Current Events > YR: rape is now a guaranteed death penalty.

(+) Yeah! (+)

If you are charged and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of rape, you get a 6 month window for new evidence and one appeal that upheld means the family pays all court costs so none of it was any cost to the tax payers. After that window you're immediately taken to either be hung or killed by a firing squad.
No second chances, one strike you're out if found guilty.

How do you react?
---

We'd really need to define rape and also look closely into the laws around it and the Sex offender registry.
---

with all these fucking c**** that make false rape accusations...?

glad I aint straight

To many women report false rape reports, and some have even gone on record and admitted it later they made it up.

I am usually all for killing rapists but it is way to difficult now to separate the true blue raping scumbags from the "rapist in name only cause the woman regrets sleeping with him" innocent guy who now has his life fucked up over a false claim.
---

Seems like a good way to set up and eliminate your enemies in a prison setting.
---

Sure. Being falsely accused of rape already ruins lives, why not go the extra step and prevent the poor bastards from having to kill themselves.
---

Only if the accuser get shot instead if you are found not guilty.

Disclaimer: If it is proven that the accuser acted with malicious intent.
---

St0rmFury posted...

Only if the accuser get shot instead if you are found not guilty.

Disclaimer: If it is proven that the accuser acted with malicious intent.

Yep and if there were any accomplices that knowingly lied or fabricated evidence on your behalf then it's the death penalty for them as well.
---

I'd go about my life as per normal since it can't possibly affect me.

What about statutory rape?


A 19 year old being killed for fucking a 16 year old is insane
---

I'm against capital punishment, so not great

I don't support the death penalty.
---

Given that the bar for rape is set lower than other crimes and how many fake accusations fly around, that seems like an insane proposition.
---

Set the bar higher, as in a girl changing her mind after consent is no longer rape, uncertainty or non-answer without being in a state of duress or substance is punishable but not as a rape, etc. I'd also be fine with statutory as a part of death penalty-able, but only if the person knew beforehand, otherwise punishable but not as rape.

I dunno, death penalty is serious. People will end up using rape as a legal murder tool if not
---

Good. Trash is meant to be taken out anyway.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

I don't support the death penalty.

This. And again, there's the false accusations
---

Death penalty or sexual organ reassignment.

bknight posted...

Death penalty or sexual organ reassignment.

Or castration or female circumcision.
---

"Took fucking long enough!"
---

Bump
---

I'd be fine with this. Our standards for convicting people needs to be better though.
---

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen CE come up with.

Penalties need to be really really harsh. It will keep people from doing bad things, and if not, it will at least get rid of the rest.
---

I'm not in favour of the death penalty in general, so no.
---

the death penalty is never right so meh
---

organicbamf posted...

the death penalty is never right

Lol
---

Gamer99z posted...

organicbamf posted...

the death penalty is never right

Lol

good argument shitlord

oh right, you don't have a sound one, so your response is instead just brushing me off

you win!
---

organicbamf posted...

Gamer99z posted...

organicbamf posted...

the death penalty is never right

Lol

good argument shitlord

oh right, you don't have a sound one, so your response is instead just brushing me off

you win!

Why you mad tho?
The reasons why are obvious. If you've blatantly proven beyond any doubt that you cannot be rehabilitated and safely integrated back into society then there's no reason not just just kill you. That's more humane than locking someone up for the rest of their life on the tax payers dime honestly. Iirc in California for example it costs 60k a year per prisoner and 150k per year for prisoners on death row. I'll bring up a news story from a few years back, remember that dude Ariel Castro who abducted 3 girls and kept them prisoner in his home and raped them for over a decade? There was no reason to keep that man alive, but luckily he took care of that problem himself.
The propose of prison should rehabilitation and turning people into contributing members of society and after you commit certain abhorrent crimes, you prove that you're not capable of that and not worth the air you breathe, the water you drink, the food you eat, and the space you occupy. It would be stupid NOT to just kill them.
---

Gamer99z posted...

