Child Rapists Can't Be Executed, Supreme Court Rules »
Posted by: TimALoftis 2 months agoThe Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that executing a Louisiana child rapist would be unconstitutional, concluding capital punishment is reserved for murderers.
Read Full Story at cnn.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 75
-
0%
TimALoftis2 months ago
From the AP - "The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion. His four liberal colleagues joined him, while the four more conservative justices dissented.
Reply-
0%
TweekerchickQC2 months ago
Im torn. On one side, if you're punishing those people with the death penalty they have less of a reason to keep their victim alive, as it's not going to change the sentence if they get caught.
On the other side, if they're dead they can't ever hurt another kid again.
The one thing I do know is that I disagree, I think it's a completely proportional punishment. Only because I have a soft spot for children.
Reply -
0%
JoseMadre2 months ago
"The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child"
The Constitutional standard is "cruel and unusual" not "proportional." The authors and the legislatures that ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights would disagree, since after the adoption of the Bill of Rights they continued to execute kidnappers, rapists, and horse thieves.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
injest2 months ago
normallysilent
"I agree with the courts decision for once.
Now get that man out in the general prison population and let him mingle."
Uhmm? Ya got a point hear, but it only works IF we put them in the "general prison population" And let it be known WHY their in prison.
That would end the endless "appeals" , along with food and over crowding in some prisons.
Reply
-
0%
Dicax_Maximus2 months ago
Someone get sense, and send the "judges" (I use that word in the most derogatory way) to the nearest asylum, strap THEM to a bed, and allow as many convicted rapists to have their way (after the rapists have been "inside" for a few years, they'd "do" ANYTHING)!
Maybe then these moronic idiots would start to understand EXACTLY what damage rape can do (bad enough for an adult woman, heinous beyond description for a child)...
As TweekerchickQC said above, if they're dead, they CAN NEVER harm another child again !!!
These fools have just made one HELLOVA mistake, IMHO....
Reply-
0%
santa02 months ago
i think you misunderstand the issue.
the issue is not whether or not child rape is bad. i'm sure the 'judges' would have reached a unanimous conclusion on that one.
the issue is whether or not using the death penalty as a form of revenge is bad. and if i am informed correctly, i believe kennedy's descision was wisely based not on what is deserving of the perpetrator, but what is deserving of the victim.
the argument was made in this case that victims are better off with rapists ineligable for the death penalty for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is, if they can get a maximum punishment for raping a child then what is stop them from killing that same child?
IMHO i think that we should always be more concerned with the victims than the offenders. the offenders do not warrant our concern. they waived that right by committing the crime. what is best for the victims? (or potential victims?)
our judicial pinishment is not a form a revenge it is a form of correction.
Reply-
0%
DoseASpinoza2 months ago
I agree with at least part of your point -- when California enacted a "Use a gun, go to prison" a couple of decades back, it effectively became the "use a gun, don't leave witnesses" law.
The thing I find most troubling is that crimes of abuse are the only crimes with a 50-50 chance of creating a new offender. Murderers don't create more murderers, and robbers don't create more robbers, by committing their crimes.
Abuse victims (especially children) will identify either as victims or with the offender, taking on the role themselves to feel powerful over others. Often PTSD erases the conscious memory of having suffered abuse, especially in very young children, so they may not remember it as adults.
For decades the attitude has been that it is best for the child to forget, but now there is enough research to show a clear pathology that leads to about half of victims becoming abusers.
Scratch an offender, there's a victim underneath. By NO means a justification.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Wolfie20072 months ago
What bugs me is the lefty supremes overturning the laws of a sovereign state. I think the death penalty should be reserved for premeditated murder but the State of Louisiana felt otherwise. I don't believe the US Constitution give them the power to overturn state law.
Reply-
0%
smithichie2 months ago
State law does not trump the Constitution. Constitutional rights apply to ALL Americans no matter what state you happen to be in.
Reply-
0%
newbie04202 months ago
But the reason these judges felt it was unconsitutional is because they felt the death penalty was "cruel and unusual punishment" for child rapists.
ASk yourself this-who would you rather leave your kids in a room with-a convicted child rapist or a convicted murderer.
It may be a hard decission it may not be but I don't think many people would pick the child rapist so the punishment for both, IMO, shouldn't be too far off.
