Supreme Court Rules against Death for Child Rape

[bakerprune64]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/25/scotus.child.rape/index.html

Snip>>>>The ruling stemmed from the case of Patrick Kennedy, who has been on Louisiana's death row since 2003, when he was sentenced to be executed for raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that "evolving standards of decency" in the United States forbid capital punishment for any crime other than murder. Execution of Patrick Kennedy, the justices ruled, would be unconstitutional.
Patrick Kennedy, 43, would have been the first convicted rapist in 44 years to be executed in a case in which the victim was not killed.
Kennedy was convicted of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter in her bed. The attack caused internal injuries and bleeding to the child, requiring extensive surgery, as well as severe emotional trauma, Louisiana prosecutors said.

***********************************

Maybe some Con can take care of this ass:furious:

 

[MagicRose99]

I've said it before and I'll say it again... there are a bunch of perverts ruling our courts... things like this just prove it.

 

[evelyn24]

I've said it before and I'll say it again... there are a bunch of perverts ruling our courts... things like this just prove it.

I agree with you.


On the political side.
This is an issue for each state to decide, IMO. The US Supreme Court should not make a blanket ruling for every case. These things should be decided on a case by case basis by the local DA, and the prosecutor etc.
Also, jurors should be able to make the decision on whether someone deserves death based on the case/trial. Each case of child rape is different. Lets say a 17 year old raped an 11 year old...that's bad, but clearly it's not the same as a grown man violently raping an 8 year old. Prosecutors, local criminal court judges, and jurors are smart enough to understand the difference.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty is constitutional..in general, well then why can't a state decide to apply it to a child rapist if the rape is particularly violent?
Seems like the court YET AGAIN is over stepping it's boundry. I read the dissenting view by the minority on this ruling, and boy do they ever take the majority to task.
Also, the majority of the Supreme court is left of center, it includes a member who once served as a lawyer for the ACLU (Ruth Bader Ginsburg), and we all know that what the ACLU thinks of the sex offender registery and notification laws.

 

[angelmom]

I agree with you.


On the political side.
This is an issue for each state to decide, IMO. The US Supreme Court should not make a blanket ruling for every case. These things should be decided on a case by case basis by local the DA, and the prosecutor etc.
Also, jurors should be able to make the decision on whether someone deserves death based on the case/trial. Each case of child rape is different. Lets say a 17 year old raped an 11 year old...that's bad, but clearly it's not the same as a grown man violently raping an 8 year old. Prosecutors, local criminal court judges, and jurors are smart enough to understand the difference.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty is constitutional..in general, well then why can't a state decide to apply it to a child rapist if the rape is particularly violent?
Seems like the court YET AGAIN is over stepping it's boundry. I read the dissenting view by the minority on this ruling, and boy do they ever take the majority to task.
Also, the majority of the Supreme court is left of center, it includes a member who once served as a lawyer for the ACLU (Ruth Bader Ginsburg), and we all know that what the ACLU thinks of the sex offender registery and notification laws.

This is one of those issues that somehow is never discussed in the PP.

 

[believe09]

What bothered me about the ruling was a presumption that the court made; They stated as one of their reasons for striking the law down was because they felt not allowing the law would incent the perp not to kill the victim...in effect that they were saving lives by not agreeing to capital punishment for child rape. Whhhaaaattt? I need help with this one here; this is not a logical argument for me. They are saying that a child rapist will figure WTH, I might as well kill the victim since I am going to get DP anyway....i genuinely do not believe that this logic follows because it depends on the motivation for the crime. Let's take the case of Kennedy-it was such a brutal rape of this child that she required re constructive surgery. I do not know many of the details of the case, but it sounds like a drugged out crime of opportunity-he was not seducing the child, he was violently violating her. Kirk Coleman is another example-he raped and beat his newborn child such that she will have permanent scars and deficits. How is this not a capitol crime against an evolving society? How is violent rape of anyone not a means of murdering someones soul? What is the adequate punishment that fits this crime? DP is not a deterrent-we know that. The DP still stands as a punishment when you take away someone's life in an egregious fashion. Violent rape is not egregious enough to warrant execution? I am shaking my head...

 

[southcitymom]

I would have voted as one of the four conservatives.

And I - with the majority.:blowkiss: Although I am against the DP in all instances, I am glad that, as a country, we will at least reserve it only for crimes in which a person has been murdered.

