New Florida law allows the death penalty for child rapists

www.pnj.com...

A new Florida law is slated to go into effect on Sunday that would allow judges to impose the death penalty when sentencing people convicted of the rape of a child age 12 or under.

The bill, HB 1297, was signed into law on May 2 and will be just one of nearly 40 other new laws that will go into effect at the same time.

During a May 1 bill-signing event in Brevard County, Gov. Ron DeSantis said the measure is “for the protection of children.”

Unfortunately, in our society, we have very heinous sex crimes that are committed against children under the age of 12 years old,” DeSantis said. “These are really the worst of the worst. The perpetrators of these crimes are often serial offenders.”

HB 1297 allows a jury by a vote of at least 8-4 to recommend a death sentence for sexual battery on a child under the age of 12. It passed out of the Legislature with support from both parties in both chambers. Only three Democrats and two Republicans voted against the legislation in the Senate.

It is worth mentioning that

The vast majority of republicans and democrats did approve the bill both in the Senate and House which shows clearly what politicians and much of our society thinks of child rape and child rapists. The measure was approved by 34-5 in the Senate and by 95-14 in the House.

According to cbsnews the measure is likely to draw legal challenges as the U.S. Supreme Court and the Florida Supreme Court precedents have barred death sentences for rapists. This comes in direct contradiction to the approval of the bill by the vast majority of senators and representatives.

CBS has called the new law 'controversial'.

Do you find it controversial or believe that those who rape children aged 12 or under deserve the death penalty.

For the death penalty to be considered a jury must decide by a vote of at least 8-4 to recommend a death sentence for sexual battery on a child under the age of 12. Otherwise it will be a life sentence without parole.



www.cbsnews.com...

a reply to: Muldar

Good , wish we had such a law in the UK , I’d take it upto age of 16 as that’s our age of consent

Good for them and I hope the law stands and is carried out !

It’s a great idea and should have been in law from the get go.

a reply to: Muldar

originally posted by: Dalamax
It’s a great idea and should have been in law from the get go.

a reply to: Muldar

Likely to be challenged though in the Florida Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court made the wrong call with those decisions.

If you are an adult and you commit such an offence on someone 12 or younger then death is the only just punishment for such a crime. The crime is unforgivable, there are no valid mitigating circumstances. These people cannot be rehabilitated as the requirements are akin to asking a regular person to not be attracted to adults of their preferred gender. Quite literally impossible barring brain surgery or surgical removal of certain organs which doubtlessly would also be considered "cruel and unusual".

Not fast enough.

Convict and administer a firing squad within the hour.

Get WRECKED.

Cremated the same day, and the ashes dumped into the nearest construction site porta-poddy.

Done.

originally posted by: Ohanka
The Supreme Court made the wrong call with those decisions.

If you are an adult and you commit such an offence on someone 12 or younger then death is the only just punishment for such a crime. The crime is unforgivable, there are no valid mitigating circumstances. These people cannot be rehabilitated as the requirements are akin to asking a regular person to not be attracted to adults of their preferred gender. Quite literally impossible barring brain surgery or surgical removal of certain organs which doubtlessly would also be considered "cruel and unusual".

CBS says the law will be challenged in the State Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court that have both barred the death penalty against child rapists in previous cases.

It has also called the law controversial. But I don't understand what kind of polls or statistics they use to come to this conclusion.

Yeah I know. A challenge doesn’t automatically succeed though, does it?

a reply to: Muldar

While the FBI has supposedly made "domestic terrorism" their top priority, child trafficking and abuse has been on the rise in Florida, with Orlando and Jacksonville being a couple of hotspots for this activity.

a reply to: Ohanka

There can be points where the older person is not compus mentis enough to understand as if they have the mind of a 5 year old but the urges and it can happen to both sexes which certainly makes for an exemption but generally I'd be keeping both sides apart to reduce the chances of such actions in those occasions.

originally posted by: Muldar
www.pnj.com...

A new Florida law is slated to go into effect on Sunday that would allow judges to impose the death penalty when sentencing people convicted of the rape of a child age 12 or under.

The bill, HB 1297, was signed into law on May 2 and will be just one of nearly 40 other new laws that will go into effect at the same time.

During a May 1 bill-signing event in Brevard County, Gov. Ron DeSantis said the measure is “for the protection of children.”

Unfortunately, in our society, we have very heinous sex crimes that are committed against children under the age of 12 years old,” DeSantis said. “These are really the worst of the worst. The perpetrators of these crimes are often serial offenders.”

HB 1297 allows a jury by a vote of at least 8-4 to recommend a death sentence for sexual battery on a child under the age of 12. It passed out of the Legislature with support from both parties in both chambers. Only three Democrats and two Republicans voted against the legislation in the Senate.

