Proposition 34 could end death penalty

[Terralthra]

"Someone who has raped" is not equivalent to "a sexual predator."

If you rape someone you're a sexual predator in my book.

In that case, your statement that "sexual predators can't be rehabilitated" is not supported by evidence. On top of that, your definition means that at least 1 in 10, and likely double that of males in the US are sexual predators. In South Africa, that number is at least 1 in 4. If your definitions of sex crimes, sexual predators, and rehabilitation leads to the conclusion that 1/10th to 1/4th of the male population should be in prison right now, and for the rest of their lives, I think your definitions need adjustment.

[Flagg]

"Someone who has raped" is not equivalent to "a sexual predator."

If you rape someone you're a sexual predator in my book.

In that case, your statement that "sexual predators can't be rehabilitated" is not supported by evidence. On top of that, your definition means that at least 1 in 10, and likely double that of males in the US are sexual predators. In South Africa, that number is at least 1 in 4. If your definitions of sex crimes, sexual predators, and rehabilitation leads to the conclusion that 1/10th to 1/4th of the male population should be in prison right now, and for the rest of their lives, I think your definitions need adjustment.

I'm talking about violent rape dumbass, which is why I said it in the same sentance as murder. Violent rapists should be locked up. I don't give 2 shits about how many men rape women or men or children, if they do it they go to prison. Maybe society will get the message and those numbers go down?

[Terralthra]

I'm talking about violent rape dumbass, which is why I said it in the same sentance as murder. Violent rapists should be locked up. I don't give 2 shits about how many men rape women or men or children, if they do it they go to prison. Maybe society will get the message and those numbers go down?

So, I'm a dumbass for not reading something you didn't say, and responding to what you did say? And as for "violent rape," well, kindly piss off with what kinds of rape you can be bothered to care about.

[General Zod]

Er, Flagg, you know that the vast majority of rape cases aren't actually "violent", right? On the other hand I'd argue that anyone who goes around slipping mickeys in a woman's drink to have sex with her deserves to be branded a sexual predator.

[Flagg]

I'm talking about violent rape dumbass, which is why I said it in the same sentance as murder. Violent rapists should be locked up. I don't give 2 shits about how many men rape women or men or children, if they do it they go to prison. Maybe society will get the message and those numbers go down?

So, I'm a dumbass for not reading something you didn't say, and responding to what you did say? And as for "violent rape," well, kindly piss off with what kinds of rape you can be bothered to care about.

Who says I don't care about "other" types of rape you fucktard? I simply said that a violent rapist gets 30 to life in my imaginary world where I control the justice system.

EDIT removed a dumb thing.

[Max]

Er, Flagg, you know that the vast majority of rape cases aren't actually "violent", right? On the other hand I'd argue that anyone who goes around slipping mickeys in a woman's drink to have sex with her deserves to be branded a sexual predator.

I don't want to tangent the argument, and this is an honest question, but what constitutes "violent" rape. Wouldn't all rape be violent in the sense that the woman suffers some sort of damage (physically and emotionally)?

[Flagg]

Er, Flagg, you know that the vast majority of rape cases aren't actually "violent", right?

Yes, which is why I should have specified, but I didn't think anyone would assume I was talking about things like statutory rape.

On the other hand I'd argue that anyone who goes around slipping mickeys in a woman's drink to have sex with her deserves to be branded a sexual predator.

They stalk women, drug them, and have sex with them while they are unconcious. That's easily predatory behavior.

[Flagg]

Er, Flagg, you know that the vast majority of rape cases aren't actually "violent", right? On the other hand I'd argue that anyone who goes around slipping mickeys in a woman's drink to have sex with her deserves to be branded a sexual predator.

I don't want to tangent the argument, and this is an honest question, but what constitutes "violent" rape. Wouldn't all rape be violent in the sense that the woman suffers some sort of damage (physically and emotionally)?

I kinda cringed when I wrote "violent rape" because it sounds like a copout, but it's not. I'd say it's any time someone is held against their will and raped, a weapon is (but doesn't have to be, it could just be overpowing the woman, man, or child) brandished for compliance, or someone is unable to give consent. I mean all rape by its very definition is violent. Except statutory anyway.

