U.S Supreme Court bans death penalty for child rape

[eurekaa]

U.S Supreme Court bans death penalty for child rape



WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court declared Wednesday that executions are too severe a punishment for raping children, despite the "years of long anguish" for victims, in a ruling that restricts the death penalty to murder and crimes against the state.


http://www.onlines.ws/wp-includes/js/tinymce/plugins/wordpress/img/trans.gif
The court's 5-4 decision struck down a Louisiana law that allows capital punishment for people convicted of raping children under 12. It spares the only people in the U.S. under sentence of death for that crime — two Louisiana men convicted of raping girls 5 and 8.


The ruling also invalidates laws on the books in five other states that allowed executions for child rape that does not result in the death of the victim.


However devastating the crime to children, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion, "the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child." His four liberal colleagues joined him, while the four more conservative justices dissented.


There has not been an execution in the United States for a crime that did not also involve the death of the victim in 44 years, a factor that weighed in Kennedy's decision.


Rape and other crimes "may be as devastating in their harm, as here, but 'in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public,' they cannot be compared to murder in their 'severity and irrevocability,'" Kennedy said, quoting from earlier decisions.


The victim in the case decided Wednesday was an 8-year-old girl raped by her stepfather at their home in Harvey, La., outside New Orleans.


Angry Louisianans who backed the law said the court was out of touch.
"The opinion reads more like an out-of-control legislative debate than a constitutional analysis," said Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a Republican.


"One thing is clear: The five members of the court who issued the opinion do not share the same 'standards of decency' as the people of Louisiana."
The decision resonated in the presidential campaign, too, where Democrat Barack Obama objected to it. Obama said there should be no blanket prohibition of the death penalty for the rape of children if states want to apply it in those cases.


With the court already on record this term reaffirming the constitutionality of capital punishment in a case dealing with lethal injection, Kennedy dwelt at length on the need to limit the death penalty to the most heinous killings.

The decision allows death sentences to continue to be imposed for crimes such as treason, espionage and terrorism, which Kennedy labeled as crimes against the state.

The Supreme Court banned executions for rape in 1977 in a case in which the victim was an adult woman.

Forty-four states prohibit the death penalty for any kind of rape, and five states besides Louisiana have allowed it for child rapists — Georgia, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas.

The court struggled over how to apply standards laid out in decisions barring executions for the mentally retarded and people younger than 18 when they committed murder. In those cases, the court cited trends in the states away from capital punishment.

In this case, proponents of the Louisiana law said the trend was toward the death penalty, a point mentioned by Justice Samuel Alito in his dissent.

"The harm that is caused to the victims and to society at large by the worst child rapists is grave," Alito wrote. "It is the judgment of the Louisiana lawmakers and those in an increasing number of other states that these harms justify the death penalty."

But Kennedy said the absence of any recent executions for rape and the small number of states that allow it demonstrate "there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape."
Kennedy acknowledged that the decision had to come to terms with "the years of long anguish that must be endured by the victim of child rape."
Still, he concluded that in cases of crimes against individuals, "the death penalty should not be expanded to instances where the victim's life was not taken."

He also cited arguments made by social workers and others that children and their families might not cooperate with authorities if a death sentence could result against the rapist. In many cases, including the one before the court, the victim and rapist are related.

The author of the Louisiana law, former Republican state Rep. Pete Schneider, said even opponents of the death penalty told him they would kill anyone who raped their children. "When are you going to have the courage to stand up for what's right for all of the people — but especially the children under 12 that have been brutally raped by monsters?" Schneider demanded, directing his comments to the justices in Wednesday's majority.

The last executions for crimes other than murder took place in 1964, according to a database maintained by the Death Penalty Information Center.

Ronald Wolfe, 34, died in Missouri's gas chamber on May 8, 1964, for rape. James Coburn was electrocuted in Alabama on Sept. 4 of that year for robbery.

The case before the court involved Patrick Kennedy, 43, who was sentenced to death for the rape of his 8-year-old stepdaughter in Louisiana.

Kennedy was convicted in 2003. The girl initially told police she was sorting Girl Scout cookies in the garage when two boys assaulted her.

Police arrested Kennedy a couple of weeks after the March 1998 rape, but more than 20 months passed before the girl identified him as her attacker.

The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the sentence, saying that "short of first-degree murder, we can think of no other non-homicide crime more deserving" of the death penalty. State Chief Justice Pascal Calogero noted in dissent that the U.S. high court already had made clear that capital punishment could not be imposed without the death of the victim, except possibly for espionage or treason.

The girl's mother was reached by The Associated Press following the court's decision Wednesday. "We don't talk about that," she said and hung up.

A second Louisiana defendant, Richard Davis, was given the death penalty in December for repeatedly raping a 5-year-old girl in Caddo Parish.