Why you mad tho?
The reasons why are obvious. If you've blatantly proven beyond any doubt that you cannot be rehabilitated and safely integrated back into society then there's no reason not just just kill you. That's more humane than locking someone up for the rest of their life on the tax payers dime honestly. Iirc in California for example it costs 60k a year per prisoner and 150k per year for prisoners on death row. I'll bring up a news story from a few years back, remember that dude Ariel Castro who abducted 3 girls and kept them prisoner in his home and raped them for over a decade? There was no reason to keep that man alive, but luckily he took care of that problem himself.
The propose of prison should rehabilitation and turning people into contributing members of society and after you commit certain abhorrent crimes, you prove that you're not capable of that and not worth the air you breathe, the water you drink, the food you eat, and the space you occupy. It would be stupid NOT to just kill them.

There's no real fast track for the process of convicting someone incontrovertibly of a serious crime like that. You must give everyone the same access to the right to a lawyer, right to trial, right to appeal, etc.

This entire process costs money. It costs even more money to take it to the level of surety where you can put them on death row, in light of the fact that historically no small amount of people have been wrongfully convicted.

It's a nice thought that we can just instantly know beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone is guilty of a terrible crime with no chance of redemption, but there's no simple way to expedite that process.
---

Gamer99z posted...

Why you mad tho?
The reasons why are obvious. If you've blatantly proven beyond any doubt that you cannot be rehabilitated and safely integrated back into society then there's no reason not just just kill you. That's more humane than locking someone up for the rest of their life on the tax payers dime honestly. Iirc in California for example it costs 60k a year per prisoner and 150k per year for prisoners on death row. I'll bring up a news story from a few years back, remember that dude Ariel Castro who abducted 3 girls and kept them prisoner in his home and raped them for over a decade? There was no reason to keep that man alive, but luckily he took care of that problem himself.
The propose of prison should rehabilitation and turning people into contributing members of society and after you commit certain abhorrent crimes, you prove that you're not capable of that and not worth the air you breathe, the water you drink, the food you eat, and the space you occupy. It would be stupid NOT to just kill them.

if you can't be proven to do so, what are the underlying reasons for that? your brain doesn't work properly? your background wasn't nurturing enough to do so? some combination of the two? something outside of the person them-self was obviously an influence on how they grew up to be. if they can't see why or how they don't or can't follow the normal law, is that their fault? and no, i don't recall your knee-jerk story, but i would like numbers on your incarceration vs. death row appeal rate. not that it actually matters in my view, but i think you pulled numbers out of your ass. the *primary* purpose of prison should be rehabilitation, no doubt. but we don't live in that fantasy land. we live in a land of retribution. so whatever case you're looking at now doesn't actually speak much to the effect of actual justice (imo). if someone has a disconnect (i.e. non-neurotypical trait) between their PFC and amygdala because it was induced by birth, by environment, whatever... they cannot know the same humanity you and and i know. or maybe they can after some rehabilitative measure, but even if not, it's outside of their capability.

seriously, look back at your own statement of "if you're not capable of that...". i'm not punishing a dog for not doing advanced mathematics because they're not capable of it.

don't be a fucking idiot.
---

So if she changes her mind at any point but doesn't tell you, is that rape?

pinky0926 posted...

I'm not in favour of the death penalty in general, so no.

This. Plus TC's whole method is stupid
---

pinky0926 posted...

Gamer99z posted...

Why you mad tho?
The reasons why are obvious. If you've blatantly proven beyond any doubt that you cannot be rehabilitated and safely integrated back into society then there's no reason not just just kill you. That's more humane than locking someone up for the rest of their life on the tax payers dime honestly. Iirc in California for example it costs 60k a year per prisoner and 150k per year for prisoners on death row. I'll bring up a news story from a few years back, remember that dude Ariel Castro who abducted 3 girls and kept them prisoner in his home and raped them for over a decade? There was no reason to keep that man alive, but luckily he took care of that problem himself.
The propose of prison should rehabilitation and turning people into contributing members of society and after you commit certain abhorrent crimes, you prove that you're not capable of that and not worth the air you breathe, the water you drink, the food you eat, and the space you occupy. It would be stupid NOT to just kill them.

There's no real fast track for the process of convicting someone incontrovertibly of a serious crime like that. You must give everyone the same access to the right to a lawyer, right to trial, right to appeal, etc.

This entire process costs money. It costs even more money to take it to the level of surety where you can put them on death row, in light of the fact that historically no small amount of people have been wrongfully convicted.