[PeZook]

I'm talking about violent rape dumbass, which is why I said it in the same sentance as murder. Violent rapists should be locked up. I don't give 2 shits about how many men rape women or men or children, if they do it they go to prison. Maybe society will get the message and those numbers go down?

Do you care about all the women who, instead of being "just" raped, are now being raped and murdered?

That's the reason why rapists are no longer executed ; Turns out executing them was counterproductive, both from a humanitarian standpoint (the victims were murdered to conceal the crime) and a practical one (it was easier to catch rapists if the victim was left alive).

[Flagg]

I'm talking about violent rape dumbass, which is why I said it in the same sentance as murder. Violent rapists should be locked up. I don't give 2 shits about how many men rape women or men or children, if they do it they go to prison. Maybe society will get the message and those numbers go down?

Do you care about all the women who, instead of being "just" raped, are now being raped and murdered?

That's the reason why rapists are no longer executed ; Turns out executing them was counterproductive, both from a humanitarian standpoint (the victims were murdered to conceal the crime) and a practical one (it was easier to catch rapists if the victim was left alive).

Yes, I do, very much. That's why you don't execute them. You put them in prison for 30 to life and if they are a sexual predator then you lock them up forever. I mean we pretty much do that now using extrajudicial bullshit by putting them in mental institutions, all I want to do is make it legal for them to be in jail forever. But I'm also willing to concede that not everyone guilty of rape or murder should get 30 to life. I'm simply saying we have 30 to life for the worst and no parole board should ever let the worst of the worst out.

I guess my inartful wording led to this nonsense, so my apologies for that.

Now, onto less aggravating things... I also happen to believe that everyone who is released should be under some form of supervision akin to parole with the threat of returning to prison for a set number of years. I'm thinking 3-10.

[Thanas]

"Someone who has raped" is not equivalent to "a sexual predator."

Of course someone who has raped is a sexual predator. WTF are you on about?

[Borgholio]

but the emotional, very southern side wants the motherfucker that raped and murdered an innocent girl, then left her body laying beside railroad tracks, to die a most violent and brutal death, funny how logic and emotion don't always agree with each other, god help you if religious moralities get involved.

Yes but lethal injection is hardly violent and brutal...so you're robbed of that satisfaction even when the guy is executed.

[Flagg]

but the emotional, very southern side wants the motherfucker that raped and murdered an innocent girl, then left her body laying beside railroad tracks, to die a most violent and brutal death, funny how logic and emotion don't always agree with each other, god help you if religious moralities get involved.

Yes but lethal injection is hardly violent and brutal...so you're robbed of that satisfaction even when the guy is executed.

There's no guarantee lethal injection won't be a brutal way to go, to be honest. It's just more clinical and makes the people witnessing it feel more civilized. If we really wanted to execute people without them suffering physically we would just use a sedative and a huge morphine overdose.

[Mr Bean]

"Someone who has raped" is not equivalent to "a sexual predator."

Of course someone who has raped is a sexual predator. WTF are you on about?

There is US law that the woman can say no at any time and turn it into Rape. If your naked and the other person is naked, both drunk and the other person says No when your already mid motion that's not the act of a sexual predator. But it becomes Rape and if you don't take the other person seriously, are to drunk to know better or any one of a dozen other reason you still might be a rapist because they did say No but your not a predator. The circumstances were not deliberately set up by you.

Predator implies effort and pre-meditation of some kind. Kind of like the difference between negligent manslaughter and something more serious like murder. You still did the act, you still bear the responsibility but it was not your intent.

[Thanas]

Maybe not in the legal sense.

[Terralthra]

Maybe not in the legal sense.

There is no "legal sense" of the term sexual predator. It's not defined in any legal statute here in California, for example, or even mentioned.

Mr. Bean more or less summed up well what I was trying to say: there is a spectrum of sexual assault and rape, from the premeditated and planned to those that occur almost by accident. The connotation of the term "sexual predator" implies a deliberate act, someone who plans the act out, thinks through obstacles, targets those who will be less able to resist, etc., and perhaps also importantly implies it is a pattern of behavior, not one incident.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You know what? I'd extend the benefit of the doubt to amigocabal on the supposed eugenics. The mere mention of evolutionary psychology (which can get pretty dodgy all by itself) shouldn't really qualify. Granted, I can't see a good reason for the revenge impulse from that perspective. Not leaving a threat that's hurt you once able to hurt you twice perhaps?

