Outraged, Politicians Vow to Execute Child Rapists Despite Court Ruling

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:17 am

It angers me that not only did they refuse to pass the law, but that it's not a law geared toward ALL rape victims, child or not.

NEW YORK â€” Angry politicians vowed to keep writing laws that condemn child rapists to death, despite a Supreme Court decision saying such punishment is unconstitutional.

"Anybody in the country who cares about children should be outraged that we have a Supreme Court that would issue a decision like this," said Alabama Attorney General Troy King, a Republican. The justices, he said, are "creating a situation where the country is a less safe place to grow up."

The court's 5-4 decision Wednesday derailed the efforts of nearly a dozen states supporting the right to kill those convicted of raping a child â€” and said execution was confined to attacks that take a life and to other crimes including treason and espionage.

At issue before the high court was a Louisiana case involving Patrick Kennedy, sentenced to die for raping his 8-year-old daughter in her bed, an assault so severe she required surgery.

In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote "the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child," despite the horrendous nature of the crime.

Republican Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal called the ruling "incredibly absurd," "a clear abuse of judicial authority" and said officials will "evaluate ways to amend our statute to maintain death as a penalty for this horrific crime."

Oklahoma officials said they, too, weren't ready to give up, and would "certainly look at what options we have," state senator Jay Paul Gumm said. "I think the people of Oklahoma have spoken loudly that this is one of the most heinous of crimes."

Even White House hopefuls joined the fray. Republican John McCain called the ruling "an assault on law enforcement's efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime." Democrat Barack Obama said there should be no blanket prohibition of the death penalty for the rape of children if states want to apply it in those cases.

Forty-four states prohibit the death penalty for any kind of rape, and at least four states besides Louisiana permit it for child rape â€” Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas. There's disagreement over the status of a Georgia law permitting execution for child rape, although Justice Kennedy said in his ruling that it was still in effect.

Following the ruling, all become unconstitutional.

In Texas, Republican Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said Wednesday that most Texans believe the death penalty is "an appropriate form of punishment for repeat child molesters. Our top priority remains protecting our most precious resource â€” our children."

But the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault, a nonprofit victim advocacy group representing 80 rape crisis centers, applauded the ruling.

"Most child sexual abuse victims are abused by a family member or close family friend," the group said in a statement. "The reality is that child victims and their families don't want to be responsible for sending a grandparent, cousin or long time family friend to death row."

Nationwide, only two men have been sentenced to death for sexually abusing children â€” both in Louisiana. The second case involves a man convicted of repeatedly raping a 5-year-old girl. Both men will get new sentences.

Several states, including Missouri, Alabama and Colorado had been considering similar laws.

In South Carolina, Republican Attorney General Henry McMaster said states could ultimately fight Wednesday's ruling by waiting for a change in the makeup of the Supreme Court, or by getting legislatures to redo death penalty laws.

Legal experts were divided on the potential success of such tactics.

According to Douglas Berman, a law professor at Ohio State University, the justices' ruling appears ironclad. "In the absence of death, the death penalty is off the table," he said. The court, he said, "could have left open the possibility of revamping child rape laws, by age for example, but it did not."

Law professor Deborah Denno of Fordham University wasn't so sure. It could be possible to argue for the application of the death penalty against attackers who "intended to kill" their victims, but didn't, she said. Or those who assault especially young children, such as toddlers.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:14 am

Shameful and not suprising we truly don't protect our children from these monsters. Raping a child is the end of their life in most case. It should be the end of the monster that did it. :-5

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:30 am

I think more child rapists will die in prison at the hands of other convicts than at the hands of politicians. We know how politicians are. They can't find their own butt with both hands.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:20 pm

hoppy;899277 wrote: I think more child rapists will die in prison at the hands of other convicts than at the hands of politicians. We know how politicians are. They can't find their own butt with both hands.
Sure they can. That's where the wallet is, in the back pocket.

I agree with Justice Kennedy that the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child, but it's the worst society will currently allow so it'll have to do.

shelbell · Post by **shelbell** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:44 am

CARLA;899261 wrote: Shameful and not suprising we truly don't protect our children from these monsters. Raping a child is the end of their life in most case. It should be the end of the monster that did it. :-5

I couldn't agree more.

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 1:45 pm

What strikes me hardest most from the article is that it isn't the legal professionals who are pushing this - it's politicians. Politicians moreover who are likely to be looking for jobs after the next US election.

While I don't deny that these crimes are utterly revolting and the perpetrators should be locked up for their rest of their natural lives, I don't accept that killing them is an answer......

It's like applying the death penalty for murder - unless you caught the alleged murderer on (more than one) camera, in front of a host of witnesses and get an unsolicited confession, backed up by incontrivertible forensic evidence, you may be murdering an innocent person.