Reply
-
-
0%
IanFraigun2 months ago
The US constitution gives them the right to overturn any law in any state that violates the provisions of the US Constitution or any amendments to that document.
You may not agree with the interpretation in this case, but there is a prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. You may not agree this is cruel and unusual, but you or I do not have the right to set that standard for the entire country. If enough felt it was important enough congress could establish a law allowing such actions and that would become the law of the land unless it violated other parts of the constitution.
Reply-
0%
DoseASpinoza2 months ago
Except that because of the pathology of this crime, it knows no social or economic boundaries. Offenders are judges, lawyers, cops, doctors, ministers/priests and others as well as low-life drug dealers and other criminals.
In a very real sense, the foxes may be watching the henhouse. Nobody is going to propose or vote for a law that might snare him or herself.
I appreciate your point about the Constitution, but I wonder what the Founding Fathers thought about the offense -- is this not among the cruelest of crimes? I only wish it was more unusual. Stats show that one in four, perhaps one in three girls under the age of 15 has been forced or coerced into sex by a trusted person. I'm not sure if anyone has researched the stats for boys.
Reply
-
-
0%
Wolfie20072 months ago
smithichie
The US Constitution does not address, murder, rape or capital punishment. Read the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution where rights other than stated in the previous 9 Amendments are given to the people or the state. States have the right to make laws and the US Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the right to annul those laws.
Also, why is more cruel and unusual to give the death penalty to a child rapist than a murder?
Reply-
0%
smithichie2 months ago
Wolfie.
I really don't need to address the first paragraph since you point out yourself in the second paragrahph why the Supreme Court had the Constitutional right to step into what is normally a states decision.
Why is it more cruel and unusual to give the death penalty to a child rapist than a murderer? One has taken a life the other hasn't, simple as that.
Reply
-
-
0%
david_nwpa2 months ago
Yes, it does have that authority, as well it should. The question was did the state law conflict with the US Constitution. Enough of the justices thought that it did. This is not a left or right decision. It is a question of interpretation of the Constitution. I thought you righties were all about that.
Reply -
0%
willottica2 months ago
Never thought I'd agree with you Wolfie, but I do (and I'm glad I was wrong). I think the Supreme Court meddled where it didn't belong.
It declared that the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment for an extremely serious crime - this just opened the door for murderers to plead that it is cruel and unusual punishment.
The death penalty is only for murder is a conclusion based on the false assumption that the punishment must fit the crime. Gilbert and Sullivan have a song about this in the Mikado...
Anyway, to make the punishment fit the crime for child rapists, let's do an SAT question.
Murder is to the death penalty as
Child rape is to...
Sodomizing the rapist with a baseball bat. (because that's really akin to what the child must experience)
Somehow, I think the SC would strike THAT down as cruel and unusual, too!
Reply
-
-
gbilly08Comment removed: User banned.
-
0%
RDH982 months ago
I read that it might be more traumatic for the child to testify if his or her testimony might mean that someone will die because of it. they may refuse to testify at all.
Reply -
0%
HateKoolAid2 months ago
The more draconian the punishment we meat out for a crime the more likely the perpetrator will try to "hide" his crime. The pervert who has just raped a child (by the way what is the defining age limit of "child" on this subject?) is going to think; if this child tells someone what I did I get the needle, if I kill him I get the needle, all things being equal dead people don't talk so my odds improve if he is dead. We are actually putting our children in mortal danger with this knee jerk death penalty statute for child rape.
Reply-
0%
lvrofwolves2 months ago
That's really something to consider, after all I read today that 1/3 of murders are never solved. A rapist may feel a better chance of not getting caught if they kill the victim.
Reply
-
-
0%
chuck-the-canuck2 months ago
Sorry if the following shatters the moron repug brigade's preconceived ideas of us evil lefty Canadian socialists, this evil lefty Canadian socialist anyway.
If the US doesn't want to execute him, send him up to me. I'd put a bullet in his brain, no problem.
Child rapists? You bet.
Might as well pile it on.
I've got no problem with capital punishment for serial rapists and serial armed robbers. If you are willing to hold a weapon on someone, I would assume you must be willing to use it and if you are willing to kill a person to rob them, we don't need you.
