Scotus rules on child rape

S

STAGE 2

New member
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Wednesday outlawed executions of people convicted of raping a child.

In a 5-4 vote, the court said the Louisiana law allowing the death penalty to be imposed in such cases violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

"The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion. His four liberal colleagues joined him, while the four more conservative justices dissented.

There has not been an execution in the United States for a crime that did not also involve the death of the victim in 44 years.

More here...

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




Very sad decision for both kids and states and it looks like Kennedy is happily playing his part as the swinging thorn in the side of the constitution. Whats more I was unaware that we determined constitutionality by "consensus". One of the very few instances where 'its for the children' seems applicable.
 
A vivid illustration of the importance of judicial nominations. AT LEAST one justice position will be filled during the next administration. Reflection on the other 'swing vote' decisions we have found atrocious (eminent domain comes to mind quickly but there are others) should really make us all think very hard about WHO we want to nominate that next justice.

Protest or vengence voting will bring about 'unintended consequences' more impactive then any personal sense of vindication ever could.
 
Bruxley, you're not going to convince the cut off their nose to spite their face crowd or the "gimme" crowd. The only hope is educating the confused but still salvageable crowd.
 
supposition in progress

to believe there is a guarantee that any other judicial nominee hearing the aforementioned case would have voted in a particular way. A great claim for the election with no more guarantee of the outcome than predicting the outcome today of the 2012 election.
 
When I was growing up, the penalty for rape and murder was the same: death. So, rapists would kill their victims to keep them from testifying (this was long before DNA). I am in favor of keeping live victims.

Also, "cruel and unusual" is subject to interpretation and SCOTUS is the ultimate interpreter.

Lee
 
It *is* unusual, though.

"Forty-five states ban the death penalty for any kind of rape, and the other five states allow it for child rapists. Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas allow executions in such cases if the defendant had previously been convicted of raping a child."

I'm just fine personally with putting a convicted child rapist in general population. Things tend to work themselves out there.
 
It *is* unusual, though.
Click to expand...

No its not. Unusual, in the constitutional sense is asking whether or not the particular procedure is something thats regularly used. The death penalty is a regularly used punishment generally, and was used for rape specifically until recently (and as was pointed out is still in some states).

So to say that this now violates the constitution is to make the argument that the terms of the constitution are subject to change based on time and the opinions of society. Thats bunk.

Legislatures are free to eliminate the death penalty if they like. However to do so using the constitution is both historically incorrect and harmful.
 
When I was growing up, the penalty for rape and murder was the same: death. So, rapists would kill their victims to keep them from testifying (this was long before DNA). I am in favor of keeping live victims.
Click to expand...

Of course, that's a policy decision for the legislature, one that they are much better able to weigh than the courts and is irrelevant to the Constitutionality.
 
When I was growing up, the penalty for rape and murder was the same: death. So, rapists would kill their victims to keep them from testifying (this was long before DNA). I am in favor of keeping live victims.
Click to expand...

There's this, and there's also the argument that (since those that rape children are often somebody they know and likely still care about) a child might be less likely to report or testify against their attacker if they know it could result in their death.

Or, in other words, that instituting the death penalty for this crime might actually lead to more victims or more harm to victims.

Doesn't mean you're wrong for supporting the death penalty for rape (of any sort), or somehow a bad person, it just means that it might not have the overall effect (in the long run, over many cases) you're hoping for.


Also, I'm with STAGE 2...the punishment itself (death) is not unusual, and I find it hard to argue that it's somehow overly cruel in relation to this crime. I've known some rape victims far too well to argue that.


Assuming I support the death penalty (I do in theory but in practice I do not, but that's for another thread), I see no problem morally (or legally/constitutionally) in instituting it for rapists (of any sort). I think it's a poor idea in practice, for the reason given up top...but I'm having a pretty hard time agreeing with this decision (as that is an issue for the voters, through the legislature, to decide on).

EDIT: I just came dangerously close to owing HKuser a Coke.

Oh, and almost forgot...

I'm just fine personally with putting a convicted child rapist in general population. Things tend to work themselves out there.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of extrajudicial vigilante punishment either inside or outside of prison. Which is what our tacit acceptance of the conditions inside our prisons amounts to. It might feel good knowing that a child rapist is "getting his" from Bubba in the slammer, but plenty of non-violent offenders on relatively short sentences are "getting theirs" as well...which is the inevitable result from letting such things go on.
 
Follow the history

not just the react to this decision.

The 1977 SCOTUS decision in Coker v Georgia is partially used as a logical step in the conclusion (Judge Kennedy's thoughts paraphrased.) Since the 1977 decision (7to2) was against the death penalty for cases involving adult rape the question was how does this relate to a death penalty in a child rape case.

