Rep. Duncan Proposes Death For Molesters

[Conan71]

Rep. Rex Duncan from Sand Springs is proposing the death penalty for repeat offenders.  Opinions? 

Personally, I don't think the death penalty is any sort of deterrent and it also is far costlier to the tax payer than life w/o parole due to the multiple appeals afforded death row inmates. 

I'd be a fan of life w/o parole, but it needs to be well-defined and limited to certain offenses.  Not like stupid laws which make someone a sex offender for peeing on a dumpster.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090814_11_0_hrimgs416617

[swake]

Rep. Rex Duncan from Sand Springs is proposing the death penalty for repeat offenders.  Opinions? 

Personally, I don't think the death penalty is any sort of deterrent and it also is far costlier to the tax payer than life w/o parole due to the multiple appeals afforded death row inmates. 

I'd be a fan of life w/o parole, but it needs to be well-defined and limited to certain offenses.  Not like stupid laws which make someone a sex offender for peeing on a dumpster.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090814_11_0_hrimgs416617

+1

[Wilbur]

Oklahoma already has the death penalty for three crimes.  I have never heard of it being put to use for any crime other then murder.  I doubt it would ever be used for molestation if it were added, especially considering rape is one of the capital punishment crimes.

[Breadburner]

Just have them cross the B.A...Express way at 5:00 A.M....

[guido911]

Just have them cross the B.A...Express way at 5:00 A.M....

Preferably blindfolded

[Breadburner]

Preferably blindfolded

One could not make it across a couple of weeks ago without one.....

[cannon_fodder]

I support the death penalty, but no evidence has ever suggested that the death penalty is a significant deterrent to murder.   Generally speaking murders are not rational acts - ergo, the penalty has little effect as deterrence.  If one is willing to risk life in prison without parole or a retaliatory gang killing, then the State sponsored death penalty is probably not much of a deterrent. 

However, what is does accomplish is a sense of vindication for society and as a plea bargain chip for prosecutors.  Due to the latter, I'm glad it is still on the books and occasional enforced.  If the death penalty was more sure footed (ie. don't kill wrong guy) and cheaper than life in prison:  I'd be a huge fan even in the absence of a deterrent effect.  But as it stands, I'm glad the use is only occasional.

That said, the use of the death penalty in any offense against a person in which the victims life was not taken (it left crimes against the State on the table:  espionage and treason can still be met with death).  Specifically, in Kennedy v. Louisiana the Supreme Court ruled that applying the death penalty to a person convicted of raping a child was not constitutional (Kennedy v. Louisiana, No. 07-343).  Mr. Kennedy was convicted of raping his 8 year old step daughter in ways that makes even the crime itself seem petty (the details of which I shall spare you).  The ruling upheld a 1977 ruling that application of the death penalty in repeat offender rape cases was unconstitutional (Coker v. Georgia).  It is also unconstitutional to execute the mentally retarded or juvenile offenders (if the crime was committed when they were < 18 y/o). 

Thus, it seems highly unlikely that the death penalty for repeat offenders of child molestation would be allowed.    Hopefully someone points that out and our AG doesn't have to waste loads of money defending a statute that is clearly unconstitutional.  As much as I would like to see the SOB die, legally we have to sit back and wait for other life-long convicts to do the honor for us.

[Conan71]

I support the death penalty, but no evidence has ever suggested that the death penalty is a significant deterrent to murder.   Generally speaking murders are not rational acts - ergo, the penalty has little effect as deterrence.  If one is willing to risk life in prison without parole or a retaliatory gang killing, then the State sponsored death penalty is probably not much of a deterrent. 

However, what is does accomplish is a sense of vindication for society and as a plea bargain chip for prosecutors.  Due to the latter, I'm glad it is still on the books and occasional enforced.  If the death penalty was more sure footed (ie. don't kill wrong guy) and cheaper than life in prison:  I'd be a huge fan even in the absence of a deterrent effect.  But as it stands, I'm glad the use is only occasional.

That said, the use of the death penalty in any offense against a person in which the victims life was not taken (it left crimes against the State on the table:  espionage and treason can still be met with death).  Specifically, in Kennedy v. Louisiana the Supreme Court ruled that applying the death penalty to a person convicted of raping a child was not constitutional (Kennedy v. Louisiana, No. 07-343).  Mr. Kennedy was convicted of raping his 8 year old step daughter in ways that makes even the crime itself seem petty (the details of which I shall spare you).  The ruling upheld a 1977 ruling that application of the death penalty in repeat offender rape cases was unconstitutional (Coker v. Georgia).  It is also unconstitutional to execute the mentally retarded or juvenile offenders (if the crime was committed when they were < 18 y/o). 

