Death Penalty for Molesters?

[Xue Sheng]

So, are there actually any arguments for the death penalty here (as opposed to lifeterm incarceration) that don't invoke appeals to emotion??

Just wondering if, y'know, anybody actually has a logical argument for their position. . .

Laterz.

Protecting children from predators.

 

[stone_dragone]

Any penalty that I would suggest would, in fact, be considered cruel and unusual (as would many of our other recommendations).

But thats ok....

 

[heretic888]

Yes. As I said, I am for whatever will cost society the least in terms of money, and gain the most in terms of security for citizens; thus, lifetime incarceration, given the statistics on the cost of lifetime incarceration vs. execution (with all the mandatory appeals that includes) is my preference for most criminals.

Exactly.

 

[heretic888]

Protecting children from predators.

Actually, that's just another appeal to emotion.

Lifetime incarceration (whether in a prison or in an asylum) "protects" children from predators just as efficaciously as state-sanctioned murder --- except, of course, lifetime incarceration is a better way in that:

1) At least some sexual predators can be rehabilitated.

2) Lifetime incarceration is less costly to the taxpayers.

3) There are direct correlations between state-sanctioned violence and social violence (i.e., nations with state executions and nations at war have higher levels of national violence than those that do not).

Unless, that is, you know somebody that makes it a habit of locking their children alone in the incarceration cells of sexual predators.

Of course, all this ex post facto rationalizing is really beside the point. People favor state executions because of a self-righteous bloodlust that has been ingrained in the human psyche since prehistory (namely, the pervasive desire to eliminate that which is Other).

The very fact that everybody makes these into emotional arguments --- including the predictable de-humanizing of the targets (usually with telltale labels like "monsters", "scum", "inhuman", etc.) --- is proof of this, proof that whatever all of this is about, it ain't about objectively analyzing what is the best course of action for society.

The only justification for state-sanctioned murder is that it "feels good". Everything else is a rationalization after the fact.

Laterz.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Actually, that's just another appeal to emotion.

Lifetime incarceration (whether in a prison or in an asylum) "protects" children from predators just as efficaciously as state-sanctioned murder --- except, of course, lifetime incarceration is a better way in that:

1) At least some sexual predators can be rehabilitated.

2) Lifetime incarceration is less costly to the taxpayers.

3) There are direct correlations between state-sanctioned violence and social violence (i.e., nations with state executions and nations at war have higher levels of national violence than those that do not).

Unless, that is, you know somebody that makes it a habit of locking their children alone in the incarceration cells of sexual predators.

Of course, all this ex post facto rationalizing is really beside the point. People favor state executions because of a self-righteous bloodlust that has been ingrained in the human psyche since prehistory (namely, the pervasive desire to eliminate that which is Other).

The very fact that everybody makes these into emotional arguments --- including the predictable de-humanizing of the targets (usually with telltale labels like "monsters", "scum", "inhuman", etc.) --- is proof of this, proof that whatever all of this is about, it ain't about objectively analyzing what is the best course of action for society.

The only justification for state-sanctioned murder is that it "feels good". Everything else is a rationalization after the fact.

Laterz.

In general I tend not to debate with you, that is not to say I do not agree or I do disagree with what you are saying. Quite the contrary I am generally rather impressed by your posts.

But here I feel I must reply.

"Actually, that's just another appeal to emotion." Nope it ain't no appeal.

Frankly I could not care less about appealing to yours or anyone else’s emotions on this matter. This is how I feel and why I have no problem with saying yes to the original question that was posted "Death Penalty for Molesters?” it is honestly how I feel and I have no desire to change anyone’s feeling on this.

I am not arguing for or against the Death penalty to do so would be, as the Chinese say; duì niú tán qín - "playing the lute to a cow" this is not an insult this is fact from both sides of the argument.

Both sides of the death penalty argument are so entrenched in their position any argument or debate would be a waste of time. So for you to argue your point to me is pointless and for me to argue my point to you is pointless (I am using 'you' and ‘your’ as an example, I do not mean you personally, I do not know your position on the subject). Ergo to play a lute to a cow and expecting a reaction is pointless as is talking about a subject that people are very stubborn about or talking to the wrong audience.

I am not trying to appeal to yours or anyone’s emotions here; I am simply stating how I feel. If you are a parent I will listen to anything you have to say about death penalty and Child molesters, if you are not...well.....I will stop there.

As for "At least some sexual predators can be rehabilitated" possibly, but I have not yet heard any case of a Child molester being rehabilitated, but I could have missed it.

 

[michaeledward]

Throughout this thread, many people have made undocumented assertions about the frequency of recidivism for child molesters. This morning, I found this article in the Union Leader (Manchester, NH).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13138559/

Certainly this article has several voices that mirror the argument put forth hear that sex offenders are unable to be rehabilititated. But the article also notes that the U.S. Justice Department found that non-sex offense crimes had 'higher re-arrest rates' than sex offense crimes.

