PDA

View Full Version : US supreme court rules against death penalty in child rape cases



Gingersnap
06-25-2008, 10:56 AM
US supreme court rules against death penalty in child rape cases

Daniel Nasaw in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday
June 25, 2008

The US supreme court today struck down a Louisiana law permitting the state to execute people convicted of raping children.

In a 5-4 decision, the high court said the law allowing capital punishment in cases of child rape violates the US constitution's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

"The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court. His four liberal colleagues joined him, while the four more conservative justices dissented.

Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/25/usa1)

Odysseus
06-25-2008, 10:59 AM
US supreme court rules against death penalty in child rape cases
Daniel Nasaw in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday
June 25, 2008
The US supreme court today struck down a Louisiana law permitting the state to execute people convicted of raping children.
In a 5-4 decision, the high court said the law allowing capital punishment in cases of child rape violates the US constitution's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
"The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court. His four liberal colleagues joined him, while the four more conservative justices dissented.
Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/25/usa1)

Apparently, the crime can be cruel and unusual, but the punishment must be warm and fuzzy.

linda22003
06-25-2008, 11:01 AM
It needn't be "warm and fuzzy" if it's not death. I agree with capital punishment, but it should be for a capital crime.

CLibertarian
06-25-2008, 11:02 AM
US supreme court rules against death penalty in child rape cases

Daniel Nasaw in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday
June 25, 2008

The US supreme court today struck down a Louisiana law permitting the state to execute people convicted of raping children.

In a 5-4 decision, the high court said the law allowing capital punishment in cases of child rape violates the US constitution's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

"The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court. His four liberal colleagues joined him, while the four more conservative justices dissented.

Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/25/usa1)

Since such allegations aginst those accused of such horrible things seem to get thrown around all too easily these days, I have no problem with a reluctance to apply the DP in such cases. However, as with the normal application of the DP in murder cases, I have no problem with those that have truly been proven guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt, receive the DP. In many cases, raping a child kills a major part of them for the rest of their lives. Wrt to punishment of perpetrators, it should be elevated to that of murder.

This is also a good view at how Liberals view our children. They are only important to them when it's politically expedient to use them as their excuse for intervening into and destroying families. Gotta punish those horrible and evil parents--especially the ones that are Conservative Home Schoolers.

noonwitch
06-25-2008, 11:03 AM
It needn't be "warm and fuzzy" if it's not death. I agree with capital punishment, but it should be for a capital crime.


There's not a whole lot of warm and fuzzy in store for child rapists in prison. A whole lot of "eye for an eye" kind of justice waiting, though.

linda22003
06-25-2008, 11:07 AM
This is also a good view at how Liberals view our children. They are only important to them when it's politically expedient to use them as their excuse for intervening into and destroying families. Gotta punish those horrible and evil parents--especially the ones that are Conservative Home Schoolers.

Well, that was a neck-snapping segue from the topic at hand.

CLibertarian
06-25-2008, 11:07 AM
There's not a whole lot of warm and fuzzy in store for child rapists in prison. A whole lot of "eye for an eye" kind of justice waiting, though.

Therefore, the DP would actually save them from cruel and unusal punishment.

CLibertarian
06-25-2008, 11:09 AM
Well, that was a neck-snapping segue from the topic at hand.

I take it that you disagree?

Phillygirl
06-25-2008, 11:11 AM
I haven't read the decision, but my gut says I agree with it. Damn. I really hate agreeing with Kennedy.

CLibertarian
06-25-2008, 11:14 AM
I haven't read the decision, but my gut says I agree with it. Damn. I really hate agreeing with Kennedy.

As Noonwitch pointed out, they will get it either way. I say this even though I ultimately disagree with the ruling based upon what I previously stated.

linda22003
06-25-2008, 11:18 AM
I take it that you disagree?

You just seem to have gone off on one of your own tangents. :)

Space Gravy
06-25-2008, 11:21 AM
It needn't be "warm and fuzzy" if it's not death. I agree with capital punishment, but it should be for a capital crime.


