Should child rapists and murderers be afforded 8th Amendment protection?

[The2ndAmendment]

I think the Breaking Wheel would be an effective deterrent.

 

[Moonglow]

Yes they should because that is the way we function.

 

[meaner gene]

Yes they should because that is the way we function.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

I guess they could increase bail, and lengthen sentences based on the danger to the community, but it would take a rewrite (amendment to) the constitution to change eligibility for the 8th amendment.

 

[GLASNOST]

I think the Breaking Wheel would be an effective deterrent.

Agreed. Or weld a steel collar around his balls with a 2 kg weight hanging from it.

 

[westwall]

I think the Breaking Wheel would be an effective deterrent.

Yes, they are protected by those Rights. However, the legislature can pass laws mandating life imprisonment. That is not cruel or unusual treatment, and protects the children from the predators.

 

[WinterBorn]

The day we start picking and choosing who gets the protection of the US Constitution is the day we may as well throw it out.

Yes, child rapists and murderers should be afforded their rights under the 8th amendment. But the judges will decide what is excessive. Using bail to keep someone in jail, and thereby protecting the public is not excessive.

 

[strollingbones]

here we go again....wanting the same penalty for murdered or child rape.....as a mother i would want my child alive even if damaged....but yall continue this bs and child rapist will kill the main witness to their crime...way to go stupidity way to go

 

[GLASNOST]

The day we start picking and choosing who gets the protection of the US Constitution is the day we may as well throw it out.......

What? So what day was that? Was it in 1789 or 1790? You're not really telling me you don't believe "picking and choosing" who benefits from the Constitution hasn't been in effect from day one.
Go back to sleep.

 

[WinterBorn]

The day we start picking and choosing who gets the protection of the US Constitution is the day we may as well throw it out.......

What? So what day was that? Was it in 1789 or 1790? You're not really telling me you don't believe "picking and choosing" who benefits from the Constitution hasn't been in effect from day one.
Go back to sleep.

If it is done, it goes against the US Constitution. That happens, I have no doubt. But if we make an example of murderers and child rapists by saying they do not get 8th amendment rights, what other constitutionally guaranteed rights to we suspend?

And if the 8th amendment rights are suspended where excessive bail is concerned, doesn't that throw out the idea that you are innocent until proven guilty?

I am wide awake. And the US Constitution provides guaranteed rights for every US citizen until they are found guilty in a court of law.

 

[GLASNOST]

If it is done, it goes against the US Constitution. That happens, I have no doubt. But if we make an example of murderers and child rapists by saying they do not get 8th amendment rights, what other constitutionally guaranteed rights to we suspend?

I agree with you, but all of those suspensions already exist on individual basis.

And if the 8th amendment rights are suspended where excessive bail is concerned, doesn't that throw out the idea that you are innocent until proven guilty?

The notion of being "innocent until proven guilty" in the U.S. does not exist. You know it and I know it and I guess every citizen knows it too. It's a politically-brandished catch-phrase with meaning but no application. Tell it to the innocent man on death row ... and let me know what he says about it.

I am wide awake.

I don't think that you are. Proof? Right here below:

And the US Constitution provides guaranteed rights for every US citizen until they are found guilty in a court of law.

There is no "guarantee" of such a thing in the U.S. and it is most definitely not "provided". You are saying that the words are written down. Yeah, and so what? Looky here > > > "I can fly!" I just wrote it down and you can quote me. Now watch me fall flat on my face.

 

[Correll]

I think the Breaking Wheel would be an effective deterrent.

Yes, they are protected by those Rights. However, the legislature can pass laws mandating life imprisonment. That is not cruel or unusual treatment, and protects the children from the predators.

agreed.


if it is an "illness" then pretending that they can serve their time and be safely released, is stupid.


murders, depend on the mitigating or extenuating factors. more death penalties for those that are just sub human animals, and time served for those that are not.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Can Not Get It In When You Cannot Get It Out '

* Normalcy Of Compelling Safeguards *

Would the following question be more direct , " Should male child rapists be administered a penectomy and castration ? " ?

There may not be a need to remove the entire penis , rather removing only the glans penis ensures an inability to climax that would prevent any reward for stimulation .

Would the punishment be optional as a substitute for extended incarceration ?

A male could be castrated and receive hormone substitutions to recover sexual compulsion , so a penectomy with castration would completely eliminate a purpose to recover sexual compulsions .

There would be more concurrence for classifying a sentence of penalty as neither cruel , nor unusual , nor optional , for stranger abductions , or for habitual offenders .

By definition a child is between the ages of birth and adolescence , so would such a rule apply to juveniles , or to statutory rape ?