To be fair, evolutionary psych is only dodgy when laymen use it to justify their pre-conceived bullshit.

My point was that the Philippines can afford to execute people, so the costs associated with the death penalty in California must not be inherent.

No. They are not. The costs only go up if you give a shit about at least the pretense that you are executing the right person. The Philippines does not.

Only Texas has a express lane for executions meant for people who do things like conduct mass shootings. The recent spat of mass shootings if they had occured in Texas could have resulted in execution in under two years because even in Texas capital crime cases are still mixed in with the guy who broke in and robbed your house cases.

Said express lane is also based on eyewitness testimony, which is the least reliable form of evidence ever... other than purely spectral evidence of course. To say nothing of junk science that really IS spectral evidence still being allowed in the courts (like old wives tales instead of fire science being introduced by state fire marshals in lethal arson cases. This state executed at least one innocent man on the basis of that shit back in 2001)

The texas justice system is little better than a witch trial when it comes to capital crimes.

All those extra Special Services are ways to wring money out of the state and into the pockets of prison operators and lawyers.

And, you know, at least trying to make sure the trial was not a load of shit. Adequate legal representation is kind of a thing in capital cases because poor people who kill get an over-worked and under-funded legal aid attorney.

Mr. Bean more or less summed up well what I was trying to say: there is a spectrum of sexual assault and rape, from the premeditated and planned to those that occur almost by accident. The connotation of the term "sexual predator" implies a deliberate act, someone who plans the act out, thinks through obstacles, targets those who will be less able to resist, etc., and perhaps also importantly implies it is a pattern of behavior, not one incident.

Yeah. I am pretty much on-board with this distinction as well. I can go through a hypothetical to give some clarity.

Two people might be fooling around, everything is fine, the guy does not get explicit consent to have intercourse but there was no denial either. Maybe from his perspective things got a bit lively but that happens sometimes. From her perspective, things get lively because she is resisting being raped. Sometimes people (and not just women) can go into "fight or flight" mode and panic. They might forget to speak and say "no". This can happen because something does not feel right, or because something (like penetration) happens by surprise and it is beyond their comfort zone.

A case like this might literally be accidental rape. The Negligent Homicide analogue.

Then the predatory shit like "I shall go about to chemically or physically remove someone's ability to say no"

[PeZook]

Yes, I do, very much. That's why you don't execute them. You put them in prison for 30 to life and if they are a sexual predator then you lock them up forever. I mean we pretty much do that now using extrajudicial bullshit by putting them in mental institutions, all I want to do is make it legal for them to be in jail forever. But I'm also willing to concede that not everyone guilty of rape or murder should get 30 to life. I'm simply saying we have 30 to life for the worst and no parole board should ever let the worst of the worst out.

I don't think you got what I was saying. By making the penalty for murder and the penalty for rape exactly the same, you are not giving the criminal any incentive to leave the victim alive - he's not losing anything by adding murder to the list, yet he removes a witness. By making the penalty for rape WORSE than the penalty for murder (IE. life, as you propose), you're doing more than incentivizing murder, you're practically inviting it. It's bad enough that there's a problem getting rapists prosecuted as it is - that attitude won't go away, but you'll have a lot more dead women you can't help in ANY way.

That was first noticed in the XIXth century, when what we know as modern criminal codes were being developed and fleshed out, but with regards to highway robbery: did you know virtually all highway robbery in Europe ended with the victim murdered, despite incredibly cruel punishment?

It turned out punishing highway robbers with horrible and violent and brutal executions made them murder their victims to give themselves a better shot at avoiding that.

I guess my inartful wording led to this nonsense, so my apologies for that.

Now, onto less aggravating things... I also happen to believe that everyone who is released should be under some form of supervision akin to parole with the threat of returning to prison for a set number of years. I'm thinking 3-10.

