Child rapists can't be executed, Supreme Court rules

Child rapists can't be executed, Supreme Court rules
CNN ^ | 2008-06-25

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that executing a Louisiana child rapist would be unconstitutional, concluding capital punishment is reserved for murderers.

The ruling was a 5-4 decision.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...

Personally, I would shoot him/her.

Louisiana law doesn't allow it. The SCOTUS insisted the state follow its own law.

If the state wanted him dead, they should have changed their law in advance.

Why blame the SCOTUS? Where are your moans about "judicial activism"?

TerryRC wrote:Personally, I would shoot him/her.

Louisiana law doesn't allow it. The SCOTUS insisted the state follow its own law.

If the state wanted him dead, they should have changed their law in advance.

Why blame the SCOTUS? Where are your moans about "judicial activism"?

Do you think that pedophilia chooses a person; or, does a pedophile choose pedophilia? (I believe that a person chooses pedophilia.)

Just answer the question, Keli.

Why not point the finger at Louisiana, who is really at fault? The SCOTUS made them follow their own law. When they gave Bush the election by making Florida follow its own law, you had no problem with it.

You just want to bash the SCOTUS by fair means or foul. Not sterling behavior for a man of god.

Terry, I do not see the defect you indicate regarding existing Louisiana law in the Court's written decision:

...We hold the EighthAmendment prohibits the death penalty for this offense. The Louisiana statute is unconstitutional...

...The Eighth Amendment… proscribes “all excessive punishments, as well as cruel and unusual punishments that may or may not be excessive.”...

...Whether this requirement has been fulfilled is determined not by the standards that prevailed when the Eighth Amendment was adopted in 1791 but by the norms that “currently prevail.”...

...Evolving standards of decency must embrace and express respect for the dignity of the person, and the punishment of criminals must conform to that rule...

...Based both on consensus and our own independent judgment, our holding is that a death sentence for one who raped but did not kill a child, and who did not intend to assist another in killing the child, is unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments...

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-343.pdf

ohio county wrote:Terry, I do not see the defect you indicate regarding existing Louisiana law in the Court's written decision:

...We hold the EighthAmendment prohibits the death penalty for this offense. The Louisiana statute is unconstitutional...

...The Eighth Amendment… proscribes “all excessive punishments, as well as cruel and unusual punishments that may or may not be excessive.”...

...Whether this requirement has been fulfilled is determined not by the standards that prevailed when the Eighth Amendment was adopted in 1791 but by the norms that “currently prevail.”...

...Evolving standards of decency must embrace and express respect for the dignity of the person, and the punishment of criminals must conform to that rule...

...Based both on consensus and our own independent judgment, our holding is that a death sentence for one who raped but did not kill a child, and who did not intend to assist another in killing the child, is unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments...

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-343.pdf

Picky, picky, picky...don't confuse TRC with the facts.

I have little doubt that TRC will respond factually and intelligently.

ohio county wrote:I have little doubt that TRC will respond factually and intelligently.

From little doubt acorns mighty doubt oaks grow.

I read a quote from Stevens where he now believes the death penalty is unconstitutional based on today's society.

I believe the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment that excessively punishes the convict's family. I have opposed it all of my life and it is one of my greatest hopes it will be banned in this country for good in my lifetime.

I oppose the death penalty on the grounds that if life is sacred then life is sacred.

ohio county wrote:I oppose the death penalty on the grounds that if life is sacred then life is sacred.

I support the death penalty because of its rehabilitative affect in the life of the murderer (he or she will never kill again!); and, the sense of justice and conclusion it gives to the family of the victim. I am sorry for the family of the executed; however, the murderer should have considered the effect his crime would have on all his victims--including his own family.

I'm conflicted on this issue. On principal, I believe in the death penalty. I'm all for an eye for an eye and I believe if you kill someone, then your right to life is lost. As far as I'm concerned, if someone is convicted of murder beyond all reasonable doubt, within a very short period of time, carry out the execution.

There is no cruel and inhumane anything. If anything, the way executions are carried out are as humane as possible when you're talking death, especially when the circumstances of the victims death is considered.