Local prosecutor Lea Hall told jurors: "Execute this man. Justice has a sword and this sword needs to swing today." Both men will get new sentences.The case is Kennedy v. Louisiana, 07-343.

Source of this thread ( click here ) (http://www.onlines.ws/?p=689)

[Hilbert]

:bash:

What the Fvck is the Supreme Court thinking these days...

[phoebus]

:bash:

What the Fvck is the Supreme Court thinking these days...

Such crime deserves that, it totally destroys the victim, which on top of everything is young in age.

[Hilbert]

Such crime deserves that, it totally destroys the victim, which on top of everything is young in age.

I completely agree with you.

[Kilgor]

High education does not equal common sense or even a basic understanding or reality.

[annihilation]

Yeah I don't agree with their ruling. I would agree if killing them by a pack of wild dogs would be cruel and inhuman punishment. But they are not and they deserve to be executed. Really more people in person should be in death row.

[4X4Driver]

Society has no use and need for these kind of subhumans...they should be extreminated immediately.

I might sound harsh a bit..that's cuz I HATE seeing these kind of crimes being committed.

[LaoSexMachine]

Habeus Corpus for Gitmo but no death for child rapist.

[Power_serj]

They better not f**k up the ruling on the 2nd Amendment case. :cantbeli:

We will have criminals with weapons, while law abiding citizens are being raped by gun weilding criminals.

[Calanen]

:bash:

What the Fvck is the Supreme Court thinking these days...

Very narrow loss, the Court was divided. 4/5, it doesnt get any closer.

[LEB101]

what the **** if they were in lebanon there would be no court decisions .why is american supreme court so liberal and pu$$y

[AmericanAirman]

How skewed the Supreme Court is these days. Combine that with the crap Congress right now and it's not a good combo.

[gobdav]

what the **** if they were in lebanon there would be no court decisions .why is american supreme court so liberal and pu$$y


Because none of their children have been raped/molested.

[WarriorMonk]

Did you read the opinion? The arguments against this are pretty reasonable: 8th Ammendment, motivates perps to kill anyways knowing they are now committing a Capital Offense, children raped by family members may not come forward knowing that it has the potential to be a death sentence, and let alone any potential false accusation coming from children.

Tomorrow is going to be interesting, no doubt, with the Heller decision at hand...

[Power_serj]

^^^Well if that's what it says in the majority opinion, then their decision is even worse then I thought! They should not be speculating on the 'ifs' but they should be worried about the implications and what the fathers of the constitution were thinking. If they don't want the death penalty on their family member, they can ask the court. It is not the Supreme Court's authority to decide that some family members may not come forward. They are supposed to rule by law, not emotion. Don't they think that rape is "cruel and unusual punishment?" Maybe we should let them chose between getting butf*cked by a black guy with a horse d*ck for 12 hours, or getting a needle in their arm which slowly and painlessly kills them.

[eurekaa]

Because none of their children have been raped/molested.

I bit on that too

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

^^^Well if that's what it says in the majority opinion, then their decision is even worse then I thought! They should not be speculating on the 'ifs' but they should be worried about the implications and what the fathers of the constitution were thinking. If they don't want the death penalty on their family member, they can ask the court. It is not the Supreme Court's authority to decide that some family members may not come forward. They are supposed to rule by law, not emotion. Don't they think that rape is "cruel and unusual punishment?" Maybe we should let them chose between getting butf*cked by a black guy with a horse d*ck for 12 hours, or getting a needle in their arm which slowly and painlessly kills them.You have issues.

[pimpdawgin]

To qoute the article:
Rape and other crimes "may be as devastating in their harm, as here, but 'in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public,' they cannot be compared to murder in their 'severity and irrevocability,'" Kennedy said, quoting from earlier decisions.

Is rape not irrevocable? What can you undo it? WTF?
How is rape not "as bad" as treason or espionage. I guess the state doesn't like getting screwed, but doesn't mind if little kids do.

That said, although I am leaning towards the death penalty for not just murder, rape as well. I must say that as an Ontario resident (that's in Canada, BTW), due to the recent huge wave of falsely convicted people that have come to light, mostly 20+ years after the fact, I am getting a little unnerved by the death penalty. If we had it here, most of those guys would be dead by now and the truth wouldn't be uncovered, and even if it did it would be too late.
To see what I;m talking about, just look up Charles Smith (disgraced forensic pathologist-see the sources at the bottom of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Randal_Smith), Anthony Hanemaayer, who only was released after notorious serial rapist/killer Paul Bernardo confessed to the crime that he was convicted of(
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/25/hanemaayer-hearing.html)
and a whole host of others across Canada (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/wrongfullyconvicted/).
Instinctively it is normal to want to see all rapists and the like executed and not see tax dollars keeping them alive and fed, BUT the death penalty carries some serious risks. That's pretty much all I can think to say.

