Recent Supreme Court decision

mountain_man · #1 Jun 25, 2008, 01:22 PM

Court bans death penalty for child rape - Yahoo! News

I don't agree with this ruling BUT the reason I am posting this is because the statement that was made in this article by a Supreme Court justice that he noted in his dissent that "the U.S. high court already had made clear that capital punishment could not be imposed without the death of the victim, except possibly for espionage or treason."

SO the federal government is willing to concede in execution of someone that betrays our COUNTRY but NOT when someone brutally betrays the innocence of young children.WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What are your thoughts on that view and the recent ruling?

Skell · Jun 25, 2008, 03:24 PM

Raping a child is probably the most despicable thing someone can do. But killing them as punishment aint much better in my book. Only third world countries use capital punishment. Oh sorry, and the US!

tomder55 · Jun 25, 2008, 03:26 PM

there is a canard called evolving standards of decency. That is the cr*p that went into the majority's decision . Justice Kennedy wrote in his majoirity opinion that "Evolving standards of decency must embrace and express respect for the dignity of the person, and the punishment of criminals must conform to that rule," Following this so called "evolving standards of decency" and the court's precedents, he said,(now get this bs) "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." oh really ?

Here is a description of the injuries (not including a lifetime of emotional and psychological wounds inflicted ) that happened to the child in this case (taken from the wording of the decision itself )

Quote:

When police arrived at petitioner’s home between 9:20 and 9:30 a.m., they found L. H. on her bed, wearing a T-shirt and wrapped in a bloody blanket. She was bleeding profusely from the vaginal area. Petitioner told police he had carried her from the yard to the bathtub and then to the bed. Consistent with this explanation, police found a thin line of blood drops in the garage on the way to the house and then up the stairs. Once in the bedroom, petitioner had used a basin of water and a cloth to wipe blood from the victim. This later prevented medical personnel from collecting a reliable DNA sample.

L. H. was transported to the Children’s Hospital. An expert in pediatric forensic medicine testified that L. H.’s injuries were the most severe he had seen from a sexual assault in his four years of practice. A laceration to the left wall of the vagina had separated her cervix from the back of her vagina, causing her rectum to protrude into the vaginal structure. Her entire perineum was torn from the posterior fourchette to the anus. The injuries required emergency surgery.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont.../06/07-343.pdf

Judge Alito in his dissent correctly pointed out that child abuse cases are moving to address this henious crime by making sentencing tougher . So it is indeed a fact that "evolving standards of decency " in child rape cases are moving towards the toughest sentencing .. Indeed ;the State of Lousiana decided that the death penalty was appropriate."The harm that is caused to the victims and to society at large by the worst child rapists is grave.''...''It is the judgment of the Louisiana lawmakers and those in an increasing number of other states that these harms justify the death penalty."

Alito challenged Kennedy's claim that murder "is unique in its moral depravity and in the severity of the injury that it inflicts on the victim and the public."...."Indeed, I have little doubt that, in the eyes of ordinary Americans, the very worst child rapists -– predators who seek out and inflict serious physical and emotional injury on defenseless young children –- are the epitome of moral depravity"

My question is simple . Even if "evolving standards of decency was a legitimate constitutional argument at all ; Who appointed SCOTUS to be the arbiter of sociatal standards ? Is that not why we have elected representatives ?

Judge Alito makes a point I have made many times in the abortion argument. If they would just butt out it would be easier for society to form consensus on issues like this.

Quote:

In assessing current norms, the Court relies primarily on the fact that only 6 of the 50 States now have statutes that permit the death penalty for this offense. But this statistic is a highly unreliable indicator of the views of state lawmakers and their constituents. As I will explain, dicta in this Court’s decision in Coker v. Georgia, 433 U. S. 584 (1977), has stunted legislative consideration of the question whether the death penalty for the targeted offense of raping a young child is consistent with prevailing standards of decency. The Coker dicta gave state legislators and others good reason to fear that any law permitting the imposition of the death penalty for this crime could meet precisely the fate that has now befallen the Louisiana statute that is currently before us, and this threat strongly discouraged state legislators—regardless of their own values and those of their constituents—from supporting the enactment of such legislation.

In other words perhaps more states legislatures would move to capital punishment in these cases if the courts were not imposing their will on the people's representatives.

This differs greatly with the power grab that Kennedy claimed for the court in his opinion .

Quote:

Evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society counsel us to be most hesitant before interpreting the Eighth Amendment to allow the extension of the death penalty, a hesitation that has special force where no life was taken in the commission of the crime.

But Kennedy has the role of the court backwards. They are supposed to use caution in overturning a law ;not in upholding one . No matter what you think of the death penalty it should concern all that SCOTUS has decided to give themselve the role of arbiter of the country's standards of decency.

tomder55 · Jun 26, 2008, 06:30 AM

This just in

SCOTUS upheld the citizens of Washington DC's rights to 2nd Amendment protection. They got that one right.

tomder55 · Jun 26, 2008, 06:43 AM

rare kudos to Obama .....

According to the NY Slimes ,he made this statement about the SCOTUS child rape decision

Quote:

“I disagree with the decision; I have said repeatedly that I think the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstance for the most egregious of crimes.” Obama told forty or so reporters. “I think that the rape of a small child, six or eight years old, is a heinous crime, and if a state makes a decision under narrow limited well defined circumstance the death penalty is at least potentially applicable,

Obama Disagrees With Supreme Court Decision - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog

progunr · Jun 26, 2008, 06:49 AM

It is hard for me to imagine anyone other than a child molester, defending the use of the death penalty for this horrendous crime.

What I found more disturbing than this decision by the Supreme Court, were the statements made by Representative and Attorney James Fagan regarding the attempt to require a mandatory 20 year prison term for a child rapist, under the age of 12.

If you haven't heard about it or seen it, take a look at this, but be prepared to feel sick to your stomach after you listen to this despicable excuse for a human being.

LiveLeak.com - Massachusetts Democrat to child rape victims: I will destroy you

excon · Jun 26, 2008, 06:49 AM

Hello tom:

I have no problem with the death penalty... Just let someone rape MY little girl... I'll drop 'em in a hearbeat.

However, I DO have a problem with the STATE killing people in MY name.

excon

tomder55 · Jun 26, 2008, 06:58 AM

Ex

well I guess the poetic justice would be that a child rapists life expectency is very short in prison. My guess is that no one particularily cares that the death they receive there truely is cruel and unusual . oh well . I won't shed any tears.

The "state " has been executing people since the founding . As I said ;if there is indeed an "evolving standard of justice " that some day will ban the death penalty ;it is not the role of the Court to impose it . That is why we have a representative government .

magprob · Jun 26, 2008, 07:10 AM

I think it should be the parents decision. I got no qualms against shooting a baby raper.



At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you will be able to: Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+ topics. Accept money for answers that you provide. Communicate privately with other members (PM). See fewer ads. Sign Up!