Supreme Court Rules On Child Rapist

[Jenksismyhero]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/25/scotus...rape/index.html

 

First, a Lebowski reference: "Eight year olds dude."

 

Second, there's not a bone in my body that feels like this decision is right in any way. Not only do they consider capital punishment for non-murder cases "cruel and unusual," the majority opinion fails to adequately give any sort of gauge as to when it MAY be appropriate, meaning that, in essence, it never will be.

 

I thought this was a pretty good line by Justice Alito: the majority ruled against the death penalty "no matter how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted and no matter how heinous the perpetrator's criminal record may be."

 

Full decision: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-343.pdf

 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2008 by Jenksismybitch

[Controlled Chaos]

From Alito's dissent..

 

The Court provides two reasons for this sweeping conclusion: First, the Court claims to have identified a national consensus” that the death penalty is never acceptable for the rape of a child;second, the Court concludes, based on its independent judgment, that imposing the death penalty for child rape is inconsistent with the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.

 

Lets take a consensus of the nation and see what's acceptable for the rape of a child. I think the Court would find the only thing they've "identified" is they're own agenda.

Edited June 25, 2008 by Controlled Chaos

[lostfan]

I think regardless of how you feel about child rapists (obviously the only ones that actually care about them are the child rapists themselves) I think the real question, assuming you're pro-death penalty (which I am), is what crimes exactly qualify for the death penalty in America?

[santo=dorf]

He's going to wish he got the death penalty once the inside finds out what he's in for.

[Texsox]

The death penalty can not be reversed once imposed.

People make mistakes.

Juries are made of people.

If we allow killing someone as punishment, then how could we say that any other punishment is cruel and unusual?

Killing citizens is not a power I want a government to have.

[lostfan]

He's going to wish he got the death penalty once the inside finds out what he's in for.

Which is the irony here.

[lostfan]

The death penalty can not be reversed once imposed.

People make mistakes.

Juries are made of people.

If we allow killing someone as punishment, then how could we say that any other punishment is cruel and unusual?

Killing citizens is not a power I want a government to have.

IMO that is another argument entirely...

 

...which probably was a factor in the SCOTUS's decision is too (I don't know what the 5 justices' stances on the death penalty are, though)

[santo=dorf]

Which is the irony here.

So what's the problem?

 

It's cheaper to keep him off death row and he going to get brutalized in prison. (Conservative view point)

We're (since the public's tax money is funding this) not killing a human being. (Liberal view point)

 

It's a win-win

[Balta1701]

IMO that is another argument entirely...

 

...which probably was a factor in the SCOTUS's decision is too (I don't know what the 5 justices' stances on the death penalty are, though)

Enough death penalty cases have come before the SCOTUS in recent years that they could have stopped it completely if there was a majority in favor of it. They're relying on their interpretation of where the American Public is currently at in making their judgements, which seems to be one of those things the Court does.

[lostfan]

Enough death penalty cases have come before the SCOTUS in recent years that they could have stopped it completely if there was a majority in favor of it. They're relying on their interpretation of where the American Public is currently at in making their judgements, which seems to be one of those things the Court does.

My problem with this ruling is that they didn't say where the line would be, it just seems completely arbitrary (even though they cited all the states' laws)

[HuskyCaucasian]

One of the candidates weighed in...

“I disagree with the decision. I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for most egregious of crimes. 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 that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances, the death penalty is at least potentially applicable. That does not violate our constitution.... Had the Supreme Court said, ‘We want to constrain ability of states to do this to make sure that it's done in a careful and appropriate way,’ that would've been one thing, but it basically had a blanket prohibition and I disagree with that decision.”

 

[StrangeSox]

My problem with this ruling is that they didn't say where the line would be, it just seems completely arbitrary (even though they cited all the states' laws)

 

I thought it was drawn at the only way to get the death penalty is to actually take a life? This was just part of the NPR summary, though. I haven't read the actual decision.

[lostfan]

I thought it was drawn at the only way to get the death penalty is to actually take a life? This was just part of the NPR summary, though. I haven't read the actual decision.

Yeah, that's about as far as I've gotten so far, and if that's the case I don't agree. Not that life in prison is a picnic or anything, but I think that threshold is a bit high.

[Jenksismyhero]

The death penalty can not be reversed once imposed.

People make mistakes.

Juries are made of people.

If we allow killing someone as punishment, then how could we say that any other punishment is cruel and unusual?

Killing citizens is not a power I want a government to have.

 

Neither can being eight years old and being raped brutally by your stepfather, severly destroying what little innocence you had as a child and any attempt to lead a "normal" life.

Seriously? Is that what we teach our children? Yeah, if you rape a friend it's cool, we all do similiar things because we're not perfect.

And juries put him on death row. 9 people who magically polled the entire country to find out what we all thought about this issue decided against it.

Killing is normally a faster more efficient way of dying than say torture.

Agreed. Let's allow mobs to finish the job that should be done.

