Supreme Court Decides if Death is Suitable for Child Rape

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 8:43 am

In light of our other thread on necrophilia, I thought this article very fitting.

What do you think?

January 5, 2008

Justices to Decide if Rape of a Child Merits Death

By LINDA GREENHOUSE

WASHINGTON â€” The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether the Constitution allows the death penalty for the rape of a child.

The justices acted only three days before a scheduled argument in another important death penalty case, on the standard for judging whether chemicals used to administer lethal injections make that method of execution unconstitutionally cruel.

The new case, from Louisiana, is likely to be argued in April, meaning that during the course of its current term, the Supreme Court will be examining both the most common method of execution and a categorical question about which crimes are appropriate for the death penalty.

No one has been executed in the United States for a crime other than murder since 1964. Of some 3,300 inmates of death row today, only two are facing execution for an offense that did not involve a killing. Both are on Louisianaâ€™s death row. The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal from one of them, Patrick Kennedy, who was convicted and sentenced to death in 2004 for raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter.

In 1977, as part of its wide-ranging re-examination of capital punishment, the Supreme Court prohibited the death penalty for rape. While that ruling, Coker v. Georgia, did not specifically discuss the rape of a child â€” the victim, although only 16, was a married woman who was raped at knifepoint â€” the decision has been widely understood as limiting the death penalty to the crime of murder.

In the principal opinion in the Coker case, Justice Byron R. White wrote that â€œwe have the abiding conviction that the death penalty, which is unique in its severity and irrevocability, is an excessive penalty for the rapist who, as such, does not take human life.â€

But in recent years, a handful of states, responding to public outcries about sex crimes against children, have amended their death penalty statutes to make the rape of a child a capital offense. Louisiana was the first to do so, amending its death-penalty law in 1995 to apply to the rape of a child under the age of 12. The other states with similar provisions are Georgia, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas. Unlike Louisiana, most limit the death penalty to defendants who were previously convicted of sexual assault against a child.

The Louisiana Supreme Court rejected Mr. Kennedyâ€™s appeal last year in a 64-page opinion that concluded that â€œrape of a child under the age of 12 years of age is like no other crimeâ€ and that death was not a disproportionate punishment. Taking note of the recent state laws, the court said there was â€œcompellingâ€ evidence of a national trend toward treating the crime as distinct from others.

The United States Supreme Courtâ€™s recent death penalty jurisprudence has paid close attention to evidence of whether contemporary society has reached a consensus on particular applications of capital punishment. The court relied on such an analysis to rule out the death penalty for mentally retarded defendants in 2002 and for juvenile killers in 2005. Louisiana is now invoking the same approach to argue that an application of the death penalty once widely deemed unconstitutional has become permissible.

Mr. Kennedyâ€™s lawyers are arguing that any such â€œtrendâ€ is illusory. â€œBy any objective measure,â€ their brief says, Mr. Kennedyâ€™s sentence â€œis not only cruel and unusual; it is cruel and unique.â€

The other inmate is Richard Davis, who was sentenced to death on Dec. 12 for sexually molesting a 5-year-old girl.

The appeal, Kennedy v. Louisiana, No. 07-343, was filed by lawyers from the Capital Appeals Project, in New Orleans; the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic; and a New Orleans law firm, Adams and Reese.

Among other briefs filed at the court on Mr. Kennedyâ€™s behalf was one from the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, arguing that the Louisiana law presents â€œan intolerably high riskâ€ that innocent defendants will be put to death. The reason, the group asserts, is that testimony by children, who are usually the principal witnesses in child rape cases, is often unreliable.

Another brief, from social workers and organizations working with sexual assault victims, describes the Louisiana law, with its broad definition of rape and its drastic penalty, as counterproductive and likely to lead to under reporting of offenses, especially within families.

