Justices Bar Death Penalty for the Rape of a Child

[leonAzul]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/washington/26scotus.html?_r=2&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1214548240-wajFtUxvqzXTHlCLfgJhdQ

Is there a difference between correction and defense of society? Is there a line over which one may not cross?

I can't type any more, because my eyes are full of tears :(

[JoeEllison]

I'm not sure that there's a way to discuss this issue rationally. Any defense of the ruling would likely be twisted into some sort of defense of child rapists... no matter that no one actually defends child rapists.

[TragicMonkey]

It makes sense to me, as it will reduce the motive for a child rapist to go ahead and murder the child.

[lionking]

I see that both Obama and McCain have rapidly opposed the decision.

As a parent, the crime is abhorrent and I would try to exact the most extreme revenge if it were one of my kids. But I agree with the ruling.

[Beerina]

It makes sense to me, as it will reduce the motive for a child rapist to go ahead and murder the child.

Yep. If you're gonna be executed anyway, well, dead kids tell no tales.

[Jumile]

I live in a country that no longer kills its criminals, and I'm happy for that. Such "how much revenge is enough" questions do not apply here, and we don't have to kid ourselves that such penalty is justice. There's a lot to be said for it.

[Darth Rotor]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/washington/26scotus.html?_r=2&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1214548240-wajFtUxvqzXTHlCLfgJhdQ

Is there a difference between correction and defense of society? Is there a line over which one may not cross?

I can't type any more, because my eyes are full of tears :(
There is no justice to be had on this earth. See Boethius for why.

DR

[Jimbo07]

The state should not have the authority to execute its citizens under any circumstances...

... that said, killing child rapists would be letting them off too easily, anyway! :mad:

[Safe-Keeper]

The state should not have the authority to execute its citizens under any circumstances.What he said. Same for torture and other violations of human rights. That settles it for me.

[PuckishOne]

I had an interesting discussion about this yesterday online with a Canadian friend of mine. He mentioned, more than once, the notion of "jailhouse justice" - the hierarchy in our prison system by which child predators are basically everyone's bitch from the word go (to put it mildly). It's the best I could do for self-consolation, even though my Legal BrainTM knows that the ruling is sound. It was also interesting to hear someone from a country with no death penalty rallying for it in this instance...never had that happen before.

[Jimbo07]

It was also interesting to hear someone from a country with no death penalty rallying for it in this instance...never had that happen before.

There are many Canadians who support the death penalty. I'm not one of them...

It is an intellectual position that is often hard to rationalize with my emotions. It seems like we'd be better off if some people were dead. I'd just prefer that lightning get 'em, rather than the government! ;)

[NoZed Avenger]

It makes sense to me, as it will reduce the motive for a child rapist to go ahead and murder the child.


The policy argument is valid, but the Court (IMO) shouldn't be making those policy decisions. That's for the legislators. The Court went further than interpreting the Constitution so that their opinions about what was the better policy overrode the elected officials' opinions. Not for the first time, of course.

[TragicMonkey]

The policy argument is valid, but the Court (IMO) shouldn't be making those policy decisions. That's for the legislators. The Court went further than interpreting the Constitution so that their opinions about what was the better policy overrode the elected officials' opinions. Not for the first time, of course.

You'd rather have the opinions of temporary, elected people who wish to be popular form the basis of law, instead of the written Constitution? It's the job of the judicial branch to interpret the Constitution. If the legislature feels that strongly about it, all they have to do is amend the Constitution. I think you'll find they aren't that motivated over this, once they take a few polls.

[Moochie]

As a mostly rational person, I would want to know how a human could devolve into someone who could commit such a monstrous act, in the hope that such knowledge might help us find ways to prevent such acts from occurring in the future.


M.

[leonAzul]

I'm not sure that there's a way to discuss this issue rationally.

Indeed. A couple of deep breaths, and I'll try.

I admit that my first reaction is to simply off the 'tard, not out of revenge, but rather for the fear of recidivism, not to punish, but rather to defend. If I am thinking wrong, please straighten me out.

[Jimbo07]

I admit that my first reaction is to simply off the 'tard, not out of revenge, but rather for the fear of recidivism, not to punish, but rather to defend. If I am thinking wrong, please straighten me out.

I'm (I think) liberal in that I am opposed to capital punishment. However, I am not liberal (I think), in that I genuinely believe that some people can't be "cured" (or at least, psychiatry does not yet possess the tools to do so, get back to me in 100 years).

