I can't believe we're talking about this country. Well, actually, I kind of can but when I started reading this I assumed it was somewhere else.

I don't believe in having too many sentancing laws. I think that the judicial branch is there to interpret how the law should apply to a specific case and set of circumstances.

Well I'm against the death penalty straight off. The illusion that it's a deterrent rather than a strong sedative for vengeance is a joke.

i'll take vengeance, works for me. any piece of human garbage that rapes a child should burn in hell. i'm all for getting them there as soon as possible. start up the

i certainly do think that crimes like rape should have some significant penalty - but i'm still on the fence about the death penalty. i feel like the death penalty is warranted in some cases where there is absolutely no chance that the person is innocent - but in the cases when there is 'doubt' - well it frustrates me. we'll have to see how the courts rule on this.

Lickety split I can't figure out your avatar. Is that a mouth?

yes my 7 year old just got her retainer/expander.

It'd definitely have to be on a case-by-case basis. If there's no doubt whatsoever, kill the bastards. Hate to be so harsh, but there's nothing more intolerable in this world than the harming of a child.

Considering how many days that child will feel violated and wishing that person would die I think it's better for the government to kill them than the victim. To steal a child's innocence is the worst thing in the world to me.

I hate all the corruption, racism, and mistakes still made in the system - that being said I would be okay with it in cases where there not even a small doubt (meaning DNA or something as accurate, like a video) I'd even say I'm even more okay with it than in murder cases.

And for the record, this is pure vengeance on my part, sometimes society needs things like to make us feel like life is fair and people do get what they deserve. I mean is God forbid anything like this happened to my child, I would think its worse than had the kid been shot in cold blood, and would want to castrate then kill the bastard my self.

*if God forbid

I'm opposed to the death penalty in all cases, although sometimes I do feel the desire to start up the grill, especially in instances like this one - but it's not my place (or anyone's place) to decide that someone else must die.

I think it is definitely a case-by-case basis and I am not against the death penalty. I, personally, think that when you kill or hurt another so severely-completely trampling and disregarding their rights as a person, I'm not sure you should have any rights left.

I believe it should be a case-by-case basis also. Violent, brutal rapes are completely different from 16 yr old girl and 20 yr old boyfriend statutory "rapes".

There is a difference between statutory rape, and the rape of a child. I don't think anyone will argue that the death penalty is not applicable to a 16yr old and 20yr old (although the 20yr old should still get jail time).

I disagree with you Bella. Sometimes it is better that a villian be put to death for the greater good.

Not to go off topic here, but UnDave, did u know that in a lot of states a person can be convicted of statutory rape by strict liability standards, meaning that if a 16yr old gets a fake ID, is found in club (21yr and older club) with a cigarette in her mouth and a few tattoos and lies to the 20yr about her age that person will still get jail time "for the protection of our children."

No moral judgment btw on any of the factors, just using them as indicators of age.

That would be why abstinence is the best policy, always...

Child rape is cruel and unusual so with that in mind I hope he burns in hell. I would prefer that he be held down and raped first just so he can see what his 8 year old victim went through. Then strap his ass to the chair and flip the switch. Good riddance.

I haven't even read the article. I read question, options, vote choices. Then I voted. I don't care if it's not anyones "right" to kill another for whatever reason. If I'm wrong, I'm sure I'll hear about it after I die, from our maker. Until then, the death penalty would be merciful compared to what I would do to anyone who hurt my children.

Unfortunately, families are not able to get a hold of the criminal.
So, in case anyone couldn't figure out my choice, it was definately die M.F.er.

Sorry, I was all happy until I came upon this post. I better go somewhere else.

I'm one of those people that are against the death penalty, sorry, it's just my belief. I would definitely be down for castrating rapists or letting a murder victims families choose a punishment for the murderer. There are so many mistakes within the judicial system that I just can't justify mudering someone.

We could just send all the miscreants to an island, and let them rule themselves.

BlairBear, I have to agree with you for the most part, but disagree with you in the most extreme cases, like ilanac and zeze.

Good idea, UnDave!

So what do you all think about the idea that it might give the rapist an incentive to kill the child victim?