History buff · Post by **History buff** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 3:30 pm

I had mentioned this in another thread but I was not aware they had granted review. I was not following SCOTUS that close recently. Here is the Petition for certiorari to the LA supreme court:

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/a ... -11-07.pdf

Here is the SC's Order list:

07-343 KENNEDY, PATRICK V. LOUISIANA

The motion of Louisiana Public Defender Offices in Parishes

Impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita for leave to file a

brief as amici curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of

certiorari is granted. The brief of petitioner is to be filed

on or before Thursday, February 14, 2008. The brief of

respondent is to be filed on or before Wednesday, March 12,

2008. A reply brief, if any, is to be filed in accordance with

Rule 25.3 of the Rules of this Court.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/co ... 408pzr.pdf

The LASC decision is some 128 pages, including dissents, so I will not post it.

In my opinion, they will not permit the DP for the rape of a child, but you never know. This is a very controversial and touchy subject.

King Terry · Post by **King Terry** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 6:20 pm

I don't know about America, but over gere he would would better of dead than in Prison. His fellow prisoners would certainly punish him quite severely. One thing even criminals agree on is the safety of children and personally I would bring back "hanging, drawing and quartering" for such an offence. Not mnay things make me go Ga Ga, but crimes against kids is one and to an old fart like me 16 is still a kid. Quite how she could be married though is another question, so perhaps I would HD&Q both buggers .... and her parents too ...

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 6:31 pm

I would prefer to see death as a punishment for all rapes, not just that of a child or of an adult, but for all.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 6:35 pm

What of those that have been wrongfully accused?

King Terry · Post by **King Terry** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 6:37 pm

RedGlitter;754112 wrote: I would prefer to see death as a punishment for all rapes, not just that of a child or of an adult, but for all.

Yes, I would agree in 90% of cases, but alas there is is always an element of doubt in many such crimes .... did she say 'yes' initially and incite the man etc ..... with two daughters, it wouldn't take much to convert me to 100% though.

King Terry · Post by **King Terry** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 6:38 pm

abbey;754115 wrote: What of those that have been wrongfully accused?

That's the problem ..... if there are no witnesses then the guy will go free either way, but if there are, then I have no sympathy for the man.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 6:43 pm

King Terry;754118 wrote: That's the problem ..... if there are no witnesses then the guy will go free either way, but if there are, then I have no sympathy for the man.My best friend was accused and sentenced, he was given life with no chance of parole (IPP) basically it was her word against his, there was no evidence.

He was released on appeal when it was found the victim had lied because she had been caught drink driving.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 6:45 pm

RedGlitter;754112 wrote: I would prefer to see death as a punishment for all rapes, not just that of a child or of an adult, but for all.

I can see where you are coming from in saying that especially where children are involved.

It wouldn't work in reality, adult rape cases rarely get to court as it is, would you want to sit in a jury and put someone to the death penality on little or no evidence only to find out a few years later that the woman cried rape as revenge. Thats just one instance that I can think of right now.

King Terry · Post by **King Terry** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 6:48 pm

abbey;754120 wrote: My best friend was accused and sentenced, he was given life with no chance of parole (IPP)

He was released on appeal when it was found the victim had lied because she had been caught drink driving.

Rape cases are a nightmare. Very rarely are there witnesses and it is one person's word against the other, and the presence of semen proves nothing, but usually convicts regardless. Having said that she could have been drunk and still said "no".

Post by **Betty Boop** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 6:49 pm

King Terry;754104 wrote: I don't know about America, but over gere he would would better of dead than in Prison. His fellow prisoners would certainly punish him quite severely. One thing even criminals agree on is the safety of children and personally I would bring back "hanging, drawing and quartering" for such an offence. Not mnay things make me go Ga Ga, but crimes against kids is one and to an old fart like me 16 is still a kid. Quite how she could be married though is another question, so perhaps I would HD&Q both buggers .... and her parents too ...

Does that still stand though? Prisons are set up now to stop this sort of thing happening, Spot posted the relevant Human Rights Act in the other thread.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 6:59 pm

King Terry;754123 wrote: Rape cases are a nightmare. Very rarely are there witnesses and it is one person's word against the other, and the presence of semen proves nothing, but usually convicts regardless. Having said that she could have been drunk and still said "no".I agree, in my friends case no sex took place.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 7:22 pm

King Terry's description of prison code describes perfectly that of the American prison system. I don't know about the UK of course, but here that's pretty much exactly how it works.

