May 31, 2006

South Carolina OK's Death Penalty For Repeat Child Molestors
— Ace

It's about time.

The Supreme Court has claimed, idiotically, that only an active participation in a murder can warrant the death penalty. So, a gruesome thug who, for example, captures someone and proceeds to hack off all of his limbs -- while keeping the poor victim alive -- is not eligible for the death penalty.

Makes no damn sense. We shouldn't expand the offenses that can earn you a date with The Needle greatly, but surely there are some offenses that are so horrific they are every bit as evil as murder.

Like child molestation, for example. Especially repeat offenses of child molestation.

Let's see if the new court endorses the previous stupid precedent, or rules that it was largely dicta and confines the ruling to the specific instance (i.e., that the death penalty can't be imposed on someone only tangentially involved in murder).


In related news, Carson Palmer just announced he will no longer play any games against the Jaguars in South Carolina, stating that their "backwards ways" are not supportive of the Carson Palmer Cornhole Classic Lifestyle (TM).

Posted by: Ace at 01:46 PM | Comments (48)
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Louisiana has the dp for molestation of a child under a certain age (can't remember what it is) and a candidate for execution. Not sure how far a long in the appeals process it is, but tough luck.

Posted by: shawn at May 31, 2006 01:56 PM (Cw+TL)

2
There's a very good reason NOT to have the death penalty for violent rapes and for repeated child molestations.

The reason is this : if a criminal knows that he or she will get the death penalty, regardless of whether the victim ( child ) lives or dies, then why not kill the child or female so that they can't identity the abuser?

In other words, it would be better to murder the child, correct? Do we want that chance?

NO. Horrible as these crimes are, I would want to get that criminal an "out" when he is contemplating whether or not to finish off the victim.

Posted by: Patricia Patton at May 31, 2006 01:58 PM (NpQqC)

3 In other words, it would be better to murder the child, correct?

There is no evidence backing up that theory. In fact, the same argument was made when the sentences on sex offenses were increased so high as to make them prison for the rest of the offender's natural life. The theory was floated by the defense bar and women's groups but the studies never bore it out.

Posted by: shawn at May 31, 2006 02:03 PM (Cw+TL)

4 And I guess these tickets to the R. Kelly show in Charleston ain't much good now either.

Posted by: harrison at May 31, 2006 02:06 PM (ZGhJt)

5 We shouldn't expand the offenses that can earn you a date with The Needle greatly, but surely there are some offenses that are so horrific they are every bit as evil as murder.

Unfortunately, in California we don't have the murder of a child as a special circumstance. My pet peeve is with people who are caretakers for children (parents or otherwise) who have systematically abused the child for a long period of time, resulting in death. You know, the kid they find with X number of fractures - old and new, burns - old and new, starvation, malnutrition, etc. Legally, it is not torture, yet in fact it is. We sure would make that type of behavior on an adult dp eligible. Bleh.

Posted by: shawn at May 31, 2006 02:10 PM (Cw+TL)

6 if a criminal knows that he or she will get the death penalty, regardless of whether the victim ( child ) lives or dies, then why not kill the child or female so that they can't identity the abuser?

The operant word is "will." In practice, it's "may" and the odds go up dramatically when the freak escalates his behavior.

Posted by: VRWC Agent at May 31, 2006 02:11 PM (gjy1/)

7 Totally off topic: what happened to the Ace of Spades banner at the top of the page? Did you get rid of it, or is my new firewall blocking it for some reason?

Posted by: Mark at May 31, 2006 02:25 PM (iwOil)

8 The reason is this : if a criminal knows that he or she will get the death penalty, regardless of whether the victim ( child ) lives or dies, then why not kill the child or female so that they can't identity the abuser?

I have no statistics, facts, or other empirical data to back this up, but:

Aren't most child molesters interested in repeatedly raping the child, and therefore possessed of an incentive not to kill him or her anyway? There are always those really fucked up cases where some guy kidnaps a kid and then molests and kills him, but are those guys usually repeat offenders or random lunatics?

