I don’t think the idea here is deterrent. I think probably the point is to remove these subhuman scum from the earth and thus make it a better place.
Personally, I like the idea of execution for violent rape of children, but I like the idea of that for violent rape of anyone. My concern is of course false convictions. Perhaps this is something best reserved for second offenses.
Until we have a justice system that convicts with 100% accuracy, supporting the death penalty means supporting the execution of a nonzero number of innocent people.
I agree, but any undue punishment at all is unjust, so that logic can apply across the board. That’s why I think only second offenses should be punishable by death, the likelihood that you’ve been accused and convicted of the same crime twice and been innocent both times is much lower.
Sure, it sounds good, until they rewrite the definition of “child rape” to be “gender-affirming care” or “hosting a drag queen story hour” or it’s not “rape” if a white guy does it.
Unfortunately, this removes any incentive for letting the child live. Much less risk of getting caught if you kill the victim, and it doesn’t matter if you get the death penalty anyway when you’re caught.
I think probably the point is to remove these subhuman scum from the earth and thus make it a better place.
No, the intention is to pretend that they are doing something about sexual assault - which is why you never see these laws applied to their rich friends.
…because the threat of a death penalty worked so well to eliminate the occurrence of other crimes.
I don’t think the idea here is deterrent. I think probably the point is to remove these subhuman scum from the earth and thus make it a better place.
Personally, I like the idea of execution for violent rape of children, but I like the idea of that for violent rape of anyone. My concern is of course false convictions. Perhaps this is something best reserved for second offenses.
If we’re looking to improve humanity through murder, we could start with everyone who thinks it’s ok to do so.
Once we let the state kill it’s citizens, it’s just a matter of time before you’re no longer in the group that controls the criteria.
Until we have a justice system that convicts with 100% accuracy, supporting the death penalty means supporting the execution of a nonzero number of innocent people.
I agree, but any undue punishment at all is unjust, so that logic can apply across the board. That’s why I think only second offenses should be punishable by death, the likelihood that you’ve been accused and convicted of the same crime twice and been innocent both times is much lower.
Sure, it sounds good, until they rewrite the definition of “child rape” to be “gender-affirming care” or “hosting a drag queen story hour” or it’s not “rape” if a white guy does it.
If you think Bill Lee has any intention of making the world a better place I’ve got a bridge to sell you
Which is weirdly a JK Rowling quote. She must have had a mini stroke when she was saying that.
If it was a quote from one of her potter books it’s likely one of her ghost writers
It might be. I knew I had heard it before, but didn’t know where it came from. HP would be the only way I would have heard it.
Unfortunately, this removes any incentive for letting the child live. Much less risk of getting caught if you kill the victim, and it doesn’t matter if you get the death penalty anyway when you’re caught.
That’s a good practical consideration I’d say
Bad humans are still humans, and like you said, death penalty will just kill innocents.
Especially as a growing number of right wing extremists are just labeling trans of gay people as child predators with reckless abandon
No, the intention is to pretend that they are doing something about sexual assault - which is why you never see these laws applied to their rich friends.