US Supreme Court to Decide if Child Rapists May Be Executed

[Guard Dog]

Excerpt:

 

Revisiting for the first time in more than 30 years the question of whether the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for rape, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in the case of a Jefferson Parish man who was sentenced to die for raping a child in Harvey.

 

Attorneys for Patrick O'Neal Kennedy want the nation's high court to rule as unconstitutional the Louisiana aggravated-rape statute provision that lets prosecutors pursue the death penalty against people convicted of raping children younger than 13.

 

A majority of state Supreme Court justices upheld the 1995 statute last year, ruling the rape of a child "is like no other crime." Kennedy's attorneys argue the law is contrary to the Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual punishment clause.

 

Legal experts say a ruling would clarify a 1977 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Coker v. Georgia, which banned the death penalty for rape of an adult.

 

"We're basically just saying the United States Supreme Court should follow Coker," said Billy Sothern of the Capital Appeals Project in New Orleans, which represents Kennedy.

 

The case is not expected to have widespread impact on whether death is the appropriate punishment for offenses in which victims do not die. Only two men are on death row for raping children, both in Louisiana. Four other states have similar laws.

 

"Obviously, if the Supreme Court says that the death penalty is a disproportionate punishment for the crime of a rape of a child, then that would invalidate the Louisiana statute and it would invalidate the statutes in several other states," said John Blume, a Cornell University law professor and director of the Cornell Death Penalty Project. "It would shut the door on that issue, which many people thought had been shut in Coker v. Georgia."

 

8-year-old victim

 

Until December, Kennedy, 43, was the only person out of more than 3,300 nationwide who was on death row for rape. He was convicted in 2003 of raping an 8-year-old relative in the Woodmere subdivision March 2, 1998.

 

Link :http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/ind....xml&coll=1

 

So the question at bar here can be summed up this way: Is the death penalty appropriate for someone who rapes a child under 13? Opinions?

 

This might surprise most of you but I'm going to say no. Although I will admit, I have moderated my stance on capital punishment from strongly in favor to moderately opposed. However, life in prison without parole is completely appropriate. That is another sentence usually reserved for 1st degree murder.

 

The other important aspect here is this: If the Supreme Court decides that death is a cruel and unusual punishment for rape does that not open the door to challenge it as cruel and unusual for anything. How can it be cruel for one crime and not another? The punishment is the same. The author of the article seems to think the decision one way or another will not be far reaching. I'm not so sure. Even innocuous SCOTUS cases tend to set far reaching precedent.

 

The other thing it if the sentence it upheld it will open the door for law changes in other states allowing DP for sex crimes against children. Would that be a deterrent?

[walkerguy]

Fine. Make the guy "disappear".

[Laozi]

I'm from Texas, we execute the mentally handicap, whats a rapist in the face of that?

 

 

As fa as this having any effect on state sponsored executions in general, by now you should pretty well know which way your state supreme court would rule in this either way.

[walkerguy]

I'm anti-Texan.

[Laozi]

I'd imagine you're anti-everybody with a prehensile thumb.

[Gorgon]

Mmm this is familiar, shove an image of some bastard who everyone can agree deserves everything he gets in our faces, and then turn it into a discussion of the death penalty.

 

I don't think the death penalty is necessary. There are certain things we just should not do, not because there aren't people who deserve to die, but because these things demean society and lessen the value of human life.

Edited April 15, 2008 by Gorgon

[walkerguy]

No, just a prehensile middle finger.

[Guard Dog]

Mmm this is familiar, shove an image of some bastard who everyone can agree deserves everything he gets in our faces, and then turn it into a discussion of the death penalty.

 

I don't think the death penalty is necessary. There are certain things we just should not do, not because there aren't people who deserve to die, but because these things demean society and lessen the value of human life.

 

Fair enough. But in most states life in prision without possibility of parole is usually reserved for 1st degree murder. Is that an appropriate punishment?

[Laozi]

that almost meant something

[Laozi]

Mmm this is familiar, shove an image of some bastard who everyone can agree deserves everything he gets in our faces, and then turn it into a discussion of the death penalty.

 

I don't think the death penalty is necessary. There are certain things we just should not do, not because there aren't people who deserve to die, but because these things demean society and lessen the value of human life.

 

Fair enough. But in most states life in prision without possibility of parole is usually reserved for 1st degree murder. Is that an appropriate punishment?

 

 

 

For rape? I'd think so, but the problem is prison is not exclusive enough for that to be a meaningful punishment for either crime.

[Gorgon]

Well most experts agree that pedophiles have an extremely high rate of re-offending. I think any consideration of release has to take this into account. In most cases such an individual would pose a continual threat.

 

I'm not sure if life without parole is always the right sentence, we could be on the edge of the age of consent, there could be special considerations. etc.