We have become way too civilized for our own good. Rape someone, kill someone, rob someone with a weapon, society doesn't need you. You should either receive life in prison, and I mean life, no parole, or death, depending on the circumstances.
Reply -
0%
DianaKing2 months ago
so what happens if it's proved that the children were under the influence of drugs?what happens to them?how can we stop this from happening?
............................
Diana King
floridadrugrehab.com
Reply -
0%
HMMace2 months ago
THIS IS JUST ANOTHER REASON TO "TAKE" NO PRISONERS...
HAD WE PRACTICED THAT IN GANISTAN--AND HAD NO "GITMO"..WE COIULD NOT BE ACCUSED OF TORTURE THERE...
Reply -
0%
willbgone2 months ago
The death penalty may indeed be too harsh but since the courts fail to keep these people locked up to protect society, I think it may be a realistic alternative. Our society is WAY too liberal when it comes to doling out adequate prison sentences. People always worry about the "prisoners rights". What about the victim's rights? What about society's rights? Society needs to be protected from these people until they are dead, be it from natural or unnatural causes. They should not be afforded luxury accomodations, cable TV and nice, hot meals. This treatment is more than likely better than what they were getting when they were on the outside.God forbid anything like that happen to someone I care about but the Court wouldn't have to worry about what sentence they impose.
Reply -
0%
dependman492 months ago
Think is time for this country to start to go to the eye for and eye no jail time. If you are a sex offender you lose you testicals firt time penis the second. if you are convicted of murder you die I am tired of supporting all the crooks, murders,rapist and child molesters in this life
Reply -
ranchhandComment removed: User banned.
-
KvilleTXComment removed: User banned.
-
0%
runningspirit2 months ago
Aren't child rapist worse than any suspected terrorist in GITMO or some other secret prison? Why not bus them their and give them proper punishment. If this country is torturing people and incarcerating its own citizens for suspected collusion with terrorist with no hard evidence, then why in the hell is that pervert in Florida who kidnapped, raped, and then buried alive a little girl in their with rest of them getting cornholed with a barbed wire baseball bat?
This country is assbackwards. I have always thought so.
Reply -
0%
Natureboy2 months ago
The funny thing about this thread is that these could all be comments emanating from the more harshly conservative factions of Saudi Arabia or Iran.
And if they were, we would be pointing and decrying their barbarity.
Reply -
0%
Peleus2 months ago
I think the justices may have been concerned about a slippery slope, but I have some issues with this ruling.
Personally I support capital punishment, but I think it's a tool we should use carefully. One problem is the delicate line between what a "child" is and a "minor" -- suppose, for instance, an 18-year-old has sex with a 16-year-old in a state where 18 is the AOC. Does he die for this? If you start executing child rapists, do you then move on to adult rape (and remember that rape is notoriously difficult to prove.) We don't have a Truth Machine yet. Some cases are open-and-shut, but many are far from that.
But the older law being discussed here stipulates "children under the age of 12." That makes sense to me. If you've got a serial molester, I say bring on Hammurabi's code. Execute him. I don't see how that violates the 8th Amendment. An electric chair might, but a bullet in the head wouldn't.
Otherwise, chemical castration.
Reply -
0%
protoham2 months ago
Another case where the Federal Government has overstepped its constitutional bounds. That is why I say the Civil War was lost by the people and won by the Government.
Reply -
0%
Natureboy2 months ago
The question that begs to be asked -
How many of those advocating eye-for-an-eye retributive justice on this thread are the same ones claiming on other threads that ours is a Christian nation?
And why do they not perceive the absurdity of their position?
Reply -
purposeComment removed: User banned.
Submitted By:
TimALoftis
Welcome To Propeller 2.0
If you like 'Social News' and making friends and conversation with both a mature and informed community - this site is ...
Also submitted:
- 1.0 - Baby News! Atlanta Zoo Panda Lun Lun Is Pregnant
- 1.0 - Gallup: Obama 48% McCain 42%
- 1.0 - Clayton County Schools In Georgia Lose Accreditation
- 6.8 - Man Goes On Rampage After Girlfriend Says 'No' To Sex
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Also Propping This Article
Groups Watching This
No groups are watching this story. Why not share it with your group?
