Court upholds death sentence for child rape

[Guard Dog]

NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (AP) -- Louisiana's Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a man may be executed for raping an 8-year-old girl, and lawyers say his case may become the test for whether the nation's highest court upholds the death penalty for someone who rapes a child.

 

Both sides say the sentence for Patrick Kennedy, 42, could expand a 1977 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that held the death penalty for rape violated the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. The high court said then that its ruling applied only to adult victims.

 

Attorney Jelpi Picou, director of the New Orleans-based Capital Appeals Project, said he will ask the Louisiana Supreme Court for a rehearing and, if rejected, will go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

"As horrid as (rape) is and as harshly as we believe it should be condemned, death is inappropriate in this case," Picou said.

 

Louisiana law allows the death penalty for the aggravated rape of someone less than 12 years old.

 

"He's the only person in the United States on death row for non-homicide rape," Picou said.

 

Kennedy was convicted in 2003 of raping a relative as she sorted Girl Scout cookies in the garage of her home in suburban New Orleans. He bragged to one man that the girl "became a lady today," deputies said.

 

His defense attorney at the time argued that blood testing was inconclusive and that the victim -- who didn't report that Kennedy was her rapist until 21 months later -- was pressured to change her story.

 

In Tuesday's opinion, Justice Jeffrey Victory wrote, "Our state Legislature and this court have determined this category of aggravated rapist to be among those deserving of the death penalty, and, short of a first-degree murderer, we can think of no other non-homicide crime more deserving."

 

Victory wrote that the Louisiana law meets the U.S. Supreme Court test requiring an aggravating circumstance -- in this case the age of the victim -- to justify the death penalty.

 

The governors of South Carolina and Oklahoma signed laws last year allowing the death penalty for people who repeatedly rape children. Richard Dieter of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C., said he doesn't know of any successful prosecution under either of those laws.

 

A bill that would allow the death penalty for a second offense of child rape is awaiting the governor's decision in Texas.

 

Georgia law allows death as a penalty for rape. Dieter said Florida and Montana also have such laws, but authorities have said the penalty would be invoked only for rape of a child.

 

I think this is completely appropriate given the brutality of the offense and the recidivism rate for child predators. Opinions? For those so vocally opposed to the death penalty for any offense ask yourself this question. If that was your daughter would you feel the same way?

[Gfted1]

Actually, a no-longer-with-us poster named alanschu once provided a link that showed the recidivism rate of pedophiles was remakably low.

 

That aside, while I support the death penalty, I think it is too harsh for a rape.

[Volourn]

I would never defend a rapist - of a child or otherwise. However, I don't think it should matter if someone raped a child or an adult. Rape is rape, and it'sw rong.

 

I have no problem with the death penalty for certain instances. This case does not meet my criteria for appropriate death penalty useage.

 

 

"If that was your daughter would you feel the same way?"

 

Absolutely irrelevant question. Victims are always biased for the most extreme punishment and with good reason and cause. Very few victims actually prefer the perpetrator gets the lightest sentence possible.

 

The crime is heinou no doubt about it, and indefensible; not death penalty worthy.

 

My 'fair' punishment ( nothing really fair because no punishment can make up for the pain the guy caused on the girl or her family) would be life in prison with very little possibility of parole (I beleive everyone should nhave a chance to be released even if it's less than .1%).

[Tale]

I think it's right for the offense, but not right considering the amount of evidence. And by that, I mean the lack of.

 

However, the story could be biased and misrepresent the evidence.

[Pidesco]

Because killing the guy will unrape the little girl.

[theslug]

I'd say the punishment is appropriate as long as he gets thrown in prison for a few months, since inmates have a code against child molesters.

[Guard Dog]

My 'fair' punishment ( nothing really fair because no punishment can make up for the pain the guy caused on the girl or her family) would be life in prison with very little possibility of parole (I beleive everyone should nhave a chance to be released even if it's less than .1%).

How about this then. Life in prision with no parole possible. But don't tell the prisoner that. Instead, tell him every day he will be released "tomorrow".

[Guard Dog]

Because killing the guy will unrape the little girl.

No, but he will not rape anyone else will he?

[Tale]

Because killing the guy will unrape the little girl.

Putting him in prison won't unrape the girl, either.

[Pidesco]

So you're suggesting killing him for what he *might* do?

 

@Tale:My comment was a jab at the ethics of revenge, which I think is the main reason for the existence of the death penalty. However, I don't think revenge is the goal of emprisonment.

Edited May 23, 2007 by Pidesco

[Guard Dog]

So you're suggesting killing him for what he *might* do?

