Post by: MechAg94 on June 25, 2008, 09:33:10 AM
Maybe I need someone to help me understand this since I don't get the logic of this ruling. They are saying that the death penalty is not "cruel and unusual" in the case where the victim dies. However, if they don't die, it is "cruel and unusual". Is it just me or is that not a legal decision at all, but an activist judge saying "I think this is wrong so I won't allow it". IMO, if a type of punishment is NOT cruel and unusual, then it is not cruel and unusual for any significant crime. Due to this, some sicko who rapes multiple kids who are scarred and screwed up in the head for the rest of their lives cannot be executed, but if a father of one of those kids planned to kill and then murdered the rapist, he can be executed. It just seems ridiculous to me and a bit the beyond the scope of an impartial court ruling.
Quote
Barring the death penalty for any crime that does not take the life of an individual victim, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that it is unconstitutional to impose the death penalty for the crime of raping a child. If the victim does not die and death was not intended, capital punishment for that crime violates the Eighth Amendment, the Court ruled in an opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. The case was Patrick Kennedy v. Louisiana (07-343). The broad declaration that death sentences should be reserved for crimes that take the life of the victim will apply, the Court said, to crimes against individuals thus leaving intact, for example, a possible death sentence for treason.Part of the Courts rationale for nullifying a death sentence for raping a child was that the child victim gets enlisted, perhaps repeatedly, to recount the crime, forcing on the child a moral choice that the youngster is not mature enough to make. The way the death penalty here involves the child victim in its enforcement can compromise a decent legal system, Justice Kennedy wrote.
The decision split the Court 5-4. It nullified a Louisiana law that provided capital punishment for raping a child under age 12. The law was since amended to apply to raping a child under age 13. Five other states have similar laws.
At the close of Wednesdays public session, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., announced that the Court will issue all remaining decisions for the Term at 10 a.m. Thursday. The test case on whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a gun is among those remaining (District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290). The others still pending are cases on the constitutionality of the so-called Millionaires Amendment on campaign finance (Davis v. FEC, 07-320), and on federal regulators power to undo wholesale energy sales contracts (Morgan Stanley Capital v. Public Utility District, 06-1457, and a companion case).
Justice Kennedys majority opinion in the Louisiana capital case was supported by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., wrote for the dissenters; he was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Justice Alito, rejecting the majority view that there is now a national consensus against executing one who rapes a child, argued that the focus should not be on the fact that only six states now have such laws. More might have taken the step, Alito argued, if the Supreme Court in barring execution for raping an adult in 1977 had not given state legislators good reason to fear that they never could pass such a law. The broad dicta in that case, Alito said, was not supported by all of those in the majority in Coker v. Georgia. Since then, the Justice added, state courts have read the Coker opinion in its widest sweep, stunting legislative consideration of the death penalty when a child was the victim.
The decision split the Court 5-4. It nullified a Louisiana law that provided capital punishment for raping a child under age 12. The law was since amended to apply to raping a child under age 13. Five other states have similar laws.
At the close of Wednesdays public session, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., announced that the Court will issue all remaining decisions for the Term at 10 a.m. Thursday. The test case on whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a gun is among those remaining (District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290). The others still pending are cases on the constitutionality of the so-called Millionaires Amendment on campaign finance (Davis v. FEC, 07-320), and on federal regulators power to undo wholesale energy sales contracts (Morgan Stanley Capital v. Public Utility District, 06-1457, and a companion case).
Justice Kennedys majority opinion in the Louisiana capital case was supported by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., wrote for the dissenters; he was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Justice Alito, rejecting the majority view that there is now a national consensus against executing one who rapes a child, argued that the focus should not be on the fact that only six states now have such laws. More might have taken the step, Alito argued, if the Supreme Court in barring execution for raping an adult in 1977 had not given state legislators good reason to fear that they never could pass such a law. The broad dicta in that case, Alito said, was not supported by all of those in the majority in Coker v. Georgia. Since then, the Justice added, state courts have read the Coker opinion in its widest sweep, stunting legislative consideration of the death penalty when a child was the victim.
(I had to edit my example a little to make it more appropriate)
Post by: longeyes on June 25, 2008, 10:01:30 AM
Post by: lacoochee on June 25, 2008, 10:26:39 AM
Trust me if John Couie, was released today, he wouldn't get a hundred feet in Florida.