At my own expense (as a taxpayer), the only resolution to my inane position is to lock people up until they die naturally... :boxedin:

[Mark6]

I support death penalty, but only for someone who commited several unrelated premeditated murders. Some people are simply too dangerous to exist, even in prison, and should be destroyed -- not as "revenge", but for the same reason we destroy rabid dogs. Too dangerous to keep alive.

And yes, I agree with SCOTUS on this one.

[Mark6]

Indeed. A couple of deep breaths, and I'll try.

I admit that my first reaction is to simply off the 'tard, not out of revenge, but rather for the fear of recidivism, not to punish, but rather to defend. If I am thinking wrong, please straighten me out.

There are no childen in prison for "tard" to rape. So no possibility of recidivism.

But I am very much with you as far as people who make murder their profession -- or hobby, -- go. They chose to become predators. It is prey species' responsibility to defend itself.

[Bikewer]

I suppose it may be a bit of a leap, but in general the practice of providing "more" protection to a certain class of citizens has not been seen as legally justified. A number of states have passed laws which raise the penalty for the murder of a police officer (or in some cases, other officials) above that of a typical citizen.

Appellate courts have found generally that such special protection is not justified. The rape of a child is an appalling act, and the rapist is likely a particularly vicious pedophile who presents a danger to society as long as he is free. Still, there may be a slippery slope argument here; at what point might pedophiles in general be included? Possessors of child pornography?

[leonAzul]

I'm (I think) liberal in that I am opposed to capital punishment. However, I am not liberal (I think), in that I genuinely believe that some people can't be "cured" (or at least, psychiatry does not yet possess the tools to do so, get back to me in 100 years).

At my own expense (as a taxpayer), the only resolution to my inane position is to lock people up until they die naturally... :boxedin:

I, too, am opposed to capital punishment, on principle. The most troublesome part of it is who is qualified to make such a decision.

Yet we recognize the right to self defense. Is it proper to recognize an analogous right to defense of society at large?

"Sand boxing" the miscreants is a viable solution, removing them from the opportunity of doing harm. Yet such a twisted mind might perceive this as reward, rather than punishment. ;) And what are the costs?

[matty.the.damned]

I don't see how the death penalty could be applied justly to cases of child rape as it outweighs the severity of the crime. The child did not die. Presumably it has prospects for rehabilitation and recovery.

For the record I am opposed to the use of capital punishment under any circumstances.

MtD

[leonAzul]

Appellate courts have found generally that such special protection is not justified.

FWIW, I concur. The question I intend to raise is are there behaviours that can be identified as contemptuous of society at large, and how shall we cope with them?

[leonAzul]

I don't see how the death penalty could be applied justly to cases of child rape as it outweighs the severity of the crime. The child did not die.

Yes, the child still lives, yet the childhood is irrevocably dead. With guidance and strong support, the child might grow to maturity, so there is hope.

Again, I am not arguing for revenge, nor punishment, but rather considering whether it is proper, in the defense of society, to eliminate those who have demonstrated blatantly antisocial behaviour. I am decidedly undecided on the issue, and would welcome well reasoned arguments. I well recognize the potential for abuse of such a position.

[skeptifem]

It makes sense to me, as it will reduce the motive for a child rapist to go ahead and murder the child.


i thought the death penalty didnt have any effect on crime?

anyway, a lot of pedos get away with it for decades with insane numbers of victims. I doubt this is very scary for them.

[skeptifem]

I don't see how the death penalty could be applied justly to cases of child rape as it outweighs the severity of the crime. The child did not die. Presumably it has prospects for rehabilitation and recovery.

For the record I am opposed to the use of capital punishment under any circumstances.

MtD

people can work to become 'ok' but they are never over it or all the way better. some people never make it to just being ok. I think that murder is mainly a crime against the people who loved the victim (other than the fact that its a very unpleasant way to die and was probably pretty scary). the victim is dead. they are incapable of caring about anything. putting someone through something that causes ptsd and severe emotional problems that they have to live with forever is, imo anyway, more serious. rape has ruined many lives and driven a lot of people to killing themselves. getting to live through it isnt that fantastic for the majority id imagine.

[TragicMonkey]

i thought the death penalty didnt have any effect on crime?

anyway, a lot of pedos get away with it for decades with insane numbers of victims. I doubt this is very scary for them.

And more of them would get away with it if they silenced their victims permanently.

