The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: TheSarge on June 25, 2008, 09:28:47 AM
-
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has struck down a Louisiana law that allows the execution of people convicted of a raping a child.
In a 5-4 vote, the court says the law allowing the death penalty to be imposed in cases of child rape violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,371353,00.html
:censored:
-
Yeah, Sarge. Me too.
I'm sorry but child rape is one of those crimes that would make me support street justice. The swift and harsh kind that costs the taxpayers little.
-
How is that cruel or unusual punishment???? Execution is too easy, IMO. It's should be a slow painful death.
-
and pedophiles nationwide feel more inclined to roam the streets searching for youngsters to molest without the inhibiting "consequences" to deter them.
-
Yeah, Sarge. Me too.
I'm sorry but child rape is one of those crimes that would make me support street justice. The swift and harsh kind that costs the taxpayers little.
WTF does it say about our society when we won't punish those that do disgusting things to innocent children with the most severe justice we can possibly hand out?
-
The DUmp celebration of this ruling in 3...2...1...
-
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"?
-
This ruling will do to things...it will encourage the sick :censored: to continue molesting kids...and it will cause people distraught over what has been done to their kids to kill the bastard themselves because they know the courts wont do what needs to be done.
It's a lose - lose situation for the children.
-
once the supreme court rules on the constitutionality of the death penalty, and they have, why are they involving themselves in when it is to be applied? the duly elected representatives of the people of louisiana thought it was an appropriate punishment.
-
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".
-
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".
what about treason?
-
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.
-
Yeah, Sarge. Me too.
I'm sorry but child rape is one of those crimes that would make me support street justice. The swift and harsh kind that costs the taxpayers little.
Add me in this feeling. :argh: :angryvillagers:
-
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.
-
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".
So we should ignore the mental damage that ruins the childs life, just because the rapist left them alive?
-
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".
what about treason?
if the treason committed causes the death of an american, anywhere, sure... other than that, put them in a US ARMY run detention center in Baghdad
** confusing quote tage problem fixed by WE **
-
Yeah, Sarge. Me too.
I'm sorry but child rape is one of those crimes that would make me support street justice. The swift and harsh kind that costs the taxpayers little.
WTF does it say about our society when we won't punish those that do disgusting things to innocent children with the most severe justice we can possibly hand out?
It say's our more and more secular progressive society dosen't give a sh** about children, that's why we fight tooth and nail to abort them at any age, dump them in garbage cans, you get the picture, what's a little rape! you know the Nambla people are hand in hand with the ACLU trying to normalize pedohillia don't you?
-
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.
-
once the supreme court rules on the constitutionality of the death penalty, and they have, why are they involving themselves in when it is to be applied? the duly elected representatives of the people of louisiana thought it was an appropriate punishment.
Easy. The opponents to the death penalty can't get it overturned completely like they want...so yet again the Liberals are using judicial fiat to to get what they want one piece at a time
-
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".
what about treason?
I think the same way about the death penalty as a sentence for treason. The death peanlty for treason has an established history but virtually no future in this country, so there is nothing to add.
To clarify, I think the Rosenbergs should have died around 1965 or so from the stress from hard labor.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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".
what about treason?
if the treason committed causes the death of an american, anywhere, sure... other than that, put them in a US ARMY run detention center in Baghdad
** confusing quote tage problem fixed by WE **
Except that the Constitution - or Title 18 USC for that matter - doesn't put that stipulation into the definition of Treason, or mandate that it be present as an aggravating factor to warrant execution of traitors.
-
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.
-
^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?
-
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.
-
^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.
-
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.
-
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? :whatever:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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? :whatever:
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Deterrence, when achieved, is pure gravy.
Huh?
-
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!
-
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? :whatever:
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.
-
I don't. Just your lead in assertion.
-
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.
-
I don't. Just your lead in assertion.
your problem is the order in which I wrote things? :thatsright:
-
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. :-)
-
I don't. Just your lead in assertion.
your problem is the order in which I wrote things? :thatsright:
No. My problem is that it is included with the rest of your point.
-
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".
-
I don't. Just your lead in assertion.
your problem is the order in which I wrote things? :thatsright:
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.
-
WE....Defiant...chill out...you're arguing silly minutiae instead of the larger point here.
