South Carolina Gets It Right ! Death Penalty For Child Rapists

[GotZoom]

The state Senate on Tuesday endorsed making repeat child rapists eligible for the death penalty, setting aside arguments the move might be unconstitutional.

"What we've got to do today is vote our conviction," said Republican Sen. Larry Martin.

The proposal allows prosecutors to seek the death penalty for sex offenders who are convicted twice of raping a child younger than 11.

Currently in South Carolina, murder is the only crime eligible for the death penalty.

The proposal was approved as part of a larger bill that sets minimum sentences and lifetime electronic monitoring for some sex offenders. The bill requires a third reading before moving to the House.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 1977 Georgia case involving an adult victim that sentencing someone to death for rape was unconstitutional.

A Louisiana law lets prosecutors seek the death penalty for rapists of children younger than 12, and the Louisiana Supreme Court found it constitutional because the U.S. Supreme Court ruling did not address the rape of a child.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the statute.

http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060328/APA/603281165

 

[Annie]

The state Senate on Tuesday endorsed making repeat child rapists eligible for the death penalty, setting aside arguments the move might be unconstitutional.

"What we've got to do today is vote our conviction," said Republican Sen. Larry Martin.

The proposal allows prosecutors to seek the death penalty for sex offenders who are convicted twice of raping a child younger than 11.

Currently in South Carolina, murder is the only crime eligible for the death penalty.

The proposal was approved as part of a larger bill that sets minimum sentences and lifetime electronic monitoring for some sex offenders. The bill requires a third reading before moving to the House.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 1977 Georgia case involving an adult victim that sentencing someone to death for rape was unconstitutional.

A Louisiana law lets prosecutors seek the death penalty for rapists of children younger than 12, and the Louisiana Supreme Court found it constitutional because the U.S. Supreme Court ruling did not address the rape of a child.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the statute.

http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060328/APA/603281165

Good find! "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GotZoom again.

 

[GotZoom]

Good find! "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GotZoom again.

Thank you...it's the thought that counts.

 

[5stringJeff]

Excellent... although I think first-time offenders ought to be eligible.

 

[Rabbit]

I think Texas needs to adopt that stance very soon. Recently, in Ellis County, Gilbert Garcia received 10 years probation for his admitted rape of a child. People around here are pretty pissed off at Judge Gene Knize these days.

http://www.elliscountyobserver.com/?s=gilbert+garcia

http://www.geneknize.com/

http://www.geneknize.blogspot.com/

 

[Adam's Apple]

Hooray for South Carolina!!!!! Hope our state will follow suit soon.

 

[Adam's Apple]

I think Texas needs to adopt that stance very soon. Recently, in Ellis County, Gilbert Garcia received 10 years probation for his admitted rape of a child.

It's happening all across the country! This is a serious crime, and the perpetrator gets a slap on the wrist! It's just a matter of time until Garcia repeats his crime. That you can depend upon.

What recourse do the people in TX have against such judges? Are they elected by the people or appointed? In my opinion, judges of this kind should have their law licenses revoked for life and never be able to sit on the bench again. They have betrayed the trust people have placed in them and are as bad as the criminals who come before them.

 

[Rabbit]

http://www.deuell.senate.state.tx.us/pr03/c030603a.htm

Issues Facing the 78th Legislature

(Austin) - On March 4, Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Phillips gave the State of the Texas Judiciary address to the Texas Senate and Texas House of Representatives in joint session. In the process, he renewed the debate on whether Texas should elect judges, or have them appointed by the governor.

Currently, Texans choose all trial and appellate judges in partisan elections. Only two other states, West Virginia and Louisiana, have similar systems. Chief Justice Phillips and some lawmakers in Austin are advocating changing to a system of appointment and retention. Under this system, the governor would appoint judges, then voters would vote to retain or dismiss them. If voters chose to dismiss a judge, the governor would then name a replacement.

People in Texas have more freedom by voting to elect judges, so I hope it stays that way.

 

[Adam's Apple]

http://www.deuell.senate.state.tx.us/pr03/c030603a.htm



People in Texas have more freedom by voting to elect judges, so I hope it stays that way.

The people who set up the system in TX were wise beyond their times. How fortunate you are to have an opportunity to get rid of judges like Knize at the ballot box.

 

[Diuretic]

Uh-oh. Someone please tell me that this won't make child rapists murder their victim. Please. It seems to me that if the penalty for child rape (subsequent offence) is death and the penalty for murder is death then the child rapist who, if apprehended and found guilty, is going to get death.

A living victim of rape can give police a lot of information. A dead victim can't volunteer any information but you can get some physical evidence from a deceased person, but it's more difficult.

So what has the child rapist got to lose? They may as well murder their victim. It's not like he or she can be brought back to life and executed a second time.

Please, someone, tell me I'm wrong and that the SC legislature has sorted this out. Oh and just in case you think that the idea that a judge MAY award the death penalty and won't do so in every case, think again. The child rapist is not a rational individual, but they're not completely stupid. They know they have a better chance of not being apprehended if the victim is dead than if the victim is left to speak to police.

I am troubled by this. Tell me I'm wrong. Please.

 

[5stringJeff]

Uh-oh. Someone please tell me that this won't make child rapists murder their victim. Please. It seems to me that if the penalty for child rape (subsequent offence) is death and the penalty for murder is death then the child rapist who, if apprehended and found guilty, is going to get death.

A living victim of rape can give police a lot of information. A dead victim can't volunteer any information but you can get some physical evidence from a deceased person, but it's more difficult.

So what has the child rapist got to lose? They may as well murder their victim. It's not like he or she can be brought back to life and executed a second time.

