I always wonder about this. If you listen to what the sentencing judge said to Larry Nassar, the child rapists of perhaps over 200 victims, she said that if she could, she would essentially sentence larry nassar to be himself, sexually assaulted. This is very similar to the Hammurabi Code of conduct. And It must, it must be said at once! That as long as it’s a well regulated system, it could be carried out without violating the united states constitution.
I hold a similar view, that I do support such a theoretical justice system in which judges can use such a sentence on an offender SO LONG AS IT’S PROVEN BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT 100% guilt which is a step above reasonable doubt of 95% guilt.
My preference is that we ought to permit the justice system on the state level to carry out such sentencing, provided it’s regulated and only for the most heinous of offenses, and that it requires beyond a shadow of a doubt guilt.
Larry Nassar was actually convicted for producing child pornography when he filmed himself raping these children. (though this animal took a plea deal to possession, they gave him a production sentence anyways). This meets the standard of beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Rosemarie Aquilina: Our constitution does not forbid cruel and unusual punishment, she “would allow some or many people to do to him what he did to others.”
I for one agree, but I do not necessarily agree that sentencing this animal to be raped himself is considered cruel and unusual punishment. Considering we place the most heinous of murderers on death row, letting them languish in extreme isolation for decades before execution. Yet this is not considered cruel and unusual punishment. I believe we ought to allow for the rape of the most heinous child rapists. As long as it’s used in a well regulated fashion, I don’t believe it would violate the constitution.