The liberal factions of the Supreme Court does it again. Banning the Death Penalty on child rape.

Actually two things can be discussed here. The use of the Death Penalty in such a case. Does the punishment fit the crime??? Absolutely.

And the concept of States Rights. And in this situation, this is another case of not allowing States to make their own judgements on what punishment should be used in a given situation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080625/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_child_rape

quote:

Originally posted by Lighteningrodd:

Actually two things can be discussed here. The use of the Death Penalty in such a case. Does the punishment fit the crime??? Absolutely.

Posing a question and answering it yourself with "absolutely", thats hardly discussion!

Why exactly do you think that the death penalty is an apt punishment for child rape?

Where are you going to draw the line? What other crimes that don't involve the death of the victim should also be punished by death?

Just a bit more information from CNN's story about this -

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that execution in this case would violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, citing "evolving standards of decency" in the United States.

Such standards, the justice wrote, forbid capital punishment for any crime against an individual other than murder.

"We conclude that, in determining whether the death penalty is excessive, there is a distinction between intentional first-degree murder on the one hand and nonhomicide crimes against individual persons, even including child rape, on the other," wrote Kennedy, who is not related to the convicted rapist.

In the majority opinion, Anthony Kennedy acknowledged "the victim's fright, the sense of betrayal, and the nature of her injuries caused more prolonged physical and mental suffering than, say, a sudden killing by an unseen assassin."

But the justice -- supported by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer -- wrote that when determining what punishment the Eighth Amendment prohibits, "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society" must be taken into account.

After a review of the "history of the death penalty for this and other nonhomicide crimes, current state statutes and new enactments ... we conclude there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape," Anthony Kennedy wrote.

U.S. Supreme Court rulings in 1976 and 1977 barred capital punishment for rape. But in 1995, Louisiana passed a law allowing execution for the sexual violation of a child under 12. State lawmakers argued that the earlier high court cases pertained only to "adult women."

Supporters of Louisiana's law say that besides murder, no crime is more deserving of the death penalty than child rape and that the punishment would be used only in the most heinous of circumstances.

"A lot of people think there should not be a death penalty because the child survives," sex crimes prosecutor Kat Bartholomew said. "In my opinion, the rape of a child is more heinous and more hideous than a homicide."

She said a sexual assault on a child "takes away their innocence. It takes away their childhood. It mutilates their spirit. It kills their soul."

Death penalty opponents contend, among other things, that it could give attackers a reason to murder their victims. In Wednesday's ruling, Anthony Kennedy agreed, writing, "A state that punishes child rape by death may remove a strong incentive for the rapist not to kill the victim."

The idea that states should be allowed to execute whomever they want is a throwback to a time when states thought they were independent entities loosely joined together. That is old style thinking. We are one country, the United States. We are no longer a confederation of states/countries, and haven't been since 1789.

I note that there are two SCOTUS precedents for this. (CNN mentions this; Yahoo only mentions one.) I have no idea if they were also Liberal courts or not. But quite obviously, this Court is re-affirming the earlier decisions. Yahoo seems to imply that the earlier decision only held for adult women. Neither Yahoo nor CNN give any evidence that the decisions then were only dealing with adult victims. It seems to me that today, the Court is saying, "What part of No' don't you understand?"

I know that many are sorry that, slowly but surely, they are losing the right to execute people for all sorts of crimes. They can longer execute people for robbery, can't execute people for rape, and can't execute people whose intelligence is so limited that they haven't a clue about right or wrong. That's one of the prices they have to pay in order to be in a civilized country. (But I am certain that some countries still have public executions, so...)

quote:

Originally posted by GarColga:

quote:

Originally posted by Lighteningrodd:

Actually two things can be discussed here. The use of the Death Penalty in such a case. Does the punishment fit the crime??? Absolutely.

Posing a question and answering it yourself with "absolutely", thats hardly discussion!

Why exactly do you think that the death penalty is an apt punishment for child rape?

Where are you going to draw the line? What other crimes that don't involve the death of the victim should also be punished by death?

If you have ever known someone who was raped as a child, you would find out that person was scarred for life. The person having committed such an act has taken away from that child cannot be measured. Life, as they know it, for that child is over.

So where am I going to draw the line...that's not for me to decide. But I do feel the states should have that right.

If you take a look in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, homosexuality & adultry were causes for stoning. But I am not that extreme.

Representative James Fagan, a ciminal defense attorney from Massachusetts, provides his comments on how the child victim of rape should be treated in court here.