[Guard Dog]

Well most experts agree that pedophiles have an extremely high rate of re-offending. I think any consideration of release has to take this into account. In most cases such an individual would pose a continual threat.

 

I'm not sure if life without parole is always the right sentence, we could be on the edge of the age of consent, there could be special considerations. etc.

 

The severity of the crime is increased is the victim is under 13. The age of consent is 18 in most states but in most it is waived if the age difference is two years or less. So in other words if a 19 year old is with a 17 year old and both parties consent it is not statutory rape.

[Nick_i_am]

Life imprisonment is only appropriate when the point of it is as much to keep the public safe as to punish the individual (where death is deemed inappropriate for whatever reasons). If people can't be rehabilitated then I don't see much other option (though obviously, this doesn't have to mean life in high security for inmates who are, in theory, at high risk of re-offence but otherwise non-violent/non-predatory).

 

Personally, i'm generally against the death penalty, but only because of the terrible 'oooops, we got the wrong guy' scenario.

 

EDIT: also, yeah, i'm exclusively talking about adult pedophiles here. Canada, for example, as age of consent as low as 14, but only when between peers.

Edited April 15, 2008 by Nick_i_am

[Sand]

I am for the Death Penalty. I also think that we need to streamline the judicial process to make give the Death Penalty some real teeth. I don't like it when condemned prisoners have to "wait" 10 to 15 years after their sentencing to get executed. 2 to 3 years should be at the most. The execution should be quick, to the point, and utmost as economical in time and resources as possible. A single hollowpoint bullet into the brain should do quite nicely. Also I don't like "life without parole" sentences. These are problematic at best. One, it is giving resources of the state over to feed, clothe, and shelter a prisoner that returns nothing to society, and two allows the prisoner a chance to escape confinement to cause havoc later on. Sentences of "Life without Parole" should be elevated to execution.

 

Now people here are going to complain about my lack of compassion or some crap like that. I don't care about giving any compassion to these criminals. I rather think of the victims that these worthless people have harmed. Label it as you will. Justice, revenge, or whatever.

 

As for the "getting the wrong guy" scenerio that is becoming less and less a possibility due to advances in forensic science.

[Laozi]

As for the "getting the wrong guy" scenerio that is becoming less and less a possibility due to advances in forensic science.

 

 

Reality calling Mr. Sands, Mr. Sands please.

[Sand]

Are you saying that there having been any advances in forensic sciences in the last 20 years, Laozi? I think you are mistaken on this.

[Laozi]

Oh yeah, thats the part of your statement that could come into conflict

[Sand]

Oh yeah, thats the part of your statement that could come into conflict

 

How so?

[Laozi]

I don't get this game, you're of reasonable enough intelligence to see the flaw in what you said and how it would relate to the entire process of trial and conviction.

[Sand]

Um, what flaw?

[Laozi]

2 to 3 years should be at the most. The execution should be quick, to the point, and utmost as economical in time and resources as possible.

 

 

 

As for the "getting the wrong guy" scenerio that is becoming less and less a possibility due to advances in forensic science.

[Nick_i_am]

As for the "getting the wrong guy" scenerio that is becoming less and less a possibility due to advances in forensic science.

 

Sure is, but in the end the peep is still voted guilty by a jury filled with humans as every bit as falluble as you know them to be.

 

I'm not even arguing with you, you're right, but it isn't enough to convince me that every person who gets death actually deserved it, which in turn, leads me to be generally against the death penalty, no matter how much I might feel that cirtain people simply deserve to die.

Edited April 16, 2008 by Nick_i_am

[walkerguy]

I thought you were Texan, Laozi. *shakes head* A traitor to your people, you should be entirely in agreement with Mr. Sand.

[Sand]

Sure is, but in the end the peep is still voted guilty by a jury filled with humans as every bit as falluble as you know them to be.

 

I'm not even arguing with you, you're right, but it isn't enough to convince me that every person who gets death actually deserved it, which in turn, leads me to be generally against the death penalty, no matter how much I might feel that cirtain people simply deserve to die.

 

True enough. Some people may get the guilty verdict even if all the evidence is circumstancial while a guilty person may get off because of incompetent prosecution (or a damn good defense attorney).

[Walsingham]

Am I in favour of people who are guilty of raping minors being executed? Absolutely.

 

Am I in favour of executing people convicted of raping minors? Less clear.

 

Rape, particularly that of a minor, tends to depend on witness testimony. Often that of the child. This may sound fine, but children make appallingly unreliable witnesses. They are extremely vulnerable to suggestion, and hazy in their recollections. Frankly, I'd support such a punishment where the evidence was absolutely unequivocal. But juries simply can't be trusted to deliver guilty verdicts ONLY where that was the case.

 

As an aside I think it would be more helpful if persons guilty of such an offence were subjected to mandatory psychological research so we can spot potential offenders/potentially abusive relationships better. However, that would be completely unconstitutional since it would be 'unusual'.