It's a nice thought that we can just instantly know beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone is guilty of a terrible crime with no chance of redemption, but there's no simple way to expedite that process.

But in certain cases we do though. Like the case I mentioned for example where someone rescued 3 women being held captive in a man's home who had been holding them captive and raping them for a decade. I know that's not common, and I'm not saying to throw the death penalty around for everything, but there are occasionally black and white cases such as that one and for @organicbamf to say it's never okay is just ignorant.
What reason is there to sentence someone to life+ _____ years or to 1000 years like they did with ^ dude when they know without a doubt that he is guilty of the heinous crimes he's accused of and that a man like that can never be allowed back into society.
---

it's not ignorant you moron, it's understanding that not everyone has the same capacity for humanity you and i do, and that it's neither of our choices to end their life because of that.

whether guilty or not, i'm willing to bet the reason they can't act in the same human capacity is because they literally can't understand that. as i said, i don't punish a dog for not being able to do advanced mathematics. i just don't push them toward that i.e. i separate them from the problem at hand. lock them up (in a humane way) where they can just do their thing, that's cool. but beating or killing something because they don't do something you expect of them is more inhumane and cruel that what i feel i've proposed.
---

Gamer99z posted...

But in certain cases we do though. Like the case I mentioned for example where someone rescued 3 women being held captive in a man's home who had been holding them captive and raping them for a decade. I know that's not common, and I'm not saying to throw the death penalty around for everything, but there are occasionally black and white cases such as that one and for @organicbamf to say it's never okay is just ignorant.
What reason is there to sentence someone to life+ _____ years or to 1000 years like they did with ^ dude when they know without a doubt that he is guilty of the heinous crimes he's accused of and that a man like that can never be allowed back into society.

No, you didn't know anything about that case at all. You heard some news stories, you saw the victims making statements to the media, you heard the neighbours and the police all talking about it. Certainly it all seemed very damning. But none of that constitutes a fair trial. A fair trial is when you're afforded the rights and the process that the legal system and your country's constitution promises all people. That's what we call liberty. Things must be proven in a court of law that follows the legal process, end of story.

You don't get to say "this is a human right, except for X person." That's not how rights work. Everyone gets the right, otherwise it's completely redundant.

Understand, however frustrating that sounds - this protects you also. If you ever get so much as a parking ticket, you are afforded rights to go through a legal process that can't be dismissed because someone "saw you do it" or doesn't like you, or whatever frivolous reason.
---

Sounds like a bad idea. In theory, you'd only be killing people who "deserve" it. But what happens when someone fucks up and an innocent person dies?
---

organicbamf posted...

it's not ignorant you moron, it's understanding that not everyone has the same capacity for humanity you and i do, and that it's neither of our choices to end their life because of that.

whether guilty or not, i'm willing to bet the reason they can't act in the same human capacity is because they literally can't understand that. as i said, i don't punish a dog for not being able to do advanced mathematics. i just don't push them toward that i.e. i separate them from the problem at hand. luck them up (in a humane way) where they can just do their thing, that's cool. but beating or killing something because they don't do something you expect of them is more inhumane and cruel that what i feel i've proposed.

With the dog example, there is a certain counter argument. We do put down dogs when they are shown to be too dangerous. It's not done out of hate or vindictiveness. We just do it to protect wider society. And from that point of view I can see the idea behind the argument of "putting down" dangerous people, even if they are not totally within their capacity to exercise sound judgement.

Where that comparison falls down is we don't promise dogs human rights, like a right to a legal process to prove their innocence or whatever. We also don't tend to think that humans get to "play God" with other humans lives.
---

organicbamf posted...

Gamer99z posted...