Yes that is a good point that women can and do lie (except where no means no, period) and I have no perfect answer other than if you're unsure to throw the guy a life sentence and if you're as sure as sure's going to get then I would want to see his life ended. Not long ago out my way, a man raped an elderly woman who was in a wheelchair. I see no sense of rehabilitating someone like that.

Betty Boop- thanks for your thoughtful reply.

King Terry- have we met yet? If not, hello!

suzycreamcheese · Post by **suzycreamcheese** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:27 am

King Terry;754123 wrote: and the presence of semen proves nothing, but usually convicts regardless..

Youre joking arent you. Hardly any accused rapists get convicted.

suzycreamcheese · Post by **suzycreamcheese** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:30 am

The only problem with the "prison justice" that i keep hearing about, is that its not just for child molesters or rapists etc. Its pretty much whoever the other prisoners take a dislike to.

Youre just as likely to find child molesters being pleased to have found one another in prison and making new friends with similar "interests" and then people whove got nothing like as serious a crime under their belt, getting raped or whatever, just because theyre in with a load of people who like doing that.

I know someone who was in prison for dealing in amphetamines, but was gang raped in prison. Some justice!!

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:48 am

Yes. The death of their penis, via castration, AND, life in prison.

I cant see myself ever being put into a position where I would be accused of rape on a child or an adult, so im thinking, to be in the firing line for this crime, the police must have some motive to think you are guilty, previous form etc...

I cant condone the death penalty due to the stupidity of some people who cry rape and it later emerges that they lied, for revenge usually...You cant bring someone back from the dead but you can release them from prison.

Supporting the death penalty is just so wrong in every way. No scientific research has shown that is deters criminals from committing crimes, it costs more money then keeping someone locked in for the rest of their lives, and you're going directly against any form of moral code by doing the what the perpetrator has done to her/his victim, to the perpetrator himself. It's an endless circle of violence.

Repeat offenders should be used as human guinea pigs to test drugs and side effects of chemicals and such, after studying them for one year hoping to find a cure possibly.

At least then they would have contributed something to society.

If this stopped one person from committing the same crime, I would consider it a success.

Don't forget that most of these people claim that it is result of being abused themselves.

The laws must be changed so these miscreants are never allowed back into society, to repeat a crime! I have no sympathy for a child molester.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:17 am

suzycreamcheese;754300 wrote: The only problem with the "prison justice" that i keep hearing about, is that its not just for child molesters or rapists etc. Its pretty much whoever the other prisoners take a dislike to.

Youre just as likely to find child molesters being pleased to have found one another in prison and making new friends with similar "interests" and then people whove got nothing like as serious a crime under their belt, getting raped or whatever, just because theyre in with a load of people who like doing that.

I know someone who was in prison for dealing in amphetamines, but was gang raped in prison. Some justice!!

Yes, of course that happens, SCC, no one could deny that. All I'm saying is even among *those* types, as a general rule, prisoners hate other prisoners who are rapists or molesters of women and kids. As for molesters banding together once they get there, even those had better sleep with one eye open.

As for drug dealing leading to prison or use of drugs leading to it, don't even get me started on that issue. Actually, make a thread, it's a good topic!

Chezzie;754303 wrote: Yes. The death of their penis, via castration, AND, life in prison.

I cant see myself ever being put into a position where I would be accused of rape on a child or an adult, so im thinking, to be in the firing line for this crime, the police must have some motive to think you are guilty, previous form etc...

I cant condone the death penalty due to the stupidity of some people who cry rape and it later emerges that they lied, for revenge usually...You cant bring someone back from the dead but you can release them from prison.

Supporting the death penalty is just so wrong in every way. No scientific research has shown that is deters criminals from committing crimes, it costs more money then keeping someone locked in for the rest of their lives, and you're going directly against any form of moral code by doing the what the perpetrator has done to her/his victim, to the perpetrator himself. It's an endless circle of violence.

Repeat offenders should be used as human guinea pigs to test drugs and side effects of chemicals and such, after studying them for one year hoping to find a cure possibly.

At least then they would have contributed something to society.

If this stopped one person from committing the same crime, I would consider it a success.

Don't forget that most of these people claim that it is result of being abused themselves.

