Can't Execute Child Rapists

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]jj-dude wrote:
The first is what the letter of the law is. It was on that basis that SCOTUS said what it said and that is the correct interpretation.[/quote]

The letter of what law? This “evolving standard” is judicially created nonsense, which is not found in the Constitution itself.

I am ambivalent about whether the law was just. I think there are genuine policy concerns.

I do not believe that it is the Supreme Court’s place to make policy. This was a matter for pardon, not judicial activism.

22

[quote]nephorm wrote:

The letter of what law? This “evolving standard” is judicially created nonsense, which is not found in the Constitution itself.

I am ambivalent about whether the law was just. I think there are genuine policy concerns.

I do not believe that it is the Supreme Court’s place to make policy. This was a matter for pardon, not judicial activism. [/quote]

(Warning, I am no legal scholar or expert, so this is just me mouthing off. Wouldn’t if be lovely if more people were so refreshingly honest before they posted?)

Agreed that “evolving standards of decency” is just drivel, but I do think that the intent behind the 8th Amendment was to preclude death in cases where there was no fatality. Admittedly the wording is slim as it reads in toto:

“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

but precedence up to this point has always been no death penalty in such cases. When was the last time you heard of someone going to their death for a non-homicide? Has there even been one case, aside from treason in wartime?

I still think this guy would end up living longer on death row…

– jj

23

I hope some of the other inmates have young daughters themselves on the outside.

They might want to have a discussion with this man.

24

[quote]jj-dude wrote:
I’m probably gonna get flamed for this…

→ If you interpret my post to mean that I support child rape or this guy I will call you a fucktard to your face. Read what I wrote. ←

SCOTUS did the right thing. Sure this guy deserves to burn in Hell, but there are two issues here. The first is what the letter of the law is. It was on that basis that SCOTUS said what it said and that is the correct interpretation. You can find anyone who is sufficiently sick that they can turn most crime into an atrocity – like this guy.

But do you let the extreme case change the law? Then we will have the death sentence for robbery and who knows what else and the US legal system will look mighty damn medieval.
[/quote]

First off, please, cite for us all a case of child rape that couldn’t be adequately described as ‘extreme’ or ‘an atrocity.’ Secondly, you’re right in your assertion that the issue in question is the letter of the law.

The SCOTUS was put to the task of deciding whether or not the death penalty, when applied in cases of child rape, falls under the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the eighth amendment.

From the opinion:

My biggest problem with the decision, and I believe this is covered in the dissent but I only skimmed it, is the court’s assertion that the that the application of the death penalty to child rapists is in any way reprehensible or goes against national consensus (i.e. basic mores of society).

Also, the fact that the relatively small number of states with death penalty laws for child rape, 5, was taken into consideration over the general trend of states adding similar laws (MOissouri I believe, among others).

I really don’t see how this is relevant. Coker v. Georgia established, in 1977, that the application of the death penalty in the case of rape of an adult woman is unconstitutional. Are you saying this man could have been killed if his 5 year old step daughter had been a highly trained martial artist? I don’t think I understand where you’re going with this.

[quote]
I’d give the guy a month in prison tops, btw…

– jj[/quote]

I really hope you mean ‘give’ as in giving odds as to how long he survives and not how long of a sentence you’d give him were you the judge in the case.

25

[quote]
nephorm wrote:

The letter of what law? This “evolving standard” is judicially created nonsense, which is not found in the Constitution itself.

I am ambivalent about whether the law was just. I think there are genuine policy concerns.

I do not believe that it is the Supreme Court’s place to make policy. This was a matter for pardon, not judicial activism.

jj-dude wrote:
(Warning, I am no legal scholar or expert, so this is just me mouthing off. Wouldn’t if be lovely if more people were so refreshingly honest before they posted?)

Agreed that “evolving standards of decency” is just drivel, but I do think that the intent behind the 8th Amendment was to preclude death in cases where there was no fatality. Admittedly the wording is slim as it reads in toto:

“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

but precedence up to this point has always been no death penalty in such cases. When was the last time you heard of someone going to their death for a non-homicide? Has there even been one case, aside from treason in wartime?

I still think this guy would end up living longer on death row…

– jj[/quote]

The original intent of the 8th Amendment was to restrain judges, not legislatures…

It was based on a similar section of the 1689 English Bill of Rights, which applied only to punishments not authorized by Parliament; in the U.S. context it probably also banned punishments viewed as torture at that time, such as pillorying, which were also virtually unknown in the U.S. at that time.

It most certainly did not restrict application of the death penalty - enshrined in the Constitution for treason, which does not necessarily kill anyone, BTW - by a state legislature.