It is worth mentioning that

The vast majority of republicans and democrats did approve the bill both in the Senate and House which shows clearly what politicians and much of our society thinks of child rape and child rapists. The measure was approved by 34-5 in the Senate and by 95-14 in the House.

According to cbsnews the measure is likely to draw legal challenges as the U.S. Supreme Court and the Florida Supreme Court precedents have barred death sentences for rapists. This comes in direct contradiction to the approval of the bill by the vast majority of senators and representatives.

CBS has called the new law 'controversial'.

Do you find it controversial or believe that those who rape children aged 12 or under deserve the death penalty.

For the death penalty to be considered a jury must decide by a vote of at least 8-4 to recommend a death sentence for sexual battery on a child under the age of 12. Otherwise it will be a life sentence without parole.



www.cbsnews.com...

I don't support capital punishment for anything that's not also capital murder; even still -- the amount of people that were put to death who shouldn't have been, and the amount of people who were vindicated by DNA evidence proves that there is an issue with the burden of proof.

Criminal court is supposed to use empirical evidence and proof; it's not supposed to be subjective or rely on witness testimony. That's honestly not the case, and innocent people are sentenced daily.

So no; I really can't support capital punishment; we should be doing away with capital punishment outside of extreme situations ala per admissions or empirical proof. Again there is supposed to be a "beyond a shadow of doubt" limitation to criminal court, but often times there are TONS of doubt and we still convict.

Now we'll talk specifically about "Child Rape." I do not condone pedophilia, however; being objective, there is a big difference between Statutory rape and Violent rape. 1 has two party consent, the other is forceful. I agree with the supposition that under 12 cannot consent legally; but I raise the supposition that not every "victim" is a victim; and not everyone suffers; certainly not fit for capital punishment. There are plenty of people out there objectively who had sex as a child who regard it as a good time in their life; or a positive experience. Again; I'm not condoning it, but if we're being objective, this is objectively true. There is a huge difference between one of those cases and an ultra violent self serving one.

You could say we'd leave it to the juries discretion to recommend; but with Trial by Media; jury is absolutely influenced by the news circulating the case; and we all know how often the news is wrong.

We're talking about state sponsored murder. This should be reserved for bombers, serial killers, and ultra violent offenders. Not things that are debateable and often have nuanced opinions or nuanced context or things that could be subjective.

Capital Murder is still Murder -- if we're going to do it, it should be reserved for EMPIRICAL NON SUBJECTIVE ULTRA VIOLENT OFFENDERS.

Courts get it wrong with regularity. Remember; the people who work in the court are just people -- and people are lazy. They want to do the minimum amount of work and investigation and still get their job "done" so they can collect their income. We live in a day and age where the court will actually tell you what you can admit into the record; and they have been known to bar absolving evidence just because it'll make them lose their case. These are the people you trust to use discretion when doling out capital murder sentances?

Not me.

That's my stance on it.

I just don't trust the system; and if you can't trust the system, they can't be doling out capital punishment.

Even when people confess, it's often not true; so even ala per admission; we shouldn't be using capital punishment. People will suicide by cop, suicide by court; etc. These are bad decisions and are obviously related to depression, but alas -- true none the less.

My posting record shows that I'm conservative/republican; but I'm also smart and not a barbarian. Capital punishment should be used for cases where people cause want and destruction. It's used for people that cannot be corralled and kept isolated from the population. It's a last resort. DeSantis is using it as a threat deterrent to behavior he considers abhorrent. That's not civilized, and that's a misuse of capital punishment.

originally posted by: ArMaP
I am against death penalty, and in this particular case, if a child rapist knows they can get the death sentence by raping a child, what stops them from killing the child, as the punishment is the same?

100% this is going to occur. That said; the people that would do that, absolutely deserve capital punishment. However, that's a capital murder charge and it already is possible currently, so this new law isn't intended to be used for these people.

But again; how many false convictions have we gotten. 1 innocent person murdered by the state equates to an injustice of an incomprehensible magnitude. 1 innocent person murdered on a false conviction is the same or worse than the crimes of a serial killer.

I fully believe a persons opinion on capital punishment fully exposes their naivety of the injustices carried out by courts, and their personal intellegence level. You have to fully believe the courts never get it wrong, and you have to be A-Okay with innocent people being murdered because an accusation was levied against them. It requires you to not understand how often courts get it wrong, it requires you to not have remorse or empathy, and it suggests that you're easily influenced by social propaganda. These are the basic tropes of the psychological profile of a person that capital murder would be used on. It's more likely that someone without empathy will end up being charged with a capital offense than someone with empathy. Just think about that.

These are objective facts, not subjective opinions.

So yes, I'd say it's controversial, and I'd say it's controversial because it's wrong.

I am against death penalty, and in this particular case, if a child rapist knows they can get the death sentence by raping a child, what stops them from killing the child, as the punishment is the same?

a reply to: ArMaP

Not to be devils advocate here, but what stops them from killing them in the first place?

