• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

Court rejects death penalty for raping children

Joined
6 November 2002
Messages
4,697
Location
UT
Wow. Just Wow. "The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child." IMO, anybody who steals the innocence from a child should be killed.


The Supreme Court on Wednesday outlawed executions of people convicted of raping a child. In a 5-4 vote, the court said the Louisiana law allowing the death penalty to be imposed in such cases violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

"The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion. His four liberal colleagues joined him, while the four more conservative justices dissented.

There has not been an execution in the United States for a crime that did not also involve the death of the victim in 44 years.

Patrick Kennedy, 43, was sentenced to death for the rape of his 8-year-old stepdaughter in Louisiana. He is one of two people in the United States, both in Louisiana, who have been condemned to death for a rape that was not also accompanied by a killing.

The Supreme Court banned executions for rape in 1977 in a case in which the victim was an adult woman.

Forty-five states ban the death penalty for any kind of rape, and the other five states allow it for child rapists. Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas allow executions in such cases if the defendant had previously been convicted of raping a child.

The court struggled over how to apply standards laid out in decisions barring executions for the mentally retarded and people younger than 18 when they committed murder. In those cases, the court cited trends in the states away from capital punishment.

In this case, proponents of the Louisiana law said the trend was toward the death penalty, a point mentioned by Justice Samuel Alito in his dissent.

"The harm that is caused to the victims and to society at large by the worst child rapists is grave," Alito wrote. "It is the judgment of the Louisiana lawmakers and those in an increasing number of other states that these harms justify the death penalty."

But Kennedy said the absence of any executions for rape and the small number of states that allow it demonstrate "there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape."

Kennedy also acknowledged that the decision had to come to terms with "the years of long anguish that must be endured by the victim of child rape."

Still, Kennedy concluded that in cases of crimes against individuals — as opposed to treason, for example — "the death penalty should not be expanded to instances where the victim's life was not taken."

The decision does not affect the imposition of the death penalty for other crimes that do not involve murder, including treason and espionage, he said.

"It looks like a smashing victory on all fronts for us," said Denise LeBoeuf, a longtime capital defense attorney from New Orleans.

The girl's mother said, "We don't talk about that" and hung up.

The author of the Louisiana law, former Republican state Rep. Pete Schneider, said even opponents of the death penalty told him they would kill anyone who raped their children. "When are you going to have the courage to stand up for what's right for all of the people — but especially the children under 12 that have been brutally raped by monsters?" Schneider said, directing his comments to the justices in Wednesday's majority.

The last executions for crimes other than murder took place in 1964, according to a database maintained by the Death Penalty Information Center.

Ronald Wolfe, 34, died in Missouri's gas chamber on May 8, 1964 for rape. James Coburn was electrocuted in Alabama on Sept. 4 of that year for robbery.

Patrick Kennedy was convicted in 2003 of raping his stepdaughter at their home in Harvey, La., outside New Orleans. The girl initially told police she was sorting Girl Scout cookies in the garage when two boys assaulted her.

Police arrested Kennedy a couple of weeks after the March 1998 rape, but more than 20 months passed before the girl identified him as her attacker.

His defense attorney at the time argued that blood testing was inconclusive and that the victim was pressured to change her story.

The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the sentence, saying that "short of first-degree murder, we can think of no other non-homicide crime more deserving" of the death penalty. State Chief Justice Pascal Calogero noted in dissent that the U.S. high court already had made clear that capital punishment could not be imposed without the death of the victim, except possibly for espionage or treason.

A second Louisiana man, Richard Davis was sentenced to death in December for repeatedly raping a 5-year-old girl in Caddo Parish, which includes Shreveport. Local prosecutor Lea Hall told jurors: "Execute this man. Justice has a sword and this sword needs to swing today."

The high court's decision leaves intact Kennedy's conviction, but will lead to a new sentence.

The case is Kennedy v. Louisiana, 07-343.

Original article here.
 
if you destroy a womans soul by raping her(or an 8year old girl WTF) death penalty should be availible, especialy in brutal cases, like an 8year old girl! wtf is wrong with people.
 
When the courts won’t provide justice, the difference can be made up with a little information, secrecy, and a .357.
 
if you destroy a womans soul by raping her(or an 8year old girl WTF) death penalty should be availible, especialy in brutal cases, like an 8year old girl! wtf is wrong with people.
I take it no one in the Supreme Court has had their daughter brutally raped. So it does'nt affect them personally.:mad:
 
You'd have a lot of death penalty cases. My wife works for a CAC (Child Advocacy Center) and they get multiple cases every month.

