Florida

submitted by [deleted] from i.imgur.com

all 15 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Datachost 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I'm pretty sure the law doesn't even apply to all cases of molestation. It's specifically for ones that cause damage to their genitals or interior organs during the act. So death penalty, for people who rape children hard enough to cause lasting damage. Hard drive check for anyone who vehemently opposes that

[–]IMissPorn 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You are right that it's not all, but not about the details. It covers all penetration and attempts at penetration which cause injury, and also oral sex; by someone 18+ with a child under 12.

How about lukewarm opposition? I actually do think it's a bad law. My biggest objection is that when you consider the reality of child molestation (namely that it's usually someone close to the victim) this is going to make it even more emotionally difficult to report. And in a more "stranger danger" type of scenario, what if the rapist thinks "Well, if my life's on the line anyway, better not leave a witness"? I see bad outcomes in both cases. Whether the additional deterrence of death compared to life without parole justifies those drawbacks seems very doubtful.

But I still can't figure out how it's an attack on LGBTs...

[–]fuck_redditThou/Thee/Thy 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Another issue is it lowers the jury vote for the death penalty from unanimous to 8/12. But that has nothing to do with gays or child rape

[–]IMissPorn 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah. Not a fan of that either.

Heck if any threshold should be lowered to 8/12 it's the threshold for acquittal. Always though it was dumb that it despite the government supposedly having the burden of proof it still had to be unanimous. Why should they get to try again just because they convinced 1 or 2 jurors? If 8 people say no, doesn't that essentially prove reasonable doubt exists?

[–]LyingSpirit472 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah- heck, I'd lower the threshold for acquittal as low as 6/12: If half of a jury or more think you probably didn't do it, that's at reasonable doubt.

The death penalty should always be at unanimous from the jury- if someone's life is in your hands, it needs to be 100% etched in stone "this person absolutely did it, there is no question in anyone's minds they did it, and because of this, they must die for what they did."

[–]ClassroomPast6178 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I’m anti-death penalty full stop. I think the state should not be in the business of killing its citizens and I think that you’re absolutely right about the perverse incentives and that it could possibly cause more child deaths. I also don’t think that paedos can be deterred once they’re actually if a kind to start offending, but I don’t know what the solution is.

[–]IMissPorn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Me too honestly, mostly because I just don't trust the justice system not to make mistakes. But also think expanding it beyond murder is even more misguided.

[–]LyingSpirit472 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The sad thing was, forced castration could have been a non-lethal way to stop pedos who are at the point where they're offending- but now we're seeing that castration would just be used as an excuse to get to do whoever you want, whenever you want.

[–]ClassroomPast6178 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Baby rapers maybe, like that emo singer who paid the mother for access to her infant a few years back?

Edit: Apparently it’s an existing statute, the new law just changes the requirement for the jury from unanimous to 8-4. It’s still blocked from implementation by a Supreme Court ruling that states the death penalty can only be imposed for a crime which involves the killing of the victim. De Santis is hoping that the current Supreme Court will overturn that previous ruling now that it is more likely to be imposed as a sentence. But apparently it’s for anyone who rapes a child below the age of seven….be interesting to see who’s willing to stick their necks out to defend baby rapers.

[–]Datachost 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Ian Watkins. Which is why H from Steps can't ever use his real name anymore

[–]ClassroomPast6178 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

Eesh, imagine sharing a name with H from Steps! 🤣

[–]OuroborosTheory 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_%22H%22_Watkins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Watkins_(Lostprophets_singer)

reminds me of a conference poster I saw in 2019 with a professor named Jeffrey Epstein, ouch

also remember when a human-trafficking ring with deep ties to both political parties, the Royals, the media, heck, all the alphabet agencies worse than any Pizzagate hallucination was uncovered, the ringleader strangled in jail while the guards were asleep, and it became a meme and the concierge's trial lost out to Amber Heard's bowel movement? good times

[–]ClassroomPast6178 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There really are a lot of people thinking that they’re going to execute people accused of “sexual crimes against children” including just drag queens at Pride or being a gay teacher in school.

It’s the “Don’t say gay” bill all over again, they’re trying to control the narrative in order to paint this as an anti-LGBT law rather than an anti-paedo law… I think if I were a gay man I would be seriously pissed off that there were people equating being gay with paedophilia and those people are purportedly on “my side” not the old lunatic right wingers who used to spread that lie in the old days.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It’s the “Don’t say gay” bill all over again

Was just thinking the same thing. The problem with this is that when the majority of people start to believe the propagandized version of the new law, people start acting as if the fake version was the truth and it could even rebound into law enforcement overstepping charges.

[–]UncleWillard56 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"For some fucking reason" well yeah, guilty conscience over supporting the idea that perverts that target children should be represented.