I say in some cases, absofreakinlutely.

Perhaps, but only when there is 100% absolute undeniable concrete proof.

Does this include statutory rape? Because when I was 18 and she was 17 + 10 months...

I believe it does not. Plus the victim has to be less than 13.

Gah.

This is ridiculous. There can be so many witch hunts, especially when you're dealing with kids, who can easily be misled into believing something happened even when it didn't (intentional or not). It's stupid idea.

All I have to say, About freaken time.

Absolutely agree.

DNA has erased a lot of the she said issues.
Get rid of these sick SOB's. There have been rapes of infants recently. Meh.

I believe in protecting our children and anyone who would dare to harm a child is sick, but I have to agree with 1thirteen3 on this.

If Semen/DNA is present it's not a witch hunt, mistake or imagination.

Someone does that to a kid...nail'em.

Absolutely!

I mean, it's ok to kill people for killing people - so why not?

I don't see any moral or ethical problem with killing people for doing wrong, so let's clean up some filth!


/grabs pitchfork

People who prey on the young are an especially sick breed, I have no reservations about or make no apologies for being pro death penalty in those cases. All the better it may serve as a very effective deterrent as well.

That's a common misconception.

The death penalty never stopped anyone. Nobody says to themselves "Gee, I was GOING to rape this ten year old, but they might kill me for it."

Fry em. It is a service to the world. And Bravo for someone finally taking a stand and telling these people that their life is meaningless when they commit such atrocities.

Then again.. I still like my 'Scarlet A' idea. Put them all in general population with a placard describing their crimes. I've heard that rapists of children in particular rank somewhere below cockroaches on a list of things that deserve to live.. which is to say Bubba would spare a cockroach, but not someone who may have fiddled around with his neice.

'Deterrent' implies people who are rational and those who rape children or commit other horrific crimes are clearly not..I understand that so did say 'may'..

I know that this isn't a popular opinion, but I do not think they should be executed. I am against the death penalty for all crimes, rape included. I do not believe anyone has the right to take away a human beings life, regardless of whether or not the person 'deserves' it.

When it comes to child rapist (real children, not young teens) I do believe that they should be put away for life without the slightest hope for parole. These people rarely change, and I do not want any more children to suffer because we want to be 'fair' and give them the same sentencing as an adult rapists.

Adult rapist however... [nsfw]

<a href='http://www.plime.com/redir.p?http://youtube.com/watch?v=JQPTUDCh18Y' class='plime' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'><b>flash video</b></a>

I used to feel the same way, gammerus..but I've become very disillusioned over the years, seeing the rights of criminals matter more than the rights of victims. That, along with the advent of DNA evidence changed my views.

more a fan of castration myself but i could see this being ok.

thats as long as 'child' is well defined. any valid doubt over how old the 'victim' looked should stop this. 'statutory rape' and actual child rape are not the same.

Yes and no. As unpopular as what I'm about to say will be, if a girl or boy under 13 consentually has sex (whether they are mature enough to understand the consequences or not), I do not believe this automatically makes the other male or female participant an 'abuser'. By that I mean, all evidence would need to be taken into account to determine whether that person genuinely abused (e.g. groomed the child or made them believe that was what they wanted etc).

I still believe the person would be a sick deviant (to put it nicely), however someone offering his/herself is very different to someone taking something without consent.

Additionally, it's not unknown for women / girls / men / boys of all ages to make a decision and then change their mind, and lets face it, there are 'children' out there in the 11-13 age bracket actively having consentual sex. I do not believe it would be justice for a person who beleived the sex was consentual to lose their life because a person 'changed their mind' after the fact and claimed there was no consent.

I think it's pretty safe to say there would be many cut and dried issues (infants, toddlers, etc etc etc), but once a child hits puberty, I think it's just too open to interpretation.

At it's core, I 100% agree with the death penalty in many cases (this one for sure). But what I don't believe is that there's a government in the world who could weild this judgement correctly and with the absolute minimum margin of error. One innocent person dying is enough to make it not worth it.

In my ideal world criminals would be treated according to their crime. basic stuff like check bouncing and unarmed robbery would merely earn a loss of freedom, whereas violent offenders lose freedom and all basic luxuries.