Sick but very common.
 
Surprising decision.

http://sa.rochester.edu/masa/stats.php

We're ready to punish relationships before the age of 18 if one person reaches that age.

But death is too harsh a punishment for raping children.

BTW, consent is far lower in Germany and Japan (most areas) than anywhere in the US along with much lower rape crime rates. And yet, it's 18-20 to be able to drink and drive but these privilages we have "unique" ideas on how to control.

This country is going to shit. :mad:
 
Since many such rapes are committed by family members, allowing the DP means a child will be asked to give testimony that could lead to execution of a loved one (despite the crime). I think it's unreasonable to ask a child to do that.

Save the DP for crimes of murder.
 
Surprising decision.

http://sa.rochester.edu/masa/stats.php

We're ready to punish relationships before the age of 18 if one person reaches that age.

But death is too harsh a punishment for raping children.

BTW, consent is far lower in Germany and Japan (most areas) than anywhere in the US along with much lower rape crime rates. And yet, it's 18-20 to be able to drink and drive but these privilages we have "unique" ideas on how to control.

This country is going to shit. :mad:

Very good stats page Jaquar.
 
I too liked the stats page but was not surprised by the statistics. I believe that death for a child rape is inappropriate. I believe the suspect, if convicted, should be sentenced to state prison and in the county in which I work, they are generally sentenced to prison, not jail. Most of these cases, seemingly more than the stats cited here show, are rape by an acquaintance of the victim. Those cases are clearly more offensive because the victim likely trusts the suspect and that trust is betrayed in the worst way. When it is a stranger rape, that seems to be an easier matter for the victims to deal with.
 
I too liked the stats page but was not surprised by the statistics. I believe that death for a child rape is inappropriate. I believe the suspect, if convicted, should be sentenced to state prison and in the county in which I work, they are generally sentenced to prison, not jail. Most of these cases, seemingly more than the stats cited here show, are rape by an acquaintance of the victim. Those cases are clearly more offensive because the victim likely trusts the suspect and that trust is betrayed in the worst way. When it is a stranger rape, that seems to be an easier matter for the victims to deal with.

I see where you're coming from, but is it better for a family member to stick around and be in that child's life?
 
I see where you're coming from, but is it better for a family member to stick around and be in that child's life?

I also completely agree with Cairo's perspective on the issue and I do understand how unpopular this opinion may be to some. But to clarify, the issue is whether the punishment is proportional to the crime, and not necessarily whether the family member should be involved. Obviously, it would be better for the child if the abusing family member was not around, however, that is not the issue the SC is addressing.
 
When the courts won’t provide justice, the difference can be made up with a little information, secrecy, and a .357.

A public stoning would be more appropriate. Criminals need to be terrified that is the fit solution. This was no accident so nothing to forgive or rehabilitate.
 
If they don't want to kill them so be it. But don't make me pay to feed and house them for the next XX years. Make those sorts of criminals dig ditches or work at a GM factory to repay the tax money spent on keeping them alive. If I saw people around me stealing cars and back on the street in a few years to do it again, I wouldn't be that intimidated. If the next time I saw them their arms were missing and they had a tatoo on their forehead that said "GTA" I'd probably think twice.

It doesn't matter who's fault it is-the child doesn't get a "redo". It's sickening to live in a society that lets this happen multiple times by the same individual. Sickening.
 
Surprising decision.

http://sa.rochester.edu/masa/stats.php

We're ready to punish relationships before the age of 18 if one person reaches that age.

But death is too harsh a punishment for raping children.

BTW, consent is far lower in Germany and Japan (most areas) than anywhere in the US along with much lower rape crime rates. And yet, it's 18-20 to be able to drink and drive but these privilages we have "unique" ideas on how to control.

This country is going to shit. :mad:

Maybe, but what constitutes "rape" (legal definition) in other countries can vary widely.

For example... in certain areas the term "rape" has very little or no legal meaning... or else, those who commit what would be considered "rape" in the US get away with it because it is not "rape" in that country.

I'm not sure the age of concent has so much to do with the rate of sexual assault... I think it has a lot more to do with the definition.

For example, in some countries, it may be legal for a person to render consent even while under the influence, thus, engaging in sex with that person does not constitute rape. However, in such cases, it then becomes possible to manipulate a person into sex by buying them drinks at the bar before taking them back home.

And then of course, there's statutory rape. The word "statutory" means something like "written." That is, it is rape by default, since one of the people was too young to legally render concent (and therefore, no concent can be legally acquired), so any sexual contact was "without" concent. Regardless of how "mutual" the feelings were, statutory rape is effectively rape by default.

