To Ashbo.

Look at each justice system that holds the death penalty. In each one they have held (or currently hold) a means to say what is bad enough to be killed by the state. If you look at each of those you can say whether the death penalty is justified or if it is an injustice.

For example hanging a murderer I'd count as justified. More modern times make the death penalty more humane and less public. Beheading an ex Muslim for turning away from the faith. Not justified, but in my opinion (and I hope your opinion too), it is a gross form of injustice, oppression, and coercion. In the days past. At least one king beheaded his wives for not producing a son. Also not justified.

My argument is that if the penalty fits the crime, then the justification is still sound even at the risk of the person being innocent of the crime. The problem with the death penalty is that it is a final punishment that can't be corrected. Is a life in prison any better though if the person innocent serves most of their time in prison before justice catches up to them and declares them innocent? They've lost much of their lives and the injustice in that isn't enough to keep the penalty from being enforced.

As much as I don't like the death penalty because of the risk of innocent people being put to death, there are crimes that I think warrant a death penalty. Murder, serial murderers, serial rapists, and posibly those who influence others to murder or do other heinous crimes (even if they keep themself from the act) are crimes I think warrant the death penalty

Before going on into the conversation. I need to ask. Do you think those crimes don't warrant the death penalty? I'm asking because I want to know if you are against the death penalty because no crime warrants that punishment, or if you are against it be cause of the risk of an innocent person being killed. The difference is worth being clarified.

Not-Now.Soon, if I can jump in briefly. I find I am uncomfortable with one of your suggested crimes which would require the death penalty.

As much as I agree with the death penalty, I absolutely dis-agree with killing someone for raping someone.

If the woman was attacked physically again, depending on whether it was a matter of restraining her, or whether his actions were more aggressive and constituted GBH by definition, then the law has punishments to suite the degree of physical harm inflicted on the victim.

The only reason for executing someone for rape is if they killed the victim after having their way.

Otherwise as far as I am concerned if someone is raped and there is a certain level of physicality involved then it should be treated the same as assault.

The charge of assault is based on the level of injuries, according to the terms of reference or definitions as laid down by law.

EG; simple assault, bodily harm, grieves bodily harm and so on.

None of these carry the death penalty.

P.S. With the amount of these Nancys coming out of the woodwork to accuse men of nothing more than being men, I am afraid we would have a bank-up of men being executed.

Alt Rave,

Are you suggesting that rape which does not involve violence, is not actually rape ? And therefore not a crime ?

To ALTRAV.

One of the issues with the death penalty is with where we draw the line for applying the punishment. I do think rape is a serious crime but, but unfortunately it is hard to prove. However if a person is found guilty of being a serial rapist, I think that pushes the seriousness of the crime to be in the same ball park as a murder.

That said you might be right about rape being like assault. I'll give it some thought. As of now I still stand by that a repeated offense of rape is a crime that should be punished by death.

I will answer both;

First, Loudmouth, I think you've answered your own question. I'm not sure of the question, but, err, I think I'll go with NO. I think.

Not-Now.Soon, I don't think rape is the issue I would be focused on. The act of raping someone, removing the physical injury component for a moment, becomes an act of emotion.

The victim is emotionally attacked. This, in my view does not constitute grounds for the title of a 'serious crime'. Nothing was disturbed but some emotion in the form of fear and pride.

Should it be considered a serious enough crime to be punished by execution? NO!

On the other hand if the victim is attacked physically. This attack should therefore by given the same degree of consideration as a physical attack where the victim is left with injuries ranging from common assault to GBH. The rapist should be charged under those laws.

Should it be considered a serious enough crime to punished by execution? NO!

Then last but not least we have the serial rapist who rapes and causes the victims to suffer GBH and worst, kills them after he's done.
OK, this is one sick puppy.

Should it be considered a serious enough crime to be punished by execution? Without question; YES!

Alt ave,

So if someone threatens a woman, that he will smash her face in with a brick if she doesn't give into him, and if she does so in order to avoid injury, and no actual violence has been committed, then no rape has taken place ?