Studies on recidivism show:

Different crimes had different rates of reoffense:
Incest - between 4 and 10 percent.
Rape - between 7 and 35 percent.
Child molesters with female victims - between 10 and 29 percent.
Child molesters with male victims - between 13 and 40 percent.
Exhibitionists - between 41 and 71 percent.
In another study, the U.S. Justice Department found that 5.3 percent of sex offenders were arrested for another sex crime within three years of being released from prison. Non sex-offenders had higher re-arrest rates, the department said.

 

[TonyMac]

Wow! Very different than Vermont statistics. When I was a C.O. in the eighties the re-arrest statistics for sex offenders was 80%.

 

[heretic888]

I am not trying to appeal to yours or anyone’s emotions here; I am simply stating how I feel. If you are a parent I will listen to anything you have to say about death penalty and Child molesters, if you are not...well.....I will stop there.

In other words, an appeal to emotion.

The very fact that you are assigning special privileges to who does and does not get a "say" (in your estimation) in the debate is, in my opinion, extremely telling. The logic of one's arguments or the validity of one's position is irrelevant. This is identity politics at its finest.

I find it ironic that you lament about how "liberal" and "politically correct" society has become, yet your arguments do nothing short of manifesting and perpetuating these trends. In this paradigm, the sobriety and fallibilism of logic and reason takes a backseat to one's feelings:

"This is what I believe (or how I feel), therefore it must be true."

Sorry, but I just don't buy it. This is an emotionalizing smokescreen. Simply saying one does not appeal to emotions does not mean one is not doing it.

Again, I am still waiting for a logical, falsifiable argument that supports state-sanctioned murder. . .

 

[Henderson]

Here's a link for the Center of Sex Offender Management, which specifically speaks of recividism of sex offenders....

http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html

 

[Xue Sheng]

Throughout this thread, many people have made undocumented assertions about the frequency of recidivism for child molesters. This morning, I found this article in the Union Leader (Manchester, NH).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13138559/

Certainly this article has several voices that mirror the argument put forth hear that sex offenders are unable to be rehabilititated. But the article also notes that the U.S. Justice Department found that non-sex offense crimes had 'higher re-arrest rates' than sex offense crimes.

Studies on recidivism show:

Try reading the entire report first.

It is based on data from 15 out of 50 states what you are presenting is correct based on this data, but 35 states are not accounted for in this report.

Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rsorp94.htm

Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994
Presents, for the first time, data on the rearrest, reconviction, and reimprisonment of 9,691 male sex offenders, including 4,295 child molesters, who were tracked for 3 years after their release from prisons in 15 States in 1994. The 9,691 are two-thirds of all the male sex offenders released from prisons in the United States in 1994. The study represents the largest followup ever conducted of convicted sex offenders following discharge from prison and provides the most comprehensive assessment of their behavior after release.

Highlights include the following:

Within 3 years following their release, 5.3% of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime.

On average the 9,691 sex offenders served 3 1/2 years of their 8-year sentence.

Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime.

The 9,691 released sex offenders included 4,295 men who were in prison for child molesting.
11/03 NCJ 198281

5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/rsorp94pr.htm

 

[mrhnau]

Again, I am still waiting for a logical, falsifiable argument that supports state-sanctioned murder. . .

Justice - How does one recompense for a slain person? Let the state support them for the rest of their lives? Granted, death penalty cases cost more than life sentances, but thats due to our legal system and almost endless appeals. A "slap on the wrist" for something as brutal as murder/rape seems a slap in the face of justice.

Deterent - Lets look at something other than murder. Take smoking. Lets make a law that perscribes the death penalty for smoking. Lets actually enforce it too. You are seen smoking, you get shot by cop. You hide cigarettes in your house and cops find out, you get shot. I imagine after a few broadcasts of people getting killed for smoking, and the rate of smoking decreases. Now, of course this is a ridiculous example, but it makes the point that a strong enough deterent makes the point. Will murder still happen? sure, it always has and always will. However, we can reduce the rate by having an appropriate penalty. Take for instance an old arab tradition for theives. You steal once, you lose a hand. you steal twice, you lose another hand. You steal again somehow, you lose your head. I wonder how many theives stole twice? Or a third time? Is it brutal? Yes. Incivil? Perhaps. Just? I think so.

Finality - You can break out of prison. You can get paralloed. You can get pardoned. You can't break out of, get paralloed from or pardoned out of death. For people like Dohmer, Malvo, Hussein, that have serious problems that time will never cure, this is a lasting solution. Someone like Bin Laden won't be able to write books for his followers, won't be an emotional beacon for years to come and inspire his followers when he is 6 ft under. Questions on martyrdom are a bit different, but I'd rather have a dead Bin Laden than a live one still giving orders (unless you keep him in an isolated box for the rest of his life). Issues of martyrdom could be dealt with on a case by case basis, but I doubt you could argue that someone like Dohmer, Malvo or some drug/mob/gang lord could possibly be considered a martyr.

