Reply #140: The execution of innocents is one argument against it, yes

[Orrex]

But not the only one. Another argument is the fact that execution of an incarcerated person is an undeniably premeditated act against a person rendered helpless, and no one so far has explained how this differs from murder. Yet another argument is that its application is grossly skewed along economic and ethnic lines.

The logical follow through to that is that our prison system is also not perfect and that imperfection will absolutely lead to the death of the child rapist. By the standard you apply to the death penalty, he should not even be imprisoned.

You are ultimately arguing for a child rapist to be released in the general population because we cannot guarantee he won't be killed in prison.

None of that even remotely resembles any of what I've been arguing, nor is what you wrote "the logical follow through" to anything that I wrote.

Point me to the post in which I claimed that the rapist shouldn't be imprisoned. I defy you to find such a post by me anywhere on DU or on the entire internet. What I have argued and continue to argue is that the State is responsible for ensuring the humane treatment of prisoners, and if the State fails to protect a prisoner, then that's a failure of the State, but it is manifestly not an argument in favor of the death penalty.

You're articulating a false dichotomy that has nothing to do with what I've written. Nowhere have I said "prisoners must be imprisoned safely or else released." I have said that prisoners must be treated humanely or else the State is at fault.

You claim that this is "Ostrich Syndrome," when in fact it's an articulation of the proper duty of the State in its role as jailer.