Replies

That person should not be convicted. If I were a juror I would not convict a person of a crime unless it was proved they did it. If I was a prosecutor I would not charge a man on the word of a victim alone. That is a larger issue.

That you might execute an innocent person is the only valid argument against the death penalty. I support it anyway but I acknowledge that argument is a serious one, the government is incompetent.

Perhaps not every rapist I would but in certain cases yes, they should definitely die. Pedos, ones where they beat the girl half to death, etcetera. There are too many rapes, fear needs to be put into these scum.

What you said earlier, what if they just kill the victim, well if a murderer knows he will get the noose if caught, why would he surrender if caught by the cops instead of shooting at them? We can’t let them dictate the rules.

You make a good point, as the law and culture stands now.

It used to be that to prove rape, you had to show "force" which meant not just lack of consent but convincing evidence that the rapist used violence.

Again thanks to the liberals feeling sorry for the guilty, "force" was reduced to "lack of consent", which means that all the cases of morning-after remorse began turning into rape accusations. Not that you didn't have some anyway, e.g. the Scottsboro trial, but that was not a problem of proof (there wasn't any) but extreme racial prejudice on the part of the community. Even so, Judge Horton stood against popular opinion and set aside the verdict (he lost his seat as a result, but what profiteth a man if he gain the whole world but lose his soul?)

But if rape were actually made a capital offense again, you would see the evidentiary standard change back to its original position. It would have to, because of the strictures surrounding the DP.

I'm not as concerned about the "eliminating witnesses" argument, as they do that now in convenience store robberies. An evil person who would violently rape is likely going to eliminate witnesses anyway.

So when some chick lies in a he said - she said, we just put him to death?

One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. -- Deuteronomy 19:15

Multiple witnesses were a requirement in the Mosaic Law and, IIUC, there are instances of our [common] law built on it: the Public Notary, for instance, is one. It would be surprising if this feature were utterly absent from our criminal law.

The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. -- Deuteronomy 19:18-19

This is the Mosaic Laws punishment for false accusations: the punishment for the crime would be inflicted on the accuser. Thus, in the case of rape, the accuser would be put to death as rape is a capital offense under the Mosaic Law.

"Whoever is convicted of speaking false witness shall be flung from the Tarpeian Rock." -- Roman Tables of the Law, VIII, #23

Here you see that the penalty of false witness, which must include patently false allegations, was death.

There are numerous cases where the woman admits filing false charges later. You okay with killing innocent men just to set an example?

Such are a disgrace and stain upon our society, often doing worse than mere death to a man by utterly ruining him in reputation and standing in society and in the law.