 

[Glow]

There are worse things you can do to a person than murder them.

 

[southcitymom]

There are worse things you can do to a person than murder them.

I agree. And I am definitely in favor of stricter penalities being enacted against people who harm children. But I rarely fall on the side of an issue that says it's okay to dispassionately take away a person's free will right to live. I want to hold our society to a higher moral standard than a common criminal possesses.


It has been an interesting issue to watch and I have not yet read the full opinion, so I can't speak on that too intelligently. My homestate, SC, was one of the first states to seek the DP again child rapists. Regardless of my personal feelings, I surely understand why some people want the DP in such circumstances.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I agree. And I am definitely in favor of stricter penalities being enacted against people who harm children. But I rarely fall on the side of an issue that says it's okay to dispassionately take away a person's free will right to live. I want to hold our society to a higher moral standard than a common criminal possesses.


It has been an interesting issue to watch and I have not yet read the full opinion, so I can't speak on that too intelligently. My homestate, SC, was one of the first states to seek the DP again child rapists. Regardless of my personal feelings, I surely understand why some people want the DP in such circumstances.

Society holds ITSELF to a higher moral standard than a common criminal. That's exactly why the defendant is given a trial, a jury, appeals, appeals and even more appeals. THANKYOUVERYMUCH.

 

[Glow]

Here is what I wonder though.....

if you were home alone with one of your children and a man came through the bedroom window - would you be able to kill him if it was clear he was there to take your son?

 

[Glow]

I agree. And I am definitely in favor of stricter penalities being enacted against people who harm children. But I rarely fall on the side of an issue that says it's okay to dispassionately take away a person's free will right to live. I want to hold our society to a higher moral standard than a common criminal possesses.


It has been an interesting issue to watch and I have not yet read the full opinion, so I can't speak on that too intelligently. My homestate, SC, was one of the first states to seek the DP again child rapists. Regardless of my personal feelings, I surely understand why some people want the DP in such circumstances.

here it is if you want to read it SCM :blowkiss:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-343.pdf

 

[southcitymom]

Here is what I wonder though.....

if you were home alone with one of your children and a man came through the bedroom window - would you be able to kill him if it was clear he was there to take your son?

I would, if necessary, use deadly force to protect someone. But a person locked in a cell is in no such position.

I do agree that sometimes the choice to kill is more understandable than others. Also I agree that we, as a society, are okay with killing humans, given the circumstance.

 

[southcitymom]

Society holds ITSELF to a higher moral standard than a common criminal. That's exactly why the defendant is given a trial, a jury, appeals, appeals and even more appeals. THANKYOUVERYMUCH.

Higher still!!!!:blowkiss:

 

[southcitymom]

here it is if you want to read it SCM :blowkiss:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-343.pdf

Thanks so much Glow - I will look at it tonight. Probably, we should post this in the DP thread in the Parking Lot - someone may have already.

 

[Paladin]

The only reasoning I can really think of is our death rows and appeals courts would be absolutely filled with these child rapists. The amount of time and money spent going through each appeal would cost the US a price most people aren't willing to pay.

 

[justche]

This is one of those issues that somehow is never discussed in the PP.

and why voting in November - even if you have to plug your nose, is worth it.

 

[thefragile7393]

There are worse things you can do to a person than murder them.

Exactly. And their reasons for over-ruling this makes NO sense to me. No matter how serious the damage is to the child, physically and/or emotionally, the child isn't dead so therefore no DP should be looked at. Right.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Higher still!!!!:blowkiss:

Girl, we can't get much higher!!! LOL

 

[Details]

...But, I understand why this law is important. If the Pervs are facing death anyway for molesting, then why keep the victim alive? Unfortuantly we cannot torture child rapists so all they can get is a nice little jail cell with a TV and some books and the ACLU defending their right to look at porn online.

Pervs kill no matter what if they're the type to kill - for them being locked up without access to a child is the worst punishment.

 

[Details]

I gotta say - while there are things worse than death - I don't agree that this is. I've talked with some who were victims. None of them seem to wish they were dead. Child molestation is horrible, hurts the victim their entire life, destroys the life they could have had, and substitutes another, more difficult, more painful life for it. But it is not worse than death.


I'd still support DP for the worst of the worst of child molesters - although I like LWOP in general because once in awhile we do make mistakes.