Skip to main content

View Diary: The Scarlet Letter Returns - Fundies Force Child Rape Victim to Confess Her Sin (203 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The only reason to not execute these scumbags.... (10+ / 0-)

    .... is if they think they're going to heaven regardless of whatever they did.  

    For that reason and that reason only: Life without parole.

    Make them spend the rest of their days sleeping on slabs and eating bland gray shit with a plastic spoon.

    But if there's any chance that any of them do indeed believe they might maybe perhaps go to hell for this stuff: there should be a great big needle waiting with their name on it.  

    Zero tolerance for child abuse!

    •  Execution is unhelpful in their case (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Arsenic, G2geek

      The reason not to execute people is the possibility that you might have made a mistake -- that someone might have been framed.  Which is always a possibility in a case like this full of liars and brainwashed people.

      The only reason  to execute someone is if they are too dangerous to keep in prison, such as the Czar during the Russian Civil War, whose troops were on the way to break him out.  Which doesn't apply, they're not that dangerous.  (On the other hand, some of the megachurch leaders are starting to get powerful enough that they might become that dangerous.)

      So agreed, imprisonment.  They all know they will die eventually.

      Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

      by neroden on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 03:49:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, exactly. (0+ / 0-)

        As a generality I'm opposed to the DP, primarily due to the risk of error and execution of innocent persons, and secondarily due to the absence of a demonstrable deterrent effect.  

        Re. the danger factor: if they have a cult following they can direct from inside, they present a danger.  However that is not the same as a militarily-significant armed force (yet, uh-oh).  And absent such extraordinary circumstances, we can't allow the behavior of persons who are not parties to a legal proceeding, determine the outcome for those who are.  That is, we can't execute someone based upon what their followers may do, unless under circumstances as extreme as a civil war with a converging army.  

        However we may impose the stricture that a person who is confined to prison may not engage in activities in furtherance of criminality of any kind including retribution against original victims, witnesses, etc.  In the most dangerous such cases, we have maximum security prisons and limit their visitation rights to their attorneys only, by way of providing ongoing access to due process that is essential to preventing miscarriages of justice.  

        The issue upon which my call for considering the DP in these types of cases arises, has to do with deterrence.  However, I notice that this point directly contradicts the point about not allowing non-parties to the case to determine its outcomes!   Interesting, a complete logical contradiction in my thinking!   That can't stand.  So:

        It has already been demonstrated that deterrence is significantly increased not by the severity of a penalty, but by its swiftness and sureness.  

        Thus the contradiction resolves as follows:  no DP for these cases, but instead, improvements in the detection of the crimes, and the swiftness of trial, and the certainty of punishment, which for these crimes should be life imprisonment without parole.   Solved.  If only it was so simple to put into practice.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site