And yes, application of the death penalty is murder.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 2:10 pm

I'm not going to get into the emotive side of this argument. And yes, like everyone else, I think such criminals are disgusting human beings and to be honest its very hard to argue against the death penalty in these sorts of cases. However, and there is a big "however" here.

Isn't there supposed to be an independent judicary? Its called seperation of powers, and its fundamental to any state that claims to abide by the rule of law. If politicians write up the punishments as they go along, what's the point in having a supreme court? There is a saying that "hard cases make for bad laws", but its equally true that hard cases might make also make bad precedent, and allowing elected politicians from the legislature to over-rule supreme court judgements would be a very bad precedent for your republic should it be allowed to happen.

shelbell · Post by **shelbell** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 2:54 pm

I agree that the evidence has to be beyond a shadow of doubt. Forensic tests must match completely. The US does not do a lot of executions, and yes, there are times when someone is put to death wrongly, that's why I said what I said in the first two sentences.

However, I do believe in the death penalty. I'm sure you've heard "an eye for an eye" etc. If we keep these scumbags that are not able to be rehabitlitated in prisons for the rest of their lives, it not only over populates prisons that are bursting at the seams, but it also costs taxpayers hundres of thousands of dollars per inmate. I've heard that some prisons will even ok prisoners getting sex change surgeries at the expense of taxpayers. It can get really rediculous.

Sometimes the Supreme Court makes wrong decisions.

shelbell · Post by **shelbell** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:07 pm

rjwould;910253 wrote: Release non violent offenders to relieve the overcrowding. But that would mean laying off prison guards and other staff, so we wouldn't want to do that, would we"?

BTW- I consider rape a violent crime.

Most "non violent" offenders are drug addicts...if we release them back into a life of drugs a lot of them will turn into violent offenders just to get money to get their next fix. What do we do with the laid off prison guards? Hire them into the police departments to rearrest the druggies that have turned violent...then they'll be able to go back to being prison guards. It's an unending cycle.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:08 pm

To be blatantly honest I don't see condemning a child rapist to death preventing it from happening...

It's basically common knowledge that people who are convicted of child rape live complete hellish and unthinkable lives in prison...

Besides, you have to admit this sort of case most offend than not depends purely on the child's testimony and children can be made to say anything...Whether it's from outside influence or not...

Trust me,..child rapists would rather get the death penalty than to live in prison...I mean they'd have to...

shelbell · Post by **shelbell** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:19 pm

K.Snyder;910262 wrote: To be blatantly honest I don't see condemning a child rapist to death preventing it from happening...

It's basically common knowledge that people who are convicted of child rape live complete hellish and unthinkable lives in prison...

Besides, you have to admit this sort of case most offend than not depends purely on the child's testimony and children can be made to say anything...Whether it's from outside influence or not...

Trust me,..child rapists would rather get the death penalty than to live in prison...I mean they'd have to...

I agree that we can't convict someone simply by a childs testimony. There HAS to be forensic evidence to back it up. And yes, I've also heard that child rapists have to watch their backs constantly in prison. Most cannot be rehabilitated, yet are released just to molest another child. I don't want these disgusting scumbags to have that opportunity. We have to protect our children. Period.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:22 pm

shelbell;910272 wrote: I agree that we can't convict someone simply by a childs testimony. There HAS to be forensic evidence to back it up. And yes, I've also heard that child rapists have to watch their backs constantly in prison. Most cannot be rehabilitated, yet are released just to molest another child. I don't want these disgusting scumbags to have that opportunity. We have to protect our children. Period.

I understand...And everybody agrees that the end result should be the well being of children...We just have to find out which is the best way in going about doing that and to be honest there are very valid arguments on both sides...It's just one of those dilemmas when you can't win for losing...

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:23 pm

Although castration could be a very valid argument...

I don't see anything wrong with that...

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:24 pm

K.Snyder;910276 wrote: Although castration could be a very valid argument...

I don't see anything wrong with that...

But then again you have that fail proneness to childs testimony...

See?...

shelbell · Post by **shelbell** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:27 pm

rjwould;910266 wrote: We should not keep people locked up for assuming they will commit crimes. Potential violent criminals are not in fact violent criminals until they actually do the crime, I think thats what America used to stand for. Am I wrong about that?

You're not wrong about that, but I've been around many addicts (I'm a recovering alcoholic) and have heard many terrible stories around the tables of NA. Most people will do ANYTHING to get their next fix. This is why I said it's a never ending cycle. I know people will relapse many times before getting clean...and this means commiting more crimes.

shelbell · Post by **shelbell** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:32 pm

K.Snyder;910275 wrote: I understand...And everybody agrees that the end result should be the well being of children...We just have to find out which is the best way in going about doing that and to be honest there are very valid arguments on both sides...It's just one of those dilemmas when you can't win for losing...