[Calanen]

Because none of their children have been raped/molested.

If I was on the bench, I would've voted against striking down the law, but I can also appreciate the argument the other way. It is not so ridiculous that it should be so emotively criticised.

Judges have to be above popular opinion, they are not elected officials. They have to read the law as they see it. I would have decided that only for the case of child rape, that execution was a suitable punishment, rather than all rape. And that it is not cruel and unusual punishment for the offence. However, there is another point of view.

Try to consider things sensibly without shooting from the hip. Judges cant afford to be emotionally unbalanced in making such decisions, and society cant afford to have emotional judges easily swayed by the winds of popular opinion.

[gobdav]

Y'know, I'm kind of divided on the death penalty for this myself. I know that it completely ruins a child's life, which should probably warrant a death penalty, and if it happened to my child, I don't think I would care if I went to jail for killing the offender. At the VERY LEAST, I believe castration would be the proper punishment, although that would never go through for some reason. (maybe some of the decision makers are child $#%krs? Death by injection, or having to live your life without a ****, what's worse?

[Calanen]

At the VERY LEAST, I believe castration would be the proper punishment, although that would never go through for some reason. (maybe some of the decision makers are child $#%krs? Death by injection, or having to live your life without a ****, what's worse


I think that castration would violate the Eighth Amendment, unless it was voluntary, as a way to get a reduced sentence.

[gobdav]

I think that castration would violate the Eighth Amendment, unless it was voluntary, as a way to get a reduced sentence.

I'm not as well versed on the Eighth Amendment, I'll admit, but it just seemed like proper punishment to me.

[SBL]

Ludicrous.

[Itamajus]

After one is found guilty, how many years does it take for the person to get executed? isnt there some sort of "waiting time" before someone can prove he is not guilty?

[Calanen]

After one is found guilty, how many years does it take for the person to get executed? isnt there some sort of "waiting time" before someone can prove he is not guilty?

Don't know what you mean by that. People make all sorts of appeals, so they stay on death row for years, and years.... but its pretty hard to prove you are innocent from behind bars.

It would perhaps be prudent to link the death penalty to DNA evidence or video evidence, to avoid such mistakes. Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

[Itamajus]

Don't know what you mean by that. People make all sorts of appeals, so they stay on death row for years, and years.... but its pretty hard to prove you are innocent from behind bars.

It would perhaps be prudent to link the death penalty to DNA evidence or video evidence, to avoid such mistakes. Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

I meant death row, thanks. I also agree to the idea of more reliable evidence for we are civil people and must make decision that way.


As to the topic child rape requires a capital punishment.

[-Church-]

At the VERY LEAST, I believe castration would be the proper punishment

First of all physical castration would be cruel(yeah we live in the civilized part of the world, not Saudi Arabia). Second chemical castration doesnt negate the desire that pushes ****** offenders. They would still be attracted to young kids and just lack the physical means to go through with their urges but you can still rape someone without getting an erection.

And sometimes frustration can lead to something even worse than fantasy. But maybe a life in jail might be better suited for such offenders. Either way I dont really care alive or dead as long as they dont get out in limited served time.

[El Diablo Rojo]

I have a quick and cost-effective solution to convicted rapists
http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/fsquad5.jpg

[hank]

^^^Well if that's what it says in the majority opinion, then their decision is even worse then I thought! They should not be speculating on the 'ifs' but they should be worried about the implications and what the fathers of the constitution were thinking. If they don't want the death penalty on their family member, they can ask the court. It is not the Supreme Court's authority to decide that some family members may not come forward. They are supposed to rule by law, not emotion. Don't they think that rape is "cruel and unusual punishment?" Maybe we should let them chose between getting butf*cked by a black guy with a horse d*ck for 12 hours, or getting a needle in their arm which slowly and painlessly kills them.

Serj, I love seeing you debate constitutional law. Reminds me of that old saying "don't bring a knife to a gun fight."

Read the opinion before commenting. And maybe, just maybe, read the f*cking constitution. It could not be more vague on the issue of cruel and unusual punishment. Its totally open to interpretation and that's what happened. The fact that you've read nothing and then spout off is, well, funny.

hank

[PanzerMaster]

Yeah I don't agree with their ruling. I would agree if killing them by a pack of wild dogs would be cruel and inhuman punishment. But they are not and they deserve to be executed. Really more people in person should be in death row.

Yes very inhuman, those poor puppies can catch some nasty bugs eating those scumbags.

