PDA

View Full Version : Court rejects death penalty for raping children


RonDo
06-25-2008, 11:47
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.


Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080625/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_child_rape&printer=1;_ylt=Ak_yHXTMRoKqjckHpBws7oFAw_IE)

Seegtease
06-25-2008, 19:19
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."

That's BS. The problem is most likely awareness. If this were actually brought to many people's attention, they may be doing something about it.

Besides, if you can execute for murder, you should be able to execute for this. I would be inclined to believe the rape of a child to be much more severe and damaging to society and family than murdering a person. Of course, within reason. I mean I wouldn't be thinking you should be killed for having sex with a 17 year old or something. Obviously it'd have to be a little more flexible than the statutory rape laws.

Z
06-25-2008, 20:20
Actually if a guy raped a kid and goes to prison, he's going to get raped. Almost always, he's going to get raped.

Inmates hate child molesters/rapists and if he's not killed while incarcerated by the other criminals, they will definitely make sure his stay in the prison is a living hell.

I'm a believer in an eye for an eye so, in my opinion, the punishment definitely fits the crime. I'd rather he got his ass plowed multiple times in jail and have to live through it than just get the easy exit from a lethal injection.

Arainach
06-25-2008, 21:49
Capital punishment doesn't deter crime, so I see no reason why it should be necessary in this case. It's more expensive and less painful than imprisonment in this scenario anyhow.

Frozen
06-25-2008, 21:54
The things that come whith prision is good enufe.

Z
06-25-2008, 21:57
[Capital punishment]'s more expensiveHow is imprisonment less expensive than capital punishment (this isn't meant as a sarcastic question but rather a curious one)? I would have assumed the cost of feeding, clothing, housing, plumbing, and all that goes into a full incarceration would cost far more than a single shot to the arm.

Bloodcinder
06-25-2008, 21:59
I think Ary's talking about all the legal expenses that go into ensuring that it's okay to kill the convict.

Z
06-25-2008, 22:07
Ah. Maybe so, then. I'm not very up to date on how much a capital trial costs versus a life imprisonment trial.

Arainach
06-26-2008, 00:17
Yeah, it's trial costs the really hurt since any capital trial will usually go very high in appeals.

See, for example:

A nice summary which, while clearly biased, documents its claims well (http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html)
Scholarly Article (warning: PDF) (http://journals.gmu.edu/index.php/newvoices/article/view/13/28)

Gio Takahashi
06-26-2008, 01:02
This didn't surprise me, and is no generally a big deal. Better for the criminal to suffer for their consequences anyway.