Your better off killing the kid.

I find it very hypocritical that the party that is supposedly PRO-LIFE is introducing a bill that advocates an expansion of the death penalty.

Are you pro-life or anti-abortion?

The problem here is that the issue is being clouded. The question that should be asked is whether the penalty (death) is cruel and unusual in and of itself, not in regard to the crime committed. My take is that the death penalty is justifiable for murder, treason and terorist actions but rape? That is a stretch for me

i’ve read in the news about people raping 4 days-old, 1 month old babies. do they deserve to live for raping helpless NEWBORNS. Not in my book. Although the ultimate say is up to God..i say give them death!

without actually seeing the bill, which is not available on this site right now… it would be hard to endorse due to statutory rape and some other mitigating issues. If the bill were to address these and the rapes were committed on young children… I whole heartedly agree. These are people who history has proven over and over are not able to be rehabilitated and who continue to rape and often times escalate to rape and murder. They are of no value to society and ruin lives and families. FOR THE DEATH PENALTY.

I have reviewed the Bill and it applies only to children 12 years and younger who have been raped. Yes I support this bill…. consider the damage this person will do to this child for the rest of their lives and the damaging effect on those families.

This isn’t an attack on the intent of the proposed amendment, but merely the wording, and the precedent. The amendment is “the penalty of death for the forcible rape of a child who has not attained the age of 12 years does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment”.
Problem One: the proposed amendment says penalty of death, without concern for the various ways in which it can be brought about, creating an overly broad blanket protection for legislatures.
Problem Two: The precedent this sets for defining what falls under the Eighth Amendment is more than a little frightening. Imagine if the proposed amendment was instead “Firearms do not fall under the right to bear arms”. This case may be a little different I understand, but in terms of redefining terms in the Constitution, this is a proper analogy.

This amendment would further erode the separation of powers between the federal government and the states. It will create a federal police force and lead us further down the road to martial law. Further, I do not believe that the rapists should be given the death penalty.