-
Yes, SERGEANT!!! :cheersmate: and of course :cheersmate: for you too WE.
-
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.
-
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 :-)
-
While I disagree with the decision very much, I can understand that it could be seen as being "unusual" and therefore not OK.
-
My two cents.
Deterrence, revenge or an 'eye for an eye' (etc) are all side effects of the court properly pursuing its primary function. That being, the administration of justice. To the larger question of weather it is ever just to get the death penalty for child rape, I would say yes. It's possible that the DP can be a just punishment for that crime.
One has the right to kill your attacker to prevent a rape. That right clearly extends to the protection of a child from a rapist. I believe it would be just, given the heinous nature of this particular crime on a child, that the State should have that right as well. (with a high burdon of proof and in exceptional cases)
While I disagree with the decision very much, I can understand that it could be seen as being "unusual" and therefore not OK.
fwiw- the eighth amendment protects against cruel and unusual punishment, not cruel or unusual. (just sayin')
-
^^RS, we talked about that once before but it's interesting to hear someone else view it that way. I've always assumed it meant Cruel and Unusual as well. It would be very interesting to research that.
I have always believed that the wording was to prevent people from torturing the condemned to death. I'm not a scholar, but that's what I got from learning it in school.
-
^^RS, we talked about that once before but it's interesting to hear someone else view it that way. I've always assumed it meant Cruel and Unusual as well. It would be very interesting to research that.
I have always believed that the wording was to prevent people from torturing the condemned to death. I'm not a scholar, but that's what I got from learning it in school.
I've wondered about "Cruel AND Unusual", before. It seems to allow for torture as long as it does not surpass the original crime.
OTOH, Would Cruel or Unusual be considered as appropriate with regards to the time period. Certain punishments have been outlawed or done away with, as we become a more "civilized" society.
-
the mccain camp weighs in on the SCOTUS decision. coulda been stronger, IMHO.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
McCAIN DISAPPOINTED WITH SUPREME COURT RULING THAT FAILS TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) today released the following statement regarding the Supreme Court’s decision issued in Kennedy v. Louisiana:
"As a father, I believe there is no more sacred responsibility in American society than that of protecting the innocence of our children. I have spent over twenty-five years in Congress fighting for stronger criminal sentences for those who exploit and harm our children. Today’s Supreme Court ruling is an assault on law enforcement’s efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime. That there is a judge anywhere in America who does not believe that the rape of a child represents the most heinous of crimes, which is deserving of the most serious of punishments, is profoundly disturbing."
-
Where is Senator Obama's response? :popcorn:
-
^^RS, we talked about that once before but it's interesting to hear someone else view it that way. I've always assumed it meant Cruel and Unusual as well. It would be very interesting to research that.
I have always believed that the wording was to prevent people from torturing the condemned to death. I'm not a scholar, but that's what I got from learning it in school.
I've wondered about "Cruel AND Unusual", before. It seems to allow for torture as long as it does not surpass the original crime.
OTOH, Would Cruel or Unusual be considered as appropriate with regards to the time period. Certain punishments have been outlawed or done away with, as we become a more "civilized" society.
Interesting stuff...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment08/05.html#1
-
the mccain camp weighs in on the SCOTUS decision. coulda been stronger, IMHO.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
McCAIN DISAPPOINTED WITH SUPREME COURT RULING THAT FAILS TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) today released the following statement regarding the Supreme Court’s decision issued in Kennedy v. Louisiana:
"As a father, I believe there is no more sacred responsibility in American society than that of protecting the innocence of our children. I have spent over twenty-five years in Congress fighting for stronger criminal sentences for those who exploit and harm our children. Today’s Supreme Court ruling is an assault on law enforcement’s efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime. That there is a judge anywhere in America who does not believe that the rape of a child represents the most heinous of crimes, which is deserving of the most serious of punishments, is profoundly disturbing."
Thanks for posting that. I agree it could have been stronger, however I have to admit that I didn't even know for sure that McCain would come out on the right side of this issue at all. (let alone the "right" side) Till now I've only liked what I've heard from that guy on taxes and the war.
-
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has struck down a Louisiana law that allows the execution of people convicted of a raping a child.
