Child Rapists CANNOT be executed

[Apathy]

Where do you draw the line between a crime that warrants the death penalty and one that doesn't? IMO, a murder has to be involved. It's just my opinion and honestly I wouldn't lose a night's sleep had this decision gone the other way. But if you say child rape...then what age of the child would separate capital punishment from life imprisonment? It's a slippery slope.

Rapists are the most deplorable criminal I can think of so I don't discriminate what their punishment should be based on the age of the victim but the SCOTUS decision was very clear because it addressed LA law, which dealt with children under 12 years old. So it's actually pretty cut and dry. A 12-year old is still a baby and the two girls in LA were much younger than that. Showing their rapists leniency because it would be cruel and unusual to put them to death and not "proportional" to the act itself is absurd.

[millerx]

Rapists are the most deplorable criminal I can think of so I don't discriminate what their punishment should be based on the age of the victim but the SCOTUS decision was very clear because it addressed LA law, which dealt with children under 12 years old. So it's actually pretty cut and dry. A 12-year old is still a baby and the two girls in LA were much younger than that. Showing their rapists leniency because it would be cruel and unusual to put them to death and not "proportional" to the act itself is absurd.

Unfortunately not everyone gets the chance to live in Cobb... , if only the rest of the country could live by those standards

[bushwacked]

Showing their rapists leniency because it would be cruel and unusual to put them to death and not "proportional" to the act itself is absurd.

 

How does prolonging the incarcerated life span of a child rapist equate to leniency?

 

I'm starting to find myself wavering against the death penalty, because it seems the people for it can't focus on the one coherent reason for it.

Edited June 26, 2008 by bushwacked

[Azazello1313]

I am against the Death Penalty. But basically they are saying that on the spectrum of crime the rape of a child in not as bad as murder. I disagree with that. If the State is going to be in the business of capital punishment, then nothing could be more deserving of that ultimate penalty than child rape.

 

sorta where I'm at. if the SC said the death penalty in general is no good because it violates "cruel and unsual"....well, it wouldn't exactly fit with my philosophy of constitutional interpretation, but I'd still be applauding the result. but to say it violates cruel and unusual only for this particular crime? I guess I just don't understand the reasoning. I guess my bottom line is, if there IS a death penalty, well then I think child rapists ought to partake -- but I don't think there should be a death penalty.

[TheShiznit]

sorta where I'm at. if the SC said the death penalty in general is no good because it violates "cruel and unsual"....well, it wouldn't exactly fit with my philosophy of constitutional interpretation, but I'd still be applauding the result. but to say it violates cruel and unusual only for this particular crime? I guess I just don't understand the reasoning. I guess my bottom line is, if there IS a death penalty, well then I think child rapists ought to partake -- but I don't think there should be a death penalty.

 

Is the death penalty a cruel and unusual punishment for someone who steals from the elderly? You know.....those wacky kooks who con old people out of their money in the name of God? I would argue it would be cruel and unusual to put those people to death....but you seem to be arguing that the death penalty itself has to be cruel and unusual and not its specific applications....therefore.....a state can put to death jaywalkers if it chooses....by your logic....NO?

[Azazello1313]

Is the death penalty a cruel and unusual punishment for someone who steals from the elderly? You know.....those wacky kooks who con old people out of their money in the name of God? I would argue it would be cruel and unusual to put those people to death....but you seem to be arguing that the death penalty itself has to be cruel and unusual and not its specific applications....therefore.....a state can put to death jaywalkers if it chooses....by your logic....NO?

 

well, basically, yeah (those are retarded hypotheticals). but it seems to me that interpretation of "cruel and unusual punishment" ought to be focused on the punishment. I guess I can understand a line of reasoning where "unusualness" is relative based on the severity of the crime, but here we are talking about a case where some of the justices are saying that the death penalty itself isn't cruel and unusual, but applying it to one of the most heinous crimes imaginable -- raping a child -- IS cruel and unusual. strikes me as some unusually tortured reasoning.

[TheShiznit]

well, basically, yeah (those are retarded hypotheticals). but it seems to me that interpretation of "cruel and unusual punishment" ought to be focused on the punishment. I guess I can understand a line of reasoning where "unusualness" is relative based on the severity of the crime, but here we are talking about a case where some of the justices are saying that the death penalty itself isn't cruel and unusual, but applying it to one of the most heinous crimes imaginable -- raping a child -- IS cruel and unusual. strikes me as some unusually tortured reasoning.

 

don't get me wrong...I understand your position....but I just happen to agree with the majority here.

[Randall]

I'm against the death penalty, but if we have it, child rapists surely deserve it as much as anyone.

 

 

I agree. I don't think it is a deterrent and costs taxpayers more than all the appeals. Life without parole would be my choice. Mistakes are still made and death can't be reversed.

 

If we have it though why not these jerks.

[Clubfoothead]

I agree. I don't think it is a deterrent and costs taxpayers more than all the appeals. Life without parole would be my choice. Mistakes are still made and death can't be reversed.