[hank]

Y'know, I'm kind of divided on the death penalty for this myself. I know that it completely ruins a child's life, which should probably warrant a death penalty, and if it happened to my child, I don't think I would care if I went to jail for killing the offender. At the VERY LEAST, I believe castration would be the proper punishment, although that would never go through for some reason. (maybe some of the decision makers are child $#%krs? Death by injection, or having to live your life without a ****, what's worse?

Since when 1) does castration involve the removal of your **** and 2) is there any evidence that removal of your balls stops your willingness or ability to commit a *** crime?

This thread is made of win.

hank

[-Church-]

Since when 1) does castration involve the removal of your **** and 2) is there any evidence that removal of your balls stops your willingness or ability to commit a *** crime?

This thread is made of win.

hank

Ah Hank, long time no see. I see we agree(well you probably have real life experience regarding that sort of things I just read about it).

[hank]

Here is the opinion geniuses.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-343.pdf

hank

[hank]

Ah Hank, long time no see. I see we agree(well you probably have real life experience regarding that sort of things I just read about it).

Are you saying I've castrated someone or been castrated? Just kidding.

hank

[-Church-]

Are you saying I've castrated someone or been castrated? Just kidding.

hank

Yeah I found my phrasing ambiguous too. p-)

[Power_serj]

Serj, I love seeing you debate constitutional law. Reminds me of that old saying "don't bring a knife to a gun fight."

Read the opinion before commenting. And maybe, just maybe, read the f*cking constitution. It could not be more vague on the issue of cruel and unusual punishment. Its totally open to interpretation and that's what happened. The fact that you've read nothing and then spout off is, well, funny.

hank

Do you want me to do a case analysis? Damn, I hate you. I will read the 65 page case and then give my opinion. I sometimes forget we have a lawyer here. Now I actually have to do my work. :)

[Calanen]

Do you want me to do a case analysis? Damn, I hate you. I will read the 65 page case and then give my opinion. I sometimes forget we have a lawyer here. Now I actually have to do my work. :)

Two, as it happens.

[gobdav]

Since when 1) does castration involve the removal of your **** and 2) is there any evidence that removal of your balls stops your willingness or ability to commit a *** crime?

This thread is made of win.

hank


1) Physical castration was what I was talking about. Maybe removal of all *** organs would help, who knows.
2) I dunno, really, I didn't go to college to study ball removal and how it relates child rape statistics. I was giving a layman's opinion, which may/may not be an informed one.

And, I too, didn't realize this thread was filled with lawyers, arrogant ones at that. If I had known this was a law forum instead of a general opinion one, I may have gone elsewhere. If you truly want to win people to your side of the argument, enlighten us with your superior knowledge instead of making pompous comments.

[hank]

1) Physical castration was what I was talking about. Maybe removal of all *** organs would help, who knows.
2) I dunno, really, I didn't go to college to study ball removal and how it relates child rape statistics. I was giving a layman's opinion, which may/may not be an informed one.

And, I too, didn't realize this thread was filled with lawyers, arrogant ones at that. If I had known this was a law forum instead of a general opinion one, I may have gone elsewhere. If you truly want to win people to your side of the argument, enlighten us with your superior knowledge instead of making pompous comments.


Check this link. I can't find a definition of castration that says it involves removal of the *****.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:*&defl=en&q=define:Castration&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

Instead of assuming I'm arrogant you need to see what the words you type actually mean. Fact is, you've incorrectly used a word. No biggie. Check the link and get a vocab lesson.

Please provide a link to something that indicates that castration prevents or lessens the chance of ****** assault. I've looked and frankly there is ample evidence that it won't have any effect.

If you think providing facts to debunk your myths and vocabulary deficiencies is arrogance then I'll just be arrogant.

hank

[hank]

Do you want me to do a case analysis? Damn, I hate you. I will read the 65 page case and then give my opinion. I sometimes forget we have a lawyer here. Now I actually have to do my work. :)

Not really. But try this, it might be refreshing. Give SCOTUS the benefit of tje doubt. Those guys/gals are pretty smart and they work pretty hard. If you disagree with their decision then so be it. I often disagree with them. But don't label them stupid when 1) you don't know what you are talking about 2) you don't know anything about the law and 3) you don't really know exactly what they said. Seems like a reasonable approach to me.

hank

[LaoSexMachine]

Lawmakers vow to execute child rapists



Story Highlights
Supreme Court overturned efforts of 12 states to condemn child rapists to death
Lawmakers are vowing to continue writing law favoring death sentence
McCain: "an assault on law enforcement's efforts to punish these heinous felons"