I had this argument after the remake of "The Fugitive" a while ago. If you were sentenced to death already, what would stop you from murdering all those sent against you? What would they threaten you with --extra death? You've got to reserve the death penalty or else they'll start thinking that they might as well be cooked for a goose as for a gander or whatever that expression is.

[NoZed Avenger]

You'd rather have the opinions of temporary, elected people who wish to be popular form the basis of law, instead of the written Constitution? It's the job of the judicial branch to interpret the Constitution. If the legislature feels that strongly about it, all they have to do is amend the Constitution. I think you'll find they aren't that motivated over this, once they take a few polls.

The Constitution is silent on this point. The opinion did not truly deal with a Constitutional issue, but instead delved into what is good policy versus bad policy. That isn't the Court's job. For good or bad, making law is the job of the legislators -- that bit *is* is in the Constitution, too.

And you can just as easily say that I would like laws made by people who are responsible and theoretically responsive to the people, not 9 people who answer to no one, are insulated from the citizenry, and who cannot be (realistically) replaced. I feel that avoiding the death penalty in this situation is probably smarter -- i do *not* feel that the outcome was mandated by the Constitution, flowery language from the Court notwithstanding.

[iamivy]

You Americans should get rid of death penalty and your gun culture.You could do with learning a little from your progressive Western counterpart, the noble Europeans.

[leonAzul]

You Americans should get rid of death penalty and your gun culture.You could do with learning a little from your progressive Western counterpart, the noble Europeans.

Thank you for your well reasoned argument…

:pigsfly

[leonAzul]

The Constitution is silent on this point. The opinion did not truly deal with a Constitutional issue, but instead delved into what is good policy versus bad policy.

A point that I missed. Please elaborate.

[iamivy]

Thank you for your well reasoned argument…

Precisely.Some archaic laws and primitive customs will never change.Just like Taliban.There is no insight though which is why West is busy pointing fingers at other countries and violations of human rights when they have never managed their own.:pigsflyIs that you?

[leonAzul]

Precisely.Some archaic laws and primitive customs will never change.Just like Taliban.There is no insight though which is why West is busy pointing fingers at other countries and violations of human rights when they have never managed their own.Is that you?

Thank you for your well reasoned argument…

The pigasus is you, and the pig feces that you have contributed to this thread.

I have emphatically avoided finger pointing, nor claims of blame!

Seldom do I chute a person to the ignore list. You have eminently qualified--in spades.

[cyborg]

As a mostly rational person, I would want to know how a human could devolve into someone who could commit such a monstrous act, in the hope that such knowledge might help us find ways to prevent such acts from occurring in the future.

If you want an answer to the question then there can be no emotional or moral judgments attached to it before one even begins.

So - Why would a human perform such a behaviour? It's always one of two really:

1) They are sexually aroused by children as a matter of their physical make-up. Our brains dictate what we are attracted to - the opposite sex, the same sex etc... and it is simply the case that the pedophile finds the sexually immature attractive - a flip of the logic which makes most others find the sexually mature attractive.
2) It is a learned behaviour. Tying into the above predisposition attraction to children may stem from an association to sex. It is the nurture half that complements the nature half above.

The highly uncomfortable fact that you will have to learn with at the end of the day is that the number of sexual behaviours that exist are incredibly large and varied and not at all limited to homo sapiens.

As Roger said recently - and I paraphrase - the first irrationality one commits when one reasons about human behaviour is that it is rational. At the end of the day it is possible - that is enough for it to happen regardless of any rationale.

[leonAzul]

If you want an answer to the question then there can be no emotional or moral judgments attached to it before one even begins..

And in two words:

***** happens.

:duck:

[TragicMonkey]

You Americans should get rid of death penalty and your gun culture.You could do with learning a little from your progressive Western counterpart, the noble Europeans.

For a continent that can't seem to go ten years without one of its countries invading another, Europeans sure are an odd lot to be against guns.

[leonAzul]

For a continent that can't seem to go ten years without one of its countries invading another, Europeans sure are an odd lot to be against guns.

Word.

[kedo1981]

Oh boo hoo, I just want to know what makes em tick.
WAA WAA, they’re just misunderstood.
Sniffle sniffle, no one has the right to take a life.

What bunch of hypocritical P****s

All violent felons, ALL, should be executed.
The person that commits an assault has probably committed other crimes, each one more violent than the last.
The type of behavior that manifests as violence and sexual assault weaves a thread through humanity and propagates itself in an almost viral fashion.

Executions will never be pretty or nice.

[leonAzul]

Oh boo hoo, I just want to know what makes em tick.
WAA WAA, they’re just misunderstood.
Sniffle sniffle, no one has the right to take a life.