Please, someone, tell me I'm wrong and that the SC legislature has sorted this out. Oh and just in case you think that the idea that a judge MAY award the death penalty and won't do so in every case, think again. The child rapist is not a rational individual, but they're not completely stupid. They know they have a better chance of not being apprehended if the victim is dead than if the victim is left to speak to police.

I am troubled by this. Tell me I'm wrong. Please.

Even better, the person could decide not to rape OR murder the child, for fear of the death penalty.

 

[Diuretic]

Even better, the person could decide not to rape OR murder the child, for fear of the death penalty.

Of course, why didn't I think of that? But why stop at death for child rape? Why not have death for rape of an adult? Death for armed robbery. Death for housebreaking. Death for car stealing. If it's that good a deterrent it should be applied across all serious and not-so-serious offences and crime will plummet. If it works then the death penalty can apply for anything the state chooses. What about the death penalty for political corruption as well? I think you're onto something here.

 

[5stringJeff]

Of course, why didn't I think of that? But why stop at death for child rape? Why not have death for rape of an adult? Death for armed robbery. Death for housebreaking. Death for car stealing. If it's that good a deterrent it should be applied across all serious and not-so-serious offences and crime will plummet. If it works then the death penalty can apply for anything the state chooses. What about the death penalty for political corruption as well? I think you're onto something here.

The one part of your post that I agree with is that "the death penalty can apply for anything the state chooses." Because frankly, it can. Now I think your examples are quite extreme. But do you think that child rapists ought to live? Do you think murderers ought to live?

BTW, welcome to USMB.

 

[Diuretic]

The one part of your post that I agree with is that "the death penalty can apply for anything the state chooses." Because frankly, it can. Now I think your examples are quite extreme. But do you think that child rapists ought to live? Do you think murderers ought to live?

BTW, welcome to USMB.

Yes my examples were extreme and deliberately so. I wouldn't advocate that approach but you made me think about deterrence which hadn't occurred to me.

On deterrence. There will be occasions when a rapist will not rape a child because he (I will say "he") for convenience will be deterred.

But let's say that in another instance the deterrent effect of the death penalty hasn't stopped him raping a child. Having raped the child he then realises if he's caught he's going to get the death penalty. He has a quick think and then murders the child to improve his chances of not being apprehended. That would be my fear.

Do I think child rapists ought to live? Personally? Personally I'd like to rip his throat out and piss down what was left of it but when it comes to criminal justice policy my feelings are not relevant. What's good policy is what's relevant, what works and what protects.

Do I think murderers should live? My only objection to the death penalty has always been the chance of error. I know the criminal justice system is capable of getting it wrong and getting it wrong badly. I know that mistakes in the system don't happen that often but remember when we say "guilty" we're only saying "probably" guilty. Yes it's a high level of probability, usually "beyond a reasonable doubt" but it's still only probability. And you only need to execute a person once by mistake and that's it. Given that my preferred position would be to put them in prison and let them die in prison.

Thanks for the welcome.

 

[dmp]

I'm not sure I agree with SC...I'd have a few questions:

What happens when 14 y/o has sex with promiscuous 12 y/o and is tried as an adult?

Things like that...

 

[dmp]

Yes my examples were extreme and deliberately so. I wouldn't advocate that approach but you made me think about deterrence which hadn't occurred to me.

On deterrence. There will be occasions when a rapist will not rape a child because he (I will say "he") for convenience will be deterred.

But let's say that in another instance the deterrent effect of the death penalty hasn't stopped him raping a child. Having raped the child he then realises if he's caught he's going to get the death penalty. He has a quick think and then murders the child to improve his chances of not being apprehended. That would be my fear.

Do I think child rapists ought to live? Personally? Personally I'd like to rip his throat out and piss down what was left of it but when it comes to criminal justice policy my feelings are not relevant. What's good policy is what's relevant, what works and what protects.

Do I think murderers should live? My only objection to the death penalty has always been the chance of error. I know the criminal justice system is capable of getting it wrong and getting it wrong badly. I know that mistakes in the system don't happen that often but remember when we say "guilty" we're only saying "probably" guilty. Yes it's a high level of probability, usually "beyond a reasonable doubt" but it's still only probability. And you only need to execute a person once by mistake and that's it. Given that my preferred position would be to put them in prison and let them die in prison.

Thanks for the welcome.

Valid points. I'd ask if you'd be reserved about the dealth penalty for a child rapist based on the same chance of error?

 

[Annie]

I'm not sure I agree with SC...I'd have a few questions:

What happens when 14 y/o has sex with promiscuous 12 y/o and is tried as an adult?

Things like that...

I would assume that since both are under the 'age of consent' the SC law wouldn't apply? Obviously, both kids are in trouble, the 'promiscuous' 12 year old likely to have been sexually abused, if 'caught' that should be checked out.

 

[Diuretic]

Valid points. I'd ask if you'd be reserved about the dealth penalty for a child rapist based on the same chance of error?

Good question and puts me right on the spot. To be consistent I would have to say yes. The same reasoning applies, regardless of the offence.

Can I just explain my reasoning by going off on a tangent for a bit. I don't know what the practice is in the US (and I know there are many jurisdictions not just the US Sup Ct) but in my jurisdiction a judge will ensure that a jury deals with facts and not emotion in deciding on guilt. For example, in a murder trial in my jurisdiction the jury was allowed to view black and white photographs of the deceased victim but not the colour pictures which the physical evidence people had taken. The reason the judge gave was that the black and white photos allowed the jury to see the required evidence without them seeing the gore in the colour photos. So the judge wanted to keep the emotions down as much as possible and get the jury focused on analysing the evidence rather than being shocked.

So, yes, I would have to maintain that position. An innocent person being executed is the issue, not what was alleged against them. Sounds lovely and noble doesn't it? However that's the best way I can express it right now.