age, such as 12 and under for instance... I'm all for the death penalty.. there is no excuse under any circumstances of not being killed for raping a 12 and under year old child.. completely ridiculous, I'm all for second chances.. but there are just some things... whether or not you can be rehabilitated... you chose to do them, you made the wrong choice, and something as horrific as that.. death penalty I'm all for... but that's just my opinion
      • Kythas, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2That's a stupid argument. Most states have a clause whereby there is an allowance for age of both parties. For example, in Lousiana, there's a 3 year grace period for sex with anyone under 17 (17 is the age of consent in Louisiana). So, for example, you can be 18 and have sex with a 16 year old and fall in the 3 year grace period. That's there precisely to account for teenagers having sex. Noboby is going to prosecute an 18 year old for having sex with their 17 year old boy/girlfriend.
    • bearsandbulls, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1I am against the death penalty for various reasons but mostly because I do not have faith in our system. But I do believe there should be a line where pedaphiles are given equal sentences to murderers. This line for me is clear , any rape of a preadolescent child by an adult.
    • kocurejd, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3Dammit. Rape is different than statutory rape. They are considering the death penalty for forcible rape (a.k.a. "sexual assault"), not consensual statutory rape. Get your facts straight before you start ranting.
    • elliotys, on 04/14/2008, -2/+3If this law passes, there will be a catholic priest genocide.
    • Djchicken, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Honestly, I can't believe that this case is being considered when so many people (myself included) don't believe the death sentence is reasonable for murder. But I suppose we all want to feel like we can actually accomplish something by killing criminals rather than trying to rehabilitate them, or more importantly, try to prevent these acts from happening.
      Do people really feel like killing a criminal accomplishes anything? How can we be so barbaric as to think that justice is had when we murder any human being. The reasoning that allows as to condemn a murder is the same that would allow us to condemn an executioner; all human life is sacred, and no man has the right to claim another's.
    • Eezyville, on 04/14/2008, -0/+0I agree completely. This is retarded for so many reasons. What if the person was falsely convicted? It is sad and painful to have a chiild go through a traumatizing experience such as rape but remember it is a traumatizing experience and this is a child so there is a high chance that that child could make a mistake. There's pressure from the police AND from the public because the public obviously wants someone to die. Second most cases of child rape happens within the family. So how would a child feel if he/she knew that if the told on auntie/uncle/brother/sister/cousin then that person will die. They would feel responsible for their death no matter how much you told them that it was their own fault. Why? Because that child knows that because they told their family member was killed. Third, this is an incredibly dangerous law for children. Just use your f***** heads. They introduce this law and say that if you rape a kid they you die. Well what now? "Yeah but if the kid is KILLED then no one can tell on me and if they catch me then I will might get a lesser charge if I play it right. But I can't loose either way." This is a bad law and a stupid law. Its fuelled by the media and paranoid parents. It is important to protect children but use your f**** heads when you try. This law will do absolutely no good.
    • Pureeviljester, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1okay, but a 16 year old is a teen. a child, imo, is 11 and under.
  • ennTOXX, on 04/14/2008, -23/+5Well, let's see... You die for raping a child, +1. You get rid of those that do these disgusting acts, +1.
    Sounds like a win win to me... :||
  • prompel, on 04/14/2008, -3/+76Sounds good, but I suspect that an 18-year-old having non-intercourse sex with a willing 17-year-old girl/boy-friend will technically be a child rapist.

    Don't touch your underage girlfriend in any way! It means death!
    • McBadass, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4Don't know what state you're in but in Colorado it doesn't count unless you are more than 4 years apart. A 20 year old could have at it consentually with a 16 year old. (I think the limit is 15 or 16 though).
      • Pureeviljester, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1note to self, move to colorado or new jersey
    • makkaveli19, on 04/14/2008, -0/+13STD: sexually transmitted death
    • NecroDigg, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2lol @ US's ridiculously high age of consent. where I live, 16 years + is free game.
  • oboy, on 04/14/2008, -2/+17FYI - the laws in their current form, using Louisiana as the example, classify child rape when the victim is under 13 years of age. Those with 17 year old girlfriends don't have to worry about the death penalty (yet).
    • c0mputar, on 04/14/2008, -0/+514 year old boy and 12 year old girl? rapist.
      • stupidStan, on 04/14/2008, -1/+3a 14 year old isn't an adult... different case completely
        • pyrotix, on 04/14/2008, -1/+3I am willing to bet there are cases where an 18yo and 12yo could have a sexual relationship the average person might find "acceptable"

          This is ridiculous and way too subjective
      • Firehed, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2Have you been near high school-age kids recently? Middle school-age kids? I beg to differ.
  • whcooke, on 04/14/2008, -20/+14The death penalty should not be allowed for anything. And with child rape, I find it even more disturbing. Child rape is a horrible thing. But I can't help but think that executing the rapist might emotionally scar the child even more.
    • Spartycus, on 04/14/2008, -3/+5I think that knowing that person is still out there and alive with the potential, however unlikely if they are behind bars, to hurt another might be more traumatizing.
      • BrainInAJar, on 04/14/2008, -2/+3I would rather die than be responsible for someone else's death.

        If this were the case and my telling could result in a man dying, I wouldn't report a rape...
        • julianp, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2I absolutely agree with you on this. Couldn't have said it better myself.
    • platypibri, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2Have to agree here. Rape victims are often afraid the rapist will come back again.
  • dupswapdrop, on 04/14/2008, -11/+1Fry them Dan_O!
  • CaptinCrunch, on 04/14/2008, -10/+48I'd suggest castration before i'd suggest death, but hey thats just me.
    • Falldog, on 04/14/2008, -1/+16Doesn't stop someone from raping.
    • chillfaktor, on 04/14/2008, -3/+9since when is rape about sex?
      • richiee89, on 04/14/2008, -3/+5rape: the crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse
        • smacksaw, on 04/14/2008, -5/+4Rape is about power. Sex is a tool as much as violence is a tool in assaulting or restraining the victim.
          • SpyDerMann, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1How about castration _AND_ jail lifetime?
      • netdroid9, on 04/14/2008, -2/+6You've got a point, AFAIK most rape cases are about power. Even if you chopped it off they could still penetrate people with their fingers. It just means there's less genetic evidence. It's a good option in cases when it actually is sexual though.
        • Tahiri, on 04/14/2008, -3/+1But if they were castrated they'd have a far less desire to rape others
          • BrainInAJar, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Do you actually think that?

            As has been said many times before, it's not about sex, it's about having power over someone
        • goldfishey, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3not necessarily. Its not actually about sex remember!
      • EwMo, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1The only difference between battery and rape is sex. Rape is ALL about some form of sex. It's also more heavily scarring for the victim.
    • yahoofrom, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1how