Who will protect the little ones?

[MyKdsDad 1]

<p>When I opened the paper this morning I noticed that the Supreme Court is going to review a case where this man is the only one on death row in the U.S. because of rape. Yes, he committed the rape. He raped his eight (8) year old step daughter. His lawyers are saying that death is "cruel and unusual punishment" for this crime. That there are countless other people in prison for rape, but none of them are on death row. This man was judged by a jury of his peers and this was the judgement that they handed down. IMHO they got it right. Who should protect our smallest citizens? Who should say what is cruel and unusual? Asking the man on death row, he would probably say that the rape was good for her, made her a real woman. (I'm only guessing what he might say. You know he's already fug bucking wacko for having sex with an eight year old anyway.) Perhaps her mother would say that fifteen minutes alone in a room with her (the mother) and a baseball bat would be justice. I just can't believe that some jackdonkey in Louisiana (that's where it happened) thought that it should even be considered by the Supreme Court.</p>

[mrspruett 0]

Sometimes I think that I could pull the switch myself on pervs like that!

[kity 2]

Sex w/ an 8 year old? Are you freakin kidding me. Death is the easy way out. There are worse punishments that better fit that crime. He is a sick fuck. Period.

[DerickM 1]

[smartass tone]but what about his human rights?![/smartass tone]

[transformer 1]

Don't some of the other "elite" inhabitants of our prisons sometimes "take care of" people like that? Thus eliminating the "cruel and unusual punishment" issue altogether...

[mrspruett 0]

With any luck, his sorry ass has already been raped repeatedly in prison!

[Daisalana 33]

Well at least he'll get cancer treatment, and organ transplants if he needs them.. while on death row. And if it's lethal injection, they'll use an alcohol swab.

[Marimaru 7]

Death is not cruel and unusual. Even if they don't kill him, he will die someday. There are plenty of things I can think of that might not happen to him as 'part of life' that would be cruel and unusual, and he would probably deserve all of them.

[green 6]

It would be a much more fitting punishment to toss him into the general prison population. From all that I have read the men hate kiddy rapers and will treat him so cruelly that he will wish he were dead.

[TxArcher 2]

I have always followed the belief that pedophiles (of any nature) should be PHYSICALLY castrated! No anesthetic... no post-op pain killers. Just cut 'em off and stitch em up while he is forced to watch the entire operation.

And for those that say that is cruel and unusual... What they do to little kids... is that not cruel and unusual. Why should the criminal have so many human rights, when they extended NONE to their victims?

Permanent removal of the testes would solve the repeat offender problem too! No testes, no drive right?

Better yet... lets give them a remote trigger to a gun pointed at their head and they get the choice while their little procedure is underway. That way we don't have to pay all those darned taxes on the guy to keep him in prison!

[kagoscuba 0]

"Permanent removal of the testes would solve the repeat offender problem too! No testes, no drive right?"

Not always the case. The rapist that Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee pardoned, on the basis of repeated calls for leniancy from the religious right, raped a woman and killed her, after he was physically castrated.

[TxArcher 2]

"Permanent removal of the testes would solve the repeat offender problem too! No testes, no drive right?"

Not always the case. The rapist that Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee pardoned, on the basis of repeated calls for leniancy from the religious right, raped a woman and killed her, after he was physically castrated.

Yeah, I guess I was thinking like a normal person. The stats show that in rape cases, the majority of the time, the perp. does not even finish what he started (climax). I guess that means that rape is not so much about a sexual experience as much a just control over another person.

STILL, I say whack of the jewels! Maybe that will be a warning for future criminals!

When did this guy get castrated?

[GreenChrysalis 1]

Rape is not about sex. It's about having power over another person and being completely in control. So physical castration is not necessarily a deterrent to rapists.

Yeah, I guess I was thinking like a normal person. The stats show that in rape cases, the majority of the time, the perp. does not even finish what he started (climax). I guess that means that rape is not so much about a sexual experience as much a just control over another person.

[kagoscuba 0]

"When did this guy get castrated?"

He was castrated in the 90's. It is still unclear whether it was self-inflicted or if vigilantes did it to him.

[BJean 16]

Yes, research has told us that rape is an act of violence and power, not necessarily about sexual release. Although one can't deny that sex of some sort is part of the crime when sexual organs are involved. Castrated or impotent people use all sorts of weapons on their victims in sexual ways. And yes, those perps are very, very sick people. How can we think otherwise?

And as for pedophiles, research also says they aren't easily (or maybe ever) rehabilitated. So they should be shipped off to an island somewhere with their own kind. Totally separate from society as we know it. I wouldn't even give them the benefit of the 3 strikes rule.

On the other hand, if castration and chemical treatment could change their behavior and thinking, I would consider that as an alternative - but only if it is proven without any doubt that it works. Hmmm. Therein lies the problem.

Derick, you're darned funny! I love reading your input on every place you put it in.