Most child molestation cases I've heard about involve a family member or friend of the family, someone who, although gloriously screwed up in the head, would be unlikely to actually kill the child. They prefer to stretch the experience out, so to speak.

So yeah, I say execute them. Execute the hell out of them.

Posted by: Andrew at May 31, 2006 02:46 PM (zixKX)

9 If they are repeat offenders you sure can't "cure" them. Beats feeding them for life. The trouble is they're in a revolving door prison system that believes they can be controled, can be cured. Meanwhile the children end up paying the price. Depressing.

Posted by: Mike Meyer at May 31, 2006 02:47 PM (s85ei)

10 This is good news.

Hope it sticks.

Just wish it would be appled the FIRST time, then the second child would be protected.

Not for the needle either.

Hang 'em high.

Put every execution on National TV.

People who use emotion for thought like Patricia have been aiding criminals long enough.

That is why we have such a large criminal element in our society today to begin with.

Hang 'em.

Hang 'em high.

I said it about my kids and now I say it about my grandkids, you want to die, mess with one.


.

Posted by: The Machine at May 31, 2006 02:48 PM (L/jMX)

11 I doubt they would apply or ask for the dp in every case but confine it to the most aggravating ones. I have absolutely no use for someone who rapes/sodomizes an infant or toddler. Or, who fucks and pimps out their child. I read a case where a mother held her 8 y/o daughter in her lap, legs apart, so the pervert who gave her $50 could rape her. I can't think what would motivate a woman to do this except pure hatred of her own daughter.

Posted by: shawn at May 31, 2006 03:01 PM (Cw+TL)

12 That whole "if they are gonna die anyways, then they should kill people." argument is silly. These are people who engage in the most horrific crimes, logic is not a part of their basic plan of action. They don't wake up in the morning and include "rape a child, but make sure it's dead when you are done because then you will get the need" they don't have day planners for this shit built on logical understanding. These are people who will ignore the long so long as they can commit their crime, and you are expecting them to become legal scholars in the execution of their crime.

And Frankly, you know what?

If a molestor, or a perpetrator of violent assault with deadly force is willing to so blithely kill the victim because the perpetrator is gonna be killed anywyas, you know what you will end up with?

More dead perpetrators, because victims will stop giving into their fucking attackers, and if given the upper hand will respond with ever bit the brutal force in self defense that their assailant would have used against them.

So yeah, maybe a chips on the table for of law is over due.

a hundred or so years ago we killed people for stealing horses.

I have no problem with killing people who steal the innocences of children.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at May 31, 2006 03:13 PM (QTv8u)

13 completely off topic.

Joe Scarborough, just said, about the stupid conservative rock songs list we have been tearing apart, "I find it hard to believe that the beatles would be playing at barry goldwaters 1964 nomination speach" Well, since the brittish explosion hadn't happened yet, and the beatles, I don't think, had yet played on sullivan, and that rock was defined by stuff, that really wasn't rock at that time.

Come on joe. Disagree on this point "most of this music isn't rock"

Posted by: Wickedpinto at May 31, 2006 03:48 PM (QTv8u)

14 Heh Ace,

In an unrelated note, we think "mike" is now over at LaShawn's Blog calling himself "ricland". If it isn't Mike, then his twin black brother is over there drinking the Kool Aid about the Duke lacrosse Rape whore, cystral gail, being the results of 200 years of slavery. Kemp

Posted by: kemperman at May 31, 2006 03:57 PM (Wc54u)

15 Um, not to be a dick (well yeah, that's about the only reason to point this out) but the Jaguars play in Jacksonville, Florida and the Carolina Panthers placy in Charlotte, North Carolina.

But otherwise, very funny joke.

Posted by: Drew at May 31, 2006 04:09 PM (Y2fNF)

16 Sounds good, but it will scare the shit out of anyone who reads Dorothy Rabinowitz's work, mainly in the WSJ, exposing the Amerault convictions in the 80s. They'd be dead. They were innocent. The "evidence" that the family was convicted on will shock you.

Posted by: abe shorey at May 31, 2006 04:20 PM (LomBE)

17 I agree with this law.

But...

Define "child."

Under 18?