I realize the issue is pretty nasty: child rape. However the grievousness of the crime and the related death penalty are situation that only seven of the 50 States have such laws. Clearly the remaining 43 states have some issues with attaching the death penalty to the crime. It is near impossible to believe the legislators of those 43 states are all liberal when it come to this issue.

To fault the court as being liberal on this issue is to deny the preponderance of the other information on the matter.
 
The death penalty for violent rape is just fine with me. It's also good for cases where the victim is really young. (Off the top of my head I'll say if the victim is 12 or less and the perp is 18 or older.)

I wouldn't want the death penalty for every case of date rape where the stories don't match, the woman has 2nd thoughts, etc. It's just too permanent a solution for a case where perhaps the perp was more confused than evil to the core.
 
No its not. Unusual, in the constitutional sense is asking whether or not the particular procedure is something thats regularly used. The death penalty is a regularly used punishment generally, and was used for rape specifically until recently (and as was pointed out is still in some states).

So to say that this now violates the constitution is to make the argument that the terms of the constitution are subject to change based on time and the opinions of society. Thats bunk.
Click to expand...

"Cruel" and "unusual" certainly are terms that will change over the course of time.
 
Don't like the supreme court's decision?

Congress can pass a law which says, "States, deal with the problem as you see fit" (constitutional). Further more congress can include in the legislation language to the effect, "Supreme Court, we remove the right of appellate jurisdiction from you" (c.f. Article III, Sect. 2) US Constitution. The ability of the Supreme Court to render judgment is therefore removed. At that point what congress says sticks without judicial input.

I don't buy the position that the supreme court can do whatever it wants and the only thing that can be done is to appoint different judges whenever possible. Congress is constitutionally empowered to act as a check and balance to judicial tyranny.

It remains to be seen if congress can grow a spine of sufficient size to stand upright.
 
"Cruel" and "unusual" certainly are terms that will change over the course of time.
Click to expand...

No they aren't. That is if you are going to read the words on the page for what they are. If you are going to allow interpretation or societal change for these words, then I don't want to hear a peep from you when folks start to quibble over what "arms" or "infringed" means.
 
I realize the issue is pretty nasty: child rape. However the grievousness of the crime and the related death penalty are situation that only seven of the 50 States have such laws. Clearly the remaining 43 states have some issues with attaching the death penalty to the crime. It is near impossible to believe the legislators of those 43 states are all liberal when it come to this issue.
Click to expand...

Going back to 1977 is hardly an acceptable view of the history of this issue. If we are going to determine whether the death penalty is acceptable punishment for rape, then it would behoove us to look at what the framers viewed as appropriate. If they didn't think it was cruel and unusual, then its folly to suggest that the 8th amendment means something different even though it hasn't been changed.

That is unless you believe in freely amending the constitution without amending the constitution.
 
Going back to 1977 is hardly an acceptable view of the history of this issue.
Click to expand...

The last time someone was executed in this country for something other than murder was 1964. Very few states even have tried to put such a statute on the books. For a long, long time this part of the 8th amendment has been interpreted (in part) in light of what the American consensus is. This decision precisely follows that precedent, which is exactly what one wants a Supreme Court to do.

Congress can pass a law which says, "States, deal with the problem as you see fit" (constitutional). Further more congress can include in the legislation language to the effect, "Supreme Court, we remove the right of appellate jurisdiction from you" (c.f. Article III, Sect. 2) US Constitution. The ability of the Supreme Court to render judgment is therefore removed. At that point what congress says sticks without judicial input.
Click to expand...

Nope. The Supreme Court has according to the Constitution the final say on cases arising under the Constitution. Nothing Congress can do about that -- without amending the Constitution.
 
"The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion. His four liberal colleagues joined him, while the four more conservative justices dissented.
Click to expand...

If it was accepted at the time of its writing as a proportional punishment (anybody want to bet what Washington would have done to someone raping a 10 year old) it is NOT cruel and unusual. The court overstepped its bounds and acted as the legislative branch in this one... again.
 
For a long, long time this part of the 8th amendment has been interpreted (in part) in light of what the American consensus is. This decision precisely follows that precedent, which is exactly what one wants a Supreme Court to do.
Click to expand...
and when the consensus on the 2A or the definition of arms changes will you agree with that?
 
So how far back should we go

to determine what is socially and morally appropriate. The pilgrims and the Puritans had no problem with applying the death penalty to lot of things. Think we should be burning witches at the stake today. Perhaps!

The claims over what penalties have been always applied to certain crimes should be accompanied by at least some support. I found nothing to support the claim that rapist had always been executed across the entire country at any point in history. Feel free to post information that may support the other view.

Show me and other where specific crimes of rape were punishable under the Constution. Cruel and unusual has never been exactly a standard without change since the original writing. Remember some still hold the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness should be interpreted to allow anyone to do thier own thing without recourse.

Too often we seen the interpretation of the Constution being held as sacred then when the court complies and makes its decision we see the desire to overrule the court in just this one thing at a time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top