They might not have been born with a scrotum, your hypothetical rapists.

Funny how female on anyone rape is ignored, same as anyone on male. In many states and countries, males being raped is not legally counted as rape. Sometimes it’s sexual assault, sometimes not even that.

And that’s reported instances. Because it’s common sense that a guy raped by a girl was just ‘lucky to score’, not actually wronged.

So you can take your forced-sell guilt trip and shove it right up your stinky little fascist asshole.

Additionally, an argument for life imprisonment over the death penalty is not the best one you can make. I am not a supporter by any means of capital punishment, but imprisoning someone is a rights violation in and of itself – one that makes many more violations possible and more severe – and doesn’t sit well with anyone who doesn’t believe that “human life” (or even “life”), unqualified, can even be considered a value worth holding. I don’t think it’s acceptable to farm animals, for love’s sake; why would I consider it acceptable to imprison humans, either?

The question of costs and punishment is also a distraction from the enormous ethical issues surrounding capitalism and civilization. Status quo is status quo, no matter how much of a human supremecist you are.

The full-page advertisements placed in four New York newspapers today by Donald J. Trump calling for reinstatement of the death penalty grew out of the real-estate developer’s ”deep-seated feeling that what’s happening in society today has to be stopped,” Mr. Trump said in a telephone interview Saturday.

The $85,000 worth of ads, in The New York Times, The Daily News, The New York Post and New York Newsday, refer to the attack by a gang of youths on a woman jogger and others in Central Park on April 19. The 600-word appeal, signed Donald J. Trump, is titled ”Bring Back the Death Penalty. Bring Back Our Police!” The advertisement appears today on page A13 of The Times.

In the advertisement, Mr. Trump says that Mayor Edward I. Koch ”has stated that hate and rancor should be removed from our hearts.”

”I want to hate these muggers and murderers,” Mr. Trump wrote. ”They should be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes.”

The woman has been in a coma in Metropolitan Hospital since the attack April 19. Six youths have been indicted on charges of attempted murder, rape, sodomy and assault in the case. Difference of Anger and Hatred

”We must not confuse tough punishment with hatred,” Mr. Koch responded in a statement read by an assistant press secretary, Larry Simonberg. ”I think he’s on the wrong track. He has a right to express his opinion. He’s expressing hatred and I’m expressing anger. There’s a big difference.”

Is she correct? Did Trump call for the death penalty for those accused in this case, or only for perpetrators “when they kill?”

The guy’s a ridiculous blowhard regardless, but if the 1989 article is correct, he’s a bit less draconian than claimed.

The articles I’ve seen that quote it at all (unlike this one) include the line “when they kill, they should be executed…” ( http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/?ArID=138192&r=8131524974 ) These kids were never accused of killing, so where did Trump say they should be executed?

Clearly the ad was inspired by the jogging case and a general perception of a crime wave, and perhaps can be viewed as irresponsibly inflaming passions… but let’s not rush to accuse him of wanting to execute 14-year-olds if he never did.

@47 Goldwater at least had the courage of his convictions, and in retrospect it turns out he was mostly correct

Did he? I lean libertarian so I’d be happy if you can correct me, but didn’t Goldwater run against Brown v Board?

How does that pass the liberatarian smell test? I can understand a principled oppostion to Title VII of 64 cra but Goldwater opposed interference by the federal government in state affairs even when the state was violateing the Bill of Rights or the Equal Protection Clause.

In what libertarian framework does States Rights take precedence over the unalienable rights of man? Sounds to me like he abondened his principles in order to secure the Jim Crow south.

I suggest you find a good therapist out there in the Garden State who uses neuro-linguistic programming and get your psyche repaired. Been there, done that, worked for me.

The only first step you need is to start telling yourself you can heal and improve rather than telling yourself you’re ruined for life. People with less intellectual and intestinal resources than you’ve already shown here have climbed out of deeper holes. Telling yourself that your ability to trust or relax around others is gone for good is just digging yourself deeper. Remember the zeroth rule of holes: don’t just stop digging, START CLIMBING OUT.