In a 5-4 vote, the court says the law allowing the death penalty to be imposed in cases of child rape violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,371353,00.html
:censored:
I am of two minds on the issue of the death penalty for child rapists. If it were up to me, I'd fry the lousy SOBs when we caught them, but I think the idea that it may lead rapists to kill their victims has some merit. That said, this is an issue for legislatures to decide.
-
the mccain camp weighs in on the SCOTUS decision. coulda been stronger, IMHO.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
McCAIN DISAPPOINTED WITH SUPREME COURT RULING THAT FAILS TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) today released the following statement regarding the Supreme Court’s decision issued in Kennedy v. Louisiana:
"As a father, I believe there is no more sacred responsibility in American society than that of protecting the innocence of our children. I have spent over twenty-five years in Congress fighting for stronger criminal sentences for those who exploit and harm our children. Today’s Supreme Court ruling is an assault on law enforcement’s efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime. That there is a judge anywhere in America who does not believe that the rape of a child represents the most heinous of crimes, which is deserving of the most serious of punishments, is profoundly disturbing."
Thanks for posting that. I agree it could have been stronger, however I have to admit that I didn't even know for sure that McCain would come out on the right side of this issue at all. (let alone the "right" side) Till now I've only liked what I've heard from that guy on taxes and the war.
it will be interesting to see what the obama campaign's response will be. I wonder what's taking them so long? :whatever:
-
the mccain camp weighs in on the SCOTUS decision. coulda been stronger, IMHO.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
McCAIN DISAPPOINTED WITH SUPREME COURT RULING THAT FAILS TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) today released the following statement regarding the Supreme Court’s decision issued in Kennedy v. Louisiana:
"As a father, I believe there is no more sacred responsibility in American society than that of protecting the innocence of our children. I have spent over twenty-five years in Congress fighting for stronger criminal sentences for those who exploit and harm our children. Today’s Supreme Court ruling is an assault on law enforcement’s efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime. That there is a judge anywhere in America who does not believe that the rape of a child represents the most heinous of crimes, which is deserving of the most serious of punishments, is profoundly disturbing."
Thanks for posting that. I agree it could have been stronger, however I have to admit that I didn't even know for sure that McCain would come out on the right side of this issue at all. (let alone the "right" side) Till now I've only liked what I've heard from that guy on taxes and the war.
He will use this in a push against activist judges at the local, state, and Federal levels.
-
Remember, everybody, we got this guy:
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:a7LPvq9IPWs3LM:http://www.achievement.org/achievers/ken0/large/ken0-009.jp])
only because the Left lied about and smeared this guy:
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:Q_5PpAZjPEI3eM:http://thesituationist.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/bork.jpg)
So remember that and be sure to thank this guy:
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:EUxrY0uIzMP8ZM:http://usera.imagecave.com/webloafer/Blogs/article_fat_ted_feeding_tube.jpg11127175362708.jpg)
For forcing that first guy on us in the first place.
-
the mccain camp weighs in on the SCOTUS decision. coulda been stronger, IMHO.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
McCAIN DISAPPOINTED WITH SUPREME COURT RULING THAT FAILS TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) today released the following statement regarding the Supreme Court’s decision issued in Kennedy v. Louisiana:
"As a father, I believe there is no more sacred responsibility in American society than that of protecting the innocence of our children. I have spent over twenty-five years in Congress fighting for stronger criminal sentences for those who exploit and harm our children. Today’s Supreme Court ruling is an assault on law enforcement’s efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime. That there is a judge anywhere in America who does not believe that the rape of a child represents the most heinous of crimes, which is deserving of the most serious of punishments, is profoundly disturbing."
Thanks for posting that. I agree it could have been stronger, however I have to admit that I didn't even know for sure that McCain would come out on the right side of this issue at all. (let alone the "right" side) Till now I've only liked what I've heard from that guy on taxes and the war.
He will use this in a push against activist judges at the local, state, and Federal levels.
I think you're right. mccain could turn the court into a real wedge issue.
The court divided along ideological lines. Justices Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined the majority. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
The ruling prompted Senator John McCain, the presumed Republican presidential nominee, to denounce the court for the second time this month. He condemned the majority for ``an assault on law enforcement's efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime.''