That's just two examples. Other countries may not consider them rape, but the US does. Doesn't mean it happens less in other countries... just that there's no legal record kept of it.
 
I'm not convinced about the record keeping argument.

These are people who have no problem letting a 12 year old stumble along family members with a beer in hand on a train headed to a Mannheim game.

The way of live is much slower, much different and I don't believe assualt, rape or otherwise, is in the same league statistically as it is here in the US.

I worked with a guy briefly who was hired on and got caught hot chatting with a supposedly 14 year old and showed up on the To Catch a Predator sting operation on TV. I'm sure he would have thought differently if that could potentially be the last thing he ever did.

I don't feel these individuals belong in a puzzle factory, there's something short circuited upstairs. Education about social and cultural boundries which is the main crux of my dismay at the ruling isn't easily changed by locking them in a cell or giving them a lobotomy.

Let the punishment fit the crime, eye for an eye. Using the armed vs unarmed argument, do you want to break into a truck on a property where evidence of firearms is present? My grandpa made his own ammo and glued empty fired shotgun shells near windows and doors. Never had an issue with someone ignoring the No Soliciting sign and never a break-in in 50 years.

I can get killed for touching Molly 12 year old? That will have an effect, real fast and leave us to handle the truly insane in special ways.
 
Last edited:
I'm not convinced about the record keeping argument.

These are people who have no problem letting a 12 year old stumble along family members with a beer in hand on a train headed to a Mannheim game.

The way of live is much slower, much different and I don't believe assualt, rape or otherwise, is in the same league statistically as it is here in the US.

I worked with a guy briefly who was hired on and got caught hot chatting with a supposedly 14 year old and showed up on the To Catch a Predator sting operation on TV. I'm sure he would have thought differently if that could potentially be the last thing he ever did.

I don't feel these individuals belong in a puzzle factory, there's something short circuited upstairs. Education about social and cultural boundries which is the main crux of my dismay at the ruling isn't easily changed by locking them in a cell or giving them a lobotomy.

Let the punishment fit the crime, eye for an eye. Using the armed vs unarmed argument, do you want to break into a truck on a property where evidence of firearms is present? My grandpa made his own ammo and glued empty fired shotgun shells near windows and doors. Never had an issue with someone ignoring the No Soliciting sign and never a break-in in 50 years.

I can get killed for touching Molly 12 year old? That will have an effect, real fast and leave us to handle the truly insane in special ways.

I don't know... seems to me that people are fairly predictible and that while the "way of life" may differ from one area to the next, human NATURE is the same anywhere you go... which, at the most fundamental level implies that what goes on here, goes on in other places. The question becomes about the degree of social acceptability in a given region.

One thing that is interesting, though, is that I doubt the People would actually agree with this (court) decision. The people in high places in the government seem to forget that the US is supposed to funcion under the ideal of government by concent of the governed. If this kind of thing keeps happening (courts making decisions absent a vote), another revolution is bound to eventually happen... albiet... it could be centruies from now.

The same thing happened in CA regarding gay marriage. Without taking sides on my part, the courts ruled in favor, even though the subject was supposed to be formally voted on shortly in the future. I don't know... it's like... politicians are "afraid" that THEIR ideals will not be upheld by the people, so they rush to get things to be their way, denying the people a chance to express themselves... Congress likes to do this too... they are the represnetitives of the people, and their constitution/make-up is (supposed to be) proportionate to the areas they represent. And yet, a few years ago, the minority party was "filibustering" (supposedly illegally) the majority... which is anti-democratic. It's like... the government get's in the peoples' way... so ironic and so annoying.
 
You guys have all missed the point as to why this is a bad ruling.

The Supreme Court should not be making laws, and that's essentially what it has done here. The role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution. Once the DP has been deigned constitutional, it is up to the states and their respective legislatures to make the laws determining its use. This decision was an overstepping of the SCOTUS' authority, and a trampling of the 10th amendment.

The "child rape" bit is just the sensationalist lead that has overshadowed the real travesty here.
 
You guys have all missed the point as to why this is a bad ruling.

The Supreme Court should not be making laws, and that's essentially what it has done here. The role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution.

Wasn't their finding based on the belief that the LA was violating the 8th amendment?
 
Wasn't their finding based on the belief that the LA was violating the 8th amendment?
Well, that argument is used against the DP in general. We can debate whether the DP violates the 8th amendment, but once it is decided that the DP is constitutional, it is up to the states as to how it is applied.
 
Back
Top