Well, it’s a lot more expensive to go through the legal steps necessary to execute them, and streamlining aforementioned legal steps would almost certainly increase the number of innocent people executed. So it’s a more efficient use of resources NOT to kill people.
Ack, I had forgotten about that. 
Ok, thanks for clarifying.
That was indeed a cunning rhetorical trap you laid there, Matlock, but I think most of us had that figured out on our own.
Truly, you have a dizzying grasp of argument.
This is a bad analogy. Hitler liked dogs, so am I supposed to not like them because of that? China is not a civilized nation?
I have to question what political point they’re trying to make. Are they trying to show up the Roberts court as a bastion of pro-criminal liberalism?
Well, China and Saudi Arabia have little regard for Human Rights. If America likes to be in such company so be it. I think it says something about America and the American people.
What about Japan?
Not the Roberts court specifically, but I suspect “liberal activist judges” in general will be sneered at.
Which is unfortunate, because there is a real problem when liberal activist judges make new law, and when people start flinging that criticism about when its not warranted, it dilutes the attention that should be paid on those occasions when liberal activist judges do strike.
As I’ve said before, all judges are activist - making decisions is what their job is. Antonin Scalia is as activist as Earl Warren was. Scalia has his interpretation of the law and issues decisions that match that interpretation just like Warren did.
My point here is why are some presumedly conservative legislators trying to make a political play that will rebound against conservative justices?
There’s only been one person executed since then. In that case, when the guy dropped his appeals the response was “O shit, we didn’t want to have to actually kill you.” The guy was eventually executed, but only after he commenced legal action forcing the state to do it.
With regards to my previous post. Turns out this was just posturing by the Republicans in the face of the Democrats (who have a veto proof majority in both houses). http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-death-penalty-abolition-bill.artapr01,0,7456517.story
I’m against the death penalty on practical grounds (because of the impossibility of eliminating error and inequities in enforcement, not because I think it’s conceptually unethical), but I do think the penalties have to be permament for violent sex offenders. No one who rapes a child should ever get out of prison. Calling for the DP is just grandstanding, though.
I gladly invite your esteemed sirs to address the other germane points (with cites) I made in direct refutation to the OP in my first post.
Or perhaps you’d prefer to keep pwning the one throw-away point I ventured like puppies shaking a length of rope.
Your cite seems to me more an indictment of the legal and penal systems than the death penalty itself. And while you’re probably correct about streamlining the process resulting in more deaths of innocents today, what happens to that argument in the future when advances in forensic science and DNA technology bring cost down and certainty up?
Just for the record, I’m mostly against the death penalty on practical grounds, for it on conceptual grounds, and think the legislators in question are probably grandstanding.
But I take exception to the OP’s language, namely that executing a child rapist is ‘obviously unconstitutional’, and, since the Supreme Court has offered a controversial ruling, everyone should just go home.
But . . . maybe they won’t? I’m a bit confused, Bricker. If you were a legislator, you believed that the decisions finding death penalty for rape unconstitutional (made by an earlier and different set of Justices) were badly-reasoned, and you wanted to persuade a court (and ultimately, the Supreme Court) of that – how else would you do it, other than by passing a law that, admittedly, facially conflicted with those holdings, then making a good faith argument for the Court to overturn them? We all understand stare decisis but on the other hand – stare decisis. It ain’t gonna change itself, so isn’t this the only vehicle to change it, for those so inclined?
That explains a lot. This wasn’t aimed at the Supreme Court - this was aimed at local Democrats.
If death-for-rapists doesn’t incentivize murder, would that mean the death-penalty never disincentivized rape?
http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/abolitionist-and-retentionist-countries
4. Retentionist
Countries and territories that retain the death penalty for ordinary crimes
Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Botswana, Burundi, Chad, China, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Cuba, Dominica, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nigeria, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan, Thailand, Trinidad And Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United States Of America, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe
. Abolitionist for ordinary crimes only
Countries whose laws provide for the death penalty only for exceptional crimes such as crimes under military law or crimes committed in exceptional circumstances
(View this information in table format)
Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Fiji, Israel, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Peru
Japan is pretty civilized, and so are quite a few others on this list.
Bricker, was not the main argument in that case wiki “Majority
On June 25, 2008, the Supreme Court, splitting 5-4, held that “[t]he Eighth Amendment bars Louisiana from imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in the victim’s death.” In its majority opinion authored by Justice Kennedy, the Court explained that the application of the death penalty had to rest on national consensus, and that as only six States permitted the death penalty for child rape, no such consensus existed. In formulating the idea of “national consensus” the Court relied on the previous cases Roper v. Simmons (2005), which outlawed the execution of minors, and Coker v. Georgia (1977), which outlawed the application of the death penalty for the crime of rape”
So, it may be that if enough states passed laws that made child rape a Capital offesnse, say maybe 30, then there would be a National Consenus? Now, sure, until that consensus was reached no executions could occur. But what’s to stop another 25 or so states from passing such a law and creating a consensus?
QFT.
We know for a fact that we can’t “cure” these folks. They are a continuing and malicious threat to our society. I don’t think enough emphasis is put on the harm that they cause, and it sickens me that so many are re-released into society.
Some will argue that we need to do a better job of making certain that innocent people are not ruined for life by the mere suggestion of child rape; and they’d be right.
But when a child rapist/molester is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt they should be removed from society permanently.
If there is any case in which the death penalty is a good idea, I think it’s this one. But as our current accuracy record is so poor, I think the DP needs to be set aside for the present.
This is kind of an important point too – at the time of Furman, there was by no means consensus on this conclusion (which most of us seem to share). I’ve always felt the Catholic Church had some culpability, but also some naivete, supported and enabled by the psychological establishment/consensus, which AFAICT well into the 1980s was positing that indeed, “therapy” of various types, or “learning his lesson,” or even God help us the notorious “fresh start in a new parish,” were, in fact, as a “medical” matter, viable options for averting future offenses.
There’s now a seeming consensus that nothing short of (1) death; (2) perpetual and escape proof imprisonment; or (3) maybe castration is a reliable deterrent. Shouldn’t that, alone, justify re-opening the inquiry into whether things like (1) or (3) are acceptable/proportionate? The lack of any effective alternative and lesser punishments/incapacitations, which in 1972 was not fully understood?