Scotus rules on child rape

and when the consensus on the 2A or the definition of arms changes will you agree with that?
Click to expand...

Please re-read my post and the court's decision, and the long, long line of death penalty cases in the Supreme Court. Then perhaps you will see how consensus plays a role in 8th Amendment jurisprudence.

Try not to mix apples and oranges.
 
Not to go against the blood lust, but I might remind folks that there is a substantial history of false recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse.

This might caution folks against blindly calling for the death penalty.

There is certainly horrible real cases of child sexual assault but we do have false positives generated by therapists and police interrogations. These have led to convictions without supporting physical evidence.

In some cases, defendants of lower mental resources have been coerced or convinced into confession and come to believe they actually committed the acts. Various psychological organizations have formed task forces to evaluate the risks of false claims.
 
Actually, I'm okay with this decision. As others have said, there is a possibility that permitting the death penalty would result in more dead children, not less.

The crime of child rape is a henious one and the idea sickens me. But like any other crime, the penalty needs to be proportinate to the crime. Long prison sentences for such a crime suit it just fine.

When I was young, a family friend was a retired sheriff's deputy from Texas. He told of an incident where two 7 year old girls were raped and severely beaten. When the girls recovered enough to describe their attacker and his identifying tattoos they obtained a warrant and went after him. The guy was about 45 and had two priors for child rape and other violent crimes. This was in the mid 1950's, the kids were black and the suspect was white. The sheriff was matter of fact about it - if he resisted in the least he wouldn't make it to jail. They posse'd up, kicked his door at 3:30am and found him in bed with his latest victim - a 13 year old girl. The sheriff dragged him out of bed and (officially) a struggle ensued near the kitchen. The suspect was shot dead while attempting to grab a knife. :rolleyes:

While I don't condone those tactics, I can see them being employed in special cases.
 
Yes, by all means...let's kill people for the rape of a minor. Rape is one of the single biggest abused charges that can be brought against a person. Let's set a precedent set for the death penalty in such cases. That way when these 15-16 year old girls that have consensual sex with 25 year old men while lying about there age can get them executed when they get mad at them for breaking up with them. Then you have the most likely scenario when mothers coach there children to say daddy raped them to gain custody in a divorce. Yeah, let's just make it to where all those innocent men will be facing a irrevocable punishment. :rolleyes:

I might remind folks that there is a substantial history of false recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse.
Click to expand...
The idea of recovered memories is a fantasy. There is no such animal in truth. It is a hypnosis parlor trick used for past lives regression. It should be called "memory creation" , not recovery. A person can be made to "remember" almost anything.
 
Let's set a precedent set for the death penalty in such cases. That way when these 15-16 year old girls that have consensual sex with 25 year old men while lying about there age can get them executed when they get mad at them for breaking up with them.
Click to expand...

In fairness, this law set the age at 12...and I'm sorry, you can tell the difference between 12 and 18. And if you honestly aren't sure, keep it in your pants until you get it figured out.

But yes, the rest (that I didn't quote) were valid concerns. Which is why I think the other four states are at least a little more wise in excluding first convictions (because it's much less likely that somebody would be falsely convicted twice).
 
In fairness, this law set the age at 12...and I'm sorry, you can tell the difference between 12 and 18.
Click to expand...

How old is this girl?

Picture%2B64.png


This girl is 13, but she was telling her boyfriends that she was a 19 year old divorcee. When the boyfriends (two of them) found out how old she was, they did the right thing and told her parents what was going on. The parents called the cops, and they were both jailed. Should THEY get the death penalty?
 
"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.

You are right, it is not nearly severe enough!
 
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.
Click to expand...

Bolded the important part, and no, this isn't what I want scotus to do. If we are going to judge things by consensus, then what is the point of reducing things to a writing. When you 'interpret by consensus" then everything is fair game.

You can't say its perfectly ok to use societal norms for the 8th amendment, but not for the 1st, or the 2nd or whatever part of the constitution we are talking about. Either the constitution is taken at face value, or its not. If its not, then this is the least of our problems.


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.
Click to expand...

And congress has the authority to expand or restrict the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court. The only thing they cant change is the original jurisidiction of scotus which is set forth in the constitution.


Not to go against the blood lust, but I might remind folks that there is a substantial history of false recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse.

This might caution folks against blindly calling for the death penalty.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm okay with this decision. As others have said, there is a possibility that permitting the death penalty would result in more dead children, not less.
Click to expand...