Earlier, McCain said a 5-4 decision giving suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, access to federal courts is ``one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.''
Democrat Barack Obama's campaign had no immediate comment.
More (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=adjlAAE7vRfY&refer=home)
-
This is a tragedy.
The only argument I've heard that almost makes sense to me is that if child rapist could be given the DP then, knowing that, they'd kill the child rather than take the chance of them testifying against them. I said "almost makes sense," because I believe that if they're that mean, DP or not doesn't make a difference, they'd kill the child anyway.
.
-
This is a tragedy.
The only argument I've heard that almost makes sense to me is that if child rapist could be given the DP then, knowing that, they'd kill the child rather than take the chance of them testifying against them. I said "almost makes sense," because I believe that if they're that mean, DP or not doesn't make a difference, they'd kill the child anyway.
.
Until a short while ago, I did not know (and did not want to know) the specifics of this case. However, it does lend itself the the 'argument' you mention. Some thoughts from the Michelle Malkin link below and a link from there to the specifics of the case (the SC case in adobe format) are available.
Malkin link. (http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/25/what-the-child-rapist-saved-today-by-supreme-court-liberals-did-to-his-8-year-old-stepdaughter/)
Since this was the "test case" as it were, for the expansion of the DP, I went ahead and read it. (the following summery is detail free) The man found guilty attacked his own step daughter. At the sentencing hearing, the jury learned that the man had also attacked his own niece at the same age. I mention all this because I do not think that this is the kind of perp who would kill the victim to hide the crime.
Add to that, I think the argument that a child rapist will be motivated to kill (and there are many who do that already anyway) if the DP is on the table is just as weak, or weaker than the "deterrence argument".
-
obama's comments on the SCOTUS decision:
Obama disagrees with court on child rape case
CHICAGO (AP) — Democrat Barack Obama says he disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision outlawing executions of people convicted of raping a child.
Obama told reporters Wednesday that he thinks the rape of a child, ages six or eight, is a heinous crime. He said if a state makes a decision, then the death penalty is potentially applicable.
He disagreed with the court's blanket prohibition.
Link (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iUxLyuaYbgY6v9Li7_Lunlk5vm4gD91HB8PG0)
his answer seems to be "yes and no, under certain circumstances, perhaps". :whatever:
-
I found his actual quote:
"I disagree with the decision. I have said narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes. The rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances that the death penalty can be pursued, that that does not violate the Constitution."
Link (http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2E3MTc3YTEyY2M0YTQ0OWQ4ZmIxZjk3ZTAwZTA1OGM=)
what the hell does that mean?
-
I found his actual quote:
"I disagree with the decision. I have said narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes. The rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances that the death penalty can be pursued, that that does not violate the Constitution."
Link (http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2E3MTc3YTEyY2M0YTQ0OWQ4ZmIxZjk3ZTAwZTA1OGM=)
what the hell does that mean?
It means he is paddling with both oars but neither one of them reach the water.
-
I found his actual quote:
"I disagree with the decision. I have said narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes. The rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances that the death penalty can be pursued, that that does not violate the Constitution."
Link (http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2E3MTc3YTEyY2M0YTQ0OWQ4ZmIxZjk3ZTAwZTA1OGM=)
what the hell does that mean?
It means he has been having back-room meetings with bill clinton on "triangulation."
-
Having little sympathy for child rapists, I find myself in odd agreement with the USSC. It's tantamount to executing someone for assault.
That said, perhaps we could just make them eunuchs??
-
Having little sympathy for child rapists, I find myself in odd agreement with the USSC. It's tantamount to executing someone for assault.
That said, perhaps we could just make them eunuchs??
I think that whether or not it is an appropriate punishment is an entirely different conversation than whether it is an unconstitutional punishment.
-
On one side, I don't feel that execution is right for child rape, while I still think it's a horrible horrible crime. I don't think that SCOTUS should have ruled at all on this case. They should have declined to hear it in the first place, because it's a state's decision anyways, since not clearly laid out in the Constitution.
-
the ruling on the DC handgun ban is going to be handed down tomorrow. anyone wanna bet THAT one
will be a 5-4 loss, too? I am already expecting it to be upheld.
mccain should be able to use the gitmo habeas corpus ruling, today's death penalty ruling, and tomorrow's
likely loss on handgun ownership to great advantage in the coming months.
