to get the death penalty:

http://www.wral.com/news/9299410/detail.html

5/31/2006 4:04:25 PM

unless of course you are too short for prison

5/31/2006 4:05:09 PM

what the fuck

5/31/2006 4:11:28 PM

It's rare that I think South Carolina has had a good idea, and yet, here I am doing it.

5/31/2006 4:11:33 PM

^^^yeah, that was fucked up big time.

________

My initial reaction is that this is a bad idea that sounds good on paper, although some legal fine tuning might could make it ok.

Think about how many molested children are victims of family or close family friends. My concern is that more child molesters would never be charged at all, because children and their families don't want to send Uncle Mike to the chair--and then ultimately more children could wind up getting molested.

[Edited on May 31, 2006 at 4:13 PM. Reason : ^^^]

5/31/2006 4:12:56 PM

and michael jackson adds another reason to never ever go to south carolina

5/31/2006 4:13:06 PM

^^ He makes a good point.

I think castration is the key.

[Edited on May 31, 2006 at 4:14 PM. Reason : []

5/31/2006 4:13:47 PM

I'm amazed that SC didn't include a provision for public hangings. Then it would really be like living in 1850.

5/31/2006 4:14:21 PM

hey wheres that guy from the other day

the one who was defending pedophiles

i bet he'll have a good comment for this

5/31/2006 4:14:34 PM

I think bringing the chain gang back is a good idea, its been done in some states

This, however, is not a good idea. Just lock them away for life.

5/31/2006 4:15:49 PM

I'm surprised that you aren't trying to paint me as being a defender of pedophiles

I guess that would involve painting yourself as a supporter of the death penalty

5/31/2006 4:16:17 PM

who cares if they dont put child molesters to the death penalty

if somebody molests little Tree Jr, big Tree himself will handle that

5/31/2006 4:17:20 PM

5 dollars says the only reason duke clicked on this threaed was to see if he could suspend me after my thread the other day

5/31/2006 4:25:58 PM

Executing them solves what?

5/31/2006 4:35:14 PM

Quote :

"The bill picked up steam after a Hartsville man was charged with kidnapping two girls and raping them in a dungeon behind his home earlier this year."

http://www.wral.com/news/9299410/detail.html

What kind of a society creates people like this? (I suspect this statement/question will get some ideological arguments going. )

Quote :

"vert: I think castration is the key."

Nah, they just find other ways to abuse children.

rjrumfel is right. Lock 'em up and throw away the key.

5/31/2006 4:40:26 PM

Quote :

"Nah, they just find other ways to abuse children."

They won't have the desire to molest or abuse. Think about it.

5/31/2006 4:41:53 PM

^^ I guess you believe nurture beats nature?

5/31/2006 4:44:26 PM

^I don't know what I believe in that respect. I was really just trying to get some arguments going that didn't revolve around the death penalty.

Quote :

"vert: They won't have the desire to molest or abuse. Think about it."

I have thought about it, and I have read about it, and it doesn't always work that way. Sometimes the desire to hurt children is in the mind, not the body. Now you think about.

[Edited on May 31, 2006 at 4:46 PM. Reason : sss]

5/31/2006 4:45:14 PM

Quote :

"Executing them solves what?"

solves the question of whether or not they will molest a child again

5/31/2006 4:45:40 PM

Why dont we just start chopping off limbs for petty theft

5/31/2006 4:51:19 PM

and it solves the problem of other people paying for them to live the rest of the thier lives..

5/31/2006 4:51:52 PM

^^yeah because stealing a pack of cigarettes from a convenience store is the exact same thing as fucking a 10 year old child in their ass

5/31/2006 4:52:21 PM

Quote :

"solves the question of whether or not they will molest a child again"

You and I both know how much time, money and effort it take to execute someone. Why not just simply castrate them and force them to perform hard labor for a specified amount of time? That way they can actually somewhat pay back their debts to society.

5/31/2006 4:54:05 PM

that doesnt solve the problem that they might abuse a child again

5/31/2006 4:54:59 PM

yeah i have seen dogs try to hump other dogs after they've been neutered

5/31/2006 4:58:06 PM

Castration works, right? I think more judges should allow people to get out of their rape/molestation charge by having their balls cut off.

5/31/2006 4:58:52 PM

^No, LoneSnark, castration doesn't always work. I just explained it to vert:

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: Sometimes the desire to hurt children is in the mind, not the body."

And I hope to goodness you're joking about letting people get out of charges in exchange for their balls.

[Edited on May 31, 2006 at 5:03 PM. Reason : sss]

5/31/2006 5:02:46 PM

With so many posts flying around, I missed that.

I said that because I figured it would work. It doesn't make sense to me otherwise...

Maybe it will work for most bad-men? Maybe we could try it, cut them off and let them go, and any repeat offenders get the death penalty. Deal?

5/31/2006 5:10:21 PM

i'm against the death penalty

but...

if I was for it, i would think that repeated child molestors should get it

and serial rapists

5/31/2006 5:14:06 PM

Quote :

"5 dollars says the only reason duke clicked on this threaed was to see if he could suspend me after my thread the other day"

i don't even remember what thread you made the other day

5/31/2006 5:15:43 PM

yeah we're talking about Duke here...not beardawg

5/31/2006 5:27:51 PM

Quote :

"What kind of a society creates people like this? (I suspect this statement/question will get some ideological arguments going. )"

Pretty much any kind. Or did you think this was unique to America?

