S.C. BILL: EXECUTE 2-TIME MOLESTERS
Some S.C. legislators want to execute twice-convicted child molesters, and experts say such a law could be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"This is a historic moment for South Carolina to step forward and force the Supreme Court's hand," said Sen. David Thomas, R-Greenville, who is supporting a bill that could make the state the second -- behind Louisiana -- to allow the death penalty for a crime other than murder. "We have changed as a nation since the 1970s when the court last addressed the constitutionality of capital punishment for a sex crime. It's a horror -- someone who twice rapes a young child -- they deserve a death sentence."

Thomas, an attorney, said he believes recent additions to the high court -- Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito -- mean it "may rule other than `life for life.' "

Today, S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster will address a Senate Judiciary Committee's concerns about the constitutionality of such a law.

"I'm going to give the General Assembly a green light on passing this law because we need this to protect our children and to deter these sexual predators," McMaster said late Monday.

Based upon research showing high recidivism and that some pedophiles are incapable of rehabilitation, I think a number of people would think that the DP is even more appropriate for some of these cases. Makes me think back on those old Jim Mattox/AG race commercials discussing the fact that at least one murderer was deterred. We've all seen kid cases where defendants have victims in the double-digits (that we know about) -- there's some potential deterrence for you!

Personally as a citizen, I would definitely support the availability of the death penalty for child molesters. I often wonder, whatwould I do, were some scumbag to molest my own daughter. Knowing what I know about "the system", my inclination would be to hunt the perpetrator down & kill him myself.

I'm sure an overwhelming majority of the public here in Texas would support it.

It sure seems like we would have to change the special issues, particularly the future dangerousness one. How do you argue a sex offender is a future danger if he is subjected to life without parole? Do we get into prison sex?

I have begun to wonder whether the future dangerousness issue should be dropped for any capital case. What purpose does it serve anymore?

And, if I recall, liberals have been criticizing it for a long time, alleging that no one can predict future dangerousness. So, why not just focus on moral culpability through the aggravation/mitigation special issue?

But what would Dr. Mark Cunningham do for a living then, John?