New Florida law allows the death penalty for child rapists

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Muldar

"Not a serious argument.

You don't just report someone and this someone is getting convicted for rape and then executed. You remember where the burden of proof is?"

I disagree it is a valid argument.

If it doesn't get reported none of that arises.

If it is reported, then that becomes a real possibility.

Note, I said a "possibilty".

That brings up the other point addressed earlier by someone else, since 80% of sexual assault victims do not report, how many more victims will not report when the rapist (a father, brother, uncle ? ) tells them they will be put to death for it?

Less rapes will be reported and more rapists will be walking around, free to rape more kids.

You have no evidence to prove that as correct.

There will be fewer walking around raping more kids if they come forward and let the bastards get what they deserve

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Not in this case, SCOTUS ruled, and that ruling has been posted several times. It's not up for argument. The high court has ruled.

The new law specifically states:

The Legislature further finds that Buford v. State of Florida, 403 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 1981), was wrongly decided, and that Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407, (2008), was wrongly decided and an egregious infringement of the states' power to punish the most heinous of crimes.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
There will be fewer walking around raping more kids if they come forward and let the bastards get what they deserve

Do you have any evidence that supposition is correct?

a reply to: ArMaP

If more victims come forward against their attackers, they will be taken to trial and, if the court doesn't drop the ball, found guilty then put to death.

Why is that hard to understand?

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Not in this case, SCOTUS ruled, and that ruling has been posted several times. It's not up for argument. The high court has ruled.

The new law specifically states:

The Legislature further finds that Buford v. State of Florida, 403 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 1981), was wrongly decided, and that Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407, (2008), was wrongly decided and an egregious infringement of the states' power to punish the most heinous of crimes.

The Buford v. State of Florida case involved the killing of the child so that's relevant for the state to punish as a most heinous crime. I didn't look up the second one. If rape and murder are involved sure that's a whole other thing.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: ArMaP

If more victims come forward against their attackers, they will be taken to trial and, if the court doesn't drop the ball, found guilty then put to death.

If.

That's as much as supposition as the supposition that there will be more murders of rape victims or that the victims will not come forward because they do not want the rapists to be killed.

Why is that hard to understand?

It's as easy to understand as it is to understand the other possibilities with which you do not agree.

a reply to: ArMaP

It's also easy to understand those in this thread that are coming up with any excuse they can to try and get the rapists from being put to death. The underlying message there is pretty clear to all of us

a reply to: quintessentone

Begs the question, does the Death penalty in general act as a deterrent?

originally posted by: PorkChop96
The underlying message there is pretty clear to all of us

My underlying message has been clear since my first post: I am against the death penalty.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

According to him and others, it will only cause the rapist to kill their victims as to not have witnesses to testify against them

a reply to: ArMaP

I am against wasting taxpayer money on low life POS that deserve much worse than to be given free food, shelter, and healthcare

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: quintessentone

Begs the question, does the Death penalty in general act as a deterrent?

Careful, you will be branded as a death penalty apologist.

a reply to: PorkChop96

Not according to me.

a reply to: quintessentone

Oops.

the point of capitol punishment is never about innocence or guilt, its about making an example out of people on occasion, to say 'hey see our power over you, we can kill you whenever we want and you cant stop us, so do what we say or else'. so while it seems like a good thing on the surface it never prevents anything no matter how many you execute.

a reply to: ArMaP

They know they're going to the Supreme Court. They've prepared their case since the inception of the law.

a reply to: PorkChop96

I'm not a fan of spending money with people that do not deserve it, but I still prefer that to the killing of a person.

Opinions.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

According to him and others, it will only cause the rapist to kill their victims as to not have witnesses to testify against them

Do you think a child rapist's moral line in sand is drawn at murder, even if it means their own death through execution?

a reply to: ArMaP

I have always been against the death penalty.

We have had that discussion here in the UK.

As for nonces experiences of prison, well.

Welcome to Hell!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Muldar
The law also puts rape victims and their families at a greater risk with the introduction of the death penalty.
The law traps rape victims and their families in a moral conundrum; report a person for sexual assault and be responsible for their execution.

So, in your view, it's OK for the victim to 'be responsible' for their being imprisoned for life, but not for being put to death?

Just asking for posterity...

Also, fyi: the death penalty isn't about punishment, it is to prevent them from ever being able to do it to someone else