If the death penalty is a deterrent, but the rapist has already subject himself to it with the rape, why wouldn't he kill the child to prevent witness testimony?

Either way he faces the death sentence; but, in one situation he doesn't face a witness and the child doesn't live.

its not a deterrent, so it wouldn't make a difference - and even if it were I doubt it would make anyone behave any differently, its not like a rapist is going to think "if I get caught I want life in prison (being used and abused for 60 years) instead of the needle...." at least in my opinion, if they are going to kill they will kill regardless of the punishment - be it life sentence or death.

That's an interesting point Liberty. I still think a rapist of a child should get the death penalty. If he also kills the victim, he should be killed slowly, like by ... (ok this is edited out for those who don't want to know)... and then (more editing).... and then let him expire.

I agree (as usual) w/ Jillness - the judiciary needs flexibility to decide case by case. Every case involving sexual conduct with a child is completely different - in terms of violence, harm, and surrounding actions. Cases with the same criminal elements (sexual conduct + child = sexual conduct with a minor in my state) may be charged the exact same, but judges can listen to the facts and see differences and expand/contract from there.

To everyone who keeps saying they're ok with killing when there is no, or little doubt, who exactly makes that call? That isn't a real standard, it is a statement of truth - we're all more ok with death penalty when there is little to no doubt. But DNA or no DNA, witness or no witness, a person is either found guilty at trial and sentenced to the death penalty or not.

Every attorney I've ever known faced with the decision of whether or not to pursue the death penalty has taken great serious thought and treated it as the weighty decision it is. Not only do they need to decide they are sure that the person committed a murder, but also that the death penalty is appropriate in the case.

BlairBear, I'd never let victims be the final decider on punishment - too much variability would appear - I have parents who want to kill the guy who molested their child and I have parents who don't want the criminal charges against that nice guy who touched their child, he's going to counseling at church (or whatever). Also consider how often the entanglement between (there are a lot of crimes going on within families). Justice would be replaced with personal needs, and these change throughout a healing process. Prosecutors (at least try to) work for justice.

Liberty's point - the incentive to kill the witness - is a terrifying prospect. But when a criminal is out in the world, do they really know laws or consequences? Are they really researching these things with foresight? Ultimately, I think criminals believe they'll get away with whatever they're doing. I also think that people draw their own lines in the sand, even pedophiles have things they will and will not do. If they are already violent to an extreme, perhaps murder isn't much further, but so many child crimes are done by the guy who grooms and gets access in nonviolent ways, and I don't think they'd kill the witness since they really believe they're getting away with it.

(I always have too much to say)

thought we already agreed that it wasn't a deterrent. once a crime is horrible enough to deserve the death penalty that's it. you could just as easily say "well he killed once, why not kill again, what's he got to lose". life in prison is the same way. you rape and know you're going to prison for the rest of your life, why not rape a few hundred times more. same punichment, right?

rape of a child, first degree murder, it doesn't get any worse than that. i don't think we should hold back on punishment just to see if the perp has more to offer society.

As far as Jillness' point, I think pretty much everyone would agree. The point of the case before the Court is basically to test whether or not the death penalty should even be considered in cases of child molestation, not whether the death penalty should be used in every case.

And megmccoy, we were doing just that, making a statement of truth. I don't see what is wrong with us saying that we are ok with the death penalty only in the most extreme cases, which is what most everyone who is ok with the death penalty would say. My reason for clarifying is that in debates on the death penalty I always seem to encounter people who state that innocent people are convicted of crimes all of the time. As you stated, attorneys do not take the death penalty lightly and I am glad they don't because I don't take the death penalty lightly either. And, in many cases, judges are hesitant to allow for the death penalty when evidence is inconclusive, even if a jury does convict.

yes it is but onlly because in execution a person suffers for a few minutes while that child lives with that for the rest of their lives and might become an offender as well affection other children. Castration as in using a scalpell and chopping off their hands is appropriate, let's see them try to live for the rest of their lives like that. Or carving Rapist on their faces with no anaesthesia, that's even better and parading them through the streets. Or tarring and feathering, anything that prolongs their pain for years and years like their victims

lilkimbo, I didn't mean disrespect - I just have to deal with the laws we pass, and ultimately the levels of gray we each feel ok with is different, and we need to trust in the jury's decision. I really think juries put a lot of thought into cases, and won't find someone guilty when they don't believe it. This is especially true of death penalty cases. The judge doesn't determine if the death penalty is imposed. After guilty, the case proceeds to the penalty phase, where the jury is instructed to consider numerous factors in deciding whether to impose death.