I'm unsure what most US criminal codes say, but in Poland an extended sentence is already the case for many offenses: for rape, the maximum punishment is 12 years, but if you're a repeat offender, it goes up to 18 years.

There's no guarantee lethal injection won't be a brutal way to go, to be honest. It's just more clinical and makes the people witnessing it feel more civilized. If we really wanted to execute people without them suffering physically we would just use a sedative and a huge morphine overdose.

Being clinical and ceremonious is crucial for executions, though. If you have the death penalty on the books, it HAS to be tied with a ceremony, both for the benefit of society (the state cannot be seen as treating an execution lightly, taking a citizen's life has to be a most serious thing) and the executioners to protect their sanity.

Though I have no idea why they have to use that drug cocktail instead of morphine. Both ways can be made clinical, sanitized and ceremonial.

But, of course, a better way is just to not have the death penalty in the first place. Or you could just take every condemned man out behind the chemical shed and shoot them in the head the moment the sentence is passed, instead of ensuring the system has built-in failsafes in case of a wrongful conviction, which amigocabal apparently thinks is an ideal to aspire to.

[Flagg]

Yes, I do, very much. That's why you don't execute them. You put them in prison for 30 to life and if they are a sexual predator then you lock them up forever. I mean we pretty much do that now using extrajudicial bullshit by putting them in mental institutions, all I want to do is make it legal for them to be in jail forever. But I'm also willing to concede that not everyone guilty of rape or murder should get 30 to life. I'm simply saying we have 30 to life for the worst and no parole board should ever let the worst of the worst out.

I don't think you got what I was saying. By making the penalty for murder and the penalty for rape exactly the same, you are not giving the criminal any incentive to leave the victim alive - he's not losing anything by adding murder to the list, yet he removes a witness. By making the penalty for rape WORSE than the penalty for murder (IE. life, as you propose), you're doing more than incentivizing murder, you're practically inviting it. It's bad enough that there's a problem getting rapists prosecuted as it is - that attitude won't go away, but you'll have a lot more dead women you can't help in ANY way.

That was first noticed in the XIXth century, when what we know as modern criminal codes were being developed and fleshed out, but with regards to highway robbery: did you know virtually all highway robbery in Europe ended with the victim murdered, despite incredibly cruel punishment?

It turned out punishing highway robbers with horrible and violent and brutal executions made them murder their victims to give themselves a better shot at avoiding that.

They put rapists away for life in the US all the time. Especially child rapists. Jerry Sandusky will likely spend the rest of his life in prison, for instance.

I guess my inartful wording led to this nonsense, so my apologies for that.

Now, onto less aggravating things... I also happen to believe that everyone who is released should be under some form of supervision akin to parole with the threat of returning to prison for a set number of years. I'm thinking 3-10.

I'm unsure what most US criminal codes say, but in Poland an extended sentence is already the case for many offenses: for rape, the maximum punishment is 12 years, but if you're a repeat offender, it goes up to 18 years.

That seems reasonable for one rape.

There's no guarantee lethal injection won't be a brutal way to go, to be honest. It's just more clinical and makes the people witnessing it feel more civilized. If we really wanted to execute people without them suffering physically we would just use a sedative and a huge morphine overdose.

Being clinical and ceremonious is crucial for executions, though. If you have the death penalty on the books, it HAS to be tied with a ceremony, both for the benefit of society (the state cannot be seen as treating an execution lightly, taking a citizen's life has to be a most serious thing) and the executioners to protect their sanity.

Though I have no idea why they have to use that drug cocktail instead of morphine. Both ways can be made clinical, sanitized and ceremonial.

But, of course, a better way is just to not have the death penalty in the first place. Or you could just take every condemned man out behind the chemical shed and shoot them in the head the moment the sentence is passed, instead of ensuring the system has built-in failsafes in case of a wrongful conviction, which amigocabal apparently thinks is an ideal to aspire to.

Yeah, amigocabal is either a troll or a psychopath, either way I'm not responding to his retardation. But I'm not saying don't take the ceremony out of it, just that there are more humane ways to do it rather than some idiotic 3 drug cocktail that costs a fortune. But yeah, I'm against the death penalty like I've said before. The only time I find it acceptable is treason during times of war.