Castration - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Castration (also known as orchiectomy or orchidectomy) is any action, surgical, chemical, or otherwise, by which an individual loses use of the testicles: the male gonad. Surgical castration is bilateral orchidectomy (excision of both testes), and chemical castration uses pharmaceutical drugs to deactivate the testes. Castration causes sterilization (preventing the castrated person or animal from reproducing); it also greatly reduces the production of certain hormones, such as testosterone. Surgical castration in animals is often called neutering.

Penectomy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Penectomy is penis removal through surgery, generally for medical or personal reasons.

 

[GLASNOST]

... if the 8th amendment rights are suspended where excessive bail is concerned, doesn't that throw out the idea that you are innocent until proven guilty?

"The idea that you are innocent until proven guilty" is already "out the window."

Innocence

The Death Penalty Information Center is a non-profit organization serving the media and the public with analysis and information about capital punishment.…

deathpenaltyinfo.org

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The Eight Amendment is, in my opinion, one of the vaguer ones in the Bill of Rights, and I think it's come to be interpreted well away from its original intent.

I think it would have been better for it to state that a punishment may not be out of proportion to the crime. Certainly, many punishments that were widely accepted and used in the time that the Bill of Rights was ratified, and for some time thereafter, are now not allowed, as they are now considered “cruel and unusual”. We're pretty much left with fines, imprisonment, or, in the most extreme cases, death by the most painless manner that we can devise.

It seems to me that many punishments now deemed “cruel and unusual” would be preferable. For example, instead of several years in prison, how about several weekends spend in stocks or a pillory, in the public square. Surely, such a punishment would be sufficient deterrent, but less destructive to the offender's ability, thereafter, to go back to being a productive citizen, if he was ever inclined to be.

I have no problem with any punishment that causes the offender to suffer as much as he caused his victims to suffer, or even a bit more, and neither, I think, did those who wrote the Eighth Amendment in the first place. Someone who, for example, commits multiple murders or who rapes, tortures, or otherwise abuses his victim before the murder, surely deserves a harsher punishment than just to be injected with a combination of drugs to make him peacefully fall asleep and never wake up again.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Yes, they are protected by those Rights. However, the legislature can pass laws mandating life imprisonment. That is not cruel or unusual treatment, and protects the children from the predators.

Until you get some criminal piece of shit like Gavin Newsom into a position of power, who uses a hyperbolized flu outbreak somehow as an excuse to turn these animals loose again.

The good thing about capital punishment is that once it's been carried out, you know that that is one criminal who will not reoffend.

 

[bluzman61]

I think the Breaking Wheel would be an effective deterrent.

To answer the question you posed in your thread title, NO.

 

[bluzman61]

Yes, they are protected by those Rights. However, the legislature can pass laws mandating life imprisonment. That is not cruel or unusual treatment, and protects the children from the predators.

Until you get some criminal piece of shit like Gavin Newsom into a position of power, who uses a hyperbolized flu outbreak somehow as an excuse to turn these animals loose again.

The good thing about capital punishment is that once it's been carried out, you know that that is one criminal who will not reoffend.

Exactly, Bob, exactly.

 

[bluzman61]

I think the Breaking Wheel would be an effective deterrent.

Yes, they are protected by those Rights. However, the legislature can pass laws mandating life imprisonment. That is not cruel or unusual treatment, and protects the children from the predators.

Yep.

 

[bluzman61]

The day we start picking and choosing who gets the protection of the US Constitution is the day we may as well throw it out.......

What? So what day was that? Was it in 1789 or 1790? You're not really telling me you don't believe "picking and choosing" who benefits from the Constitution hasn't been in effect from day one.
Go back to sleep.

If it is done, it goes against the US Constitution. That happens, I have no doubt. But if we make an example of murderers and child rapists by saying they do not get 8th amendment rights, what other constitutionally guaranteed rights to we suspend?

And if the 8th amendment rights are suspended where excessive bail is concerned, doesn't that throw out the idea that you are innocent until proven guilty?

I am wide awake. And the US Constitution provides guaranteed rights for every US citizen until they are found guilty in a court of law.

It sounds like you're standing up for child rapists and murderers. Dreadful.

 

[GLASNOST]

The good thing about capital punishment is that once it's been carried out, you know that that is one criminal who will not reoffend.

No. The thing about capital punishment is that once it's been carried out, you know that the executed will have been removed from this life/earth. You wrote "criminal" but the facts show that a percentage of the executed are/were innocent. Assuming that the truly guilty one has caused untold pain and suffering of an innocent person (and that person's family) then the state is guilty of the very same thing to the innocently executed and his family. It is a dilemma that is impossible to rectify.