That's true, megmccoy, but the judge can take the death penalty off the table.

And actually, I think the jury gives a sentence recommendation, but the judge hands down the final sentence.

I am against the death penalty, so once again, I agree with hypnoticmix.

i think capital punishment is wrong; take that off the table. but the penalty for child rape could be the same as for murder, in my opinion.

I'm against the death penalty and even trying to look at this pragmatically, can't agree with it even in the case of an attack on a child. I think it would make it more likely the child would be murdered. The death penalty hasn't served justice well in this country when you consider the racial discrepancies in such sentencing, and expanding its boundries would only allow more opportunity for abuse.

I am very much FOR the death penalty.

Of course, I agree with what many other people here have said so far, that there are cases when the death penalty for rape would be ridiculous. For instance, one of my cousins was convicted of statutory rape because a girl lied to him (he did not assume, she flat out told him the wrong number) about her age, her parents found out, got pissed off, and pushed her to testify against him. He spent six months in prison because of that (so yes, abstinence would have worked out a lot better in that case). I would not want someone to be executed for something so silly as THAT.

However, I, personally, believe the brutal rape of a child deserves the death penalty and worse. Again, the issue of being sure that the person in question actually committed the crime pops up. What say we just don't use the death penalty unless we're positive? Much of the time, there's no real doubt, so fry the bastards, I say.

I believe that in most cases, rapists aren't really too busy worrying about the consequences of their actions. Of course, there are exceptions, but I believe they are in the minority. I don't really think that child-rapists expect to be caught one way or another. Another thing to consider is that many child-molesters are repeat offenders, returning to the same children. If they killed their victims, they wouldn't be able to victimize them anymore!

And to the people that say that it's not our right to decide who can live or not, I say this: It's always been my belief that when a person harms another person(rape, murder, aggravated assault, etc.), they cease to be human, and have given up their right to live and be treated as a human. I don't think of the death penalty as a deterrent, I think of it as a way to remove scum from the face of the planet.

Sorry for the ranting, I have a very angry sense of justice. Can you tell I'm from Texas?

It should be taken case-by-case.

I don't believe in the death penalty at all.

And my understanding of the legal system, albeit very basic, is that every sentence is done case by case.

A side issue and off the topic but never the less a point that needs to be made.

After reading many comments here it is clear that there is a common devotion that lives within all of us whether we have children or not to protect our innocent. I think the only thing that leaves me mystified though is how many can find enough passion with in an instants notice of hearing that a child has been sexually violated to extinguish a human life. However, when it comes to education, after school programs, early child hood development the very necessities that hundreds of thousands of children are lacking each year we are as absent as the day is long. Where is our passion for our children here? Where is the blood thirsty vengeance towards those who withhold these opportunities from the very seeds of our future?

Where is our outrage when we know that our children are being exposed to thousands of violent and sexual images and messages each and every day? Where? If you have enough passion in you to extinguish a human life for violating a child than you have enough passion in you to protect them at every level.

I look forward to seeing things change across the country.

Who's to say that we aren't all passionate about those topics as well? I personally am incredibly disappointed with our education systems, early childhood development programs, etc., but it's hard to find specific people to blame for those issues, which is what people really like to do.

The reason you're seeing so much anger towards child molestation and none towards shortcomings in terms of raising our children is that you're reading responses to a poll about.... the death penalty for child rapists.

Also, there are plenty of people that don't realize exactly how poor our educational systems are, not everyone understands the effects that explicit images and messages have on children. Rape isn't a hard concept to wrap your head around, and the proposed solutions are rather simpler than those for education or keeping children from absorbing negative messages from advertising.