History - I know you won't like it, but the death penalty has been around for a long time. This does not make it valid, but does not make it invalid. Thinking of yourself as more "socially evolved" does not make it so. Most codified laws in the past have some form of death penalty. why do you think they have existed? What purpose did they serve? Are you so self-sure of yourself and your opinions that you are willing to toss out the tradition of almost all previous civilizations simply because you don't like them or are offended by them? Granted, societies evolve, but we need to determine which traditions are worthwhile and which are worth discarding. I claim that this is one we need to maintain. We have no cure for murder, regardless of what your favorite psychologists might say.



So, the question comes to you. Exactly what good is coming from keeping Dohmer alive? Malvo? Hussein? Bin Laden? Why should we waste resources keeping them breathing? What is your justification for denying justice for thousands of people murdered, for fathers who have seen their children raped and murdered? What would you say to them? We are dealing with real victims here, not abstract concepts. These people had families, they had children and parents who loved them and they loved. Some sicko cut short a life of dreams and potential happiness, and you want the guy to get free cable for life? Or send him to some class so he can -potentially- get "better"? Sometimes the "justice" system just irks me.



Personally, if we are going to endorse the death penalty, I think it should be done openly, rather than in the middle of the night, like we are trying to hide it. After a few public executions I think the public would see things a little bit differently. I personally think its something to be used extemely infrequently, but it does have its time and place.

 

[Henderson]

Exactly what good is coming from keeping Dohmer alive?

I understand your point of view, however Jeffrey Dahmer has been dead for almost 12 yrs.

 

[mrhnau]

I understand your point of view, however Jeffrey Dahmer has been dead for almost 12 yrs.

That fine. Not debating specific individuals, just holding them up as examples.

 

[Xue Sheng]

In other words, an appeal to emotion.

The very fact that you are assigning special privileges to who does and does not get a "say" (in your estimation) in the debate is, in my opinion, extremely telling. The logic of one's arguments or the validity of one's position is irrelevant. This is identity politics at its finest.

I find it ironic that you lament about how "liberal" and "politically correct" society has become, yet your arguments do nothing short of manifesting and perpetuating these trends. In this paradigm, the sobriety and fallibilism of logic and reason takes a backseat to one's feelings:

"This is what I believe (or how I feel), therefore it must be true."

Sorry, but I just don't buy it. This is an emotionalizing smokescreen. Simply saying one does not appeal to emotions does not mean one is not doing it.

Again, I am still waiting for a logical, falsifiable argument that supports state-sanctioned murder. . .

First, did you even bother to read what I wrote?

Where did it say it was not emotional?

Where did I say I was arguing a point for or against” the death penalty?

And when did I ever lament how "liberal" and "politically correct" society has become?

I have never said "this is what I believe therefore it must be true". You are displaying an amazing lack of understanding as to what I did say. Let me expalin this again - I said I believe what I believe, and the other side believe what they believe and I am not trying to change there belief because it would be a waste of time and trying to change mine would be equally as fruitless. I never said who was right or wrong now did I

That is what playing a lute to a cow means.

And as far as special privilege, you’re darn right I applied special privileges. If you are not a parent, and I can only assume by the response you are not, you would not even begin to understand the emotion that is attached to this issue (not the issue you threw in to provoke an argument/debate/discussion) but the child molester issue.

And there is not a psychology book, or college course in the world that will even give you the slightest idea of that emotion.

“Again, I am still waiting for a logical, falsifiable argument that supports state-sanctioned murder”

You’ll be waiting a long time bubba if you are looking for that discussion from me. I already said why and I will reiterate it here for you , but I translated it once and that is enough. You do not need to take my word for it, do the research and you will understand

As previously stated:
duì niú tán qín

 

[heretic888]

My apologies, everyone.

Right now, I have neither the time nor the interest in debating the pros and cons of capital punishment. I especially see no point in discussing a subject in which any arguments I give, no matter how logically sound, are immediately disqualified due to me not meeting certain demographic requirements.

As such, I shall return to lurking. Have a good one.

Laterz.

 

[pstarr]

As a former police officer and having also worked within the correctional system, I'll be happy to pull the switch myself.

Anyone who poo-poo's the death penalty should spend a week in prison around these wonderful folks. Or have one move in next door.

Actually, I have a cheaper solution and it costs less than $.50 per scumbag...It is noisy, though.

And I would happily supply my own ammo, too...

When it comes to child molesters, my politics run about three kilicks right of Genghis Khan-