Looks under 18?

Under 18 but said s/he wasn't?

Do all those teachers who molested their "willing" students deserve the death penalty? I think so, but I don't think OTHER people will think so.

Posted by: bbeck at May 31, 2006 04:30 PM (qF8q3)

18 1964 ....Well, since the brittish explosion hadn't happened yet, and the beatles, I don't think, had yet played on sullivan, Wickedpinto

Wick'o: Feb. 9, 1964, highest rated TV show ever, at the time: Ed Sullivan Show, "Ladies and gentlemen, The Beatles!"

In related news, Carson Palmer just announced he will no longer play any games against the Jaguars in South Carolina, stating that their "backwards ways" are not supportive of the Carson Palmer Cornhole Classic.... --- Ace

Kornholer: The Jags are from Jax, Fla.
Carolina Panthers are from Charlotte, NC.
(SC is home of mustardy barbecue .... Kemp eats that stuff....)

Shit, I'm Stat Boy tonight, correcting WilbonPinto and Tony "Ace" Kornholer.....

Posted by: at May 31, 2006 04:31 PM (nCeBA)

19 .... and I forgot to sign in for that last one.

Sorry, folks.

Posted by: TaterCon at May 31, 2006 04:35 PM (nCeBA)

20 Abe: While I'm not familiar with that particular case, I am familiar with what you are talking about. The pendulum has swung both ways – up through the 60s and 70s, we did very little about child sexual abuse. Then in the 80s, it was nothing but satanic cult nonsense, no kid ever lies b.s., etc. Fortunately, the laws, ethics, and forensics have vastly improved.

Posted by: shawn at May 31, 2006 04:36 PM (Cw+TL)

21 BBeck?

That is what judges are for.

Annonymous, I KNEW the beatles played on sullivan before the convention, but I mistyped, (I actually did, I meant to say something like "only a few months before" but I was too eager to hit enter, thats MY BAD) the actual british invasion is associated with the Beatles on Sullivan, but in fact the invasion occured in 65, when the US billboard was topped by the brittish groups in '64, and then touring sensations in '65.

That is purely my bad.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at May 31, 2006 04:53 PM (QTv8u)

22 That is what judges are for.

LOL. Now that's a cop-out, Wicked. Either 17 is underage or it isn't. It's hardly a subjective matter.

Posted by: bbeck at May 31, 2006 05:46 PM (qF8q3)

23 Will the ACLU or 9th curcut court get involved saying we should give reoeat child molester a chance to molest again? I say HANG THEM ALL

Posted by: spurwing plover at May 31, 2006 06:04 PM (u2whF)

24 Will the ACLU or 9th circuit court get involved saying we should give a repeat child molester a chance to molest again? I say HANG THEM ALL -- Spurwing Plover

Hang the whole 9th Circuit Court? And the ACLU?

Right on, Brother!!!! I'm with ya, Dude!!!

Posted by: TaterCon at May 31, 2006 07:47 PM (nCeBA)

25 Actually, didn't the ACLU just lose a case regarding "civil rights" for pedophiles and sex offenders? So the short answer is "no." They're on the other side.

Posted by: grayson at May 31, 2006 07:52 PM (3Vh45)

26 The fact that the ACLU was willing to take on a case for pedos and sex offenders disturbs me to no end.

Possibly because I don't regard pedos as people, in he strictest sense.

Posted by: CrankyProf at June 01, 2006 02:24 AM (S9R+k)

27 Patricia Patton wrote:
There's a very good reason NOT to have the death penalty for violent rapes and for repeated child molestations.

The reason is this : if a criminal knows that he or she will get the death penalty, regardless of whether the victim ( child ) lives or dies, then why not kill the child or female so that they can't identity the abuser?

In other words, it would be better to murder the child, correct? Do we want that chance?

NO. Horrible as these crimes are, I would want to get that criminal an "out" when he is contemplating whether or not to finish off the victim.

You are absolutely right. We shouldn't kill these poor men.

However, we can't let them back out into society with the capability and will to rape children repeatedly. We also can't afford to keep them locked up for life along with the 15,000 to 20,000 new convicted murderers every year.