I haven't read the decision, but my gut says I agree with it. Damn. I really hate agreeing with Kennedy.

I'm with you all on this one. Only apply it in murder cases.

Gingersnap
06-25-2008, 11:23 AM
There's always been a problem with rape and death penalty. While virtually all of us would cheerfully kill a child rapist or any rapist, it's important to make sure we aren't making a bad situation much worse.

One of the strongest arguments against the death penalty in rape cases is that it can promote murder of the victim. It makes more sense to rape, kill, and silence a victim than to leave a witness.

It's a tricky problem.

CLibertarian
06-25-2008, 11:25 AM
You just seem to have gone off on one of your own tangents. :)

Just pointing out a factual observation from which everyone has a data point to reference wrt to the perspective of the Liberal SCOTUS judges. I didn't intend to threadjack.

CLibertarian
06-25-2008, 11:27 AM
I'm with you all on this one. Only apply it in murder cases.


There's always been a problem with rape and death penalty. While virtually all of us would cheerfully kill a child rapist or any rapist, it's important to make sure we aren't making a bad situation much worse.

One of the strongest arguments against the death penalty in rape cases is that it can promote murder of the victim. It makes more sense to rape, kill, and silence a victim than to leave a witness.

It's a tricky problem.

While I would like for the DP to apply, I have been reminded of the "attention" that such animal will receive from the other inmate. Therefore, my insistance is not as strong as it was.

ConJinx
06-25-2008, 11:29 AM
Read the decision. The death penalty is not proportional, then fine, child rapists should receive an as ass raping just prior to yard time. Also when did our founding documents become an evolving text? Can't wait till tomorrows gun ruling in D.C.

Phillygirl
06-25-2008, 12:03 PM
As Noonwitch pointed out, they will get it either way. I say this even though I ultimately disagree with the ruling based upon what I previously stated.

I need to read the decision. I'm torn between the clear ability of the Court to look at what constitutes cruel and unusual, balanced by the states' right to determine same.

Looks like I'll be reading some con law this weekend.

linda22003
06-25-2008, 12:11 PM
The decision may not be posted for a couple of days; I checked the Supreme Court website and decisions are only posted through 6/23 at the moment.

LogansPapa
06-25-2008, 12:19 PM
One of the strongest arguments against the death penalty in rape cases is that it can promote murder of the victim. It makes more sense to rape, kill, and silence a victim than to leave a witness.

It's a tricky problem.

Would have never thought of it. The act is so blindly animalistic I never realised it could foster something worse.:cool:

biccat
06-25-2008, 12:36 PM
The decision may not be posted for a couple of days; I checked the Supreme Court website and decisions are only posted through 6/23 at the moment.
http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?p=12816#post12816

I don't know if I completely agree with this or not. Seems like the states should be granted broad leeway in sentencing. Look for a lot more "child rape + attempted murder" cases.

megimoo
06-25-2008, 12:38 PM
Read the decision. The death penalty is not proportional, then fine, child rapists should receive an as ass raping just prior to yard time. Also when did our founding documents become an evolving text? Can't wait till tomorrows gun ruling in D.C. The problem with ass raping a pedophile is they would probably enjoy it now emasculating it is a better solution !As for the the gun ruling I have bad feelings predicated on the length of time it has taken .But our second amendment rights will be diluted, big time or a little,that is the issue !

Odysseus
06-25-2008, 01:06 PM
http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?p=12816#post12816

I don't know if I completely agree with this or not. Seems like the states should be granted broad leeway in sentencing. Look for a lot more "child rape + attempted murder" cases.

The silencing of the victim argument is a strong one against the DP for rape, but certainly rape+murder or rape+attempted murder should warrant it. I don't see why we reward failed murderers who had the same intent as successful ones. We're only ensuring that they will have the opportunity to perfect their skills.

FuroraCeltica
06-25-2008, 01:10 PM
Apparently, the crime can be cruel and unusual, but the punishment must be warm and fuzzy.

Good quote.

No doubt the far left, "human rights" groups and the European Union are celebrating the fact life just got easier for child sex attackers :mad:

Odysseus
06-25-2008, 03:06 PM
Good quote.