What bunch of hypocritical P****s

All violent felons, ALL, should be executed.
The person that commits an assault has probably committed other crimes, each one more violent than the last.
The type of behavior that manifests as violence and sexual assault weaves a thread through humanity and propagates itself in an almost viral fashion.

Executions will never be pretty or nice.

Thank you for your well reasoned argument…

Who shall be the judge…

[kedo1981]

"who wil be the Judge?"
Why not you
Why not your wife
or the guy you went to high school with
It’s yours and mine and their responsibility to be the judge

[cyborg]

Ah, a good old fashioned witchhunt.

[egslim]

I support death penalty, but only for someone who commited several unrelated premeditated murders. Some people are simply too dangerous to exist, even in prison, and should be destroyed -- not as "revenge", but for the same reason we destroy rabid dogs. Too dangerous to keep alive.
I agree, at least in principle. Under two conditions:

1) Their guilt should be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

2) The cost of a death sentence should not exceed that of a prison sentence. That could be an issue especially if the increased burden of proof is very expensive to obtain.

[leonAzul]

"who wil be the Judge?"
Why not you
Why not your wife
or the guy you went to high school with
It’s yours and mine and their responsibility to be the judge

Thank you for your well reasoned argument.

I shall respect you, as you respect me.

If you intend to quote me accurately, what I wrote was "Who shall be the judge…"

Perhaps you choose your words carelessly. I choose my words with intent. Sometimes I choose wrong, which is my own fault. Yet if you wish to cite my words, then please do so accurately.

Peace,

paul

[NoZed Avenger]

A point that I missed. Please elaborate.


I do not have enough time to give a worthwhile reply at the moment, but let me get some notes together and I'll return to that point a bit; hopefully tonight or tomorrow.

[leonAzul]

I do not have enough time to give a worthwhile reply at the moment, but let me get some notes together and I'll return to that point a bit; hopefully tonight or tomorrow.

TIA

I appreciate it.

[Empress]

Yes, the child still lives, yet the childhood is irrevocably dead. With guidance and strong support, the child might grow to maturity, so there is hope.

Again, I am not arguing for revenge, nor punishment, but rather considering whether it is proper, in the defense of society, to eliminate those who have demonstrated blatantly antisocial behaviour. I am decidedly undecided on the issue, and would welcome well reasoned arguments. I well recognize the potential for abuse of such a position.

Speaking as someone who was molested as a child, I agree with the Court's decision. As you acurately state, "the childhood is irrevocably dead. ...[T]here is hope." Quite true. You are never the same, but no one is the same from day to day, regardless of the situations one lives through, good or bad. Certainly the child is at greater risk for psychological problems, sexual identity problems, all sorts of things. But in no way does it mean a child who's lived through a terrible ordeal like this is a lost cause. They still live.

I am opposed to the death penalty for child rape, both because I believe it would encourage molesters to murder the child, to prevent witnesses, and because it outweighs the crime. I am, however, all for life in prison w/o the possibility of parole. (Which I suspect many would consider a worse outcome. I know if I had to face living in a cell day in and day out for the next fifty years, I rather you'd kill me and be done with it. That's no way to live.) However, I think society has a right to be safe from these sorts of predators. If that means locking them up for life, so be it. They made the choice to prey on a defenseless child. They must face the consequences.

For full disclosure's sake, I'll say that when I was younger I was adamantly opposed to the death penalty regardless of the situation. With age, I'm more conflicted. I think you can make a good case for the ultimate penalty for people like Bundy and Ridgway. Also, I'm from the US.

[leonAzul]

Speaking as someone who was molested as a child, I agree with the Court's decision.

Sorry if this exposes painful memories.

¡Chevere!

[luchog]

Speaking as someone who was molested as a child, I agree with the Court's decision.

Speaking as someone who was molested (non-violently, and only for a short period of time), and abused (quite violently), I am on the fence.

As you acurately state, "the childhood is irrevocably dead. ...[T]here is hope." Quite true. You are never the same, but no one is the same from day to day, regardless of the situations one lives through, good or bad. Certainly the child is at greater risk for psychological problems, sexual identity problems, all sorts of things. But in no way does it mean a child who's lived through a terrible ordeal like this is a lost cause. They still live.

"Where there's life, there's hope."

Molestion, even violent molestation, is not nearly the same as murder. People can, and do, recover; and go on to lead, if not the life they would have, then still often a good life. Some have even gone on to become therapists to help others recover.

