Originally Posted by ckblv
1. Has it done the same for the crime of murder?
This doesn't make sense in refuting jcat's #1. Obviously, in a murder, no witnesses are left already... people don't murder someone more so there's no witnesses to the murder.
I will take on number 2, though. It's a valid argument to say that this tells survivors that what happened to them is so bad the perpetrator deserves the death penalty. However, it wasn't a mandatory death penalty, it just left open the possibility of that being a punishment. In some cases, it isn't an individual crime that is so bad, but someone's tenth, eleventh, twelfth offense of raping children. People are generally more in favor of the death penalty for serial killers, so I'd imagine the same would apply here. Frankly, I believe the men who raped me before I even hit puberty did not deserve to live (and I was not the first, or the last). Sadly, none of us ever reported them, so it wouldn't much help now.
I agree it isn't a "murder of the soul." It can cause as much damage to a family as the loss of a child though. It isn't about equivocating it to murder, just saying that this crime also deserves the death penalty.
However. I don't think we should have a death penalty at all, for anything. We do, though, and in states where people can be put to death for any crime bad enough, I think it qualifies as bad enough. Not the same as murder, but in the same "seriousness of the crime" category.