No doubt the far left, "human rights" groups and the European Union are celebrating the fact life just got easier for child sex attackers :mad:

It will certainly make life easier for UN Peacekeepers who engage in sex with children. No, wait, those guys were never prosecuted, so it will have no impact on them... Nevermind.

megimoo
06-25-2008, 04:11 PM
Good quote.

No doubt the far left, "human rights" groups and the European Union are celebrating the fact life just got easier for child sex attackers :mad:Have you noticed how much the liberal far left is being driven by the wishes of the 'one world' EU ?They are beginning to be a dictatorial force in American's liberal legal and political circles and the root of many liberal causes !

The abolition of the DP for minors no matter how heinous the crime is now a fact .Kennedy's and Ginsberg's Supreme Court opinions are riddled with European Union's Jurisprudence.The EU will attempt to impose its will on America through the Liberal left at every opportunity .

In the past liberals like Tom Hayden at the time clamored for the UN to rule America but liberals of today worship at the alter of the EU!

The EU'S influence reaches into Americas business on a daily basis with Dictatorial judgements against some of our major corporations doing business in Europe .

vetwife
06-25-2008, 08:20 PM
Good quote.

No doubt the far left, "human rights" groups and the European Union are celebrating the fact life just got easier for child sex attackers :mad:

your opinion there just might be a bit off. Barack Obama today in a meeting in Chicago when asked about the decision, said he dsagreed with it. He felt the rape of a child was A HANEOUS CRIME. He was for the death penalty on rape of a young child. Probably ticked the base off but he didn' hesitiate when he answered the reporter's question..

Here is the link.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/25/america/NA-POL-US-Obama-Child-Rape-Case.php

Obama says he disagrees with Supreme Court decision outlawing death penalty for child rapistsThe Associated PressPublished: June 25, 2008

lacarnut
06-26-2008, 09:12 AM
your opinion there just might be a bit off. Barack Obama today in a meeting in Chicago when asked about the decision, said he dsagreed with it. He felt the rape of a child was A HANEOUS CRIME. He was for the death penalty on rape of a young child. Probably ticked the base off but he didn' hesitiate when he answered the reporter's question..

Here is the link.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/25/america/NA-POL-US-Obama-Child-Rape-Case.php

Obama says he disagrees with Supreme Court decision outlawing death penalty for child rapistsThe Associated PressPublished: June 25, 2008

Oh, noes; a politician would not state his opinion to get votes especially a Democrap.

If the courts will not execute these monstors, they should at least be castarated.

FuroraCeltica
06-26-2008, 10:44 AM
Have you noticed how much the liberal far left is being driven by the wishes of the 'one world' EU ?They are beginning to be a dictatorial force in American's liberal legal and political circles and the root of many liberal causes !

The abolition of the DP for minors no matter how heinous the crime is now a fact .Kennedy's and Ginsberg's Supreme Court opinions are riddled with European Union's Jurisprudence.The EU will attempt to impose its will on America through the Liberal left at every opportunity .

In the past liberals like Tom Hayden at the time clamored for the UN to rule America but liberals of today worship at the alter of the EU!

The EU'S influence reaches into Americas business on a daily basis with Dictatorial judgements against some of our major corporations doing business in Europe .

You make some excellent points. The EU hates the US and is trying to undermine it. This is especially true in the death penalty and the war on terror.


Now, Europeans are doing more than complain-they are starting to act. More and more European lawyers and human rights groups are filing amicus briefs in U.S. capital cases. European heads of state call governors to plead for clemency for those about to be executed. The EU funds several major anti-death penalty initiatives in the U.S.http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:jzX7TCbGFkAJ:www.counterpunch.org/leavitt06282003.html+EU+funds+American+Bar+Associa tion+death+penalty&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5

NavySquid
06-26-2008, 11:39 AM
The silencing of the victim argument is a strong one against the DP for rape, but certainly rape+murder or rape+attempted murder should warrant it. I don't see why we reward failed murderers who had the same intent as successful ones. We're only ensuring that they will have the opportunity to perfect their skills.

