The death penalty should be imposed for those found guilty of rape.

Below are my rebuttals to all of Con's arguments as to why the death penalty should not be applied to violent rapists.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"As my first counterargument I'd like to raise the question as to why exactly rape, among other criminal offenses, would be given priority for the death penalty over (arguably) more severe crimes to which the death penalty does not currently apply (i.e. attempted murder/grievous bodily harm, pedophilia etc.)."A recent study by Lisak and Miller showed that 63.3% of rapists were recidivists - meaning that they had a previously commited the crime of rape. In fact, the authors go on to show that the average rapist is responsible for 5.8 rapes per person (1). In contrast, a study of 366 prisoners convicted of murder showed that upon release not a single prisoner was rearrested for murder - this is a recidivicsm rate of 0% (2). This difference in reoffending rates suggests that rapists, as compared to most murderers and other criminals, have a pathological dysfunction that will prompt them to reoffend. In the case of violent rapists, the pontential for continued and escalating violence is apparent and unique to those crimes. Therefore, once convicted of a violent rape, it is reseasonable to assume the the average rapist will rape and harm again. Once this fact is established, the release of a rapist cannot be ethically justified - indeed a society that releases a rapist, whom it suspects is likely to rape again, is responsible for any of the future crimes he or she may commit. In fact, the only morally justifiable action is to execute violent, pathological rapists - both to prevent the future harm they will commit, and to reduce the burden they represent to society, which through their actions, they have unilaterally imposed."Secondly, I would like to bring to attention the possibility of assailants having mental defects or issues; are cases of rape in which this would be a factor be treated with equal consequences?"In cases where a rapist is clearly mentally deficient - in which they have a recognized, managble disease that impairs their ability to function - I do not think the death penalty is applicable. However, I do not believe that patholgical violence and predatory rape are legitimate conditions that would exclude criminals from the death penality - rapists clearly know that rape is wrong. They are under no illusions about the gravity and impact of their crimes, which explains the effort they go to in order to avoid being caught. In contrast, those classified as clinically mentally retarded or schrizophrenic or bipolar or manic, all would have trouble understanding the consequences of their actions. A rapist is fully aware that he exists in reality and is an agent of his own behavior - people suffering from mental disease are often not aware of those facts."Lastly I would like to address the fact that often in courts of law those accused are often wrongly judged, framed and sentenced for numbers of different reasons including lack of substantiating proof or alibi for example."I believe this last arguement is something of a deflection. Your issue here is with the efficacy of the criminal justice system, not with the penalty phase once convicted of a crime. For the purposes of this debate, you should assume that the hypothetical rapist is 100% guilty without question to responsiblity or agency - the only question is to whether the death penality should be applied. My argument is that as he is a violent rapist, and as a result of the pathological nature of his crime, he is likely to reoffend violently and repeatedly. I do not believe he can be ethically rehabititated - and you have not proven otherwise with any evidence. Furthermore, I believe that society should not be burdened with both the impact of his crimes, and for caring for the criminal once he is imprisoned. Indeed, even if imprisoned, rapists are still able to rape with impunity (3). The only solution to this problem would be to keep rapists in isolation for the extent of their incarceration, which would be life. I believe this would constitute cruel and unsual punishement and amount to extrajudicial torture. The only viable, ethically justifiaible, and resonable action a society can take in response to the threat a violent, predatory rapist poses is to remove that threat entirely. Doing otherwise is to take responsibilty for insuring that a rapist will not reoffend - something I doubt very much that anyone can promise.I look forward to reading my opponents rebuttals. (1): http://www.wcsap.org...(2): http://nj.gov...;(3): http://www.hrw.org...