However, it takes a lot of time and effort, and most importantly the right resources, for someone to recover from and cope effectively that sort of trauma. Andit can be very difficult to even realize those resources exist, let alone obtain them. On top of that the type of person who molests children, violently or otherwise, is effectively guaranteed to do so again.

Paedophiles/child molesters have the highest recidivism rate of any criminal. As in, 99.9% when given the opportunity. Our current method of dealing with this type of criminal is simply to limit their opportunity; which is the only reason that re-offenses are as limited as they are. (They're essentially cowards, and need secrecy in order to commit their abuses.) Furthermore, the type of person who will violently rape a child (as opposed to non-violently "grooming" and molesting a child) is very likely to escalate to murder anyway, regardless of the potential penalty.

The sort of person who is capable of committing violent rape of a child is not someone who is ever going to function in any sort of civilized environment. He will always remain a clear and present threat to those around him. The only question is, how to deal with that threat. Imprison him for life, with the risk that he may one day escape, or that some bleeding heart idiot will decide he's been "rehabilitated" and release him on parole; not to mention the sheer expense? Or simply remove a threat from society, with the risk that, through mischance or prejudice, an innocent person may be accidentally executed.

In my mind, the choice is effectively the same for a proven violent child rapist as it is for a serial or spree killer.

I am opposed to the death penalty for child rape, both because I believe it would encourage molesters to murder the child, to prevent witnesses, and because it outweighs the crime.

The latter is certainly a legitimate criticism; the former however, is not. I've seen this "escalation" claim bandied about a lot, but without a shred of evidence to back it up. In fact, all the evidence I've been able to find says just the opposite, that the severity of the penalty has absolutely no effect on the nature of the offense. Someone who is going to rape and murder a child is going to do so regardless of whether the penalty is death, or merely 20 years with parole. Likewise, someone who will only molestt a child, and cannot bring himself to kill the child, will not suddenly escalate simply because the penalty is increased. Criminals do not think rationally about their crimes. Almost without exception*, they simply do not believe that they will ever be caught. They do not rationalize benefits vs. penalties. If they did, they very likely wouldn't be committing the crime in the first place.

I am, however, all for life in prison w/o the possibility of parole. (Which I suspect many would consider a worse outcome. I know if I had to face living in a cell day in and day out for the next fifty years, I rather you'd kill me and be done with it. That's no way to live.)

You can only speak for yourself on this. Unfortunately, for a lot of criminals, it's not true. In some cases, prison life is little different, or even in some cases better, than their lives outside. With child molesters, they essentially have to be kept in solitary confinement for the duration of their sentence (the most expensive form of confinement). Imprisoning them in the general population is effectively a death sentence. I'd prefer that, if there is going to be a death sentence, it should be handled by the courts.




*Organized crime is often done rationally, and with some thought to penalties; but again, escalation is not usually part of it, they have a different set of logic dictating their actions.

[Empress]

You can only speak for yourself on this.

I was only speaking for myself. Note the use of the word "I".

[Jon_Stripe]

Why are people so stupid?

What is up with this panzy-assed society????

Please, I'm not a blood thrusty individual but the rape and harm that that man put upon his eight year old step daughter was cruel and unusual-so why does he not recieve the same? What happened to justice?

He took the well being and innocence from a child. He comitted a crime against a juvinile human.

If you want to bring the whole "You're bringing morality into this, not law" then try this on; our country was founded on morals.

[TragicMonkey]

If you want to bring the whole "You're bringing morality into this, not law" then try this on; our country was founded on morals.

If you're thinking of Puritans, please remember that the settlement of the country began before they showed up. Jamestown was founded in 1607, and not for "morals".

[Beerina]

Again, the issue against isn't to diminish the harm caused. It's for the separate and simple reason you don't want the killer killing the child "since they're gonna be executed anyway", to prevent the witness from testifying.

[NoZed Avenger]

The Constitution is silent on this point. The opinion did not truly deal with a Constitutional issue, but instead delved into what is good policy versus bad policy. That isn't the Court's job. For good or bad, making law is the job of the legislators -- that bit *is* is in the Constitution, too.

Ok - finished up my trial and I thought I would expand a tiny bit on this, as I indicated that I would.

From my standpont, the Court has been essentially over-riding legislatures with the creation and use of Its tests in this area for quite some time -- probably since the Coker decision in 1977.