(AP) -- Angry politicians vowed to keep writing laws that condemn child rapists to death, despite a Supreme Court decision saying such punishment is unconstitutional.
"Anybody in the country who cares about children should be outraged that we have a Supreme Court that would issue a decision like this," said Alabama Attorney General Troy King, a Republican. The justices, he said, are "creating a situation where the country is a less safe place to grow up."
The court's 5-4 decision Wednesday derailed the efforts of nearly a dozen states supporting the right to kill those convicted of raping a child and said execution was confined to attacks that take a life and to other crimes including treason and espionage.
At issue before the high court was a Louisiana case involving Patrick Kennedy, sentenced to die for raping his 8-year-old daughter in her bed, an assault so severe she required surgery.
In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that "the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child," despite the horrendous nature of the crime.
Republican Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal called the ruling "incredibly absurd" and "a clear abuse of judicial authority" and said officials will "evaluate ways to amend our statute to maintain death as a penalty for this horrific crime."
Oklahoma officials said they, too, weren't ready to give up and would "certainly look at what options we have," state Sen. Jay Paul Gumm said. "I think the people of Oklahoma have spoken loudly that this is one of the most heinous of crimes."
Even White House hopefuls joined the fray.
Republican Sen. John McCain called the ruling "an assault on law enforcement's efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime." Democratic Sen. Barack Obama said there should be no blanket prohibition of the death penalty for the rape of children if states want to apply it in those cases.
Forty-four states prohibit the death penalty for any kind of rape, and at least four states besides Louisiana permit it for child rape: Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas. There's disagreement over the status of a Georgia law permitting execution for child rape, although Kennedy said in his ruling that it was still in effect.
After the ruling, all become unconstitutional.
In Texas, Republican Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said Wednesday that most Texans believe that the death penalty is "an appropriate form of punishment for repeat child molesters. Our top priority remains protecting our most precious resource: our children."
But the Texas Association Against ****** Assault, a nonprofit victim advocacy group representing 80 rape crisis centers, applauded the ruling.
"Most child ****** abuse victims are abused by a family member or close family friend," the group said in a statement. "The reality is that child victims and their families don't want to be responsible for sending a grandparent, cousin or longtime family friend to death row."
Nationwide, only two men have been sentenced to death for ******ly abusing children, both in Louisiana. The second case involves a man convicted of repeatedly raping a 5-year-old girl. Both men will get new sentences.
Several states, including Missouri, Alabama and Colorado, had been considering similar laws.
In South Carolina, Republican Attorney General Henry McMaster said states could fight Wednesday's ruling by waiting for a change in the makeup of the Supreme Court or by getting legislatures to redo death penalty laws.
Legal experts were divided on the potential success of such tactics.
According to Douglas Berman, a law professor at Ohio State University, the justices' ruling appears ironclad.
"In the absence of death, the death penalty is off the table," he said. The court, he said, "could have left open the possibility of revamping child rape laws, by age for example, but it did not."
Law professor Deborah Denno of Fordham University wasn't so sure. It could be possible to argue for the application of the death penalty against attackers who "intended to kill" their victims but didn't, she said. Or those who assault especially young children, such as toddlers.


http://images.clickability.com/pti/spacer.gif

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/26/scotus.child.rape.ap/index.html

[Power_serj]

First of all, my first comment in this thread was not a "debate", it was a comment on how I feel about the ruling. If I was planning on debating with anyone here, I would have used facts, precedents, quotes (etc....). It's a discussion not a debate, I don't need to back up my facts in a discussion. Maybe you need to leave the lawyer sh*t at home and learn how to have a normal discussion with emotions rather than a debate that needs to be backed up with facts, precedents, quotes, half truths and no feelings. Not that I don't like a debate once in a while, but it's nice to have discussions sometimes too.

Not really. But try this, it might be refreshing. Give SCOTUS the benefit of tje doubt. Those guys/gals are pretty smart and they work pretty hard. If you disagree with their decision then so be it. I often disagree with them. But don't label them stupid when 1) you don't know what you are talking about 2) you don't know anything about the law and 3) you don't really know exactly what they said. Seems like a reasonable approach to me.

hank



I think it's safe to assume that a politician has f*cked me over. I'd rather not give any politician benefit of the doubt. Don't try to tell me they aren't politicians; all judges, justices and lawyers are politicians. Maybe stupid was the wrong word for the justices; I should have called them obdurate bastards.

To respond to your comments: 1) don't be so arrogant. 2) don't be so arrogant 3) I know enough to form a perfectly acceptable opinion to anyone but a chesty lawyer.

[hank]

First of all, my first comment in this thread was not a "debate", it was a comment on how I feel about the ruling. If I was planning on debating with anyone here, I would have used facts, precedents, quotes (etc....). It's a discussion not a debate, I don't need to back up my facts in a discussion. Maybe you need to leave the lawyer sh*t at home and learn how to have a normal discussion with emotions rather than a debate that needs to be backed up with facts, precedents, quotes, half truths and no feelings. Not that I don't like a debate once in a while, but it's nice to have discussions sometimes too.

