Nothing Left to Lose
Legal reasoning aside, imposing the death penalty for child rape is a terrible idea. For any crime, you want to avoid incentives for the criminal to murder a victim who would otherwise survive. In states with the death penalty, if you rape and murder a child, you’re risking execution. If you also risk execution for raping the child even if you don’t murder him or her, then you have a powerful temptation to kill your victim anyway. Your legal jeopardy is no worse and you eliminate the potential witness. At the margins, the death penalty for child rape incrementally increases the danger to children from sexual predators.
Comment by Anonymo —
June 26, 2008 @ 7:56 am
And note that this only holds if the death penalty has deterrent value. Anyone who presents the counterargument that such criminals are unlikely to think this through rationally is undermining the case for the death penalty generally.
Trackback by Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator —
June 26, 2008 @ 7:58 am
Court rejects death penalty for raping children
…
The Supreme Court has struck down a Louisiana law that allows the execution of people convicted of a…
Comment by Constant —
June 26, 2008 @ 9:16 am
It’s true that once a predator has raped a child, then the death penalty for rape increases the risk that he will murder the child. But on the other end, if he hasn’t raped the child yet, then the death penalty for rape decreases the risk that he will rape the child in the first place. I don’t think we can say a priori which factor outweighs the other.
Comment by Derek Copold —
June 26, 2008 @ 9:31 am
The decision itself is troubling since it seems to rely on “evolving standards”, which smacks of activism, but I agree on the legislative side. While I wouldn’t have a problem hanging someone who indubitably committed child rape, the problem is getting to that “indubitably.” Child testimony is notoriously unreliable, and, as you note, there’s a further incentive for child molesters to kill off their victim.
Comment by AA —
June 26, 2008 @ 9:45 am
I agree with the poster above that if the death penalty is a sufficient deterrent, then it’s less likely for someone to put herself in the position of pondering whether to kill a child she just raped.
I also think that child molesters “assume” that the child can be intimidated into not talking about it. Otherwise, even with existing punishment, the price is too steep.
The big question is whether child abuse is a compulsive enough behaviour that people would engage in it regardless of consequences. I don’t know if empirical evidence exists. But to presume this is more less the case is not very sound.
Comment by Thoreau —
June 26, 2008 @ 10:42 am
As Derek pointed out, testimony by children is problematic. Look at the occasional molestation scares where several adults face allegations of molestation on a baroque scale for a prolonged period of time. It often comes out that this testimony was elicited by cops and counselors via questionable methods.
The other thing I worry about is the gray area between child rape and age of consent. This may sound like a ridiculous worry, but given that 18 year-olds who sleep with 17 year-olds wind up on the same sex offender registries as child molesters, there’s a very real danger that punishments will be extended to situations well outside the range they were original contemplated for.
Comment by kid bitzer —
June 26, 2008 @ 1:12 pm
“molestation on a baroque scale”
one of the lesser bachs’ improvisations.
(i believe it was a touch piece).
Comment by Leonard —
June 26, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
I doubt that pedophiles distinguish between life in prison and death. Pedophiles do not fare well in prison. They tend to be brutally murdered by other inmates. As such, a long sentence might be about as bad for them as a death sentence.
Comment by TGGP —
June 26, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
Anyone who presents the counterargument that such criminals are unlikely to think this through rationally is undermining the case for the death penalty generally.
It is precisely BECAUSE people are irrational that the death penalty deters. The probability of being executed is tiny, but it is so salient that people allow it to play too large a role in their decision-making.
You’re absolutely right about the marginal effect. See Don Boudreaux here, or for a longer take David Friedman here.
Comment by opit —
June 27, 2008 @ 1:24 am
That ‘deterrent effect’ must be calculated in some esoteric method. One of the arguments against the death penalty is that the brutalizing effect on society ( the state declaring itself a mortal enemy ) tends to raise, not lower, murder. The old ‘get rid of the witness’ effect is as easy to postulate here.
Comment by Mark Z. —
June 27, 2008 @ 5:50 am
On the other hand, the argument can be made that a dead child is a more credible witness than a live child.