The laws must be changed so these miscreants are never allowed back into society, to repeat a crime! I have no sympathy for a child molester.

See, we have to agree to differ here Chezzie. because even though I'd vote for taking their life, I have a problem with state enforced sterilization and a bigger problem with testing stuff on convicts. I'm not sure I could even explain why other than it smacks of Nazi experiments to me.

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:27 pm

RedGlitter;754398 wrote: Yes, of course that happens, SCC, no one could deny that. All I'm saying is even among *those* types, as a general rule, prisoners hate other prisoners who are rapists or molesters of women and kids. As for molesters banding together once they get there, even those had better sleep with one eye open.

As for drug dealing leading to prison or use of drugs leading to it, don't even get me started on that issue. Actually, make a thread, it's a good topic!

See, we have to agree to differ here Chezzie. because even though I'd vote for taking their life, I have a problem with state enforced sterilization and a bigger problem with testing stuff on convicts. I'm not sure I could even explain why other than it smacks of Nazi experiments to me.

Hi RG, its good to differ lol, however can you explain how taking a human life is any different? At least if they tested a low level reacting drug on them it would save other humans and also save the suffering of an animal in a lab. Im not saying give them leprosy or anything sinister but I bet some of the victims and their family would. I 100% without a shadow of a doubt would like to see ALL peodos, rapists etc have their bits castrated, male or female.....If they want to carry out dirty deeds on innocent victims, take away their tool (so to speak)

911 · Post by **911** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:34 pm

RedGlitter;754398 wrote:

See, we have to agree to differ here Chezzie. because even though I'd vote for taking their life, I have a problem with state enforced sterilization and a bigger problem with testing stuff on convicts. I'm not sure I could even explain why other than it smacks of Nazi experiments to me.

Suppose they had the choice?

Suppose lifers got something for their assistance? Something like, extra chocolate on Tuesdays, or a extra hour outside? Would that make you like it more, if they had a choice?

I wouldn't want them to be experimented on without their consent. And I think they would do just about anything for more than an hour outside a day.

suzycreamcheese · Post by **suzycreamcheese** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 5:03 pm

what about if it was your child who was messed up in the head (god forbid) and did some awful crime. You may hate the crime but would you wish your own son to be gang raped in prison to teach him a lesson or would you hope that somehow he managed to get help and be rehabilitated?

Its a horrid horrid thought and noone wants to ever believe that someone they know or love could do something like that, but even these"monsters" were once an innocent child, and still are someones child. What the hell went wrong?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 5:12 pm

RedGlitter;754112 wrote: I would prefer to see death as a punishment for all rapes, not just that of a child or of an adult, but for all.

A member of my family was convicted of rape, jailed and placed on the sex offenders register.

He was eighteen and she was fifteen and more than willing.

I would be more than a little upset if the law proposed to murder him for his "crime".

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:11 am

Sorry! I totally missed the replies in this thread yesterday.

911;754436 wrote: Suppose they had the choice?

Suppose lifers got something for their assistance? Something like, extra chocolate on Tuesdays, or a extra hour outside? Would that make you like it more, if they had a choice?

I wouldn't want them to be experimented on without their consent. And I think they would do just about anything for more than an hour outside a day.

It wouldn't make me feel that much better about it , 911, but I could handle it better knowing they made the choice.

suzycreamcheese;754530 wrote: what about if it was your child who was messed up in the head (god forbid) and did some awful crime. You may hate the crime but would you wish your own son to be gang raped in prison to teach him a lesson or would you hope that somehow he managed to get help and be rehabilitated?

Its a horrid horrid thought and noone wants to ever believe that someone they know or love could do something like that, but even these"monsters" were once an innocent child, and still are someones child. What the hell went wrong?

Of course I probably would not want that happening to my kid but that's neither here nor there. The fact would be he or she messed up big enough to warrant a prison sentence. Whether I want it to happen doesn't matter or change the fact that what goes around comes around unpalatable as it may seem to some others.

Bryn Mawr;754535 wrote: A member of my family was convicted of rape, jailed and placed on the sex offenders register.

He was eighteen and she was fifteen and more than willing.

I would be more than a little upset if the law proposed to murder him for his "crime".

