U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Law Allowing Execution for Child Rape

[DixieBelle]

^you said it better than I could. The heart of this matter is judicial fiat.

And yes, I am very biased based on my professional background. I've read things about some of these cases that kept me up for days and had me curled into the fetal position. Can you imagine how the victims felt?

[Chris_]

yep.

first and foremost, the death penalty is about deterrence, which is ultimately a primary means by which our social order defends itself.  it's existence deters those that would consider such a heinous crime from ever committing it, and it is certainly the ultimate deterrent for those that are executed from ever committing the same offense again.  and that isn't a minor argument, considering modern recidivism rates.

The Death Penalty isn't about deterrence, it is about the the most efficient means available to society to protect itself from the offender committing his crime again.  We want there to be a "message sent" to those who are contemplating committing the particular crime, but just as the children cannot be held accountable for the sins of the father, the scumbag can't be executed just to keep others from murdering.  

He's being executed to keep HIM from murdering.

[DixieBelle]

^there are some studies that suggest a deterrence factor. But yes, if you want to get techincal, it isn't solely about deterrence. And for those that argue it is, well it certainly deters the condemned.

[Wretched Excess]

WE is right. It's a state matter. The Federal courts have had their say on the D.P.

The D.P. isn't about revenge at all. If that were the case, the accused would be turned over to the victim's family. The state acting on behalf of its people, carry out the prosecution and punishment. I believe there are some crimes too heinous for just a life sentence. I don't think it always has to be, "you kill, we kill you back". Some of these cases would keep any decent person up at night if they knew the facts. Death is appropriate sometimes in my opinion.

Color me jaded, but I support Louisiana's decision. It's a shame the highest court in the land seems to be off their meds this month. Let's hope they don't screw up the Heller ruling as well.

yep.

first and foremost, the death penalty is about deterrence, which is ultimately a primary means by which our social order defends itself.  it's existence deters those that would consider such a heinous crime from ever committing it, and it is certainly the ultimate deterrent for those that are executed from ever committing the same offense again.  and that isn't a minor argument, considering modern recidivism rates.

It is dangerous to establish the premise that the death penalty is about deterrence.  To base it on that premise gives ammo to those who want to do away with such a penalty.

As long as we can all agree the death penalty is purely about "eye for and eye" there is no argument.

I just flatly disagree.  if you are suggesting that the "deterrent" argument to the DP in particular is a "slippery slope", then we should probably open the jails now and let everyone out.  if it's not a deterrent in a capital cases, it's not a deterrent ever.

and, just for the record, I am myself quite ambivalent about the DP, but my problem has to do with absolute certainty that you are executing the right guy, every time, and every place . . . juries, being comprised of people, being the fallible things that they are, and all.   ultimately, I am forced to come down firmly in favor of the DP, because I think that a social order that refuses itself the ultimate punishment is, in the final analysis, incapable of defending themselves.

[Wretched Excess]

yep.

first and foremost, the death penalty is about deterrence, which is ultimately a primary means by which our social order defends itself.  it's existence deters those that would consider such a heinous crime from ever committing it, and it is certainly the ultimate deterrent for those that are executed from ever committing the same offense again.  and that isn't a minor argument, considering modern recidivism rates.

The Death Penalty isn't about deterrence, it is about the the most efficient means available to society to protect itself from the offender committing his crime again.  We want there to be a "message sent" to those who are contemplating committing the particular crime, but just as the children cannot be held accountable for the sins of the father, the scumbag can't be executed just to keep others from murdering. 

He's being executed to keep HIM from murdering.

did you actually read my post?

[TheSarge]

It is dangerous to establish the premise that the death penalty is about deterrence.  To base it on that premise gives ammo to those who want to do away with such a penalty.

Why is it dangerous?  And why is it incorrect to say the Death Penalty is about "deterrence"? 

It clearly spells out to the criminal that if you take a life you can expect yours to be taken away from you as a punishment for your crime.

Sounds to me like that is a good and valid attempt to "deter" someone from committing the act of murder.

As long as we can all agree the death penalty is purely about "eye for and eye" there is no argument.

Sounds like "deterrance" to me.

[Lord Undies]

I am relieved with this decision.  I am not a fan of the Louisiana law.  Yes, I think people who rape children don't deserve to live, but I do not want a door open for the death penalty to be able to be applied to any situation where a life, actual breathing life, has not been maliciously taken. 

A death sentence is not, nor should not be, about revenge.  The death penalty should stand as a clear decision that our society values individual life as the most precious possession an individual has.  It should be applied only when one person has deprived another person of their most precious and irreplaceable possession. 

The death penalty should only stand for "You took his life, so now you can't have yours".

In a lot of molestation instances, the child's life is ruined....they never recover mentally from what was done to them.  That's just as bad as being killed, IMO.

Worse IMO. At least death is final and has a beginning and end.

My hardcore conservative philosophy is well established.  The fact I don't find fault with this SC decision should give you pause.

no one questioning your bona fides, by any means.  but your doubts about the DP shouldn't create doubt in anyone about their own conservative credentials, either.  jus' sayin'

if you want to prohibit the DP in any case not involving the taking of a life, then lobby your state legislature.  but if the duly elected representatives consider it an appropriate punishment in cases of child rape, then the SC decision today is a flat usurpation of democracy in LA.

Usurpation of democracy in Louisana?  A death penalty decision by the federal Supreme Court?  I'm afraid that ship sailed many many years ago.