That aside I can think of better punishments for child rape than a state administered death penalty. All child rapists should be required to wear pink and then released into general population upon sentencing. See problem solved and being that it's Louisiana we are talking about here, any bets on how close I am to being right?
Post by: MechAg94 on June 25, 2008, 10:40:56 AM
Post by: longeyes on June 25, 2008, 10:45:33 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on June 25, 2008, 10:59:22 AM
There is something deeply perverse in the majority's decision on punishment for child rape. There is no crime more abhorrent. Brutalization of the innocent is a touchstone of our most radical social fabric. It violates the most precious relationship in civilized society. Failure to show our most extreme displeasure at such an act lessens us as a people. Compassion for the perpetrator shows a lack of regard for society as a whole, for "the people."
IMO, it shows that they have really forgotten the victim.
Post by: MechAg94 on June 25, 2008, 11:09:06 AM
This has a bit more of an account on what the guy did and the initial investigation.
Post by: crossfire on June 25, 2008, 11:20:35 AM
Personally, I know of nothing other than murder that takes the life of the victim more profoundly than rape.
What in the name of all that is just is our Supreme Court thinking?
Post by: Manedwolf on June 25, 2008, 11:22:01 AM
A child raped is forever damaged. No amount of therapy will erase it.
To me, that's unforgivable, and since the rapist WILL do it again if they get the chance, they need to be simply deleted.
Post by: longeyes on June 25, 2008, 02:48:50 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 25, 2008, 04:01:06 PM
Post by: crossfire on June 25, 2008, 04:52:10 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080625/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/child_prostitutes
"We together have no higher calling than to protect our children and to safeguard their innocence," FBI Director Robert Mueller said Wednesday. "Yet the sex trafficking of children remains one of the most violent and unforgivable crimes in this country."
Someone needs to wake up Justice Kennedy and reverse this Pervert Protection ruling.
Post by: longeyes on June 25, 2008, 05:03:01 PM
The only kind of "liberty" that appears to excite the Left is sexual. A society built on a More Perfect Orgasm is a society that is looking at a difficult future.
Post by: Dntsycnt on June 25, 2008, 05:18:26 PM
Post by: longeyes on June 25, 2008, 05:53:13 PM
I for one am not interested in "mercy" for child rapists. I don't consider executing them to be cruel and unusual; I consider their crime to be cruel and unusual. We all die when children are raped. If the Fab Five had more imagination they would understand how certain crimes of violence echo down through time leaving a horrendous wake of damage affecting more than just the victim.
Post by: Dntsycnt on June 25, 2008, 06:16:35 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on June 25, 2008, 06:23:44 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on June 25, 2008, 06:28:11 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080625/ap_on_el_pr/obama_child_rape_case
I guess he's "for the children" more than he's for the libertinism. Although, on balance, I agree with longyuese that the left seems way too enamored of sexual hedonism. This bit from Obama surprises me.
Post by: longeyes on June 25, 2008, 06:32:43 PM
Post by: crossfire on June 25, 2008, 07:22:50 PM
Post by: old school on June 25, 2008, 07:36:29 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 25, 2008, 07:37:15 PM
1. Upon what standard does one determine "cruel and unusual"? Is not the usual standard "as compared to the general standards of the time"?
2. If we can execute a scumbag who rapes a five-year-old (a horrible crime by any man's definition), do we also execute a man who has an affair with a 16-year-old? What if there's a huge year gap?
3. What does my freedom to have sex with any consenting adult (or combination of consenting adults) have to do with this?
Post by: lacoochee on June 25, 2008, 08:38:02 PM
Quote
1. Upon what standard does one determine "cruel and unusual"? Is not the usual standard "as compared to the general standards of the time"?
Obviously, the standard is whatever the Supreme Court decides it is at the moment. Thanks to the legislative and executive branches of our government for not having a enough spine to limit the excesses of our increasingly dictatorial judicial branch.
Quote
2. If we can execute a scumbag who rapes a five-year-old (a horrible crime by any man's definition), do we also execute a man who has an affair with a 16-year-old? What if there's a huge year gap?
Maybe it's just me, but there is a huge difference between the rape of a 5 year and the nominal rape of a consenting 16 year old. Seems obvious to me, that would should be weighed differently than the other. If the 16 year old had been force-ably raped, well all bets are off.
Quote
3. What does my freedom to have sex with any consenting adult (or combination of consenting adults) have to do with this?
Nothing, where's the party?
