06-26-2008, 04:34 PM
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
06-26-2008, 10:12 PM
EyelidsGuest06-27-2008, 01:23 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.
06-27-2008, 06:59 PM
EyelidsGuest06-28-2008, 12:07 AM
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.
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
07-04-2008, 10:23 AM
Jindal presses for rehearing of child rape case
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.This is bigger than presidential politics. This is a battle for America.
JohnGuest07-04-2008, 10:33 AM
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!.
07-04-2008, 11:00 AM
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
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.”
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|