It was once a state's decision, and it should be again, but in the meanwhile it is not.  Since it is not, I am accepting, without regret, of this federal decision.  

[Chris_]

yep.

first and foremost, the death penalty is about deterrence, which is ultimately a primary means by which our social order defends itself.  it's existence deters those that would consider such a heinous crime from ever committing it, and it is certainly the ultimate deterrent for those that are executed from ever committing the same offense again.  and that isn't a minor argument, considering modern recidivism rates.

The Death Penalty isn't about deterrence, it is about the the most efficient means available to society to protect itself from the offender committing his crime again.  We want there to be a "message sent" to those who are contemplating committing the particular crime, but just as the children cannot be held accountable for the sins of the father, the scumbag can't be executed just to keep others from murdering. 

He's being executed to keep HIM from murdering.

did you actually read my post?

Yeah.  

The lead in point - the one that spun me up  - stands in conflict with the general direction that you go with the rest of the post.  You say that the death penalty is about deterrence - the point to which I object - and then go into depth about how it isn't primarily about deterring the criminals still at large, but in arresting the criminal career of this particular convicted murderer.

[Lord Undies]

It is dangerous to establish the premise that the death penalty is about deterrence.  To base it on that premise gives ammo to those who want to do away with such a penalty.

Why is it dangerous?  And why is it incorrect to say the Death Penalty is about "deterrence"? 

It clearly spells out to the criminal that if you take a life you can expect yours to be taken away from you as a punishment for your crime.

Sounds to me like that is a good and valid attempt to "deter" someone from committing the act of murder.

As long as we can all agree the death penalty is purely about "eye for and eye" there is no argument.

Sounds like "deterrance" to me.

Deterrence, when achieved, is pure gravy.

[TheSarge]

All punishment for people who break the law is a form of "deterrence" just in varying and elevating degrees depending on the crime.

If we shouldn't look at the Death Penalty as "deterrence"...couldn't that same arguement be applied to ANY punishment for ANY crime whether it's a speeding ticket or a felony?

[TheSarge]

Deterrence, when achieved, is pure gravy.

Huh?

[PatriotGame]

No surprise that the decision was split right down the line. Liberals never met a criminal they didn't like.  Whatever happened to "think of the children"?

The rally cry of liberals:

The government needs to do something!
YOUR CHILDREN WILL SUFFER!
I am offended!

[Wretched Excess]

yep.

first and foremost, the death penalty is about deterrence, which is ultimately a primary means by which our social order defends itself.  it's existence deters those that would consider such a heinous crime from ever committing it, and it is certainly the ultimate deterrent for those that are executed from ever committing the same offense again.  and that isn't a minor argument, considering modern recidivism rates.

The Death Penalty isn't about deterrence, it is about the the most efficient means available to society to protect itself from the offender committing his crime again.  We want there to be a "message sent" to those who are contemplating committing the particular crime, but just as the children cannot be held accountable for the sins of the father, the scumbag can't be executed just to keep others from murdering. 

He's being executed to keep HIM from murdering.

did you actually read my post?

Yeah. 

The lead in point - the one that spun me up  - stands in conflict with the general direction that you go with the rest of the post.  You say that the death penalty is about deterrence - the point to which I object - and then go into depth about how it isn't primarily about deterring the criminals still at large, but in arresting the criminal career of this particular convicted murderer.

and it is certainly the ultimate deterrent for those that are executed from ever committing the same offense again.  and that isn't a minor argument, considering modern recidivism rates.


I have no idea where you find disagreement between my position and yours.  none.  whatsoever.

[Chris_]

I don't.  Just your lead in assertion.

[JohnnyReb]

I can live without the death penalty for child rape...............if the rapist is kept in prison for natural life under the prison conditions and standards of 1786.

[Wretched Excess]

I don't.  Just your lead in assertion.

your problem is the order in which I wrote things?   

[Wretched Excess]

I can live without the death penalty for child rape...............if the rapist is kept in prison for natural life under the prison conditions and standards of 1786.

good thought.  but I am sure that one would be ruled "cruel and unusual punishment" by this court full of marshmallows. 

[Chris_]

I don't.  Just your lead in assertion.

your problem is the order in which I wrote things?   

No.  My problem is that it is included with the rest of your point.

[Wretched Excess]

No surprise that the decision was split right down the line. Liberals never met a criminal they didn't like.  Whatever happened to "think of the children"?

The rally cry of liberals:

The government needs to do something!
YOUR CHILDREN WILL SUFFER!
I am offended!

liberal position:  "no, we will not provide your children with the ultimate protection from sexual predators.  but here are some free condoms".

[Wretched Excess]

I don't.  Just your lead in assertion.

your problem is the order in which I wrote things?   

No.  My problem is that it is included with the rest of your point.

I'll try to break complex points up for you in the future.

[TheSarge]

WE....Defiant...chill out...you're arguing silly minutiae instead of the larger point here.

[Chris_]

Yes, SERGEANT!!!     and of course  for you too WE.

[Wretched Excess]

WE....Defiant...chill out...you're arguing silly minutiae instead of the larger point here.

no, I was trying to find the area of disagreement.  it turns out there wasn't one.  and no one was unchilly, thank you very much.

[TheSarge]

WE....Defiant...chill out...you're arguing silly minutiae instead of the larger point here.

no, I was trying to find the area of disagreement.  it turns out there wasn't one.  and no one was unchilly, thank you very much.

Kerry on then 

[Jim]

While I disagree with the decision very much, I can understand that it could be seen as being "unusual" and therefore not OK.