Anyway, castration isn't viable. And I could possibly see not executing them, but in exchange for that I would demand that they get life in prison without possibility of parole (if you all can actually manage that) after the first offense.

I say that because I haven't seen any evidence that they are particularly prone to committing crimes in prison or to escaping. As soon as I see such a thing, I say gas the lot of them.

5/31/2006 5:39:02 PM

people who are as harmful to society as repeat child molestors deserve a severe punishment...

but im just too morally opposed to the death penalty to say "fry him now". now, if i dropped my morals, then sure, id totally be for sending them to the great beyond.

5/31/2006 5:44:41 PM

I can't say that I would shed a tear for any repeat child molesters, but this seems to be one step closer to a society where we simply eliminate all the "undesirables" all together.

This also seems like it might set a bad precedent for applying "grades" or morality to laws. What makes someone who is a repeat child molester worthy of death, where as if someone is a repeat drunk driver and happens to kill someone not worthy of death (or are they?)?

5/31/2006 5:51:09 PM

I don't get how locking someone in prison for the rest of their natural life is more humane that killing them. I don't get how its somehow more moral to keep them locked up in a room forever rather than killing them. I would be more behind anti-capital punishment ideas if they were based on the "Rotting in prison is worse than death, let them get that" premise, but not that its more humane.

5/31/2006 5:52:23 PM

Quote :

"this seems to be one step closer to a society where we simply eliminate all the "undesirables" all together."

It may be a mistake to assume that such would be an inherently bad thing.

As long as "undesirable" is carefully defined, and there are no significant flaws in the justice system (again, this is hypothetical), I fail to see how we wouldn't benefit.

Quote :

"This also seems like it might set a bad precedent for applying "grades" or morality to laws."

If this actually concerns you, then you must be opposed to having different sentences for different crimes.

Quote :

"What makes someone who is a repeat child molester worthy of death, where as if someone is a repeat drunk driver and happens to kill someone not worthy of death (or are they?)?"

They are.

5/31/2006 5:57:02 PM

all we're doing is removing one tumor after another without treating the cancer. i think we're too quick to kill, but it probably makes practical sense to be that way.

i can't help but think about this type of solution:

5/31/2006 5:58:07 PM

Quote :

"all we're doing is removing one tumor after another without treating the cancer."

I don't know that anybody's saying that all we should do to fix the problem is kill people. I know I'm not -- although, with the case of child molestors, I may have to make an exception. I'm not sure that you can prevent what certainly appears to be an almost insurmountable mental disorder.

5/31/2006 6:00:57 PM

As much as castration would be a symbolicaly good punishment, it has two problems. It would be just as expensive and time consuming as the death pentaly (you're lying to yourself if you think it wouldn't) and it doesn't solve the fact that not all molestation involves using one's own genitals.

5/31/2006 6:33:57 PM

Anyone got any studies on the effect of the chemical castration (I assume that's what is meant here, its the only one that's done) on the libido of child molesters?

I just want to know if its even a viable option before we crank up the bandwagon.

5/31/2006 6:36:25 PM

The S.C. bill is likely unconstitutional. Unless the Supreme Court decides to revamp the Constitutional law on the subject.

Quote :

"I'm amazed that SC didn't include a provision for public hangings. "

In the Ninth Circuit, hanging is a perfectly Constitutional means of execution.

Physical castration would not be Constitutional.

5/31/2006 6:48:28 PM

I'm surprised that Wolfpack2K didn't go on his rant about how this is nasty anti-Catholic legislation, and yet another sign of the horrible anti-Catholic sentiment in the USA. The intent of the law is obviously to exterminate Catholic priests, thereby driving God's one true church out of lovely South Carolina.

5/31/2006 8:51:01 PM

even if it were, it would still be unconstitutional. Not because of that reason though.

5/31/2006 8:56:33 PM

Quote :

"What kind of a society creates people like this?"

probably one that doesn't adequately punish its criminals...

5/31/2006 9:41:05 PM

Yeah, I thought about the constitutionality of this law, too. One of my first thoughts was that it would end up being overturned the first time someone attempts to use it.

5/31/2006 10:19:47 PM

Quote :

""this seems to be one step closer to a society where we simply eliminate all the "undesirables" all together." It may be a mistake to assume that such would be an inherently bad thing. As long as "undesirable" is carefully defined, and there are no significant flaws in the justice system (again, this is hypothetical), I fail to see how we wouldn't benefit."

That's true. But I was thinking "undesirable" to mean bums, the unemployed, poor people, etc..

Quote :

""This also seems like it might set a bad precedent for applying "grades" or morality to laws." If this actually concerns you, then you must be opposed to having different sentences for different crimes."

That's not what I meant. I was basically wondering who decides what crimes are heinous enough to be worthy of death, and what crimes aren't. How do you put the different crimes on a scale, where one crosses over? Considering different people views on things like drugs, alcohol, gangs, self defense, etc., it would be impossible to define a system that wasn't arbitrary.

5/31/2006 10:51:54 PM

^ his point is it is already that way. thats why drug laws are so contested. most ppl dont whine about murder convictions cuz most ppl see it as bad.

[Edited on May 31, 2006 at 10:54 PM. Reason : you are still taking away freedoms or rights, life is just an extension of that]

5/31/2006 10:54:10 PM

I'm pretty sure California executed a serial rapist who never killed anyone.

6/1/2006 1:19:18 AM

stricter punishments mean more people will obey the law.

6/1/2006 3:18:29 AM

good job, south cackalacky!

6/1/2006 6:54:14 AM