And looking at the historical punishments in place at the time the 8th Amendment was passed and immediately thereafter, it is simply laughable to assert that the intent of the 8th Amendment was to restrict the death penalty strictly to homicide crimes.

But I guess if we’re submitting to rule by judicial oligarchy, it doesn’t matter what was the understanding of a right passed by a democratic and legislative supermajority, as it was understood by those who passed it.

26

[quote]nephorm wrote:
This was a matter for pardon, not judicial activism. [/quote]

I just wanted to clarify this comment. In this particular case, if we submit that this particular appellant ought not be killed, then it would be appropriate for the governor to give clemency (not pardon, as originally stated) to reduce the penalty from death to life in prison.

But of course, the Supreme Court does not give clemency or pardons… it speaks generally. Very generally in this case, as the court does not restrict the scope of the decision to the facts particularly pertinent to the appellant (such as possibly being mentally disabled).

The solution to the problem is democratic, not judicial.

27

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

I’m all ears to whomever wants to explain to me why this was a good decision.

Mufasa)[/quote]

This is one of only 2 things I can think of in favor of this ruling:

[i]But the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault, a nonprofit victim advocacy group representing 80 rape crisis centers, applauded the ruling.

“Most child sexual abuse victims are abused by a family member or close family friend,” the group said in a statement. “The reality is that child victims and their families don’t want to be responsible for sending a grandparent, cousin or long time family friend to death row.”[/i]

I don’t have the capacity to refute that statement, I assume that 90 rape crisis centers know much better than I about their victims desires.

Assuming that is true, at least this ruling has the possibility of bringing more child rapists to justice instead of the child living in fear with the person still free.

Also, they’ll likely die in much worse ways inside the prison (we can hope).

Aside from those two things, I must utter a Dubya Tee Eff at this decision.

28

[quote]Magnate wrote:
I don’t have the capacity to refute that statement, I assume that 90 rape crisis centers know much better than I about their victims desires.

Assuming that is true, at least this ruling has the possibility of bringing more child rapists to justice instead of the child living in fear with the person still free.
[/quote]

But this is a policy decision, and not a Constitutional issue. A court ruling may have good or bad consequences with respect to the particular policy at issue, but it is bad ruling in a more general sense when it extends beyond interpretation of the law or Constitution per se and becomes policy-making.

29

One thing we have to think about is the law of unintended consequences. If child rape were to become a capital offence, that would make the rapists much more aggressive and ruthless. If they are already facing the death penalty for rape, what would stop them from murdering the child when they are done?

This is well doumented with the three strikes law. Non-violent criminals become murderers when facing life in prison. Pedophiles would just become murderers. What is more important, saving the children or justice?

30

[quote]WanderingAtheist wrote:
This is well doumented with the three strikes law. Non-violent criminals become murderers when facing life in prison. Pedophiles would just become murderers. What is more important, saving the children or justice?[/quote]

Preserving the separation of powers.

Failure to do so will be much worse for “the children” in the long run.

Your points are, again, directed at policy issues - which should be decided democratically.

31

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Magnate wrote:
I don’t have the capacity to refute that statement, I assume that 90 rape crisis centers know much better than I about their victims desires.

Assuming that is true, at least this ruling has the possibility of bringing more child rapists to justice instead of the child living in fear with the person still free.

But this is a policy decision, and not a Constitutional issue. A court ruling may have good or bad consequences with respect to the particular policy at issue, but it is bad ruling in a more general sense when it extends beyond interpretation of the law or Constitution per se and becomes policy-making.[/quote]

They are saying it is a Cruel & Unusual Punishment, aren’t they?

At any rate, I agree it is not a constitutional issue and this is just legislating from the bench.

32

I don’t even think we can quantify that death is indeed the harshest legal punishment. Obviously, there is an innate drive for retribution in all of us but in the end, it is seemingly a futile exercise. It is something which serves mainly to lull the public back into their view that we must live in a “just world” where injustices can indeed be remedied by us, or some omnipotent, beneficent being. But is that really so? I have my doubts.

Sad to say, but most of these pedophile types seem hardwired for that behavior, either neurobiologically or through their upbringing. This, of course, does not excuse them. It simply shows that in their current state, they are unfit for the structured level of human living we operate within. The only regret they may show regarding their acts is likely to be a product of society’s abhorrence and not any real feelings of guilt. Thus, killing them only satisfies our vengeful lust rather than truly doing anything to remedy an injustice.

That being said, I’d be lying if I said I didn’t share some the same feelings of anger that other posters here are expressing.

