If they are not going to execute child rapists, they should not execute anyone. I mean, they can execute someone for growing a field of hemp. Correct me if I'm wrong, but unless a person turns the hemp into rope and hangs a bunch of people, how is that worse than the rape of a child? The argument that only the rapist who murders a child should be executed only gives justice to the people who loved the child. The child who is raped has had every beautiful dream of what it means to grow up destroyed. Where is the justice for the victim herself? Would I rather be alive than dead? Well, sure. But how did the Supreme Court twist this conversation from the question of whether the child rapist is alive or dead into the question of whether the child victim is alive or dead?
Also, I don't buy into the idea that kids would rather protect their rapist than sentence him, even if it is a family member (as it usually is). Men rape women and little kids because they know they can get away with it. And they usually do. They need to get actual life in prison without parole. As it is, they get a slap on the wrist and probation, and they are free to rape and destroy as many young lives as they can. The moral of this story, kids, is: You're gonna have to kill your rapist yourself, because the justice system will not step in to protect kids against men who sexually assault children.
Also, I don't buy into the idea that kids would rather protect their rapist than sentence him, even if it is a family member (as it usually is). Men rape women and little kids because they know they can get away with it. And they usually do. They need to get actual life in prison without parole. As it is, they get a slap on the wrist and probation, and they are free to rape and destroy as many young lives as they can. The moral of this story, kids, is: You're gonna have to kill your rapist yourself, because the justice system will not step in to protect kids against men who sexually assault children.
