Legalities aside, children that are molested are some of the most damaged members of our society, anyone doing that should be shot by 5 drunk guys with black powder rifles.

I would gladly give up my life to save my granddaughter from being raped. This means that I hold the rape to be worse than my own demise. Why should the state look differently on this crime, especially such an extreme example as this one?

Looking pragmatically, it is well known that pedophiles will keep abusing children whenever they can. The recividism rate is incredibly high. Why let these people out to inflict more evil on innocents, why even stockpile them in hopes of a cure that we have no clue even exists? The only known cure is a religious experience, a miracle if you will, which is both rare and easily faked. They have no chance of hurting another child if they are dead.

These folks are an inordinate drain on prison resources as well, for they must be protected from their fellow inmates as well as the citizens outside. If you wish pedophiles to die horribly, just put them in the normal inmate population. I do not want that, but do not think that mistakes of this sort have not been deliberate. Prisoners exacting justice when the criminal justice system abdicates the responsibility hurts all parties. Don’t think that pedophiles don’t know about their possible treatment in prison, either.

So, there is already an unofficial death penalty possible, either in prison or by vengeful family. This negates the ‘unwise’ objection to the death penalty IMO. What the present situation does is diminish respect for the law, and giving the judge/jury access to the ultimate punishment will help fix that.

I would rather protect as many children as possible. Some would rather impose maximum retribution and send the most loud statement of outrage. I think we have to choose.

You sound as if you think those two goals are mutually exclusive. I don’t accept that premise.

Also, child-rape is dramatically different from the rest of criminal law. These people often have great difficulty controlling their sexual impulses, so I don’t think your comparison makes any sense.

Not sure why you think my comparison doesn’t make sense. I was speaking only about killing a witness to a crime, not avoiding the crime completely.

I really don’t know exactly how it would play out, but I insist that there would be some cases where the rapist kills the victim when he would otherwise not kill the victim if he felt that made the crime more punishable. That’s probably not a ‘most of the time’ situation, and again, usually the would be killer will avoid killing to avoid investigation. But it would still happen, at least a few times.

It can happen absent the death penalty; my point is that it won’t be more likely with the threat of execution than it already is.

Also, child-rape is dramatically different from the rest of criminal law. These people often have great difficulty controlling their sexual impulses, so I don’t think your comparison makes any sense.

Fact is, I agree that this is the weaker part of the argument because it’s so open to speculation, though it’s probably the case that more children would be killed by their rapists if the death penalty covered both the same. These rapes usually go on and on for years. If the child started talking, or indicating that she/he will talk, the rapist will have an incentive to kill because they believe an investigation is imminent. They have an incentive not to kill because it guarantees an investigation. There is an incentive not to kill because of the death penalty, and the criminal may have much more ability to control this urge than they had over their rape act. In other words, I an arguing that deterrence from a death penalty is much more powerful towards preventing murder than preventing the initial rapes that the rapist may have a psychological compulsion towards.

Again, you’re right, the rapist should avoid murder to avoid an investigation, but that’s just one of many considerations the rapist is dealing with. I really don’t know exactly how it would play out, but I insist that there would be some cases where the rapist kills the victim when he would otherwise not kill the victim if he felt that made the crime more punishable. That’s probably not a ‘most of the time’ situation, and again, usually the would be killer will avoid killing to avoid investigation. But it would still happen, at least a few times.

That’s not to say we shouldn’t execute though. Mine is a bit of a slippery slop argument. I think this is surely the weakest argument for banning the death penalty for child-rape, which is why it gets so much attention. The other arguments, dealing with victim testimony and jurors resulting in more convictions for imprisonment than executions, time and resources used to execute fewer rather than imprison more, are much more persuasive.

It’s really a difference in opinion re: priorities. I would rather protect as many children as possible. Some would rather impose maximum retribution and send the most loud statement of outrage. I think we have to choose. the increases in resources needed to get a death penalty is not trivial. It means fewer people get fully prosecuted. Though, it also means prosecutors have a powerful bargaining chip, the mere fact that death penalty is legally possible hampers jurors and testimony somewhat.

Let’s look at it another way. In states where there is no death penalty, the maximum sentence — no matter how many witnesses you kill — is life without parole. How often do criminals kill witnesses in those states? After all, it’s not like they’re going to spend any more time in prison over and above the sentence for the initial crimes. (For argument’s sake, suppose the criminal has committed enough crimes to warrant 50 or more years.) I don’t know this number, but I’ve got a feeling it’s small.

If criminals don’t kill witnesses even when their sentences won’t be extended, then why would they kill witnesses when they might be executed?