Post by: Antibubba on June 25, 2008, 10:09:21 PM
Quote
There is something deeply perverse in the majority's decision on punishment for child rape. There is no crime more abhorrent. Brutalization of the innocent is a touchstone of our most radical social fabric. It violates the most precious relationship in civilized society. Failure to show our most extreme displeasure at such an act lessens us as a people.
Murder is more abhorrent. The victim will never have another opportunity, for anything. A child victim of rape can grow up, marry, have children--they can make a full recovery. A lot of them do.
Those who claim to be libertarian should be wary of giving the government more opportunities to take life. Will it then be extended for those in possession of child pornography?
Quote
Child rapists and other broken people who are compelled to kill or harm other people as a part of their nature are of no use to the planet. They are broken. We will never allow them to return to society. So what is the point in anything other than killing them? This debate about cruel and humane is bizarre to me. What the #*&@ are they talking about? This is a no brainer to me.
And they should never have a free day again. But there are a lot of murderers who aren't sentenced to death. But I don't want to essentially tell a child that "What was done to you was worse than death--that killing you would have been a lesser offense".
Quote
. Upon what standard does one determine "cruel and unusual"? Is not the usual standard "as compared to the general standards of the time"?
For the State to take the life of a man is a situation that must be utterly examined. Once you kill a man there is no going back. Horrific as child rape is, by itself it is not reason enough to kill him.
Quote
I cannot see how Justice Kennedy, or the other members of the Court, can now look any child in the eye and tell them they care about their welfare without choking on their words.
Kennedy isn't sending them on their merry way, right? He's not letting them go. He's exercising his conservative beliefs.
Post by: MechAg94 on June 26, 2008, 04:26:01 AM
Murder is more abhorrent. The victim will never have another opportunity, for anything. A child victim of rape can grow up, marry, have children--they can make a full recovery. A lot of them do.
Those who claim to be libertarian should be wary of giving the government more opportunities to take life. Will it then be extended for those in possession of child pornography?
Who mentioned child pornography? Existing laws already address it. No need to throw out issues that don't exist. And before you throw out the next one, I believe the article mentioned the law referred to children under 12 years old. We are not talking about teenagers here. Those who claim to be libertarian should be wary of giving the government more opportunities to take life. Will it then be extended for those in possession of child pornography?
Since you mention it, the person who victimized the child by creating the porn should be punished as we were talking about depending on what was actually done.
I guess I could quote a number of movie lines from people who said there are things that haunt a person worse than dying. I have exactly zero sympathy for rapists at all much less child rapist.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 26, 2008, 04:30:05 AM
In the age of the Founders, "Flogging" was not seen as an unusual punishment, nor cruel. Other stuff, even more disgusting, was practiced in the 18th century.
Yet nobody claims - seriously at least - that introducing the death penalty for stealing a car, or flogging for shoplifting, would not be "cruel and unusual.
C&U usually means "in accordance with the standards of the era".
How do we judge that?
Post by: MechAg94 on June 26, 2008, 04:30:32 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on June 26, 2008, 04:57:50 AM
Post by: Balog on June 26, 2008, 05:46:19 AM
Post by: Dntsycnt on June 26, 2008, 07:39:06 AM
While I'd love to kill every child rapist on the planet, I am not comfortable at all with the state killing them.
Post by: BlueStarLizzard on June 26, 2008, 07:59:05 AM
there is no recovery. there is not a purpose in keeping them alive. there is no tourture needed or crule and unusual punishment.
just put the animal down and move on.
and that is all i've got to say.
Post by: Balog on June 26, 2008, 09:31:20 AM
Balog: You're not being serious, are you?
While I'd love to kill every child rapist on the planet, I am not comfortable at all with the state killing them.
While I'd love to kill every child rapist on the planet, I am not comfortable at all with the state killing them.
I'm being very serious. The point of punishment is to discourage the repetition of the offensive act. Nothing deters better than pain and humiliation, especially for young people who can't see beyond the immediate consequences.
Why are you so uncomfortable with the state killing people who deserve it? I hardly think raping a pre-pubescent child is a slippery slope issue. Are you also uncomfortable with the state placing people in prison? Punishing evil-doers is one of the few legitimate purposes of the .gov.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on June 26, 2008, 07:26:56 PM
Death is permanent.
I'd rather lock a convicted scumbag up for life, which is cheaper than the death penalty process in any event, than risk killing an innocent man wrongfully convicted.