Why you mad tho?
The reasons why are obvious. If you've blatantly proven beyond any doubt that you cannot be rehabilitated and safely integrated back into society then there's no reason not just just kill you. That's more humane than locking someone up for the rest of their life on the tax payers dime honestly. Iirc in California for example it costs 60k a year per prisoner and 150k per year for prisoners on death row. I'll bring up a news story from a few years back, remember that dude Ariel Castro who abducted 3 girls and kept them prisoner in his home and raped them for over a decade? There was no reason to keep that man alive, but luckily he took care of that problem himself.
The propose of prison should rehabilitation and turning people into contributing members of society and after you commit certain abhorrent crimes, you prove that you're not capable of that and not worth the air you breathe, the water you drink, the food you eat, and the space you occupy. It would be stupid NOT to just kill them.

if you can't be proven to do so, what are the underlying reasons for that? your brain doesn't work properly? your background wasn't nurturing enough to do so? some combination of the two? something outside of the person them-self was obviously an influence on how they grew up to be. if they can't see why or how they don't or can't follow the normal law, is that their fault? and no, i don't recall your knee-jerk story, but i would like numbers on your incarceration vs. death row appeal rate. not that it actually matters in my view, but i think you pulled numbers out of your ass. the *primary* purpose of prison should be rehabilitation, no doubt. but we don't live in that fantasy land. we live in a land of retribution. so whatever case you're looking at now doesn't actually speak much to the effect of actual justice (imo). if someone has a disconnect (i.e. non-neurotypical trait) between their PFC and amygdala because it was induced by birth, by environment, whatever... they cannot know the same humanity you and and i know. or maybe they can after some rehabilitative measure, but even if not, it's outside of their capability.

seriously, look back at your own statement of "if you're not capable of that...". i'm not punishing a dog for not doing advanced mathematics because they're not capable of it.

don't be a fucking idiot.

I never mentioned anything about appeals and I was admitting death row inmates cost more than gen pop not even counting the added trial costs so idk why you're knocking that point, it actually is in your favor. According to the lao.ca.gov it costs $70,812 per year to keep someone in gen pop and according to deathpenaltyinfo.org it costs on average 90k more per year to keep someone on death row than gen pop. So that's where I got those numbers from. I'm not sure what the cost of maximum security is annually though of what the difference is between that and the average.

And the rest of your post was just too dumb to respond to. No I wouldn't punish a dog for not being capable of advanced mathematics in the same I wouldn't punish a human for it... But if a family is walking down the street and out of nowhere some pitbull runs up and jumps on a toddler and attacks him then they're going to put it down, and that's completely fair even if it didn't know what it was doing...
And then there's the fact that you're equating humans to literal dogs... Humans are intelligent and have self consciousness and awareness. You don't have to "teach" people not to assault people, rape people, murder people, etc. Or to at the very least know it's bad.
There is absolutely no excuse for commiting crimes like that unless you are literally mentally ill past the point of sanity like schizophrenic or something.
---

organicbamf posted...

it's not ignorant you moron, it's understanding that not everyone has the same capacity for humanity you and i do, and that it's neither of our choices to end their life because of that.

whether guilty or not, i'm willing to bet the reason they can't act in the same human capacity is because they literally can't understand that. as i said, i don't punish a dog for not being able to do advanced mathematics. i just don't push them toward that i.e. i separate them from the problem at hand. lock them up (in a humane way) where they can just do their thing, that's cool. but beating or killing something because they don't do something you expect of them is more inhumane and cruel that what i feel i've proposed.

Dude why the fuck are you so mad?
Not being a threat to others isn't an "expectation" for me, it's a requirement if you wish to have a place in society.
I don't expect people not to rape or murder each other, that's literally the bare minimum that is required to be a part of society, just don't harm other people. If you can't follow that one basic rule them sorry you're not worth the ground you're standing on.
And again the dog argument is dumb.
---

Just wanna chime in and say that the dog argument is just dumb.
---

I am against the death penalty.
---

Women would abuse this situation so much
---

RockRapDubstep posted...

If you are charged and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of rape, you get a 6 month window for new evidence and one appeal that upheld means the family pays all court costs so none of it was any cost to the tax payers. After that window you're immediately taken to either be hung or killed by a firing squad.
No second chances, one strike you're out if found guilty.

How do you react?

Fine.

All the false rape accusers get life in prison. Too many lying whores who ruin peoples lives and reputations because they got caught cheating or being a slut and made up a story so they could be the victim instead of being labeled for the slut they actually are.
---

wolverinev2 posted...

We'd really need to define rape and also look closely into the laws around it and the Sex offender registry.

This. Between false reports and current social definitions of rape shoehorning their way into the justice system, we'd need to do a lot in preparation.
---

Child rapists deserve it the most.
---

Damn and I thought I was shit posting by making this topic but @organicbamf had to outdo me.
---