Has the Supreme Court ruled on the death penalty for attorneys?

quote:

"In my opinion, the rape of a child is more heinous and more hideous than a homicide."

It seems inconsistent that those same people who want the death penalty for crimes deserving of the harshest penalty acknowledge that actual killing is LESS deserving of the harshest penalty. Death gets it all over in a hurry!!

This is not the first, nor will it be the last controversial SCOTUS decision. Today they affirmed, 5-4, the right to own guns. That should keep blogs buzzing too.

quote:

Originally posted by coldfuse:
Representative James Fagan, a ciminal defense attorney from Massachusetts, provides his comments on how the child victim of rape should be treated in court here.

He must be a useless defence lawyer

quote:

He must be a useless defence lawyer

Don't be redundant, Fred.

quote:

Originally posted by juanruiz:
This is not the first, nor will it be the last controversial SCOTUS decision. Today they affirmed, 5-4, the right to own guns.

Reference Article: Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right

Doesn't it seem a bit odd that the decision should be so close in upholding an Amendment to the Constitution?

Anthony Kennedy has emerged as the most powerful justice, providing the Court's swing vote.

quote:

Doesn't it seem a bit odd that the decision should be so close in upholding an Amendment to the Constitution?

Well, when things turn on interpretation and extrapolation, I guess that's what we're stuck with. In that sense, it has a lot in common with the invention of Christian doctrines.

quote:

This is not the first, nor will it be the last controversial SCOTUS decision.

'The Supreme Court has turned down a plea by environmental groups to rein in the Bush administration's power to waive laws and regulations to speed construction of a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.' Court rejects case on fast track for border fence

Those tree-hugging liberal judges peeing on the constitution again!

I know this is going to sound silly, but it couldn't be that the Supreme Court judges are considering cases on their merits, could it?

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:
I know this is going to sound silly, but it couldn't be that the Supreme Court judges are considering cases on their merits, could it?

If that is the case, votes for eight of the justices should not be so predictable.

"Doesn't it seem a bit odd that the decision should be so close in upholding an Amendment to the Constitution? "

Of course it would if one only went by the headline and not the content of the article. The decision ruled on a law that banned only handguns; long weapons were still allowed. Since the Constitution puts the word "militia" in the sentence with the right to bear arms, it is (and has been) obviously an arguable position that outlawing handguns is Constitutional in some situations. To the best of my knowledge, the laws in various other cities (New York comes to mind) have not mentioned as being rescinded due to this decision. This may have a very narrow application. All the implications and lack thereof remain to be seen.

quote:

Since the Constitution puts the word "militia" in the sentence with the right to bear arms, it is (and has been) obviously an arguable position that outlawing handguns is Constitutional in some situations.

And that's what I mean above in referring to interpretation and extrapolation. "Arms" is pretty inclusive, how did handguns get separated out? And lest anyone think I have a dog in this fight, I don't. I don't own any guns.

I don't even have a cruise missile. Just a baseball bat, some golf clubs, and a few kitchen knives.

quote:

I don't even have a cruise missile.

Well, ok, THAT I have. But only for personal protection.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
Just a bit more information from CNN's story about this -

[i] Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that execution in this case would violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, citing "evolving standards of decency" in the United States.

________________________________________________

Hi Dor:

The very last thing we would want to do is demand "cruel and unusual punishment" for those who rape innocent,small children.

We should put all of these animals into the same cage and let them rape and sodimize each other

Or would that be too "cruel and unusual" ???

hippolips

Hippo, if you want to amend the Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, by all means, start a movement. I am all for changing the Constitution when it is necessary. But I would caution you; once you let the tiger out of its cage, it's really difficult to control just whom it attacks.

Until the Constitution is changed, however, we really should adhere to it. If we, both as individuals and as a society, ignore it when it suits us, it becomes meaningless.

quote:

Originally posted by juanruiz:

quote:

He must be a useless defence lawyer

Don't be redundant, Fred.

Every day my voice was heard
At the Sessions and ancient Bailey
All thieves who could my fees afford
Relied on my orations
And many a burglar I've restored
To his friends and his relations


This man is talking of cross-examining what appears to be a (theoretical) child as young as an eight- year- old , giving the child nightmares and stopping him or her having a relationship in future.For one thing, the child would be giving evidence through a video link [Or don't you have those in the States?].That should take away the bullying effect, even if the judge didn't stop the manner of questioning (as should happen).No wonder this man is a lawmaker. A number of our 'lawyers' are reduced to doing that job.