I'm sorry to hear this, Bryn. I think you probably already know my feelings on statutory rape laws by now but if not, I disagree with them vehemently. If the 15 year old was willing, the 18 year old should not have been jailed. 15 is far from being a child incapable of making a sexual decision, IMO and the ages were close.

History buff · Post by **History buff** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:38 am

RedGlitter;754646 wrote:

I'm sorry to hear this, Bryn. I think you probably already know my feelings on statutory rape laws by now but if not, I disagree with them vehemently. If the 15 year old was willing, the 18 year old should not have been jailed. 15 is far from being a child incapable of making a sexual decision, IMO and the ages were close.

So at what age would you as a lawmaker codify the age of consent?? Would you advocate a 5 year old being able to say "Yes, let's do it"??

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:44 am

History buff;754657 wrote: So at what age would you as a lawmaker codify the age of consent?? Would you advocate a 5 year old being able to say "Yes, let's do it"??

Oh come on, that's not even worth being rhetorical. I'd make it 15 or 16 for males and females both. Everywhere. I'm sure it'll be argued that a 15 or 16 year old person does not have the complete maturity needed to comprehend sex, blablabla, but it's old enough to do the deed and know if you want to or not. A person's got to grow up sometime.

If a 15 and 18 year old are both willing partners I don't see a tinker's dam wrong with it.

History buff · Post by **History buff** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:49 am

RedGlitter;754659 wrote: Oh come on, that's not even worth being rhetorical. I'd make it 15 or 16 for males and females both. Everywhere. I'm sure it'll be argued that a 15 or 16 year old person does not have the complete maturity needed to comprehend sex, blablabla, but it's old enough to do the deed and know if you want to or not. A person's got to grow up sometime.

If a 15 and 18 year old are both willing partners I don't see a tinker's dam wrong with it.

You said you were against SR laws, period, just I just wanted to see at what age you would limit it. I know you were not of the mentality to put it at 5, no offense, although some have.

I vehemently disagree with you about the ages you list.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:54 am

History buff;754661 wrote: You said you were against SR laws, period, just I just wanted to see at what age you would limit it. I know you were not of the mentality to put it at 5, no offense, although some have.

I vehemently disagree with you about the ages you list.

Okay. No offense taken.

Why do you disagree with those ages and what ages would you recommend?

I disagree with them because they punish good and innocent people who can make up their own minds and I don't like that. Past a certain age they are invasive.

History buff · Post by **History buff** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:03 am

RedGlitter;754666 wrote: Okay. No offense taken.

Why do you disagree with those ages and what ages would you recommend?

I disagree with them because they punish good and innocent people who can make up their own minds and I don't like that. Past a certain age they are invasive.

Most states have the age of majority at 18 for a reason. I would have the AOC at 18 also.

Now, assuming a girl is one day before 18, although it should be criminal, the penalty, I admit, should not be as harsh as say if a 14 year old consented. In CA, the age of consent is 18 for both sexes, by law.

Having also a law enforcement background, which includes some study of Criminology, I can not support a 15 year old consenting by law. NOW, it is possible in some states, I suppose, I have not checked the marriage age laws, that a 15 yr old can get married with parental consent, so this would, by law permit relations.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:30 am

You know, back in the 1800s it was not uncommon for girls to marry at as young as 13 or 14 years old. And have kids a year or so later. Forgetting the marriage aspect for a minute and concentrating only on the sexual aspect, what is the difference between then and now? Why should it be any different now? The only differences I see are kids now who are too protected, don't know the same hard work that was done back then and who are more sophisticated. It makes no sense to me that if a 13 year old could have sex with someone (often the girl being a few to many years younger than her husband) then and be considered mature enough for it, that our kids today can't be considered the same.

History buff · Post by **History buff** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:48 am

RedGlitter;754677 wrote: You know, back in the 1800s it was not uncommon for girls to marry at as young as 13 or 14 years old. And have kids a year or so later. Forgetting the marriage aspect for a minute and concentrating only on the sexual aspect, what is the difference between then and now? Why should it be any different now? The only differences I see are kids now who are too protected, don't know the same hard work that was done back then and who are more sophisticated. It makes no sense to me that if a 13 year old could have sex with someone (often the girl being a few to many years younger than her husband) then and be considered mature enough for it, that our kids today can't be considered the same.