The Court's expressed test is whether the punishment is "so disproportionate to the offense as to amount to cruel and unusual punishment" (and therefore, in violation of the Eighth Amendment). The court’s modern precedents interpret the Eighth Amendment according to “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”

And with that little bit of legerdemain, the Court may now with impunity simply apply their own consciences to whatever case comes before them (This is not unique to this area of the law, of course -- from time to time the old Lemon Test for 1st Amendment purposes felt the same way). According to the makeup of the court and what mood the big 9 are in, any result can be supported by "statistics" supporting what the "evolving standards of decency" are. Maybe I am wrong and they are being entirely straight-forward, but the main decisions that I have looked over appear to be a decision made before-hand that is desperately looking for data to support it, as opposed to a decision based on data presented.

In this case, for example, Justice Kennedy said flatly that the majority used its "own independent judgment” on the implications of extending the death penalty to child rape. While I think that the underlying point -- that from a policy standpoint, using the death penalty here may be a bad decision in the long run -- is a valid one, whether the legislature made the correct call is not a question that the Court should really be looking at, IMO. The Court is not there to second-guess whether a particualr law is good, bad, or indifferent, but only to determine if a law passes muster Constitutionally. (and note here that we are not using bad results to justify a decision, but the Court's projected bad results (i.e., we have to assume they are correct on the harms because there is no data)).

And the "evolving standards" bit is a tad suspect because the lack of rape/capital punishment laws on the books in the various states is very likely because of the Court's own previous decisions that ll but stated such laws would be frowned upon. That is a neat trick: indicate that no state should pass a law on the subject, then point to the act that you discouraged in proving what the community standards are. Maybe that's the best test we can get, I don't know -- but it is so open to games-playing that it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

On the policy side, the decision is probably correct (at least that is how I react, but I'll admit I have no statistics or other data, just my own first instincts). And this is not a stain on the Consitution eaving me outraged and packing my bags for another country, etc., etc.

But it does trouble me a bit that the Court seems to be ever-expanding into a de facto super-legislaure, and this decision is just one small symptom.

[NoZed Avenger]

Please excuse the typing and length of that last one. I was trying to keep it readably short, but tend to get long-winded.

And my typing sucks.

[NoZed Avenger]

Carp. I could have saved myself a lot of typing and cited to Alito's dissent, which states the criticism better and is better typed.

Justice Alito, in his dissenting opinion, said these concerns were “policy arguments” that were “simply not pertinent to the question whether the death penalty is ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment.” He said the Eighth Amendment “does not authorize this court to strike down federal or state criminal laws on the ground that they are not in the best interests of crime victims or the broader society.”


What he said.

[Empress]

Thanks, NoZed. That was an interesting read.

[EvilSmurf]

I agree with the decision.

Firstly, the whole thing about giving child rapists a perverse incentive to kill their victims.

Secondly, I fail to see any reason why rape of a child is in any way more horrible than the rape of an adult.

[Jon_Stripe]

If you're thinking of Puritans, please remember that the settlement of the country began before they showed up. Jamestown was founded in 1607, and not for "morals".

No I wasn't.


Also, the constitution is a moral idea turned legal.

[Jon_Stripe]

I agree with the decision.

Firstly, the whole thing about giving child rapists a perverse incentive to kill their victims.

Secondly, I fail to see any reason why rape of a child is in any way more horrible than the rape of an adult.


Firstly, what the Hell are you trying to say in the bold?

That statment doesn't make any sense.

And, the latter sentence, I fail to see how that could be an arguement.

I know several people who were raped as children and it mentally confused and tramatized them for the rest of their lives.

As a child you are not mature enough to experience that sort of thing and it really does damage.

You are obviously pretty imature.

[EvilSmurf]

Firstly, what the Hell are you trying to say in the bold?

That statment doesn't make any sense.

I'm saying giving child rapists the death penalty gives them a perverse incentive to kill their victims and eliminate the most convincing witness against them. Since they will get the same penalty whether the child they're raping lives or dies.

And, the latter sentence, I fail to see how that could be an arguement.

I know several people who were raped as children and it mentally confused and tramatized them for the rest of their lives.

How many women who were raped as adults do you know? I know a few and trust me they're just as traumatised and confused. In some cases more so, since society seems to partly blame to victim "maybe she shouldn't have been wearing such revealing clothes" or "maybe she shouldn't have been walking through a bad area" "maybe she was asking for it".

You are obviously pretty imature.