Nope For what he DID do. And to protect the next little girl he decides to help "become a lady".

[Pidesco]

So it's revenge then.

[Tale]

@Tale:My comment was a jab at the ethics of revenge, which I think is the main reason for the existence of the death penalty. However, I don't think revenge is the goal of emprisonment.

The goal of prison is detterence and reform. The death penalty is meant as deterrence. I'm making no comment on its effectiveness.

Edited May 23, 2007 by Tale

[Pidesco]

@Tale:My comment was a jab at the ethics of revenge, which I think is the main reason for the existence of the death penalty. However, I don't think revenge is the goal of emprisonment.

The goal of prison is detterence and reform. The death penalty is meant as deterrence. I'm making no comment on its effectiveness.

 

I'll have to disagree there. The death penalty exists in the US because it's popular with a large part of the electorate. And it's popular with those people because they want revenge.

[Volourn]

"The death penalty exists in the US because it's popular with a large part of the electorate"

 

It is popular in Kanada too. In fact, most polls have it with the slight majority in favor of it. Sometimes, the poll swings the other way. Guess what? the death penalty still doesn't exist in Kanada despite that. Go figure. *shrug*

[Guard Dog]

@Tale:My comment was a jab at the ethics of revenge, which I think is the main reason for the existence of the death penalty. However, I don't think revenge is the goal of emprisonment.

The goal of prison is detterence and reform. The death penalty is meant as deterrence. I'm making no comment on its effectiveness.

 

I'll have to disagree there. The death penalty exists in the US because it's popular with a large part of the electorate. And it's popular with those people because they want revenge.

Not so much revenge as we do not want dangerous criminals in our midst, nor do we wish to feed, clothe and house them their entire natural lives. Better to dispose of them. And yes, in reality it is a broken system and death row inmates spend years fighting appeals, and the expense of the fight in enormous. But if it were overhauled and streamlined it can be a very effective deterrent. Florida's 10-20-Life law has demonstrated that merciless sentences for violent crimes ARE an effective deterrent.

[Tale]

@Tale:My comment was a jab at the ethics of revenge, which I think is the main reason for the existence of the death penalty. However, I don't think revenge is the goal of emprisonment.

The goal of prison is detterence and reform. The death penalty is meant as deterrence. I'm making no comment on its effectiveness.

 

I'll have to disagree there. The death penalty exists in the US because it's popular with a large part of the electorate. And it's popular with those people because they want revenge.

By this logic, then all prison sentences are because of revenge.

[Pidesco]

No. It seems to me that most prison sentences would exist regardless of public opinion. It's mostly a practical issue having to do with keeping the order in any given country. The death penalty, on the other hand is a huge money sink with no return on investment other than increased popularity.

[Aram]

So it's revenge then.

 

It's not revenge...it's punishment.

 

 

Dolph says you lose.

[Pidesco]

 

 

This guy says it's revenge.

[SteveThaiBinh]

I don't think British people really agree about the purpose of prison. One group thinks it's primarily for retribution, another group thinks it's for rehabilitation, and a third believes in a combination of the two. In order for prisons to enjoy popular support, they therefore need to do both, but they're so underfunded at the moment that there's very little rehabilitation work in some prisons - they're purely for retribution.

 

I don't think states should be encouraged to believe they can kill their citizens legally, certainly not if there's an alternative as there is with criminal justice.

 

I don't think my position has a comicbook character. :sad:

[Aram]

 

This guy says it's justice.

[Brdavs]

Prisons need not compete for popular support. A society is formed for the very explicit reason of a state aparatus "enforcing" the social contract of the majority against the "deviant minority"... So to put it bluntly, you ether have no problems with prison or you *are* in prison lol.

A sentance is supposed to serve genaral and special prevention (special-prevent the offender from repeating his act, general-act as a genereal deterant for others). It should have nothing to do with subjective notions of revenge and righteous anger. And then, like steve said, it`s a balance of mere "retribution"(prevention) on one side and "retribution" with rehabilitation on the other. But not for the sake of securing societys support but for the sake of what is more efficient for the preservation of said society. US leaned to the first, continental Europe to the latter... I`ll let you be the judge whos penal system has had more success...

But the death penalty is antiquated and not fit for this day and age of civilized society. Not at the least cos it is irreversible. So what would your stance on DP be if it was your son that was wrongfully executed as a result of a judicial error GuardDog? See, it works both ways heh...

Edited May 23, 2007 by Brdavs

[Laozi]

I actually don't really believe in the death penalty, but if we are going to have one then I don't see any reason not to put child rapist to death.

[Aram]

 

True that.