This is the problem with comments by you and others like you. You think that because you feel something that its 1) so 2) relevant and 3) interesting. Its none of those three. Supreme Court justices are not now and never have been politicians. To the contrary, they are lifetime political appointments - appointed under a process designed at its core to remove them from political sway and public opinion. They make legal decisions without worrying about what people like you think. And that's the way it should be. You feelings shouldn't impact the state of constitutional law in this country.

If you want to make comments (especially derogatory ones) then at least have the decency to know 1) what happened and 2) the facts necessary to make an informed decision.

hank

[Andrew Chalmers]

They make legal decisions without worrying about what people like you think. And that's the way it should be. You feelings shouldn't impact the state of constitutional law in this country.

If you want to make comments (especially derogaory ones) then at least have the decency to know 1) what happened and 2) the facts necessary to make an informed decision.

hank

Wait... hank - are you saying we should look at the legal reasoning before judging the result of a given case? But that's... just... so... elitist! Elitist opinions informed by elitist education!!!


I prefer to just let my politics tell me whether the justices are stupid or smart, right or wrong. Because you know... those who disagree with me are stupid ;)

[hank]

Wait... hank - are you saying we should look at the legal reasoning before judging the result of a given case? But that's... just... so... elitist! Elitist opinions informed by elitist education!!!


I prefer to just let my politics tell me whether the justices are stupid or smart, right or wrong. Because you know... those who disagree with me are stupid ;)

You are arrogant. Stop it.

hank

[Power_serj]

This is the problem with comments by you and others like you. You think that because you feel something that its 1) so 2) relevant and 3) interesting. Its none of those three. Supreme Court justices are not now and never have been politicians. To the contrary, they are lifetime political appointments - appointed under a process designed at its core to remove them from political sway and public opinion. They make legal decisions without worrying about what people like you think. And that's the way it should be. You feelings shouldn't impact the state of constitutional law in this country.

If you want to make comments (especially derogatory ones) then at least have the decency to know 1) what happened and 2) the facts necessary to make an informed decision.

hank
If you don't like what I have to say, don't read my posts. It's as simple as that!

Just because lifetime appointments are supposed to keep politics out, doesn't mean they won't have a political opinion, thus the reasoning Republicans usually appointing conservative judges and Democrats usually appointing liberal judges. They will judge accordingly, even if they're not supposed too.

As I said, I know enough to form a perfectly acceptable opinion to anyone but a self-important lawyer who feels he has something to prove. Just because I did not read the 100 something page court decision does not mean I am uninformed. In fact, the majority of the people in this country will not read the decision and still have a very strong opinion, and that is perfectly acceptable. I know the outcome; the reasoning does not matter because it does not effect the implications and it won't change my opinion on what kind of punishment child rapists should recieve.

[Limeyfellow]

I think we have to be careful in starting the death penalty for any crime. We had the same problem in the 18th century when there was over 40 crimes that resulted in the death penalty that pretty much ripped the country apart and left the country not trusting authorities due to the harshness for many different systems and once the people got sick of having the picnics and celebrations at the hangings, the system tore itself apart and saw the introduction of an incarceration and rehabilitation.

I find it very dangerous when we let emotional anger guide positions and this is generally why we get juries and judges that have no ties to those involve in the crime and the supreme court judges did what was needed. A non emotional look at the subject other than "get the perverts!"

[Laconian]

I have no problem with the death penalty for child rape (under 12), I don't know of any parents that don't. I would have preferred the SCOTUS to rule that way. i need to read both decisions (this and Heller) but don't have the time right now.

[Ulytau]

My personal idea they must beg for dying..

[Ichabod]

I have a quick and cost-effective solution to convicted rapists
http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/fsquad5.jpg

And don't forget to bill the family for the bullets used.

[hank]

Republicans usually appointing conservative judges and Democrats usually appointing liberal judges. They will judge accordingly, even if they're not supposed too.

You might want to read a little about this. Its not even close to being true. Look at who appointed Stephens and look at Ike's appointments for good examples. I think you'll be surprised. The statistics say you can't predict how someone will vote. Look at O'Connor she voted with the left more often than not and Reagan appointed her. Breyer (or was it Souter can't remember) was appointed by Bush and turned out to vote usually from the left. Point is you can't predict this stuff - you can try but you'll be wrong quite if not most often.

FYI - my law partner did a ton of work for a well-known conservative think tank which shall remaing nameless on the Roberts appointment and really studied the issue going back about 150 years. What he learned was astonishing.