33

Almost a week later this decision bothers me…and I have not been able to find one argument that gives it legitimacy (Again…I am biased…)

And the “It’s usually a family member” argument, to me, runs shallow…sorry…

I was thinking the other day how in direct, often brutal ways the Child Rapist deprives an innocent person of the most basic of our ideals…and they do it before a person has had much time to even live a Life…

And that the basic pursuit of “Life, Liberty and Happiness…”

Mufasa

34

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Almost a week later this decision bothers me…and I have not been able to find one argument that gives it legitimacy (Again…I am biased…)

And the “It’s usually a family member” argument, to me, runs shallow…sorry…[/quote]

That’s what makes it so bad - only a minority of sexual assaults (or any for that matter) is committed by strangers. Victims and their families often loose their fathers, uncles, family friends, which tends to add to the guilt they feel.

[quote]I was thinking the other day how in direct, often brutal ways the Child Rapist deprives an innocent person of the most basic of our ideals…and they do it before a person has had much time to even live a Life…

And that the basic pursuit of “Life, Liberty and Happiness…”

Mufasa[/quote]

Any rapist deprives the victim (of whatever age, in whatever relation to the victim) of this basic pursuit. But my view is that the death penalty is wrong - as a legal measure it is simply too unsafe as it can’t be reversed and may (and does) deprive innocents of that pursuit as well. That supersedes any other consideration imho. Prison is no fun - being in prison for raping a child is even less thanks their [edit: fellow ]inmates; if you want the perpetrators to be punished, that is the way to go.

Makkun

35

makkun:

Spoken with reason; thanks.

But how does a Justice (I think that it is Kennedy, and I am paraphrasing; I’ll find how he exactly worded it), thinks that “physical” murder is the only justification for the State putting someone to death? (“Eye for an Eye”?), when these Rapes, by ANY measure one wants to use, are more heinous than many physical murders? (I earlier used the example of a shooting in a drug deal gone bad, when a person dies almost instantly from a shot in the head).

(Note: I am using the term “physical” murder, because I think that the little girl in the Louisiana test case WAS “killed” in many ways, as well as many victims of rape. But that’s most likely another debate).

Mufasa

36

This is an excerpt from Kennedy’s Opinion:

“There is a distinction between intentional first-degree murder on the one hand and non-homicide crimes against individual persons, even including child rape, on the other,”…

This is the conclusion that I really don’t get:

"While the latter may be “devastating in their harm,” Kennedy said, “they cannot be compared to murder in their severity and irrevocability.”

Did he even LISTEN to what happened to that little girl in Louisiana?

Mufasa

37

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Magnate wrote:
I don’t have the capacity to refute that statement, I assume that 90 rape crisis centers know much better than I about their victims desires.

Assuming that is true, at least this ruling has the possibility of bringing more child rapists to justice instead of the child living in fear with the person still free.

But this is a policy decision, and not a Constitutional issue. A court ruling may have good or bad consequences with respect to the particular policy at issue, but it is bad ruling in a more general sense when it extends beyond interpretation of the law or Constitution per se and becomes policy-making.[/quote]

You’re wasting your breath neph. Most people on this forum simply do not understand how our system of government is designed to function.

38

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
This is an excerpt from Kennedy’s Opinion:

“There is a distinction between intentional first-degree murder on the one hand and non-homicide crimes against individual persons, even including child rape, on the other,”…

This is the conclusion that I really don’t get:

"While the latter may be “devastating in their harm,” Kennedy said, “they cannot be compared to murder in their severity and irrevocability.”

Did he even LISTEN to what happened to that little girl in Louisiana?

Mufasa
[/quote]

I can’t really comment on the legal definitions - and I am biased as in my view anything that helps reduce the number of people on death row is a good thing - but I would think that he’s defining killing another person as the ultimate crime, from which all others are lower in order of severity.

Also, he refers as well to the inability for the victim of murder to find any form of recovery. As unlikely and as gruelling the crime is - a rape victim (even a child) may have one. So I guess that is the basis of his argument. Not a nice distinction to have to make, I admit.

Makkun

39

Well; as others have said, maybe there will be some justice…

The guy is now back in the general population of Louisiana State Prison, also known as “Angola”; branded the toughest, no-nonsense Prison in the U.S.

Mufasa

40

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Well; as others have said, maybe there will be some justice…

The guy is now back in the general population of Louisiana State Prison, also known as “Angola”; branded the toughest, no-nonsense Prison in the U.S.

Mufasa[/quote]

Start a pool for the day he’s found dead?