Post by: Antibubba on June 26, 2008, 08:55:52 PM
Hey, somebody had to say it.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 27, 2008, 01:21:57 AM
Quote
I hardly think raping a pre-pubescent child is a slippery slope issue.
Are you familiar with "Dateline"?
Post by: Racehorse on June 27, 2008, 05:35:42 AM
serial rapist, serial murders and child molesters have pshochological issues. they are compelled to do something horrible, and as such should be treated like rabid animals. you don't pet it and try to make it better. you kill it before it hurts you or someone else.
there is no recovery. there is not a purpose in keeping them alive. there is no tourture needed or crule and unusual punishment.
just put the animal down and move on.
and that is all i've got to say.
there is no recovery. there is not a purpose in keeping them alive. there is no tourture needed or crule and unusual punishment.
just put the animal down and move on.
and that is all i've got to say.
I agree with everything you said except the bolded part. I don't think they are compelled to do anything. I think they still have the ability to choose. The fact that they choose to give in to their perverted urges is what makes them so despicable to me.
Post by: roo_ster on June 27, 2008, 05:37:44 AM
I grant that such is unusual today, but I think it, in many cases, much less cruel* than imprisonment for months or years.
Personally, I would rather take a beating with no long-term aftereffects than be incarcerated. Also, if the offender is supporting a family, you have likely just tossed them on the welfare roles if the guilty party is incarcerated.
I would limit corporal punishment to a first offense or some step before incarceration. Repeat offenders who have already gotten their licks obviously have not learned their lesson and need to be incarcerated to protect the rest of us from their depredations.
Death penalty, in general:
These days, I am much more sympathetic to the death penalty for the reason that we can so much more reliably rule out the wrongly accused. The whole deal where folks are freed due to genetic testing is something I applaud and it reinforces my confidence that newly-accused folks are less likely to be convicted than in the past.
Death penalty, for child-rape:
I am in favor of it. There are deep-seated reasons why even the most base among us recoil with horror at the violation of children. Those who do the violating need to be removed from the gene pool, posthaste.
* I do NOT include actual, no-bull torture in corporal punishment. Corporal punishment would be something less than the caning one would see in Singapore, as such caning leaves some pretty nasty aftereffect.
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 27, 2008, 05:40:46 AM
Quote
Also, if the offender is supporting a family, you have likely just tossed them on the welfare roles if the guilty party is incarcerated.
Then give them some assistance to get on their own feet.
But most people like that already don't have jobs and are on public assistance.
Post by: Dntsycnt on June 27, 2008, 05:44:57 AM
I think that would qualify as "unusual."
You do make a compelling argument for corporal punishment, though. I'll have to think on that.
Post by: Firethorn on June 27, 2008, 08:27:18 AM
I think that would qualify as "unusual."
[pendantic]But the constitution says cruel AND unusual punishements are forbidden! Not cruel OR unusual! The punishment is allowed as long as it's either cruel or unusual, but not both![/pendantic]
Honestly enough, I consider a 'Cruel' punishment one that doesn't fit the crime and/or doesn't fix the problem(them committing criminal acts). If caning is proven to be 90% effective in preventing future criminal acts by first time offenders*, then one could argue it's not cruel - it's fast, cheap, and effective. Storing criminals in prisons can be considered cruel as well.
Worst case, make it an option - 20 months in jail or 20 lashes. Which would you pick?
Post by: MechAg94 on June 27, 2008, 10:50:39 AM
I applaud jurisdictions who are using genetic testing to let innocent people out of prison. I also applaud those jurisdictions and labs for maintaining those samples in good enough condition to test after many years. I am more concerned about the jurisdictions who aren't doing it and don't have the evidence anymore.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 27, 2008, 11:07:16 AM
Quote
[pendantic]But the constitution says cruel AND unusual punishements are forbidden! Not cruel OR unusual! The punishment is allowed as long as it's either cruel or unusual, but not both![/pendantic] grin
It's pedantic
Pendantic is not a word.
Post by: FTA84 on June 28, 2008, 09:06:46 AM
This is the way it was done in antiquity and is done everyday outside of the legal system. Smoking in a resturant that is non-smoking? You will be asked to leave. Misbehaving in school (a right more fundamental than the 'right' to rehabilitation in prison)? You will be kicked out.