I'm not getting into a pissing contest with you about the rest of it.

hank

[WhiskeyTango]

As a first-time father of a now 6 month old baby girl, I am completely appalled by this decision. While it may be “right” from a legal perspective, it’s wrong morally in my opinion. I believe in using the death penalty in limited circumstances. Violent crimes against children, regardless if it resulted in death, are the most heinous of crimes and should be punishable by death. As soon as someone commits a crime of this nature, he should loose his constitutional guarantees - f*ck him! Why should the law protect him when he thinks its ok to break it so violently, especially against a defenseless child? We are a nation of laws and it should govern that way, until you break it with such a reprehensible crime as child rape.

I know the lawyers on this board will argue my points as being wrong and emotional….hell, they might be right. (new baby, not a lot of sleep) But where is the justice for the victim? What do we do as a deterrent? We keep getting more and more lax on punishments, people will be more apt to commit the crime…then what? What do I do to protect my family from life’s “ass-hats”? Not much apparently. I get laws that limit my ability as a law abiding citizen to carry a weapon and to cross my fingers and hope that when my daughter is waiting for the school bus she doesn’t get snatched by some f*ck-stick?

Castration isn’t a solution because the problem lies between the rapist’s ears and not in their pants. And please don’t tell me life in prison is punishment, its not. A bunch of like-minded criminals hanging out together, watching television, with free medical care, food, access to illegal drugs smuggled in, with the ability to continually harass their victim by mail (which has happened recently in my area), etc. Ever see the video of Richard Speck in prison doing lines, smoking weed and f*cking his boyfriend, basically partying and living it up…NO JUSTICE was served there and I’m sure he’s not the only prisoner is our system acting as such.

Rant over.

Please take into consideration that I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind…it’s just my opinion.

[hank]

Its important to remember that the Court can't be emotional. If someone raped my kid I'd want them dead. as would each Justice I imagine. That wasn't the question. The question was "is death for raping a child constitutional." And the answer was no. Fact is death penalties in general are not favored in this country and the applicability of the death penalty to anything but premeditated murder is a tough sell to any Court these days with all the problems they see and the imperfections in the Courts and evidence, etc. This is an emotional issue because its a kid crime but really there was no chance this would be approved with all the limits on death penalty that have already been allowed.

hank

[SBL]

^^I tend to agree. I'm not one who thinks the law, unto itself, is 'just'. I believe there has to be some sort of moral impetus behind it.
So, while legally it may be 'correct', I don't believe it to be 'right'.

[Laworkerbee]

Why do I feel this was a driving factor in the decision


Addressing the separate question of the court’s “own judgment,” Justice Kennedy suggested that the flow of death penalty cases for child rape could overwhelm the country’s criminal justice system. He noted that in 2005 there were 5,702 reported rapes of children under the age of 12.

:|

[hank]

Morality does not equal legality nor do all laws seem just to all people. The hardest thing to do as a judge (or lawyer for that matter) is to remember that even convicted criminals have constitutional rights. Its just the way it works.

hank

[Laworkerbee]

Morality does not equal legality nor do all laws seem just to all people. The hardest thing to do as a judge (or lawyer for that matter) is to remember that even convicted criminals have constitutional rights. Its just the way it works.

hank

Which is why I propose every state have a "Star Chamber" http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/9498/nodbr2.gif

[SBL]

Morality does not equal legality nor do all laws seem just to all people. The hardest thing to do as a judge (or lawyer for that matter) is to remember that even convicted criminals have constitutional rights. Its just the way it works.

hank

I understand that, and it's kind of my point. Without being subject to some overriding sense of right and wrong, the authority of law (as we currently understand it) becomes cheapened, and will be, I believe, eventually abandoned.


-edit-
Kudos to LAWB for the Star Chamber reference.

[Smok]

It is good decision. Why? Imagine. If there is death penalty for rape and death penalty for murder what will every rapist do? He will kill the victim! That will make finding him more difficult. So death penalty for rape isn't good sollution. It will cause more murders.

[Andrew Chalmers]

I understand that, and it's kind of my point. Without being subject to some overriding sense of right and wrong, the authority of law (as we currently understand it) becomes cheapened, and will be, I believe, eventually abandoned.

The authority of law rests on two large themes - whether it holds legitimacy amongst the people it is intended to govern; and whether the authority tasked with enforcing the law does so effectively.

If we don't like a particular law - say the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, we can amend the constitution to allow disproportionate punishment for specific crimes. If we don't like the individual right to bear arms; we can amend the 2nd Amendment to state the right to bear arms is collective.

We don't live in an autocracy or theocracy, there's no need for an "overriding sense of right or wrong" installed in the law; we don't need to call it "God's law" or "Mao's law" - the mere fact that we participate in the democratic process and have a degree of input gives the law the legitimacy it needs.

