Florida

submitted by [deleted] from i.imgur.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Datachost 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 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 -  (3 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."