Argumentum Ad Hominem

[Vic Vega]

I agree, at least in principle. Under two conditions:

1) Their guilt should be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

2) The cost of a death sentence should not exceed that of a prison sentence. That could be an issue especially if the increased burden of proof is very expensive to obtain.


1) There is no concept of in "beyond a shadow of a doubt" in the law. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been commited by the accused. As we have seen based on the number of people that have gone free because of groups like The Innocence Project, that standard has resulted in many innocent people spending time on death row. I don't think it's much of a stretch to think that there are almost certainly a number of innocent people on death row now and that there have been more still that have already been executed.

2) Because of the number of appeals and the amount of time it takes, it is usually considerably more expensive to execute a prisoner.

[Vic Vega]

Why are people so stupid?


Strangely enough, I've been thinking the same thing...

:(

[shuize]

Ok - finished up my trial and I thought I would expand a tiny bit on this, as I indicated that I would.

From my standpont, the Court has been essentially over-riding legislatures with the creation and use of Its tests in this area for quite some time -- probably since the Coker decision in 1977.

The Court's expressed test is whether the punishment is "so disproportionate to the offense as to amount to cruel and unusual punishment" (and therefore, in violation of the Eighth Amendment). The court’s modern precedents interpret the Eighth Amendment according to “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”

And with that little bit of legerdemain, the Court may now with impunity simply apply their own consciences to whatever case comes before them (This is not unique to this area of the law, of course -- from time to time the old Lemon Test for 1st Amendment purposes felt the same way). According to the makeup of the court and what mood the big 9 are in, any result can be supported by "statistics" supporting what the "evolving standards of decency" are. Maybe I am wrong and they are being entirely straight-forward, but the main decisions that I have looked over appear to be a decision made before-hand that is desperately looking for data to support it, as opposed to a decision based on data presented.

In this case, for example, Justice Kennedy said flatly that the majority used its "own independent judgment” on the implications of extending the death penalty to child rape. While I think that the underlying point -- that from a policy standpoint, using the death penalty here may be a bad decision in the long run -- is a valid one, whether the legislature made the correct call is not a question that the Court should really be looking at, IMO. The Court is not there to second-guess whether a particualr law is good, bad, or indifferent, but only to determine if a law passes muster Constitutionally. (and note here that we are not using bad results to justify a decision, but the Court's projected bad results (i.e., we have to assume they are correct on the harms because there is no data)).

And the "evolving standards" bit is a tad suspect because the lack of rape/capital punishment laws on the books in the various states is very likely because of the Court's own previous decisions that ll but stated such laws would be frowned upon. That is a neat trick: indicate that no state should pass a law on the subject, then point to the act that you discouraged in proving what the community standards are. Maybe that's the best test we can get, I don't know -- but it is so open to games-playing that it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

On the policy side, the decision is probably correct (at least that is how I react, but I'll admit I have no statistics or other data, just my own first instincts). And this is not a stain on the Consitution eaving me outraged and packing my bags for another country, etc., etc.

But it does trouble me a bit that the Court seems to be ever-expanding into a de facto super-legislaure, and this decision is just one small symptom.



I agree and I think you put it just as well as Alito.

The older I get, and more cases I read, the more it seems to me the Court is deciding the result it wants first and then trying to shoehorn the "reasoning" in later.

This is obviously a policy question and using the "evolving standard of decency" argument for policy questions leaves a bad "we, the unelected and politically unaccountable judges, know best" taste in my mouth as well.

[leonAzul]

Please excuse the typing and length of that last one. I was trying to keep it readably short, but tend to get long-winded.

And my typing sucks.

Thank you for weighing in on this. It's appreciated.

[leonAzul]

But it does trouble me a bit that the Court seems to be ever-expanding into a de facto super-legislaure, and this decision is just one small symptom.

I would take issue with that only to this extent:

The Law, taken as a whole, includes both legislation as well as so-called "Common Law", the application of Law by preceding courts. Amendment VII admits to Common Law.

If I have misunderstood this, then please correct me.

[leonAzul]

our country was founded on morals.

Please do not take this as an attack against you personally, yet I find this assertion most ludicrous.

"Our country" was founded on the protest against tyrannical abuse of religion. It was engendered by the desire for liberty to pursue enterprise as well as the opportunity for advancement.

This is both the glory and the bane of "Our Country". Nearly every policy, decision, and action undertaken by the United States of America has been driven by the "Bottom Line". Rather like the cupidity of the Pax Romana. Whether this is good or evil I'll let other minds better informed than mine debate this--in another thread, please ;)

And please forgive me for nearly derailing my own thread :o

[NoZed Avenger]

I would take issue with that only to this extent:

The Law, taken as a whole, includes both legislation as well as so-called "Common Law", the application of Law by preceding courts. Amendment VII admits to Common Law.