 

 

Look, I'm not saying we should cut the hands off of every thief, but in very limited, narrow situations I have no problem giving a person what they deserve. Sorry, if you rape your eight year old step daughter, you have no right to life anymore. I'm all for the Court stepping in and saying there should be limits. But a complete ban in non-death cases is ridiculous.

 

 

edit: and btw, if you're a big Scalia follower like me, you have huge issues with the whole "cruel and unusual" definition in the Constitution. Cruel and unusual was meant for punishments like tar and feathering, not death. Thank our previous justices who could magically read those unwritten words in the Constitution for starting the debate about whether capital punishment is cruel and unusual.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Jenksismybitch

[bmags]

My problem with this ruling is that they didn't say where the line would be, it just seems completely arbitrary (even though they cited all the states' laws)

 

It takes a lot for them to make a test to follow or a line in the sand. It's very frustrating.

[BearSox]

The sick scumbags get to keep their lives after they ruin the lives of innocent little kids... yeah, that makes sense.

[G&T]

The problem is that in these rape cases, there are as many or more false charges by a pissed off ex-spouse or whatever than genuine charges. Meanwhile, children are very difficult to get reliable testimony out of. No matter what they say some doctor will give a reason for why the testimony was the result of mental trauma caused by sexual abuse.

Also remember, DNA evidence usually won't come into play because the child won't say anything until it's too late. Just my 2 cents.

[NorthSideSox72]

The problem is that in these rape cases, there are as many or more false charges by a pissed off ex-spouse or whatever than genuine charges. Meanwhile, children are very difficult to get reliable testimony out of. No matter what they say some doctor will give a reason for why the testimony was the result of mental trauma caused by sexual abuse.

Also remember, DNA evidence usually won't come into play because the child won't say anything until it's too late. Just my 2 cents.

As many or more? Where did you pull that number from?

 

[G&T]

As many or more? Where did you pull that number from?

 

I shouldn't have used the word charges, but "accusations."

There are no reliable numbers unfortunately so I won't bother posting what you can find on a simple Google search, but if you look into law reviews you can see the problem of false rape reports and the lack of quality information.

I worked for the DA's office in homicide and special victims. Had quite a few child rape cases unfortunately. There is no question that what you are quoting is my opinion, but it is based upon conversations with ADA's working those cases and the problems in prosecuting them.

[jackie hayes]

The problem is that in these rape cases, there are as many or more false charges by a pissed off ex-spouse or whatever than genuine charges. Meanwhile, children are very difficult to get reliable testimony out of. No matter what they say some doctor will give a reason for why the testimony was the result of mental trauma caused by sexual abuse.

Also remember, DNA evidence usually won't come into play because the child won't say anything until it's too late. Just my 2 cents.

It seems that that angle played only a small part in the Court's reasoning, though. Even if that weren't true, they would have struck it down (apparently).

[G&T]

It seems that that angle played only a small part in the Court's reasoning, though. Even if that weren't true, they would have struck it down (apparently).

 

Well, on page 35, after considering the difficulties in prosecuting a child rape case, at the end of the opinion, the Court stated:

 

Each of these propositions, standing alone, might not establish the unconstitutionality of the death penalty for the crime of child rape. Taken in sum, however, they demonstrate the serious negative consequences of making child rape a capital offense. These considerations lead us to conclude, in our independent judgment, that the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child.

 

So, according to the Court, the death penalty would not have been struck down if everything were not considered together. Whether that's true or not, I don't know.

 

And I'm not stating that the decision was right or wrong, I was merely adding a practicality to the discussion.

[jackie hayes]

Well, on page 35, after considering the difficulties in prosecuting a child rape case, at the end of the opinion, the Court stated:

 

 

 

So, according to the Court, the death penalty would not have been struck down if everything were not considered together. Whether that's true or not, I don't know.

 

And I'm not stating that the decision was right or wrong, I was merely adding a practicality to the discussion.

I know you're not giving your opinion on the decision; I wasn't trying to give mine, either. Just trying to clarify.

 

Eh...they didn't really say that it "would not have been struck down if everything were not considered together," only that no single argument would have been sufficient to strike it down. And, logically, it seems that the 'standards of decency' argument should be sufficient. It would be difficult to argue, 'This penalty does not conform to the national consensus on standards of decency, but as long as there are no practical difficulties, it's Constitutional.' That argument (standards of decency) in itself has multiple parts (and it is the bulk of the decision, as the practicality arguments take up less than two pages -- although of course that does not necessarily mean anything), and possibly no one of those parts would have been sufficient, but I just don't see how they could hold that and not strike down the penalty, whatever the other arguments are.

 

You could be right, and I don't think the decision is perfectly clear on this, I'm just saying that I don't think the Court could have come to any other conclusion given what they held on the 'standards' argument. The rest just looks like gravy. Jmho.

[Texsox]

8 year olds can be manipulated to say almost anything. Which is the sad part. To put someone to death, it would seem one yard stick would be the absolute positive conviction, and these are among the worst witnesses. Too many people have been convicted then proven innocent for me to ever believe the death penalty is a useful tool to keep society safe.