So let's emasculate them. Physically, surgically, John Bobbitt style, not chemically. That way, they can be released from prison when they've served their time and we'll not have to worry about them harming children again.

You've got no problem with that, right Patricia? You're all about sympathy for the past and future victims, not sympathy for the rapist, isn't that right Patricia? You'd never mention the Eighth Amendment at this point, would you Patricia? Because it's all about the victims.

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at June 01, 2006 02:54 AM (rE+jU)

28 It sounds like a good idea to me. I remember the Adam Walsh case very well, and his dad will never get him back, no matter how many crooks got put away by his TV show & laws he endorsed. It takes a special kind of freak to get off on hurting kids, and they deserve to be taken out of society.

in practice, the cases will join the usual backlog of death penalty appeals, but if I lived in South Carolina I would still accept the ruling.
1. Death penalty appeals are heard while the offender is on Death Row. The offender is not on the street stalking other kids.
2. No more of this stupid trend of judges giving non-punitive sentences to perverts. If the death penalty is an option, the judge will treat the case seriously and stop with the Lefty posing.
3. I can see a lot of perverts moving out of South Carolina in the near future. The possibility of the penalty being levied will have 'em moving to other states where they can get probation after 3 convictions for child molestation & statutory rape.

My main proviso is to whether or not this makes it a first degree felony. In that case, they can drop the hammer on him without fear of aCLU whining. If not, we will get to see the perverts getting defended for the "right" of pursiong their immoral self-gratification at the cause of ruining their victims' lives.






Posted by: exdem13 at June 01, 2006 03:46 AM (NRrvx)

29 Look for an exodus of Kennedys and their moronic bucktoothed realtions from the state. Back to Massachusetts, a "right to kill if you are a Kennedy" state!

Posted by: Mark at June 01, 2006 05:11 AM (isTfo)

30 I'm personally confused as to why there should ever be such a thing as a "repeat child molester." I'm in favor of a one-strike rule when it comes to child molestation. You do it, you go to jail for life. You can't provide these people with therapy; they will repeat if they get a chance. To hell with this "sex offender registry" nonsense.

So, if it were up to me, the question of executing repeat child molesters would be moot since there would be no such thing.

Also, bbeck makes a good point about what we consider being a child. Personally, I don't see a 30 year old sleeping with a 17 year old to be as grave an offense as a 30 year old sleeping with a 10 year old. So, I wouldn't be in support of executing the former, no matter how many times they did it, but would be more willing to support executing the latter.

Posted by: Jason at June 01, 2006 05:36 AM (Y2Bw/)

31 Gee, and when everyone killed turns out to be brown that will just be a coincidence, right?

I'm on to you fascists!

Posted by: Zizz at June 01, 2006 06:15 AM (/I/GY)

32 Gee, and when everyone killed turns out to be brown that will just be a coincidence, right?

It's racist to think only "brown" people molest children.

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at June 01, 2006 06:30 AM (rE+jU)

33 I say they lose their hands and "parts." Then let them try to molest another kid. Or direct traffic for that matter.

Posted by: at June 01, 2006 06:46 AM (O+1/6)

34 Sue, ask him how he feels about Jews!

I have a prediction.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at June 01, 2006 06:49 AM (tO9iT)

35 Sue, ask him how he feels about Jews!

Oh, he has no problems with Jews, I bet. It's those sneaky filthy money-grubbing Zionists with which he has problems.

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at June 01, 2006 07:03 AM (rE+jU)

36 ask him how he feels about Jews!

My only problem with them is they control the US by proxy, commited 9/11 and kill brown Palestinians

Posted by: Zizz at June 01, 2006 07:04 AM (/I/GY)

37 "with whom he has problems." Pardon my grandma.

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at June 01, 2006 07:05 AM (rE+jU)

38 It's too bad that the Leftists have gone so far off the deep end that the needle on my Parody Detector broke off.

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at June 01, 2006 07:09 AM (rE+jU)

39 I'm actually with Patricia on this. Would I want my kid molested? Abso-freaking-lutely hell, no. If my kid were molested, would I want him dead so he couldn't talk? Even more, no.