-
the ruling on the DC handgun ban is going to be handed down tomorrow. anyone wanna bet THAT one
will be a 5-4 loss, too? I am already expecting it to be upheld.
mccain should be able to use the gitmo habeas corpus ruling, today's death penalty ruling, and tomorrow's
likely loss on handgun ownership to great advantage in the coming months.
I COMPLETELY disagree with the DC handgun banning. I really hope that it goes the right way.
-
the ruling on the DC handgun ban is going to be handed down tomorrow. anyone wanna bet THAT one
will be a 5-4 loss, too? I am already expecting it to be upheld.
mccain should be able to use the gitmo habeas corpus ruling, today's death penalty ruling, and tomorrow's
likely loss on handgun ownership to great advantage in the coming months.
I COMPLETELY disagree with the DC handgun banning. I really hope that it goes the right way.
I hope john mccain puts you on the supreme court. :-) you'd be a definite upgrade over stevens
-
My prediction is that tomorrow, Heller will be upheld and DC will lose. That said, I don't think that much more of the 2nd Amendment will be discussed. It will be a weak decision with the ability for another USSC Court to hear it. There's too much for this court to lose if it goes much further. After all, why CAN'T the average person own a machine gun, grenades, rockets, etc, without a "special tax" or in some cases, not at all?? IMHO, the 2nd Amendment was written to enable the citizens of the US to overthrow a tyrannical government. How can we do that when we're out armed??
-
the ruling on the DC handgun ban is going to be handed down tomorrow. anyone wanna bet THAT one
will be a 5-4 loss, too? I am already expecting it to be upheld.
mccain should be able to use the gitmo habeas corpus ruling, today's death penalty ruling, and tomorrow's
likely loss on handgun ownership to great advantage in the coming months.
I COMPLETELY disagree with the DC handgun banning. I really hope that it goes the right way.
I hope john mccain puts you on the supreme court. :-) you'd be a definite upgrade over stevens
"they" were bitching about Kennedy tonight on the radio. Very unhappy.
-
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".
I take it you were never raped or molested as a child.
Some scars never heal.
I think that rape and especially child rape is most deserving of the death penalty.
-
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.
Amen. This SCOTUS ruling flies in the face of the 10th Amendment.
-
On one side, I don't feel that execution is right for child rape, while I still think it's a horrible horrible crime. I don't think that SCOTUS should have ruled at all on this case. They should have declined to hear it in the first place, because it's a state's decision anyways, since not clearly laid out in the Constitution.
Finally.. A fellow poster that "understands".
-
On one side, I don't feel that execution is right for child rape, while I still think it's a horrible horrible crime. I don't think that SCOTUS should have ruled at all on this case. They should have declined to hear it in the first place, because it's a state's decision anyways, since not clearly laid out in the Constitution.
Finally.. A fellow poster that "understands".
I love it when you conservatives side with the token lib.
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
-
On one side, I don't feel that execution is right for child rape, while I still think it's a horrible horrible crime. I don't think that SCOTUS should have ruled at all on this case. They should have declined to hear it in the first place, because it's a state's decision anyways, since not clearly laid out in the Constitution.
Finally.. A fellow poster that "understands".
Hey! :-) Several of us agreed with the last part. In fact, I know both myself and WE tried to point out that the judical fiat issue is really the only important one. This turned into a debate about the punishment itself (which is a great debate btw) but its really about SCOTUS overstepping.
And Mia, you're a smart cookie.
-
On one side, I don't feel that execution is right for child rape, while I still think it's a horrible horrible crime. I don't think that SCOTUS should have ruled at all on this case. They should have declined to hear it in the first place, because it's a state's decision anyways, since not clearly laid out in the Constitution.
Finally.. A fellow poster that "understands".
Hey! :-) Several of us agreed with the last part. In fact, I know both myself and WE tried to point out that the judical fiat issue is really the only important one. This turned into a debate about the punishment itself (which is a great debate btw) but its really about SCOTUS overstepping.
And Mia, you're a smart cookie.
(http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y138/firelatte/smiles/agreement6.gif) (http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y138/firelatte/smiles/icon_redface.gif)