[demo3051]

Originally Posted by brackis1

The law is not about raising the severity of punishment for a given type of crime to meet or exceed the overtly aggravating incident.

The deterrant effect is not there. Forcible and heinous rape severe enough to warrant killing the person by the state is going to be a rape of extreme sexual deviance that occurred outside of rational decisions or fear of the criminal consequences. Thus these extreme rapists would continue to offend, and you'd see a bunch of overly expensive and time consuming capital punishment cases instead of a bunch of 40-60 year convictions which cost the state much less.

Fine argument. Much better than the straw men others built.

[demo3051]

Originally Posted by brackis1

The law is not about raising the severity of punishment for a given type of crime to meet or exceed the overtly aggravating incident.

The deterrant effect is not there. Forcible and heinous rape severe enough to warrant killing the person by the state is going to be a rape of extreme sexual deviance that occurred outside of rational decisions or fear of the criminal consequences. Thus these extreme rapists would continue to offend, and you'd see a bunch of overly expensive and time consuming capital punishment cases instead of a bunch of 40-60 year convictions which cost the state much less.

I would argue thought that having the death penalty on the table in cases of, as you called it, extreme sexual deviance, could allow for more effective plea bargaining for prosecutors. For instance, if you plead guilty, you get life, avoid the death penalty. This could help the victims avoid the trauma of reliving their experience at trial.

From what I've read, you're right about the lack of deterrent effect for the death penalty. However, if a person is executed they can never rape again. This prevents repeat offenders in a way only the death penalty can. Those who are dead cannot escape from prison, be granted pardons, clemency or parolled.

[brackis1]

Originally Posted by demo3051

I would argue thought that having the death penalty on the table in cases of, as you called it, extreme sexual deviance, could allow for more effective plea bargaining for prosecutors. For instance, if you plead guilty, you get life, avoid the death penalty. This could help the victims avoid the trauma of reliving their experience at trial.

Again, the criminal justice system has no business pandering to the needs of a victim or their family. That is the realm of the civil court system if/when possible.

The idea of endless plea bargains would fall apart because if the premise of capital punishment for rape doesn't pass legal muster, there is no fear in it being invoked without a good chance of winning on appeal when the "lesser" sentence is still life in prison.

[demo3051]

Originally Posted by brackis1

Again, the criminal justice system has no business pandering to the needs of a victim or their family. That is the realm of the civil court system if/when possible.

The idea of endless plea bargains would fall apart because if the premise of capital punishment for rape doesn't pass legal muster, there is no fear in it being invoked without a good chance of winning on appeal when the "lesser" sentence is still life in prison.

If the Supreme Court directly addresses the issue and states that capital punishment is allowed for rape, how is there a good chance of winning on appeal. Criminal appellants are the least successful.

I would also disagree with the contention that the needs of the victim are irrelevant in the criminal justice system. Look at the change in evidence law with the rape shield law. While arguably the limit the proceeding to relevant testimony, the main rationale for the change was to prevent defense attorneys from puttting the victim's sexual history on trial. The relevance bar is generally very low, so sexual history should be considered, if relevance was our only concern.

[brackis1]

Originally Posted by demo3051

I would also disagree with the contention that the needs of the victim are irrelevant in the criminal justice system. Look at the change in evidence law with the rape shield law. While arguably the limit the proceeding to relevant testimony, the main rationale for the change was to prevent defense attorneys from puttting the victim's sexual history on trial. The relevance bar is generally very low, so sexual history should be considered, if relevance was our only concern.

You are discussing witness testimony within a trial, I am saying that the victim or arbitrary family angst has no right to sway sentencing or the law itself.

[BinBaaz]

I am for the Death Penalty for Rape, as long as sufficient evidence exists. The question is, what is sufficient evidence?

[brackis1]

Originally Posted by BinBaaz

I am for the Death Penalty for Rape, as long as sufficient evidence exists. The question is, what is sufficient evidence?

This has not been fairly settled in cases of first degree murder, let alone rape. Republican and pro-death penalty governor George Ryan of Illinois realized it was basically impossible without a massive legislative overhaul and literally tens of millions of dollars spent per case; he commuted all death row sentences to life in prison and pardoned fully 4 inmates.

[scientismo]

Originally Posted by demo3051

I would argue thought that having the death penalty on the table in cases of, as you called it, extreme sexual deviance, could allow for more effective plea bargaining for prosecutors. For instance, if you plead guilty, you get life, avoid the death penalty. This could help the victims avoid the trauma of reliving their experience at trial.

And, it would also compel the innocent to take time over the chance of death.

[brackis1]

Originally Posted by scientismo

And, it would also compel the innocent to take time over the chance of death.

No, the innocent would want as long and drawn out a legal battle as possible. A plea bargain waives your right to appeal and question guilt.

[scientismo]

Originally Posted by brackis1

No, the innocent would want as long and drawn out a legal battle as possible. A plea bargain waives your right to appeal and question guilt.

And, if they lose, then they get death. that's rather shitty,yes? if there is good reason to think they'd lose, then my statement applies.