Usually those that are child molesters could easily kill their victims but don't. Why do you think that is? (serious question, not just being a d bag)

originally posted by: Ohanka
The Supreme Court made the wrong call with those decisions.

If you are an adult and you commit such an offence on someone 12 or younger then death is the only just punishment for such a crime. The crime is unforgivable, there are no valid mitigating circumstances. These people cannot be rehabilitated as the requirements are akin to asking a regular person to not be attracted to adults of their preferred gender. Quite literally impossible barring brain surgery or surgical removal of certain organs which doubtlessly would also be considered "cruel and unusual".

Why 12 or younger?

Raping a 13 - no biggie?

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: ArMaP

Not to be devils advocate here, but what stops them from killing them in the first place?

Usually those that are child molesters could easily kill their victims but don't. Why do you think that is? (serious question, not just being a d bag)

You don't need to be a brain surgeon to answer this one....

If the threat of punishment is being added to an offender list and doing some time, or the threat of punishment is now death; one could easily see someone committing murder to cover up their crime. Changing the punishment will now take a person who succame to temptation and then drive them to murder to cover it up.

This feels like common sense. If a person will die if they get caught, then they will commit murder to reduce the probability of them getting caught. The victim now is deceased in this case; the perpetrator is now a murderer, but wouldn't have done so without the capital charge. A missing person is a whole lot harder to land a conviction for when compared to a victim that can communicate and testify.

Why do you think organized crime outfits kill witnesses?

Sex is not violence unless it's taken violently -- do not conflate the two things. People who have sex with minors aren't all forcibly violent people; in fact the vast majority of them aren't.

So let me ask you a question back, if you're being serious....

Why do the "rapists" not currently kill their victims in most cases?

I'll do you a favor and answer that for you -- it's because most "rapists" aren't violent offenders. There are way too many people that do not understand what "Violence" is, and that's because they've not recieved violence, or committed violence, or seen real violence. Hurting your feelings in not violence. Having sex with a person who wants to have sex with you, but is just too young to legally consent, is also not violence.

Puberty is happening younger and younger; so -- what is puberty? It's the sexual maturity of a human. Women used to hit this at around 15, now they are hitting it around 8-9. It's also not the same for each person, some people reach maturation earlier than others; when they reach maturation, they WANT to have sex; and they DO have sex.

If you have a 13 year old daughter, I hate to tell you this, but the probability she's getting railed is really high; when I was in middle school in the 90's, virgins were rare. My first g/f had sex at 11. Sexual Maturation drives sexual action. As the sexual maturation ages are happening earlier and earlier, people will start having sex earlier and earlier. This is not a case for why it's okay for adults to sex children; but these are real world facts that have to be considered when forecasting what the future normal is going to look like. People are changing, we should probably investigate why this is occuring, and then weigh whether or not it's something worth changing as a whole for society.

These are facts.

a reply to: SRPrime

If anything that would make it easier for them to get caught, IMO.

90% of child molesters are someone the family/child knows, loves, and/or trusts.

30-40% are by a direct family member and 50% being someone outside the family.

Knowing that, you think that uncle Timmy is going to kill little Johnny to cover up the rape? I think that is a little bit of a stretch.

In some cases, you could be correct. But generally speaking, that is an extreme, I believe, most of them won't go to.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: SRPrime

If anything that would make it easier for them to get caught, IMO.

90% of child molesters are someone the family/child knows, loves, and/or trusts.

30-40% are by a direct family member and 50% being someone outside the family.

Knowing that, you think that uncle Timmy is going to kill little Johnny to cover up the rape? I think that is a little bit of a stretch.

In some cases, you could be correct. But generally speaking, that is an extreme, I believe, most of them won't go to.

If you think that's a stretch you're naive. Uncle Timmy is now looking at a punishment of his own death if he gets caught. If you threaten the lives of people; they will do ANYTHING to not die. If you think that's a stretch, you have no idea what you're talking about and this conversation is over.

It is an extreme most won't go to; when they know they won't die. If death is on the table, all bets are off.

a reply to: SRPrime

Way to denounce another's argument and intelligence as soon as they challenge you.

I can see continuing this will be a waste of my time, have fun

originally posted by: Maxatoria
a reply to: Ohanka

There can be points where the older person is not compus mentis enough to understand as if they have the mind of a 5 year old but the urges and it can happen to both sexes which certainly makes for an exemption but generally I'd be keeping both sides apart to reduce the chances of such actions in those occasions.

Good that you recognised there are only two sexes and not 150 (as we often hear from the trans activists).

There are cases where an adult is not mentally competent and commits crimes such as rape or murder. The laws are usually treating these cases differently.

But even with the introduction of this new law for someone to receive the death penalty is rather difficult as there must be at least an 8-4 juror majority. The State Supreme Court can block it and the US Supreme Court can block it.