In the face of the current controversies surrounding the death penalty (whether we should have it, whether Lethal Injection needs to be reworked, humaneness concerns, whether the system of appeals needs fixing) TIME throws in another good question on whether repeat sex offenders warrant the penalty. They focus on enhanced "Jessica's Law" statutes which some states have passed, allowing for the death penalty in the case of those who have repeatedly molested children.

Setting aside whether people think the state should have a death penalty option or not - if a state is to have one, who should qualify for it? It becomes an interesting question.

In the category of murderers, is every murder equal? Obviously not. There is a difference between premeditated murder, planned and executed, and murder committed in the course of a fight. There is a difference between those, and murder that happens in (for example) a vehicular accident on the road or some other event that a rational human still might not expect.

I'd say that a serial murderer - one who targets a segment of the population, and murders multiple people - ought to be eligible for the death penalty. Likewise with the masterminds behind multiple killings, like Charles Manson. Likewise with those who commit incredibly gruesome murders in which they had no possible rational fear for their own lives.

While there is a case to be made for the "thoughtcrime" aspect of a death sentence for the murder of police officers, I feel that they deserve whatever little extra protection such a law might give to them. They are taking the burden of trying to protect society, after all.

These kind of murderers, I would argue, invariably deserve the death penalty.

After murder, what about those who attempt murder? It's an odd question; for some reason, society offers a lesser punishment to a criminal whose intent was the same as a murderer, but who lacked the competence to successfully end the life of another. I can't say that this ought to be the case, save that rarely is there an attempted murder (I say rarely because there's always an exception) that is as heinous or brutal as some of the serial and savage killers society has seen. What worse if they attempted multiple murders, but were just inept about their methods? Attempted murders, like successful murderers, come in two groups - and while there is a case for those who were in a rage and came to their senses before striking the killing blow in a fight to get a lesser sentence, I find it hard to offer a case that someone who deliberately planned a murder but weren't smart enough to come up with a successful plan, should get less of a sentence than someone who didn't make that mistake somewhere. After all, is a poisoner any less of a poisoner because someone got the victim to medical care in time? Is a shooter any less of a shooter because they have lousy aim?

And then we get to this third group - those who commit crimes that are heinous, but not actually intended to be deadly (though possibly leading up to deadly crime later as they get bolder). "Jessica's Law" provisions are based on the problem of recidivism in child molesters, a recidivism rate that seems alarmingly high. Supporters would argue that, if someone fails to be rehabilitated, trying to rehabilitate them again is the insanity of doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Opponents think it might actually encourage molesters to kill their victims in some insane attempt to hide the evidence.

Is a repeat child molester so heinous as to warrant society's ultimate punishment? I can't say for sure. I know that if they re-offend, they've likely proven that they are beyond any rehabilitation - especially knowing perfectly well that they were caught at least once before. I know that the damage they do is going to last a lifetime, and is done to a segment of the population that we already deem worthy of extra protections. And as RAW pointed out earlier, criminals don't necessarily have a great future-time orientation in their thoughts... so perhaps society ought to. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, or so the saying goes.

As a side note, Texas law adds another interesting wrinkle; the lack of a "statutory rape" on the books. According to Texas law, an 17-year-old high schooler who has sex with a 16-year-old boyfriend/girlfriend can be charged with the same crime, and subject to the same after-release conditions (monitoring, testing, restrictions on where they can live), as someone who rapes a child. Something strikes me as wrong about that. Theoretically, that 17-year-old could be put out on probation, "re-offend" with the boyfriend/girlfriend, and be eligible for the death penalty. Worse yet, it's not the parents or the "victim" who get to decide whether it's prosecuted or not; the state prosecutor takes care of that themselves. In the zeal to toughen the law, it appears someone left no room for a bit of common sense.

[EDIT]: It appears I spoke too soon. After a review of the law, it appears there is a small fail-safe clause: Texas penal code section 21.11(b) states:

(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the actor:
(1) was not more than three years older than the victim and of the opposite sex;
(2) did not use duress, force, or a threat against the victim at the time of the offense; and
(3) at the time of the offense:
(A) was not required under Chapter 62, Code of Criminal Procedure, to register for life as a sex offender; or
(B) was not a person who under Chapter 62 had a reportable conviction or adjudication for an offense under this section.