 

If we have it though why not these jerks.

 

IMHO because it cannot be used accurately.

[Squeegiebo]

Wow.

 

What is sad - that the government isn't killing more people?

[Savage Beatings]

What is sad - that the government isn't killing more people?

 

No. I've said on a number of occassions that I am opposed to the death penalty. Guess you skipped over that part. The reasoning behind the decision is tortured and forced. What's sad is that they made so much effort to basically say that raping a child simply isn't as bad as killing someone. I strongly disagree.

[Squeegiebo]

No. I've said on a number of occassions that I am opposed to the death penalty. Guess you skipped over that part. The reasoning behind the decision is tortured and forced. What's sad is that they made so much effort to basically say that raping a child simply isn't as bad as killing someone. I strongly disagree.

 

Here's what the Syllabus of the actual opinion says (citations ommited):

 

3. Informed by its own precedents and its understanding of the Constitution and the rights it secures, the Court concludes, in its independent

judgment, that the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the crime of child rape.

(a) The Court’s own judgment should be brought to bear on the death penalty’s acceptability under the Eighth Amendment. Rape’s permanent and devastating impacton a child suggests moral grounds for questioning a rule barring capital punishment simply because the crime did not result in the victim’s death, but it does not follow that death is a proportionate penalty for child rape. The constitutional prohibition against excessiveor cruel and unusual punishments mandates that punishment “be exercised within the limits of civilized standards.” Evolving standards of decency counsel the Court to be most hesitant before allowing extension of the death penalty, especially where no life was taken in the commission of the crime. Consistent with those evolving standards and the teachings of its precedents, the Court concludes that there is a distinction between intentional first-degree murder on the one hand and nonhomicide crimes against individuals, even including child rape, on the other. The latter crimes may be devastating in their harm, as here, but “in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public,” they cannot compare to murder in their “severity and irrevocability.” The Court finds significant the substantial number of executions that would be allowed for child rape under respondent’s approach. Although narrowing aggravators might be used to ensure the death penalty’s restrained application in this context, as they are in the context of capital murder, all such standards have the potential to result in some inconsistency of application. The Court, for example,has acknowledged that the requirement of general rules to ensure consistency of treatment, and the insistence that capital sentencing be individualized, have resulted in tension and imprecision. This approach might be sound with respect to capital murder but it should not be introduced into the justice system where death has not occurred. The Court has spent more than 32 years developing a foundational jurisprudence for capital murder to guide the States and juries in imposing the death penalty. Beginning the same process for crimes for which no one has been executed in more than 40 years would require experimentation in an area where a failed experiment would result in the execution of individuals undeserving of death.

( B.) The Court’s decision is consistent with the justifications offered for the death penalty, retribution and deterrence. Among the factors for determining whether retribution is served, the Court must look to whetherthe death penalty balances the wrong to the victim in nonhomicide cases. It is not at all evident that the child rape victim’s hurt is lessened when the law permits the perpetrator’s death, given that capital cases require a long-term commitment by those testifying for the prosecution. Society’s desire to inflict death for child rape by enlisting the child victim to assist it over the course of years in asking for capital punishment forces a moral choice on the child, who is not of mature age to make that choice. There are also relevant systemic concerns in prosecuting child rape, including the documented problem of unreliable, induced, and even imagined child testimony, which creates a “special risk of wrongful execution” in some cases. As to deterrence, the evidence suggests that the death penalty may not result in more effective enforcement, but may add to the risk of nonreporting of child rape out of fear of negative consequences for the perpetrator, especially if he isa family member. And, by in effect making the punishment for child rape and murder equivalent, a State may remove a strong incentive for the rapist not to kill his victim.

 

Also note this from the article you linked:

 

Because of the ruling, the sentences of Davis and Kennedy will automatically be commuted to life in prison without the possibility of parole, the Capital Appeals Project said.

 

As someone opposed to the death penalty in any case, I am satisfied with this result.

Edited June 29, 2008 by Squeegiebo

[AtomicCEO]

I, for one, and glad that the supreme court can say that the death penalty cannot be applied to any crime at all. What if the government suddenly said the penalty for drunk driving was death? Who would stand up to it? Now we have precedent to say that the punishment cannot severely exceed the crime.

[Azazello1313]

I, for one, and glad that the supreme court can say that the death penalty cannot be applied to any crime at all. What if the government suddenly said the penalty for drunk driving was death? Who would stand up to it? Now we have precedent to say that the punishment cannot severely exceed the crime.

 

so you think there's a slippery slope that extends all the way from raping children to driving drunk?

 

I guess I'm just not sure ANY punishment "severely exceeds" the crime of raping a child.

[The Holy Roller]

so you think there's a slippery slope that extends all the way from raping children to driving drunk?

 

I guess I'm just not sure ANY punishment "severely exceeds" the crime of raping a child.

 

Have to agree.

[AtomicCEO]

so you think there's a slippery slope that extends all the way from raping children to driving drunk?

 

I'm glad that there is now a process to keep us from ever approaching that point.