Which are both valid points for the wisdom of such a punishment but have NOTHING to do with the constitutional argument. Again, it is not the job, or the purpose of the court to judge whether laws a good or bad, wise or not. It is the job of the courts to judge constitutionality. Period.

If a state thinks the harm outweighs the benefits of killing child rapists, then thats perfectly fine with me. That is the states business however, and not that of the federal government.
 
Yes, by all means...let's kill people for the rape of a minor. Rape is one of the single biggest abused charges that can be brought against a person. Let's set a precedent set for the death penalty in such cases. That way when these 15-16 year old girls that have consensual sex with 25 year old men while lying about there age can get them executed when they get mad at them for breaking up with them. Then you have the most likely scenario when mothers coach there children to say daddy raped them to gain custody in a divorce. Yeah, let's just make it to where all those innocent men will be facing a irrevocable punishment.
Click to expand...

And yet none of this has any bearing on whether such a law is constitutional.
 
And yet none of this has any bearing on whether such a law is constitutional.
Click to expand...

This. It's an issue for the legislature, and for the people. Unfortunately, the people aren't particularly rational on this issue, but that doesn't suddenly make it unconstitutional.

Interestingly (at least to me) Obama actually came out against this decision today. Invoking the Constitution, even.

EDIT: And yes, I know all about stopped clocks... ;)
 
If a state thinks the harm outweighs the benefits of killing child rapists, then thats perfectly fine with me. That is the states business however, and not that of the federal government.
Click to expand...

At some point, it does become the business of the federal government whether or not crimes are worthy of the death penalty.

Would you still think it is not the business of the federal government if a state chose to start giving out the death penalty for petty crimes, such as writing bad checks or littering?
 
At some point, it does become the business of the federal government whether or not crimes are worthy of the death penalty.
Click to expand...

And raping a child is not that point.


Would you still think it is not the business of the federal government if a state chose to start giving out the death penalty for petty crimes, such as writing bad checks or littering?
Click to expand...

Reductio ad absurdum.
 
The real issue here is state's rights, and the SCOTUS has once again decided that the federal government has preemptive rights over states. This is not a good harbinger for the Heller decision tomorrow. When SCOTUS begins to apply standards other than the Constitution, bad things can happen.

This decision says that, even for those areas specifically reserved to the states, the federal government can override them as they see fit. It is crystal clear that criminal acts and the penalties are specifically reserved to the states, but SCOTUS sees otherwise. The Second Amendment specifically gives the RKBA, but given today's decision, we cannot count on the 4 far left judges and the 1 egoist on the Court to even consider the Constitution. Leftists believe that the UN trumps the Constitution anyway, and the UN has ruled that gun control is the way things should be.

It would be so easy for SCOTUS to just say that times have changed and the individual right to bear arms has to be curbed for the common good. That is what this child rape ruling says.

I am gritting my teeth about Heller. Hope I am wrong.
 
Reductio ad absurdum.
Click to expand...

Correct, but at some point between the extremes of child rape and littering, a line must be drawn. I think the federal government should have the perogative to intervene if it thinks a state is violating human rights of its citizens.
 
Bolded the important part, and no, this isn't what I want scotus to do. If we are going to judge things by consensus, then what is the point of reducing things to a writing. When you 'interpret by consensus" then everything is fair game.
Click to expand...

You've decided to ignore the point, so good luck to you. The 8th Amendment -- which may come as a shock to you -- isn't written the same as the Second, or the First. Read the case, and the 8th Amendment jurisprudence going back decades. (Here's a hint: it's hard to figure out what "unusual" punishment is without taking a look at what punishment is usual.) You'll have a better grasp then, and I look forward to your analysis of the precedent the Supreme Court followed.

And congress has the authority to expand or restrict the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court. The only thing they cant change is the original jurisidiction of scotus which is set forth in the constitution.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't.

Please read the Constitution. It will be enlightening, I promise you.

I'll give you a snippet, to help you:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution....
Click to expand...

You are apparently confused about the power of Congress to adjust the jurisdiction of lower courts. The Congress doesn't have the power to amend the Constitution with mere legislation.
 
(Here's a hint: it's hard to figure out what "unusual" punishment is without taking a look at what punishment is usual.)
Click to expand...

Exactly, so lets look at the history of the US, especially during the time this phrase was written, and see what constitutes unusual.


No it doesn't.

Please read the Constitution. It will be enlightening, I promise you.
Click to expand...

Please don't tell me that you are going to sit there and say that congress doesn't have the power to limit/control the appellate juridsdiction of the supreme court because 28 U.S.C. 1251, 1253, 1254, and 1257-1259 would be in disagreement with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top