Yeah, the arguments for both sides have their valid reasonings. I believe it comes down to the persons moral beliefs as to which side is the right side...and I'm not going to judge someone just because they don't have the same beliefs as I do.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:35 pm

Galbally;910205 wrote: allowing elected politicians from the legislature to over-rule supreme court judgements would be a very bad precedent for your republic should it be allowed to happen.
So the court is the infallible end word? There are supposed to be checks and balances all 'round, Gal. Some of our courts are creating law out of whole cloth. Surely there's a point where they go too far and need to be pulled back in line?!?

shelbell · Post by **shelbell** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:51 pm

rjwould;910294 wrote: Why then is alcohol legal? And why then are not all alcoholics in prison? In fact we should then, by your logic be locking up all potential alcoholics, of which according to my high school education, we all are.

Unless you've been around a lot of addicts you probably won't understand what I'm talking about. All people are not potential alcoholics and it takes a lot longer to become an alcoholic than it does to become a drug addict. I'm also not talking about potential addicts, but people that have had addictions for many years and have to feed their addictions. With that being said, alcoholics that commit crimes should be locked up just like the addicts that commit crimes. To answer your question, I'm not sure why alcohol is legal, it has destroyed so many peoples lives and is a mind and mood altering drug and people make a lot of really bad choices by being wasted, whether by drugs or alcohol.

shelbell · Post by **shelbell** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:58 pm

It's been fun debating you but I'm off to the store to get some dog food! :-6

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:18 pm

rjwould;910310 wrote: LOL! I grew up in the 60's and 70's in New York. Half of the people I roamed the streets with in my youth are dead due to drugs/alcohol accident and suicide, and I've woken up in strange settings many, many times.

Its the addictive personality which is the problem rather than the drugs themselves, but I'm all for getting rid of the alcohol.

I think this is turning into another topic...

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:17 am

Accountable;910290 wrote: So the court is the infallible end word? There are supposed to be checks and balances all 'round, Gal. Some of our courts are creating law out of whole cloth. Surely there's a point where they go too far and need to be pulled back in line?!?

Sure, of course judges and the law are fallible, I'm not saying that they aren't. I am also not saying this particular decision is a good one. But you are supposed to amend problems that you find in the legal system by writing new laws and passing them through your houses of government, thats what the legislature is for, not by over-ruling the court when you don't agree with the decisions. The judicary however, are there to dispense the law of the land, rule on cases without fear of interference or revisionism, and interpret precedent, (which is how the English common law works, which is what your law is based on, a generally very good system). That would be my take on it, Spot can correct me if I am wrong.

shelbell · Post by **shelbell** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 7:28 am

K.Snyder;910329 wrote: I think this is turning into another topic...

You are absolutely right...sorry for getting off track, but sometimes a good debate will make a person do that.

Ok, back to the topic. Child rapists/molesters are bad and should never be allowed the chance to be around children ever, whether by the death penalty or lifetime in prison.

Is that better?

:D

shelbell · Post by **shelbell** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 7:49 am

rjwould;910310 wrote: LOL! I grew up in the 60's and 70's in New York. Half of the people I roamed the streets with in my youth are dead due to drugs/alcohol accident and suicide, and I've woken up in strange settings many, many times.

Its the addictive personality which is the problem rather than the drugs themselves, but I'm all for getting rid of the alcohol.

So you do know where I'm coming from, and I agree with everything in this last post, but we're getting chewed out for not sticking with the topic! :wah::wah:

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:27 am

shelbell;910738 wrote: You are absolutely right...sorry for getting off track, but sometimes a good debate will make a person do that.

Ok, back to the topic. Child rapists/molesters are bad and should never be allowed the chance to be around children ever, whether by the death penalty or lifetime in prison.

Is that better?

:D

Yes...That's much better...:yh_kiss...

:yh_love...

shelbell · Post by **shelbell** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:34 am

K.Snyder;910957 wrote: Yes...That's much better...:yh_kiss...

:yh_love...

Good! :wah: I love your different smilelys. Where do you get them? Never mind I found them...can you use them just like the ones on the sidebar?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:36 am

shelbell;910968 wrote: Good! :wah: I love your different smilelys. Where do you get them? Never mind I found them...can you use them just like the ones on the sidebar?

Yes...:yh_kiss...

:yh_love...

shelbell · Post by **shelbell** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:47 am

K.Snyder;910975 wrote: Yes...:yh_kiss...

:yh_love...

Thanks...this site is so much fun, but I don't want to get off the subject again.:yh_rotfl

Those people are bad.:yh_wink The wink is the closest I could find to being a smart a**.