Societal norms are always changing, properly I might add. As the population increases, among other relative factors, so must the criminal laws.

Many years ago it was unthinkable to even suggest a 14-16 yr old can be tried for murder as an adult. In todays violent world, it is becoming more increasingly tolerable to do so.

History buff · Post by **History buff** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 6:55 am

Oh by the way RG, here is Arizona's law on the AOC, being 18:

13-1405. Sexual conduct with a minor; classifications

A. A person commits sexual conduct with a minor by intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual intercourse or oral sexual contact with any person who is under eighteen years of age.

B. Sexual conduct with a minor who is under fifteen years of age is a class 2 felony and is punishable pursuant to section 13-604.01. Sexual conduct with a minor who is at least fifteen years of age is a class 6 felony. Sexual conduct with a minor who is at least fifteen years of age is a class 2 felony if the person is the minor's parent, stepparent, adoptive parent, legal guardian or foster parent and the convicted person is not eligible for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any basis except as specifically authorized by section 31-233, subsection A or B until the sentence imposed has been served or commuted.

I was also going to ask if you favored laws that prohibit persons in supervisory positions, such as teachers, being able to have relations with students, even though they may be at the AOC. I could not find such in AZ's law, but they do have provisions for prisoner-jailer, doctor-patient, etc., even if OVER the AOC.

Example. Say the AOC is 16, and a teacher has relations with a student who is 17 Should the law allow this?

suzycreamcheese · Post by **suzycreamcheese** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:39 am

The AOC is 16 in the UK and I think that is fine. Its illegal to have pupil teacher relationships even above the AOC as its a breach of a position of trust. Im not sure if its illegal in the way of criminal offence or whether its just not allowed in terms of person losing their job, but its the same as doctor patient relationships, even college student/lecturer relationships.

I *think* although not sure, that there is a system in some european countries (I think Holland) where the age of consent is actually 12 but you have to be in a similar age group - ie a 14 and a 16 year old would be legal to have sex but a 14 year old and a 40 year old would be against the law.

In a lot of ways i think this is more appropriate and much less scope for abuse than it being legal for some grotty old man and a 16 year old girl to get it together.

I believe that Holland also has one of the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy in the world

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:01 am

History buff;754737 wrote: Oh by the way RG, here is Arizona's law on the AOC, being 18:

13-1405. Sexual conduct with a minor; classifications

A. A person commits sexual conduct with a minor by intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual intercourse or oral sexual contact with any person who is under eighteen years of age.

B. Sexual conduct with a minor who is under fifteen years of age is a class 2 felony and is punishable pursuant to section 13-604.01. Sexual conduct with a minor who is at least fifteen years of age is a class 6 felony. Sexual conduct with a minor who is at least fifteen years of age is a class 2 felony if the person is the minor's parent, stepparent, adoptive parent, legal guardian or foster parent and the convicted person is not eligible for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any basis except as specifically authorized by section 31-233, subsection A or B until the sentence imposed has been served or commuted.

You'll notice how backward AZ is when they consider sex with an unrelated minor a bigger offense than incest.

I was also going to ask if you favored laws that prohibit persons in supervisory positions, such as teachers, being able to have relations with students, even though they may be at the AOC. I could not find such in AZ's law, but they do have provisions for prisoner-jailer, doctor-patient, etc., even if OVER the AOC.

Example. Say the AOC is 16, and a teacher has relations with a student who is 17 Should the law allow this?

Absolutely the law should allow it. It's not the law's business who sleeps with who if both parties are willing and of legal age. I don't buy into that breach of trust bologna. If you're considered an adult then you buy your ticket and you take your chance. If it doesn't work you accept it and move on. It's personal responsibility.

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:34 am

You know i couldn't give a fig for prisoners human rights . As far as i'm concerned a prisoner forfeits any human rights the moment hes found guilty and if Bubba wants to make him his tea boy what do i care .

The Victim is more important than the Rapist .