Either participate, contribute, but, at the very least, cooperate with society or get out.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 28, 2008, 03:04:55 PM
adult life consists of a number of needed actions that are often uncomfortable you get used to it
Post by: Matthew Carberry on June 28, 2008, 04:40:41 PM
I am not comfortable at all with the state killing them.
adult life consists of a number of needed actions that are often uncomfortable you get used to it
adult life consists of a number of needed actions that are often uncomfortable you get used to it
Because that's the only reason someone could possibly be uncomfortable with the death penalty?
Because they aren't a grown up?
Really?
I didn't realize it was as simple as that. All this time I thought there were any number of quite adult and sophisticated moral, ethical and intellectual arguments to be made both for and against.
Nice to know that those against it actually just "have some growing up to do".
Post by: BlueStarLizzard on June 28, 2008, 05:56:22 PM
serial rapist, serial murders and child molesters have pshochological issues. they are compelled to do something horrible, and as such should be treated like rabid animals. you don't pet it and try to make it better. you kill it before it hurts you or someone else.
there is no recovery. there is not a purpose in keeping them alive. there is no tourture needed or crule and unusual punishment.
just put the animal down and move on.
and that is all i've got to say.
there is no recovery. there is not a purpose in keeping them alive. there is no tourture needed or crule and unusual punishment.
just put the animal down and move on.
and that is all i've got to say.
I agree with everything you said except the bolded part. I don't think they are compelled to do anything. I think they still have the ability to choose. The fact that they choose to give in to their perverted urges is what makes them so despicable to me.
i say compelled for numerous reasons. you never can trust a molestor not to do it again. it is incomprehensible to me that a person would knowingly and volentarly rape or murder for enjoyment, especially when it comes to a child. they're are also KNOWN psycological problems which make them impossible to rehabilitate.
by what means do they begin? because something in them compels them to do it. the fact that they have acted on those urges makes them twice as likley to do it again.
my use of that term does not defend them. which i'm sure you have figured out by the fact that i am perfectly willing to send them to the executioner.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 28, 2008, 11:45:05 PM
adult life consists of a number of needed actions that are often uncomfortable you get used to it
That's interesting.
What exactly makes the death penalty for "child molestation" needed?
Practically all the countries of the world, the United States included, have got along for centuries without having it. How is it "needed"?
Post by: LadySmith on June 29, 2008, 01:19:14 AM
On the other, you have the murder of everything that makes a child a child.
There is also the fear that the death penalty for child rape would result in the murder of the victims because the rapist has everything to lose by leaving the victim alive and nothing to lose if caught.
There is also the belief that child rapists usually will not stop their crimes unless they are put to death.
And then you have the possibility that an innocent person may be put to death by the state while modern technology makes guilt and innocence easier to prove.
Hmmm...
What exactly makes the death penalty for "child molestation" needed?
Death appears to be the only effective means of dealing with child molesters at this time. Over the years children have had childhood stripped from them for fear of molesters. Compare trick-or-treating of the past to present. Men and their manhood are questioned because of this. They are seen as potential molesters now. Yet for all the overprotection children continue to be raped in seemingly epidemic proportions. Whether the frequency is real or perceived is another matter of debate, but it is enough to have changed our society.And society is getting sick of it.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 29, 2008, 01:37:21 AM
Quote
Death appears to be the only effective means of dealing with child molesters at this time.
Please elaborate as to why life in prison is ineffective. It seems to work for... oh I don't know, the entire world.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on June 29, 2008, 08:41:52 AM
Death appears to be the only effective means of dealing with child molesters at this time. Over the years children have had childhood stripped from them for fear of molesters. Compare trick-or-treating of the past to present. Men and their manhood are questioned because of this. They are seen as potential molesters now. Yet for all the overprotection children continue to be raped in seemingly epidemic proportions. Whether the frequency is real or perceived is another matter of debate, but it is enough to have changed our society.
And society is getting sick of it.
Then "sick of it" society needs to be educated that perception is not actually reality. Especially when peoples lives are on the line.
Society is sick of the epidemic of school and other mass shootings and wants to start screwing with peoples lives and rights to "assault weapons and hi-cap mags" because of it.
Except that, regardless of media-driven perceptions, there isn't and hasn't been an epidemic of school and other mass shootings and thus no additional regulations or infringements are necessary.
If anything, reporting of child abuse by and to authorities is better, which is a good thing as we can see if what we are doing has effect and scientifically approach the issue, but that doesn't mean the actual rates are truly increasing nor that we are gripped by some new "epidemic" that somehow requires new and more extreme measures.