Correct. And I'm guessing that there is an extremely small miority of child rapists that just do it once if they don't get caught. I think it's pretty well documented that these people don't "get better." I don't have a problem with them getting the death penalty, I just question if it's really a deterrent.

LogansPapa
06-26-2008, 11:43 AM
Screw the deterrence - how about not having to feed, clothe and house them with full medical benefits?

Odysseus
06-26-2008, 03:34 PM
Correct. And I'm guessing that there is an extremely small miority of child rapists that just do it once if they don't get caught. I think it's pretty well documented that these people don't "get better." I don't have a problem with them getting the death penalty, I just question if it's really a deterrent.

It's certainly a deterrent to repeat offenders. Studies show that the repeat rate among executed felons is 0%. :D

Also, with today's decision in Heller vs. Washington, SCOTUS has recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms. Since the 8th Amendment only applies to state courts in this instance, the court is clearly implying that the execution of child rapists is an individual right. :D

Eyelids
06-26-2008, 08:59 PM
It's certainly a deterrent to repeat offenders. Studies show that the repeat rate among executed felons is 0%. :D
lol. I really disagree with this decison; the fuckers need to fry.

Odysseus
06-26-2008, 09:12 PM
lol. I really disagree with this decison; the fuckers need to fry.

Who are you and what have you done with the real Eyelids?

Eyelids
06-27-2008, 12:23 PM
Both CU Eyelids and real Eyelids are very against child rapists as a matter of principle. Now, you make sure there is DNA evidence (read: slam dunk evidence) proving the guys guilt... but to me raping a child is worse than murder. They cant be rehabilitated to any sort of functioning level for society and have earned the right to a speedy demise.

Odysseus
06-27-2008, 05:59 PM
Both CU Eyelids and real Eyelids are very against child rapists as a matter of principle. Now, you make sure there is DNA evidence (read: slam dunk evidence) proving the guys guilt... but to me raping a child is worse than murder. They cant be rehabilitated to any sort of functioning level for society and have earned the right to a speedy demise.

Again, this is a lucid, intelligent and reasonable statement. When did you hack Eyelids' account?

Eyelids
06-27-2008, 11:07 PM
Oh god, I'll have to hold off on my views of Global Warming for later. I might get some of you guys to actually like me, and we dont need that problem.

megimoo
06-27-2008, 11:32 PM
Oh god, I'll have to hold off on my views of Global Warming for later. I might get some of you guys to actually like me, and we dont need that problem.Don't hold your breath Oscar !

LibraryLady
07-04-2008, 09:23 AM
Jindal presses for rehearing of child rape case (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080704/NEWS03/807040334/1002/NEWS)
WASHINGTON — Citing an error made by the Justice Department, Gov. Bobby Jindal has pressed Louisiana law enforcement officials to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider a case involving application of the death penalty in child rape cases.


"We have not made a decision yet but we are strongly considering requesting the justices to reconsider the case," Jefferson Parish Assistant District Attorney Steve Wimberly said Thursday.

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the death penalty is forbidden for crimes against individuals that do not result in death.

That decision nullified the death sentence in the case of Patrick Kennedy, 43, of Jefferson Parish, who was convicted of raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter. The assault was so violent the child needed surgery.

The justices decided Kennedy's sentence, which was imposed by a Louisiana statute, is contrary to "evolving standards of decency."

The ruling also affected the sentencing of Richard Davis, convicted last year of raping a 5-year-old Caddo Parish girl and sentenced to death.

But on Wednesday, the Justice Department said it had erred in not making sure the Supreme Court knew Congress approved a law two years ago allowing the death penalty for rape under the Uniform Code of Military Justice."We regret that the Department didn't catch the 2006 law when the case of Kennedy v. Louisiana was briefed," a Justice Department statement said. "It's true that the parties to the case missed it, but it's our responsibility. Yesterday, shortly after learning of the law, we advised the clerk's office at the Supreme Court."