@46 Right on, man

@47 Goldwater at least had the courage of his convictions, and in retrospect it turns out he was mostly correct

You are a strong, brave person. You have the courage to see beyond your personal experience to the larger picture.

I salute you and wish you the best.

I’m not a conservative, but I have a surprising number of friends who are Rockefeller Republican-style conservatives like you apparently are, and they’re over the moon angry about Trump’s media domination. However, they’re also crazy-scared because the fact is Trump stands as legitimate a chance as anyone else to win the nomination — and if not Trump, other brain-dead pseudo-populists like Palin or religious whackjobs like Huckabee. The only guy with a legitimate shot to the nomination who appeals to most of my conservative friends is Romney, and they (rightfully, I believe) don’t trust him because he’s got the personality of a snake-oil salesman and a flip-flopping record that makes John Kerry look downright principled in all walks of life. Most of them are now behind Gary Johnson, but I don’t think anyone is really taking him seriously, unfortunately — certainly, no one in Iowa or New Hampshire is.

The Republican Party is in an abysmal state right now. Quite honestly, I’d like to see a split in the party to bring out actual conservatives with intellect as their weapon rather than populism. As it is, they’re content to use scare tactics the way Johnson did on Goldwater in ’64. It’s unfortunate, because the Democrats are atrocious, too — just sane by comparison.

Mattocracy seems to be of the opinion that we can decide justice by majority opinion, that crimes can have an objectively “just” price. How is having Mattocracy and 50% of the rest of the population decide what is fair any better than having Len decide?

My idea of a more just society would be one in which the State does not have a monopoly on the dispensation of justice. What is the proper punishment for raping someone? I would say that the victim should be allowed to set the price. If you go to certain areas of town with a hankering to engage in sex with strange women, you will find plenty of strange women that would be willing to negotiate the price of such activity with you. If you don’t ask the price beforehand, you forfeit the right to complain about the price afterward. And if your hankering extends to engaging in sex with strange women without their consent, it might be a very high price indeed.

By the same token, if you go to Walmart to pick up a TV, the prices are clearly marked and you and Walmart are free to decide whether or not that is a just price, you are free to accept or decline the transaction. When you break into my house to steal my TV, you are unilaterally stating what price you think you will pay for the TV – you have no grounds to complain if I decide that the price you will pay is rather higher. And I can assure you that the price is going to be extremely high because you are not simply attempting to steal my property – I traded a part of my life for that TV and therefore you are attempting to steal a part of my life. If you have so little regard for my life that you can casually attempt to steal a part of it, I don’t have a problem showing no regard for your life. Which is why I think a fitting punishment for rape would be rape. If you have no problem raping someone just because you feel like it and you can, you shouldn’t have a problem with others doing the same to you.

As far as the punishment for rape – nobody really goes to jail for harming someone else, they go to jail for breaking the State’s law against harming someone else. Absent a law to the contrary, you are free to harm other people and the State may not touch you. That is why it is the State rather than the individual who sets the price for committing a crime – your real crime was not in harming someone else, your real crime is that of disobeying the State. Which is also why the State can punish you for breaking rules the breaking of which do not harm anyone else. If we were to end the State’s monopoly on the dispensation of justice, it might be easier to demand that a criminal prosecution requires a plaintiff other than the State.

And, oh yeah, Donald Trump is a troll. It is a sad commentary on the state of the ‘news’ industry that Donald Trump, Charlie Sheen and a royal wedding all get far more coverage than a serious discussion of say the ramifications of Wickard v. Filburn. The purveyors of infotainment claim to be giving the viewers what they want – hey, try imaging the ratings if CNN were to have NUDE! NUDE! NUDE! anchors and reporters. Wouldn’t that be giving the viewers what they want, too?