As for Rapists given the Death penalty - yep i'd agree for the most serious cases anyway . I think each case should be looked at individually . Brians relative's situation, i wouldn't class as Rape because both of the parties had consented .

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:18 pm

pantsonfire321@aol.com;754789 wrote: You know i couldn't give a fig for prisoners human rights . As far as i'm concerned a prisoner forfeits any human rights the moment hes found guilty and if Bubba wants to make him his tea boy what do i care .

The Victim is more important than the Rapist .

As for Rapists given the Death penalty - yep i'd agree for the most serious cases anyway . I think each case should be looked at individually . Brians relative's situation, i wouldn't class as Rape because both of the parties had consented .

So it's open season on anyone the authorities send to jail - whatever happens to them is OK by you?

So the poor sod who was jailed here recently for speeding could be beated senseless, raped and then killed any that's natural justice - he'd forfitted his human rights when he was found guilty. this despite the fact that he'd harmed no-body and caused no damage.

So Bubba could make the ninety year old who was jailed for refusing to pay his council tax in an argument over rubbish collection his tea boy and you would find that perfectly acceptable?

Strange ideas you have.

suzycreamcheese · Post by **suzycreamcheese** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:04 pm

lets not stop there, why not just not bother sentancing them at all. You get caught for a crime - ANY crime, just throw em all in a pit together and see what happens. Who cares eh.

I bet that girl who was raped by 34 different men in a brazillian prison was justice too, cos after all, she was in there for petty theft. Prisoners were just doing justice on her

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/world ... razil.html

History buff · Post by **History buff** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:27 pm

RedGlitter;754775 wrote: Absolutely the law should allow it. It's not the law's business who sleeps with who if both parties are willing and of legal age. I don't buy into that breach of trust bologna. If you're considered an adult then you buy your ticket and you take your chance. If it doesn't work you accept it and move on. It's personal responsibility.

I do not agree with that.

History buff · Post by **History buff** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:34 pm

Bryn Mawr;754817 wrote: So it's open season on anyone the authorities send to jail - whatever happens to them is OK by you?

So the poor sod who was jailed here recently for speeding could be beated senseless, raped and then killed any that's natural justice - he'd forfitted his human rights when he was found guilty. this despite the fact that he'd harmed no-body and caused no damage.

So Bubba could make the ninety year old who was jailed for refusing to pay his council tax in an argument over rubbish collection his tea boy and you would find that perfectly acceptable?

Strange ideas you have.

In some states you can be subject to a full custodial arrest for ANY crime, no matter how minor. This is even before conviction. They can haul you down, fingerprint and photograph you.

Our United States Supreme Court has ruled it does not trigger the 4th AM by arresting a person for a crime punishable by a money fine only. So let's say speeding is a money fine only crime, no possible jail time by law. In some states you can still be arrested and booked for it. Of course most will issue you a citation/summons in lieu of arrest, but some states permit an arrest, some don't. While you are in there, you are open game, for the sake of argument.

The USSC decision was NOT right in my view.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:37 pm

History buff;754951 wrote: In some states you can be subject to a full custodial arrest for ANY crime, no matter how minor. This is even before conviction. They can haul you down, fingerprint and photograph you.

Our United States Supreme Court has ruled it does not trigger the 4th AM by arresting a person for a crime punishable by a money fine only. So let's say speeding is a money fine only crime, no possible jail time by law. In some states you can still be arrested and booked for it. Of course most will issue you a citation/summons in lieu of arrest, but some states permit an arrest, some don't. While you are in there, you are open game, for the sake of argument.

The USSC decision was NOT right in my view.

This was a case in the UK where a motorcyclist was jailed for the crime of speeding - shared a cell with a lifer doing time for murder. ISTR it was about a one year sentence.

History buff · Post by **History buff** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:40 pm

Bryn Mawr;754955 wrote: This was a case in the UK where a motorcyclist was jailed for the crime of speeding - shared a cell with a lifer doing time for murder. ISTR it was about a one year sentence.

Not only this, but those who are arrested for any crime and can not make bail, stay in the tank until trial. These people can be beaten etc., and they are not even convicted yet of a crime.