If I have misunderstood this, then please correct me.

But there was no challenge under the common law to this, a written statute. It was a Constitutional challenge. I don't think that it applies to this situation, at least not in the sense you mean.

[Damien Evans]

Oh boo hoo, I just want to know what makes em tick.
WAA WAA, they’re just misunderstood.
Sniffle sniffle, no one has the right to take a life.

What bunch of hypocritical P****s

All violent felons, ALL, should be executed.
The person that commits an assault has probably committed other crimes, each one more violent than the last.
The type of behavior that manifests as violence and sexual assault weaves a thread through humanity and propagates itself in an almost viral fashion.

Executions will never be pretty or nice.

That's pretty close to the worst post I've ever seen on this sort of thread.

[kedo1981]

Well at least I’ve made an impression.
But pray tell “worst in what way”?

[pgwenthold]

I agree and I think you put it just as well as Alito.


I'm wondering, how strongly did Alito object to the opinion that allowing Gitmo prisoners the right to habeas corpus should not be allowed because it would cause american deaths? Was that a constitutional assessment, or just reaction?

ISTR that Alito agreed with the dissent in that case.

[sthomson]

I agree with this ruling for the same reason that victim's advocacy groups are for this ruling: A child does not have the mental capacity to understand complex legal and moral issues. If a child is raped by a family member, and asked to testify in that case, such testimony would, at least in the child's mind, be sentencing a family-member to death. I don't think that we, as an ethical society, can ask a child to speak out so strongly against someone whom they may see as an authority figure.

Although I am not a legal expert, I am troubled by recent efforts to label any Court action meant to protect the rights of citizens as "activist court rulings.

[Damien Evans]

Well at least I’ve made an impression.
But pray tell “worst in what way”?

Because your entire post was flaming straw.

[kedo1981]

WOW!
Make your point vague enough and it’s imposable to argue with; good strategy.

[kedo1981]

I hate it when I’m right.
Brooke Bennett's body has been found
Her uncle who had been convicted for kidnapping and sexual assault in 1993 Is the likely suspect.
A violent felon, who should have been executed, lived on to perpetuate his violence.
Your bases are all belong to us!

[leonAzul]

I hate it when I’m right.
Brooke Bennett's body has been found
Her uncle who had been convicted for kidnapping and sexual assault in 1993 Is the likely suspect.
A violent felon, who should have been executed, lived on to perpetuate his violence.
Your bases are all belong to us!

You'll have your chance to gloat when a judgment is rendered. Having read Agent Rachek's affidavit, I agree there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence for suspicion of the uncle's involvement, yet there is quite a bit of grounds for skepticism as well. Whether this is a not-so-clever attempt to deflect suspicion from Michael Jacques, a pure fabrication from a demented mind, or there is a real reason for the protection of "dad" at all costs, hopefully will be clarified during the trial. What gives this a bizarre twist is the references to "Breckenridge" and the uncanny resemblance between certain elements of the crime and Gore Vidal's novel Myra Breckinridge.

[leonAzul]

Curiouser and curiouser:

The former stepfather of a 12-year-old Vermont girl found dead earlier this month has been indicted on child pornography charges. (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5im_n7mcZOWj3Z_mLSiFL0usXEF6gD91V9FK00) as well obstruction of justice in the matter of Brooke Bennett's abduction and death.

[Jon_Stripe]

What I ment was, for example, the idea of treson is a moral law.


Well, on second thought, lemme rephrase this:

The criminalisation of "Treson" is for protection of state but which has grounds in morality in that you have 'betrayed thy Mother Land'.

[Jon_Stripe]

EvilSmurf I'm saying giving child rapists the death penalty gives them a perverse incentive to kill their victims and eliminate the most convincing witness against them. Since they will get the same penalty whether the child they're raping lives or dies.

I see you reasoning.


How many women who were raped as adults do you know? I know a few and trust me they're just as traumatised and confused. In some cases more so, since society seems to partly blame to victim "maybe she shouldn't have been wearing such revealing clothes" or "maybe she shouldn't have been walking through a bad area" "maybe she was asking for it".

Yes but the idea that it doesn't matter the age could be argued to the ground

Argumentum Ad Hominem

I ONE I X HE ^ DIE
Oops--wrong thread. :tongue-ti