"The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child"

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It doesn't appear to discourage murderers from murdering anyone, so why do you think rapists would be swayed? Evidence shows their crime is frequently committed due to a severe mental addiction/disease/disorder. I think they are far LESS likely to be discouraged by the death penalty than almost any other group of criminals.

You obviously missed the point of my question.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't really care if its 6-44, 44-6, or 25-25. I only pointed out the 6 states to illustrate that there is a divided view on this issue, and it's not up to Anthony Kennedy to determine what "national consensus" is.

You are using the term "divided" pretty loosely, there. Under your use of the phrase, I would assume we are "divided" if it is 49-1, or 50-0 but with a solid minority in one state who thinks rapists should be eligible for execution. Again, why shouldn't the Court look to the number of states who think the death penalty shouldn't be extended to rapists? The standard is CRUEL AND UNUSUAL. What is "unusual" and "cruel" if not a changing metric that depends on the national mood?

Scalia has said multiple times that occasionally his jurisprudence forces him to a decision that he personally disagrees with. I find that to be an honest and correct approach.

There is nothing dishonest about taking personal moral pleasure in a decision that I also find to be legally sound.

Another non-answer. This is a question where the response can be as simple as "yes" or "no." Any response that doesn't at some point include "yes" or "no" (or their equivalent) is going to be non-responsive.

And Scalia has said that multiple times, but his actions have demonstrated to the contrary multiple times.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

You obviously missed the point of my question.

Then spell out the point. The answer to your question is "no" regardless.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You are using the term "divided" pretty loosely, there. Under your use of the phrase, I would assume we are "divided" if it is 49-1, or 50-0 but with a solid minority in one state who thinks rapists should be eligible for execution. Again, why shouldn't the Court look to the number of states who think the death penalty shouldn't be extended to rapists? The standard is CRUEL AND UNUSUAL. What is "unusual" and "cruel" if not a changing metric that depends on the national mood?

I don't believe the interpretation of that clause should be based on national mood. That is exactly the legal philosophy that I oppose. A judge is at his worst when licking his finger and putting it to the wind.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Then spell out the point. The answer to your question is "no" regardless.

It was a rhetorical response to Indy's question, meant to support the position that the death penalty ought not to be defended as a behavioral deterrent.

Take the time read next time, rather than spouting off.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't believe the interpretation of that clause should be based on national mood. That is exactly the legal philosophy that I oppose. A judge is at his worst when licking his finger and putting it to the wind.

And yet you continue to refrain from saying what SHOULD be the standard for the Court. They are tasked with defining "cruel and unusual." That requires they put a finger to the wind.

It was a rhetorical response to Indy's question, meant to support the position that the death penalty ought not to be defended as a behavioral deterrent.

Take the time read next time, rather than spouting off.

You were "supporting" the position that it shouldn't be defended as a behavioral deterrent? How do you think you made that point? You said later that it isn't a behavioral deterrent, but how does that clarify the post we are discussing?

Indy said that the death penalty for rapists could encourage rapists to kill their victims (because they will be murdered anyways). You responded with a question that implied that rapists would be deterred from committing rape in the first place if the death penalty was available. Exactly how do you think you have communicated in that post that the death penalty is NOT a behavioral deterrent?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

well your theory didn't prevent how many rapes last year?

A member of my ward growing up, he went to prison for molesting one of his kids. Boy was his family screwed up. as in the most screwed up family I have encountered in the church.

Molestation and rape are so common in the US as to be banal.

My theory was a sarcastic comment.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

My theory was a sarcastic comment.

Sorry, it's tough to tell with mullahs. They come up with all kinds of crazy things.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

And yet you continue to refrain from saying what SHOULD be the standard for the Court. They are tasked with defining "cruel and unusual." That requires they put a finger to the wind.

No it doesn't.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You were "supporting" the position that it shouldn't be defended as a behavioral deterrent? How do you think you made that point? You said later that it isn't a behavioral deterrent, but how does that clarify the post we are discussing?

Indy said that the death penalty for rapists could encourage rapists to kill their victims (because they will be murdered anyways). You responded with a question that implied that rapists would be deterred from committing rape in the first place if the death penalty was available. Exactly how do you think you have communicated in that post that the death penalty is NOT a behavioral deterrent?

The comment is not worth this much effort.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Sorry, it's tough to tell with mullahs. They come up with all kinds of crazy things.

... as in thinking they've sacrificed more in their callings than anyone else.

[MikeWaters]

Tex, don't you find it slightly ironic that I sacrifice more than you?

Just slightly?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Tex, don't you find it slightly ironic that I sacrifice more than you?

Just slightly?

Do you know how much or how little he sacrfices? Just because he doesn't stand on the mountain top with a bullhorn in one hand and an Ashura whip in the other means he doesn't sacrifice a lot in the service of others?