That's the way it should be. The problem is, that's not how it is. On average, a convicted felon sets on death row at an excalated cost over other prisioners for 10 to 15 years or more while appeal after appeal after appeal drags out. It's absurb of how long we as a society allow this to drag on.

I also have some concerns about the make up of those on death row. I am under no illusion that those on death row are overwhelming poor and likely a majority are black while those that escape death row have money and are likely white. That bothers me.

It's not that I'm against killing the poor and/or the black, it's that I believe we also as a nation be killing the rich and/or the white along with them.

And that's how I see it.

I realize that equating the value of a guilty life (a criminal) with an innocent life (the unborn) is a false choice. Nevertheless, I'm not going to get caught by the argument that I'm a hypocrite. Life is sacred.

Aaron wrote:I'm conflicted on this issue. On principal, I believe in the death penalty. I'm all for an eye for an eye and I believe if you kill someone, then your right to life is lost. As far as I'm concerned, if someone is convicted of murder beyond all reasonable doubt, within a very short period of time, carry out the execution.

There is no cruel and inhumane anything. If anything, the way executions are carried out are as humane as possible when you're talking death, especially when the circumstances of the victims death is considered.

That's the way it should be. The problem is, that's not how it is. On average, a convicted felon sets on death row at an excalated cost over other prisioners for 10 to 15 years or more while appeal after appeal after appeal drags out. It's absurb of how long we as a society allow this to drag on.

I also have some concerns about the make up of those on death row. I am under no illusion that those on death row are overwhelming poor and likely a majority are black while those that escape death row have money and are likely white. That bothers me.

It's not that I'm against killing the poor and/or the black, it's that I believe we also as a nation be killing the rich and/or the white along with them.

And that's how I see it.

That's a pretty good commentary that applies to some of the internal conflicts I feel about some of it as well, Aaron.

I disagree. I don't believe this nation should be in the business of killing anyone.

While I don't believe in god, I don't believe individuals or the state should play god.

ohio county wrote:I realize that equating the value of a guilty life (a criminal) with an innocent life (the unborn) is a false choice. Nevertheless, I'm not going to get caught by the argument that I'm a hypocrite. Life is sacred.

If you could tell me what an unborn baby has done worthy of capital punishment, I might change my position.

If there is no God Stephanie, how are we playing one?

There is no Easter Bunny either, yet for years my dear friend Cilla played the Easter Bunny & posed for pictures with the kiddos at the Rhode Island Mall.

Stephanie wrote:There is no Easter Bunny either, yet for years my dear friend Cilla played the Easter Bunny & posed for pictures with the kiddos at the Rhode Island Mall.

What if God doesn't believe in Stephanie? Would that mean that she doesn't exist? Then who started gazzfriends? Linda Redtail?

Armon Ayers wrote:

Stephanie wrote:There is no Easter Bunny either, yet for years my dear friend Cilla played the Easter Bunny & posed for pictures with the kiddos at the Rhode Island Mall.

What if God doesn't believe in Stephanie? Would that mean that she doesn't exist? Then who started gazzfriends? Linda Redtail?

In that event I think this is all LindaRedtail's nightmare!

You didn't answer the question Stephanie. You Franked it.

I did answer your question.

Some people have notions of what the Easter Bunny does. He (or she) brings stuffed rabbits and baskets of marshmallow peeps & chocolates to good little boys & girls.

My son is within days of losing his two upper front teeth. He thinks a fairy is going to leave him some more cash under his pillow in exchange for those teeth.

People have notions of what "god" does. God is the giver of life. God is the judge & jury of our immortal souls. While I don't believe that, I think it is within the realm of possibility. Either way, I don't think individuals or governments should take it upon themselves to play that role.

It is not man playing God. It is man enforceing man's laws. As I said, the concept, I agree with. My concerns lie in the equality of the sentence and the length of time it takes to carry it out.

Were there a set standard for all that are convicted of murder to receive the sentence and the length of time it took to carry the sentence out, I would have problem with it at all.