I’m not so interested in BHO’s alleged sudden reincarnation as a reactionary—from what I can tell there was never any good reason to suspect him of not being a reactionary re: the death penalty in the first place. What interests me is the peculiar role “sexual predators” and in particular child molesters and rapists play or have been thrust into. It seems that sex crimes represent a special category where it is legitimate for us to unleash or sadistic desires without guilt of fear of repercussion. Any form of sexual assault of a child is of course horrid (incidentally, I was once subject to an attempted molestation) but so is dropping a bomb on a family home blowing the limbs off the children inside, a crime committed on a daily basis by individuals who are among the most rewarded in society, namely politicians.
For a truly just society to come into existence two things need to happen:
1) Criminals, or to be more accurate, individuals who can be proven to have a propensity to undertake action destructive to the community, need to be regarded as symptoms of a social disorder in the manner cancer is regarded by physicians not as subjects of “corrective treatment”, a euphemism for state-sanctioned torture. In certain situations it may be necessary that criminals be deprived of certain liberties, just a carrier of a contagious and deadly disease ought to be quarantined even against his or her own will, but should never, under any circumstances, be punished.
2) State intervention that leads to deprivation of liberty must by administered universally and consistently. This contingency requires what does not exist at present: a social structure where no one is above the law.
I am not suggesting that the victims or those close to the victims of serious crimes are wrong to feel angry at the perpetrator or to seek revenge. Rather, that sober onlookers, who are most apt to act in a rational manner, have a responsibility both with respect to the rights of the criminal as well as the victim. That punishment of crime, if its ostensible function is granted, is as absurd as beating a car because it has failed to start. Of course, it could turn out after investigation that beating is in fact what is needed, but action must follow a rational course of enquiry and must be aimed at minimizing additional harm that could result.
I should also note another compelling reason for extreme leniency with respect to crime: The very substantial danger of false prosecution. Those who can afford good lawyers can usually get off the hook for just about any crime, but those with modest means are at the mercy of the justice system. Which is populated by agents with compelling political/career-wise reasons to press for convictions.
Finally, most activities that a criminal just shouldn’t be criminal at all—drug use, e.g.
*”Obama and the Death Penalty”, http://www.counterpunch.org/segura06272008.html
**Research suggest often is not typically, child molester where themselves sexually abused as children.