Jindal promptly asked Attorney General Buddy Caldwell and District Attorney Paul Connick in Jefferson Parish, who presided over the Kennedy case, to ask the Supreme Court for a rehearing.

The Supreme Court will rehear a case if four justices agree.

"The Supreme Court got this case wrong, plain and simple. The most brutal and appalling crimes deserve the harshest penalties, and the horrible rape of an 8-year-old child most certainly is one of the most gruesome crimes imaginable," Jindal said.

John
07-04-2008, 09:33 AM
Both CU Eyelids and real Eyelids are very against child rapists as a matter of principle. Now, you make sure there is DNA evidence (read: slam dunk evidence) proving the guys guilt... but to me raping a child is worse than murder. They cant be rehabilitated to any sort of functioning level for society and have earned the right to a speedy demise.

Actually, in any case wherein the prosecution seeks the death penalty, the prosecution is held to a much higher burden. Juries don't commit to kill people based on what-ifs and maybes. If the prosecution is asking for the penalty of death than they better damn well be ready to provide the why.

However, that's not the issue here. The issue is the the fact that the federal government, via the court, is getting involved in a state crime and punishment trial! Historically, the several states have defined crimes and administered their punishments. Why in the hell is a federal court circumventing the power of a state to define acceptable punishment for state defined crimes?

It makes no sense, even under 14th Amendment incorporation. If it is not cruel and inhumane for a state to execute a murderer, then why not a rapist. The interpretation for punishment to befit the crime should be the broadest interpretation possible, because what just punishment means for Texans is only a flesh wound compared for what Arizonans expect criminals to pay for their crimes. What Arizonans expect from their criminals may be more meanhearted than what Oregonians expect. The Court should have given this one wide girth with a healthy dose of State Rule!.

megimoo
07-04-2008, 10:00 AM
Once again the liberal court alludes to a 'living Constitution' as opposed to the Founders original intent !

" Justice Rehnquist’s objection to the “living Constitution” thesis is that it licenses judges to view cases through the lens of their own value judgments and to substitute those judgments for the values that can be “derived from the language and intent of the framers.”

megimoo
07-04-2008, 10:03 AM
lol. I really disagree with this decison; the fuckers need to fry.Are you well ,did you bang your little pointed head ?That's the first rational thing you have ever typed on this site !

AmPat
07-06-2008, 06:17 AM
I'm not sure about this. I don't want anyone executed out of hand. The courts do a good job normally when death penalty cases are heard. If we execute people for murder and that evolves into execution of (child)rapists, what's next? Remove Child from rapists and now we are executing run-of-the-mill-rapists.

When we get tired of the drug pushers, we'll line them up next. Who knows, Liberals may be on that list eventually.

We have an instinctive, visceral hatred of any crimes against children. I don't want to automatically buy into the death penalty for child rapists based on emotion. Imprisonment is 100% effective for this crime because there is a zero percent chance of the prisoner attacking a child while incarcerated.

I also don't get any satisfaction out of the possibility of further punishment while behind bars. We hear about how the child abusers are beaten/killed/raped in prison. I don't KNOW this to be true. It may be urban legend because I have also heard a few stories that this isn't actually true. I favor a real court decision on punishment because I know that will be enacted.

Eyelids
07-06-2008, 02:43 PM
Interesting points...

The "whats next" argument is logical and worth discussing, but lets get real and understand how certain crimes are viewed in this country. Rape is a horrible crime (and I'm not talking about the 19 year old sleeping with a 16 year old statuatory bullshit) that really deserves severe punishment for those who commit it. I come from the camp that says it is nearly impossible to fully rehabilitate a violent criminal; once somebody crosses the threshold once they are infinitely more likely to commit the same crime again. How many kids can be willing to endanger? Oddyseus put it somewhat humourously but the liklihood of an executed criminal commiting the same crime again is rather low. In some cases murder can be on some level justifiable (of course we dont call it murder then), but never can the same be said about rape of any kind.

You kill these fucks by the bushel the same way you would cattle, and maybe that dent in the child-rapist population and the implied deterrent of the death penalty will help protect those who cant protect themselves.