Taylor & The Death Penalty

I don’t think it would be constitutional to impose the death penalty on pedophiles and the like. Well, actually, I do think it is constitutional, but I think the Supreme Court would say it is not.

But after reading this I think Mark Taylor or Sonny Perdue ought to try it. Frankly, I take my wife’s position. It may be against the law to do this, but we could just pass a law saying the pervert will be placed out in front of the courthouse without guards at 1:00 p.m. on a particular day and if you want to stop by and beat the hell out of him, have at it with full immunity from suit.

Works for me.

This story also highlights that MySpace is evil. In fact, those internets are evil in general.

All your internets are belong to us.

22 comments

  1. Fogle says:

    Did you just reference the introduction to the English version of the 1989 Japanese video game “Zero Wing” and the internet phenomenon found here

    Also, it would be funny if this actually happened.

    Someone set up us the bomb!

  2. Erick I think this issue highlights the disproportionate news coverage the minority interests among a certain political party (or similar group) can achieve.

    For instance, we are pretty sure that death penalty for repeat child molesters polls through the roof. But some Democratic interest groups are uncomfortable with either the language or the idea, so that dominates the news coverage.

    Similarly, I would say the vast majority of hard core Republican voters in Georgia don’t care that Sonny reneged on his flag promise, but…

    You get the point.

  3. Chris says:

    I think if we can beat the crap out of rapists and child-molesters on the town square it might reduce the population of repeat rapists and recitivist child-molesters.

  4. Dorabill says:

    What about rescuing some pit bulls from death row and enacting some “canine castration” measures?

    Does anyone rememer the “Amy Carter Defense”? Something about opposing “the greater evil”.

  5. mercergirl says:

    I have done a LOT of research on this topic and what continues to absolutly blow my mind is that I found gov’t research on the matter or pedophiles and rapists and such in the Mercer undergrad library stating very plainly that the recidivism rate is very high and that even castration does not always work. These people simply cannot be cured except for extreme cases.

    The way I see it is- you broke the law by enticing a child. I think it is worse than murder- these child are scarred for LIFE. So you should at least be in jail for you rest of your life if you have committed this offense.

  6. heroV says:

    Or we could simply let inmates handle it like this.

    Also, it’s pretty depressing to read posters over at Redstate try to defend Foley (someone posted “Unless there is more to this story than we have learned so far, there were no ‘underage children’ involved.) Let pedophiles fry.

  7. Dorabill says:

    As soon as they set up a “Popeye defense fund” I’m willing to go out and enact some “Popeye Justice” toward anyone breaking the Georgia “penal” code.

  8. Bill Simon says:

    MercerGirl,

    In Foley’s case, I’m not sure “enticing” applies. Are we to believe that 16 year-olds don’t know about sex and/or masturbation?

  9. mercergirl says:

    It’s not that so much as I believe we have to be very strict regarding the law on this one. Just like the drinking age is 21- not 19 not 20, 21. And if you get caught then so be it. 16 year olds may know whats going on regarding sex but that does not give a 30 year old (sorry i can’t remember Foley’s age) the right to take advantage of them. I would say the same if this child were 18 because let’s face it, even many 18 year olds are not mature enough to make a reasonable decision in this matter. However, once one is 18 they have the legal right to make their own decisions.

    Am I being clear? I’m afraid I may not be making sense.

  10. pvsys says:

    Erick:

    I don’t have a problem with having the death penalty for the type of offender you linked to.

    But what I do have a problem with is treating all sex offenders the same.

    For example, should the following crimes be given the same punishment?

    (1) 19 year old boy has one-night-stand with 17-year-old girl who lied to him about her age… technically, she is a “child” and is being exploited by an “adult”… but should this really be punished as much as…

    (2) A 30 year old man who solicits sex from a 15 year old girl in an Internet chat room… where, looking at the transcript, the 15 year old girl seemed as much or even more aggressive and sex-focused than the 30 year old man.

    (3) a 40 year old man who brutally rapes an 8 year old girl

    All of these situations deserve punishment, but I think it would be very unfair to treat all three of these situations the same.

    But the problem here is that once you impose harsh sentences across-the-board on all three scenarios, who wants to be the State representative who proposes lightening up too-harse punishment on a sex crime? How popular would that be?

    Therefore, it is important to not go overboard the first time because these types of laws will be hard to undo.

    Rob McEwen

  11. pvsys says:

    …oh, and most importantly, there should be specific criteria for “gauging” these crimes and making the kind of distinctions which would then cause the punishment to better fit the crime so that each of those 3 scenerios would then have a punishment that fit the crime, and not the same punishment.

    –Rob McEwen

  12. Demonbeck says:

    Frankly, I believe that repeat violent offenders, repeat drunken drivers charged with manslaughter in a DUI and repeat rapists should be eligible for the death penalty. Clearly, limits need to be set because our current judicial system does not work as a deterrent to crime.

  13. Chris says:

    Well Foley’s case is a very tricky one. Nobody likes the idea of a 50 year old hitting on a 16 year old, but in DC, the age of consent is 16, with no age tiers as barriers. What Foley has done that we currently know about is using his position of authority to engage these boys inappropriately, which could be classified legally as sexual harassent. But even if he had engaged in actual sex with these boys, the age of consent law in DC makes that perfectly legal.

    I’m not defending Foley, and good riddance to him in his position of authority on the child exploitation oversight committee, but to try to convince anyone that he is guilty of a heinous crime deserving the death penalty, when the law classifies his behavior as nothing more than sexual harassment, is ludicrous.

  14. Chris says:

    Yea let’s talk about the case that Erick actually linked to on this page. The victim in this story is a 17 year old, clearly not a minor in the pedophiliac definition,but a minor in the legal definition who still requires parental oversight in the eyes of the law. While the predator may have been the instigator and enticed the boy to visit him, the boy (at age 17) and the parents deserve some of the blame for the absence of any protective barriers to prevent these acts from coming to fruition. What on earth could an old man as a stranger say to a 17 year old that would make the 17 year comfortable enough to travel such a great distance to put himself in harms way. If he fells grown up enough to take care of himself without adult supervision, then I’m going to give him enough credit to take some responsibility for putting himself in that situation. And where the hell are the parents in all of this? All of the obvious common sense barriers that normally block these kinds of incidents were completely absent in this situation. Why?

    I suspect, and forgive me if I’m wrong, that the 17 year wanted to go there to satisfy some inate homosexual curiousities, because of its distance from home, fully aware of what he was getting into, and once it was over, he couldn’t deal with the guilt of what had transpired and immediately cried “victim.”

    And no, I’m not defending the old man at the other end of this, but we have one news report that leaves alot of gaps in how the whole thing transpired. He was free to leave, but couldn’t? What the hell does that mean?

  15. pvsys says:

    Chris:

    Good points.

    And I was ignorant about age of concent. I thought it was 18 everywhere.

    Learn something new everyday.

    –Rob McEwen

Comments are closed.