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

[ReardenSteel]

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')

[DixieBelle]

^^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.

[thundley4]

^^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.

[Wretched Excess]

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."

[thundley4]

Where is Senator Obama's response? 

[ReardenSteel]

^^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

[ReardenSteel]

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.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

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

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.

[Wretched Excess]

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?

[BlueStateSaint]

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.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

Remember, everybody, we got this guy:



only because the Left lied about and smeared this guy:


So remember that and be sure to thank this guy:


For forcing that first guy on us in the first place.

[Wretched Excess]

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

 

[USA4ME]

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.

.

[ReardenSteel]

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.

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".

[Wretched Excess]

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

his answer seems to be "yes and no, under certain circumstances, perhaps".

[Wretched Excess]

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

what the hell does that mean?

[Lord Undies]

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

what the hell does that mean?

It means he is paddling with both oars but neither one of them reach the water.

[Chris_]

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

what the hell does that mean?

It means he has been having back-room meetings with bill clinton on "triangulation."

[Thor]

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??

[Wretched Excess]

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.

[Miss Mia]

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.

[Wretched Excess]

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.

[Miss Mia]

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. 

[Wretched Excess]

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

[Thor]

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??