Why keep a serial rapist?
Ok, here’s the backdrop:
A man was sentenced to 102 years in prison Friday for using chloroform and a stun gun to knock out and then rape three teenage daughters of his friends, fellow members of a close-knit Taiwanese community.
Chien Tai Wu, 50, who initially dared police to prove he was a serial rapist, pleaded guilty in November to charges of rape, attempted rape, felonious assault, aggravated burglary and illegal use of a minor in nudity oriented material.
So, what do they mean by “forever”? 102 years. With good behavior, I imagine he could shoot for parole when he’s something like 102 years old, if he’s lucky.
What’s the point? After causing several families unimaginable agony by violating their trust to rape their daughters, he’ll be spending retirement at the expense of you and me. Granted, his digs won’t be posh, they’re not for most people well beyond retirement. He won’t have to worry about medical care or feeding himself ever again.
That’s not the option I would be shooting for here. Now, this is where I think the death penalty has completely failed its intent. He has not killed anyone, but he has damaged numerous lives for those people’s eternity. To me, that’s good enough to justify the death penalty. And, even then the death penalty has proven almost useless because while his victims live with the consequences of his actions, he could appeal his guilt for a decade. For me, any act of violence on another person when that person is incapable of protecting themselves merits argument for the death penalty. Raping children by using drugs and stun guns is a given. He just needs killin in the worst possible way. Spend the money saved on housing this guy for fifty years on someone who deserves it.