I’m very much on the fence about this issue — a little yes, a little no. As such, I wouldn’t argue any of your points, except for one. I don’t think we’d be left with only retribution.

For one thing (and this is 100% my own perception and wouldn’t fly in a real debate — I fully admit that!), I am not so sure that rape (in some cases) isn’t worse than murder, and as such, I wouldn’t call it retribution. I don’t think it’s possible to get vengeance for some types of rape because there’s nothing equal to its violence.

But my second point is less controversial. Data shows that male perpetrators of sex crimes have dangerous recidivism trends. For those that choose to commit a second sex crime, the chances of them committing more suddenly skyrockets. And those crimes also tend to escalate in violence when they no longer get the same satisfaction that they got from committing previous offenses. They’ll continue upping the ante in one way or another. (Dennis Bowman comes to mind…)

So technically, in this very particular case, it wouldn’t be retribution — it is actually a deterrent. Just a different kind of deterrent. Look at the number of men who raped Gisele Pelicot and had already served time for sex crimes, including the man who raped his own daughter. Gisele would have been spared some of this horror if some of them had been given the death penalty the first time around.

Though that’s speaking from hindsight, which is always 20/20. At the very least, life in prison should be an option for these cases, instead of 10–20 years and off in 3 for good behavior.