Simply put, it is most likely that we are just more aware of what has been going on all along, with society and its children somehow surviving all these years with standard, proven, criminal justice responses.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 29, 2008, 10:56:08 AM
"Practically all the countries of the world, the United States included, have got along for centuries without having it."
really?the death penalty was fairly common still is some places folks used to get it for stealing horses and cattle. been done for auto theft and pimping in china recently big numbers in the ussr you could get it too. what world did you live in? .... er i mean read about
Post by: Matthew Carberry on June 29, 2008, 04:37:52 PM
Quote
What exactly makes the death penalty for "child molestation" needed?
Practically all the countries of the world, the United States included, have got along for centuries without having it. How is it "needed"?
Practically all the countries of the world, the United States included, have got along for centuries without having it. How is it "needed"?
Obviously the particular death penalty crime being referred to, in context, is for convicted child molesters. Not horse thieves or political dissidents or any other random crime selection.
That also being the actual thread title makes his meaning even more obvious, obvious enough that to mis-read it demonstrates an active attempt to raise a strawman.
Also, were you seriously offering the USSR and China as shining examples of state executioners (for any crime) for the US justice system to emulate?
Really?
Post by: MechAg94 on June 29, 2008, 05:05:36 PM
adult life consists of a number of needed actions that are often uncomfortable you get used to it
That's interesting.
What exactly makes the death penalty for "child molestation" needed?
Practically all the countries of the world, the United States included, have got along for centuries without having it. How is it "needed"?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 29, 2008, 05:08:21 PM
in some cases yes. knowing corruption gets you a bullet in the ear is a good incentive.
i've met folks who i would cheerfully send on their way.
Post by: MechAg94 on June 29, 2008, 05:11:26 PM
Post by: De Selby on June 29, 2008, 05:16:34 PM
Regardless of whether or not you think the death penalty is right to begin with, I am sure it is at least obvious how screwy this ruling is. IMO, we are talking about a crime that is at least as cruel and evil as capital murder itself if not worse. To say that it doesn't rate the same punishment is really messed up logic.
It's usually necessary to actually read the decisions before criticizing the logic.
It's a tough job the Court has-they are bound to rely on a morass of law that most of the public has never heard of, and then to make decisions that make sense from it. I'm sure they would very much prefer to just free wheel it and decide based on what seemed to be popular at the moment, but then they'd be called "Congress".
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 29, 2008, 05:18:24 PM
Regardless of whether or not you think the death penalty is right to begin with, I am sure it is at least obvious how screwy this ruling is. IMO, we are talking about a crime that is at least as cruel and evil as capital murder itself if not worse. To say that it doesn't rate the same punishment is really messed up logic.
It's usually necessary to actually read the decisions before criticizing the logic.
It's a tough job the Court has-they are bound to rely on a morass of law that most of the public has never heard of, and then to make decisions that make sense from it. I'm sure they would very much prefer to just free wheel it and decide based on what seemed to be popular at the moment, but then they'd be called "Congress".
gotta give ya that point well taken
Post by: Matthew Carberry on June 29, 2008, 05:40:46 PM
adult life consists of a number of needed actions that are often uncomfortable you get used to it
That's interesting.
What exactly makes the death penalty for "child molestation" needed?
Practically all the countries of the world, the United States included, have got along for centuries without having it. How is it "needed"?
Decades since we've executed people for child molestation?
The law authorizing that penalty for that crime being stricken was new.
For G-d's sake argue intelligently, not like politicians deliberately pulling crap out of context.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 29, 2008, 07:40:39 PM
Quote
really?the death penalty was fairly common still is some places
Yes, I am aware the death penalty is fairly common - in crapholes where the light of human liberty never shines, I may add - but I was very specific: to my knowledge, no country in the world has tried the death penalty for child molestation.
I also perfectly agree as to what carebear said as to perception vs. reality.
Post by: LadySmith on June 30, 2008, 01:35:10 AM
Quote
Death appears to be the only effective means of dealing with child molesters at this time.
Please elaborate as to why life in prison is ineffective. It seems to work for... oh I don't know, the entire world.
Quote
Simply put, it is most likely that we are just more aware of what has been going on all along, with society and its children somehow surviving all these years with standard, proven, criminal justice responses.