In lesser crimes they may release you with a summons, but you were still arrested.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:44 pm

History buff;754956 wrote: Not only this, but those who are arrested for any crime and can not make bail, stay in the tank until trial. These people can be beaten etc., and they are not even convicted yet of a crime.

As Spot said, over here it can lead to the prison authorities being prosecuted if they allow the mistreatment of prisoners in their care.

I cannot understand why this should be acceptable anywhere.

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:36 pm

Bryn Mawr;754817 wrote: So it's open season on anyone the authorities send to jail - whatever happens to them is OK by you?

So the poor sod who was jailed here recently for speeding could be beated senseless, raped and then killed any that's natural justice - he'd forfitted his human rights when he was found guilty. this despite the fact that he'd harmed no-body and caused no damage.

So Bubba could make the ninety year old who was jailed for refusing to pay his council tax in an argument over rubbish collection his tea boy and you would find that perfectly acceptable?

Strange ideas you have.

I thought we were discussing Rapists here ???

Maybe i didn't make myself clear enough, i was talking about Rapists but i feel much the same about anyone whos been convicted of a volent crime and if i'm honest, no i don't care about them ... however i do feel for the people who find themselves in prison through no fault of their own . Nobody wants to see pensioners imprisoned for non-payment of Council tax and no body deserves to Raped period, but if your there because your a thief, drunk driver or a someone who gets off on beating your wife senseless then no i couldn't give a fig...and one of the reasons why .

In the early Nineties i used to be a Lay visitor to Police stations and our job was to check on the welfare of prisoners. I used to give up my free time (because it was a voluntary job) and turn up at all hours of the day and night (more often night to catch them out) and check ( we were always in pairs) to see that the prisoners were being treated fairly and listen to their complaints . Believe me, it doesn't take long to become disillusioned, you see those same prisoners play the system day in day out ...claiming they've been beaten .

They all claim to be beaten,they're all claim they've been fitted up .

The other side of the coin ...i know somebody personnally who died in cusody who shouldn't of been there, somebody falsly accused them.... so however hard i may come across i am talking from experiance here .:-5

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:54 am

pantsonfire321@aol.com;755087 wrote: I thought we were discussing Rapists here ???

The comment I was responding to was :-

pantsonfire321@aol.com;754789 wrote: You know i couldn't give a fig for prisoners human rights . As far as i'm concerned a prisoner forfeits any human rights the moment hes found guilty and if Bubba wants to make him his tea boy what do i care .

Which was as general a statement as i've seen

pantsonfire321@aol.com;755087 wrote: Maybe i didn't make myself clear enough, i was talking about Rapists but i feel much the same about anyone whos been convicted of a volent crime and if i'm honest, no i don't care about them ... however i do feel for the people who find themselves in prison through no fault of their own . Nobody wants to see pensioners imprisoned for non-payment of Council tax and no body deserves to Raped period, but if your there because your a thief, drunk driver or a someone who gets off on beating your wife senseless then no i couldn't give a fig...and one of the reasons why .

In the early Nineties i used to be a Lay visitor to Police stations and our job was to check on the welfare of prisoners. I used to give up my free time (because it was a voluntary job) and turn up at all hours of the day and night (more often night to catch them out) and check ( we were always in pairs) to see that the prisoners were being treated fairly and listen to their complaints . Believe me, it doesn't take long to become disillusioned, you see those same prisoners play the system day in day out ...claiming they've been beaten .

They all claim to be beaten,they're all claim they've been fitted up .

The other side of the coin ...i know somebody personnally who died in cusody who shouldn't of been there, somebody falsly accused them.... so however hard i may come across i am talking from experiance here .:-5

If they all claim to have been beaten (which I find hard to believe given the stats for the IPCC) the answer is not to allow them to be beaten all the more but to take better steps to ensure that they are not beaten.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:35 pm

Betty Boop;754121 wrote: I can see where you are coming from in saying that especially where children are involved.

It wouldn't work in reality, adult rape cases rarely get to court as it is, would you want to sit in a jury and put someone to the death penality on little or no evidence only to find out a few years later that the woman cried rape as revenge. Thats just one instance that I can think of right now.

Better than convicting an innocent person for rape only to know that he has spent his entire life in prison...