[SBL]

The authority of law rests on two large themes - whether it holds legitimacy amongst the people it is intended to govern; and whether the authority tasked with enforcing the law does so effectively.


If we don't like a particular law - say the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, we can amend the constitution to allow disproportionate punishment for specific crimes. If we don't like the individual right to bear arms; we can amend the 2nd Amendment to state the right to bear arms is collective.

We don't live in an autocracy or theocracy, there's no need for an "overriding sense of right or wrong" installed in the law; we don't need to call it "God's law" or "Mao's law" - the mere fact that we participate in the democratic process and have a degree of input gives the law the legitimacy it needs.

I disagree in that if there is no central, binding sense of justice, the law becomes a matter of relativity. And if we were to rely strictly on the 'legality' of a given issue, I believe you're opening the door to the conception of a lot of 'unjust' laws, the existence of which are dependent on precedent alone. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

[Andrew Chalmers]

I disagree in that if there is no central, binding sense of justice, the law becomes a matter of relativity.

In a perfect world, the law may be objective, but one's perception of what is "just" is completely subjective. The "sense of justice" is by definition, relative to each individual.


And if we were to rely strictly on the 'legality' of a given issue, I believe you're opening the door to the conception of a lot of 'unjust' laws, the existence of which are dependent on precedent alone.

Again - we live in a democracy, if a large proportion of the population feel that the laws are unjust; they can change it. Ironically - your argument that there is some sort of "central binding sense of justice" that is objective - is more likely to create "unjust" laws as those who disagree with this "central" interpretation basically get brushed aside.


I don't really understand what's the alternative - use "God's law" on earth? A group of humans over eons wrote all the religious texts we have on Earth - a even larger group read and created the "authoritative" interpretations.

Either way - everything that requires human input and interpretation has subjectivity.

[SBL]

In a perfect world, the law may be objective, but one's perception of what is "just" is completely subjective. The "sense of justice" is by definition, relative to each individual.



Again - we live in a democracy, if a large proportion of the population feel that the laws are unjust; they can change it. Ironically - your argument that there is some sort of "central binding sense of justice" that is objective - is more likely to create "unjust" laws as those who disagree with this "central" interpretation basically get brushed aside.


I don't really understand what's the alternative - use "God's law" on earth? A group of humans over eons wrote all the religious texts we have on Earth - a even larger group read and created the "authoritative" interpretations.

Either way - everything that requires human input and interpretation has subjectivity.
Well, I understand and appreciate what you're saying, and I agree that our current system is better than most. It is imperfect, however, and I get a little distressed when rulings like these are handed down. Maybe that's just my authoritarian side showing through, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree in this particular instance.

[Ichabod]

Castration isn’t a solution because the problem lies between the rapist’s ears and not in their pants. And please don’t tell me life in prison is punishment, its not. A bunch of like-minded criminals hanging out together, watching television, with free medical care, food, access to illegal drugs smuggled in, with the ability to continually harass their victim by mail (which has happened recently in my area), etc. Ever see the video of Richard Speck in prison doing lines, smoking weed and f*cking his boyfriend, basically partying and living it up…NO JUSTICE was served there and I’m sure he’s not the only prisoner is our system acting as such.

Rant over.

Please take into consideration that I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind…it’s just my opinion.

Well i believe you think this way cause your country hasn't got prisons but hotels for people who break the laws of your country,and are found guilty of whatever crime they committed..I know that in my country people were scared like **** when the militia came to their door back in the old days (if they had a reason).

You people seriously need to change your prisons.

Penitentiary's ;)

P.S. Congratulations on becoming a dad!

[Calanen]

Well i believe you think this way cause your country hasn't got prisons but hotels for people who break the laws of your country,and are found guilty of whatever crime they committed..I know that in my country people were scared like **** when the militia came to their door back in the old days (if they had a reason).


Prisons vary from state to state, but I think most people would not call Louisiana's prisons hotels. The general public might have the view that prisons are hotels, but anyone who has any dealings with prisons, like attorneys, cops, guards, will tell you that they are pretty awful places.

[Ichabod]

but anyone who has any dealings with prisons, like attorneys, cops, guards, will tell you that they are pretty awful places.

Yeah,but not as much as they should be.

[Andrew Chalmers]

Yeah,but not as much as they should be.

Let's get real? What do you want prisons to do? Bad person in - worst person out?

:cantbeli:

[Ichabod]

Let's get real? What do you want prisons to do? Bad person in - worst person out?

:cantbeli:

Now,now lets not be hasty Master Chalmers,that was not my point.I'm not talking about being awfully in the view of inmates conduct but rather in the view of the regimes of the prisons.

[emiljoe]

These judges deserve to be thrown out of court. How would they feel if their children were brutally rape?