Sue made a number of interesting points. She said we can't send these folks back out on the street. And we can't.

She said we can't afford to keep them in prisons forever. I think we can.

She said physical castration/emasculation will solve the problem. Anyone who thinks you can't molest someone if you don't have a penis hasn't thought it through. I mean, come on, women have molested children.

It was only a few years ago that "repressed memories" were accepted as evidence in court. People accused of running Satanic baby-raping rings have actually been convicted in this country.

Once someone has received the death penalty, we can't go back and say, "Oops, sorry, I guess we went a little nuts. But really, it was for the children."

Posted by: Victoria at June 01, 2006 08:23 AM (v2tO4)

40 One argument we've heard against the proposal here in SC is that family members may be less likely to drop a dime on Uncle Pervy if they think/fear it'll put him on the Row.

Not the same as the "killing the victim to cover up" argument, but one that may have some legs. As a dad myself, I suspect I might not let an Uncle Pervy get to trial the first time.

Posted by: WarrenM at June 01, 2006 08:58 AM (Ssfl7)

41 I'm actually with Patricia on this. Would I want my kid molested? Abso-freaking-lutely hell, no. If my kid were molested, would I want him dead so he couldn't talk? Even more, no.

Oh no, I just had a horrible thought. What if your child got molested, testified against the molester, got the molester thrown in prison? Then when some squishy liberal parole board let him out, he started killing his victims because that way there'd be no witnesses to testify against him!

Maybe we should just let the poor men go and not punish them. They'd never escalate to murder then!

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at June 01, 2006 10:15 AM (rE+jU)

42 You don't tailor your laws, customs, habits, or lifestyle in order to not piss off the bad guys.

You make your society safe from bad people by getting rid of the people -- either jail or death.

A "safe" neighborhood is not one that is behind a twenty-foot wall with barbed wire. That is a prison. Criminals, not the innocent, belong in prison.

So don't start worrying punishment that is "too harsh" and might drive the criminals to be even more evil. That's bullshit. It's a bad line of thinking. Do that, and the criminals win and they will own your freedom.

We make the rules. Not them.

Posted by: Bart at June 01, 2006 10:40 AM (ukDuj)

43 Shhhhh, Bart! It's like you're implying that they sympathize with the baby rapers. We both know that they'd never do such a thing! After all, they have children! They told us so!

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at June 01, 2006 10:52 AM (rE+jU)

44 Hey, we have rights, too!

Posted by: Joe from the Illegal Aliens, Rapists, Murderers, and Terrorists Association at June 01, 2006 10:57 AM (ukDuj)

45 And besides, Bart, molesters always have long criminal histories and never, ever start killing children right off the bat! We all know this! Law & Order: Criminal Intent said so!

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at June 01, 2006 11:02 AM (rE+jU)

46 Victims of society, Sue.
We should all be more compassionate and find out the root causes of such behavior rather than allowing the Christian fundamentalists to foster it in our society it to take victims -- on both sides.

Posted by: Bart at June 01, 2006 11:07 AM (Bbbrl)

47 Life is sacred, and a gift from God. That's the justification to make murder a capital crime. The only punishment fit for the taking of life is the penalty of death.

To grant life in prison for the crime of murder cheapens, and devalues life.

But so does a capital punishment for a non-capital crime.

Posted by: Steve O at June 01, 2006 04:15 PM (R0Csm)

48 To grant life in prison for the crime of murder cheapens, and devalues life.

But so does a capital punishment for a non-capital crime.


I disagree. So often the fact that the victim survived has nothing to do with the actions of the perpetrator. For example, I remember a 11 month old who was asleep in her crib. The guy jimmyed the window open, took the little girl, raped and sodomized her, and dumped her naked on a hilltop. Besides her life threatening internal injuries, she would have died of exposure if she had not been found quickly. The pervert placed no value on her little life.

Posted by: shawn at June 01, 2006 04:31 PM (Cw+TL)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
100kb generated in CPU 0.07, elapsed 1.112 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.0643 seconds, 284 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.