Or perhaps justice found outside of the system helped the victims survive. I agree that we may be more aware of what has been going on all along because even when I was a child, one did not speak of such things. I also recall that not too long ago rape victims were advised to "lie back and enjoy it" so I'm curious as to what the proven criminal justice responses to child rape were. I will do some research.
Forgive me, but I'm going to bow out of this discussion. I feel strained from trying to be rational about a subject I really have no inclination to be rational about.
Post by: Racehorse on June 30, 2008, 08:22:00 AM
i say compelled for numerous reasons. you never can trust a molestor not to do it again. it is incomprehensible to me that a person would knowingly and volentarly rape or murder for enjoyment, especially when it comes to a child. they're are also KNOWN psycological problems which make them impossible to rehabilitate.
by what means do they begin? because something in them compels them to do it. the fact that they have acted on those urges makes them twice as likley to do it again.
my use of that term does not defend them. which i'm sure you have figured out by the fact that i am perfectly willing to send them to the executioner.
by what means do they begin? because something in them compels them to do it. the fact that they have acted on those urges makes them twice as likley to do it again.
my use of that term does not defend them. which i'm sure you have figured out by the fact that i am perfectly willing to send them to the executioner.
I agree that they have urges to do these things that may compel them to do it. But they also make the choice to foster and encourage those urges and ultimately to act upon them. I still believe that ultimately it's a choice to give in. We all have urges at times to do things we know are wrong. What makes someone a good or bad person is how they deal with those urges.
By the way, I do know you're not trying to defend molestors. I was just trying to clarify what you meant by "compelled." I think we're basically in agreement.
Post by: MechAg94 on June 30, 2008, 09:16:42 AM
adult life consists of a number of needed actions that are often uncomfortable you get used to it
That's interesting.
What exactly makes the death penalty for "child molestation" needed?
Practically all the countries of the world, the United States included, have got along for centuries without having it. How is it "needed"?
Decades since we've executed people for child molestation?
The law authorizing that penalty for that crime being stricken was new.
For G-d's sake argue intelligently, not like politicians deliberately pulling crap out of context.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 30, 2008, 10:39:44 AM
Post by: Dntsycnt on June 30, 2008, 03:05:14 PM
Post by: roo_ster on July 01, 2008, 05:02:07 AM
Yay, lynching! Forget all that "innocent until proven guilty" stuff. It should just be, "Guilty until proven dead."
When the formal justice system fails, the informal justice system will step in to fill the gaps.
So, by denying the justice meted out by the death penalty in these cases, don't be too surprised when folks accused of such heinous crimes get rough justice by folks who have lost confidence that the system will mete out justice.
Thing is, rough justice is more prone to error, so more innocent folks will be hurt than if the formal system allowed for the death penalty.
Post by: anygunanywhere on July 01, 2008, 05:46:02 AM
If I see someone who has had a loved one murdered or one of their children raped state that the death penalty is not justified, then I accept that person's testimony as valid.
Capital punishment for molesting one of God's children is justified, and should be carried out in public.
Anygunanywhere
Post by: Antibubba on July 01, 2008, 06:08:34 AM
Quote
When the formal justice system fails, the informal justice system will step in to fill the gaps.
So, by denying the justice meted out by the death penalty in these cases, don't be too surprised when folks accused of such heinous crimes get rough justice by folks who have lost confidence that the system will mete out justice.
So, by denying the justice meted out by the death penalty in these cases, don't be too surprised when folks accused of such heinous crimes get rough justice by folks who have lost confidence that the system will mete out justice.
It isn't often I see such advocacy for lynching.
Post by: roo_ster on July 01, 2008, 07:41:59 AM
Quote
When the formal justice system fails, the informal justice system will step in to fill the gaps.
So, by denying the justice meted out by the death penalty in these cases, don't be too surprised when folks accused of such heinous crimes get rough justice by folks who have lost confidence that the system will mete out justice.
So, by denying the justice meted out by the death penalty in these cases, don't be too surprised when folks accused of such heinous crimes get rough justice by folks who have lost confidence that the system will mete out justice.
It isn't often I see such advocacy for lynching.
Really? When was the last time you saw such advocacy?
I have seen in this thread and (particularly) in my post descriptions of likely results based on experience with human nature.
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 03, 2008, 07:04:46 AM
Quote
If I see someone who has had a loved one murdered or one of their children raped state that the death penalty is not justified, then I accept that person's testimony as valid.
That's an ad hominem if I ever heard one.