Thus, it seems highly unlikely that the death penalty for repeat offenders of child molestation would be allowed.    Hopefully someone points that out and our AG doesn't have to waste loads of money defending a statute that is clearly unconstitutional.  As much as I would like to see the SOB die, legally we have to sit back and wait for other life-long convicts to do the honor for us.

What is the logic behind SCOTUS ruling that the death penalty for a heinous rape is un-constitutional, yet it's constitutional for murder?  The victim of a murder no longer suffers when they are killed.  Their family suffers, definitely.  In the case of a brutal rape or molestation, that victim's life is irrevocably changed, as is their family's.  So I'm curious why they split the hair that way.

I supported the death penalty all my life until a couple of years ago when I read "The Innocent Man" by John Grisham.  It's the real-life biography of Ron Willamson, the former NY Yankee prospect who was railroaded by the Pontotoc County (Okla) DA into a death sentence for a crime he didn't commit.  Far as I'm concerned now, capital punishment is a useless act of vengeance which costs the taxpayer far, far more money than it's worth.  Let a creep suffer in prison for the rest of his natural life instead of giving him the easy way out.

[cannon_fodder]

What is the logic behind SCOTUS ruling that the death penalty for a heinous rape is un-constitutional, yet it's constitutional for murder? 

They decided that "there is a distinction between intentional first-degree murder, on the one hand, and non-homicide crimes against individuals, even including child rape, on the other. The latter crimes may be devastating in their harm, as here, but in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public, they cannot compare to murder in their severity and irrevocability."  Also some ramblings in the 66 page decision (which is linked in my initial post) about a consensus on the issue.  Only 6 states had laws allowing death for anything other than murder but the Supreme Court had previously decided that death for murder was a square deal.  Hence, the former must be bad and the latter acceptable.

I like the holding for some reason, but logically speaking the dissent, IMHO gets it right.  Arguing that the Court is usurping state legislators to apply popular opinion instead of applying the restricted constitutional jurisdiction they have been granted.   Similarly, some Justices dissented on the grounds that the holding considered the best interest of society and the victims in the holding; items which are not really constitutional matters.    The justification for the ruling is like many decisions of SCOTUS, facially satisfying but logically lacking.  Come up with a decision, then send a clerk to justify it. . .

Also worth noting that everyone dropped the ball in that case.  If I recall correctly the Code of Military Justice had a provision for death if a active duty soldier was convicted of child rape.  None of the briefs mentioned it and the Court did not address the issue. Furthermore, since the DOJ would be required to defend the law and didn't a rehearing was requested. . .  the court didn't care to hear it again though.  So I guess it was a mulligan? 

/wants a job with unlimited power and the ability to decide if I made a mistake or not.

[Wrinkle]

It's getting to where the only reason I oppose the death penalty is due to the cost of 20 years room and board plus legal expenses, mostly legal expenses. If we could find a way to make it economical, I'd favor the death penalty for anyone who's found to be not just a drag on society, but a real ailment to it.

Made-Off comes to mind. The human suffering he caused is beyond belief, and will not end for the next couple of decades.

[Conan71]

It's getting to where the only reason I oppose the death penalty is due to the cost of 20 years room and board plus legal expenses, mostly legal expenses. If we could find a way to make it economical, I'd favor the death penalty for anyone who's found to be not just a drag on society, but a real ailment to it.

Made-Off comes to mind. The human suffering he caused is beyond belief, and will not end for the next couple of decades.

Interesting stats in this summary, some take into account trial costs, post-trial relief (i.e. appeals), the extra security costs, etc.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

What affected me most about Grisham's book was the costs involved and the stats of how many wrongly-convicted individuals are sitting on death row.  I never would have believed that a prosecutor and law enforcement would take such sloppy short cuts just to convict "someone" instead of really trying to solve and prosecute a crime.  This is hardly an isolated issue.  Then you get the inmates who did actually commit a capital crime who suck the system dry for 20 years in a sea of never-ending appeals to which they are entitled to.