In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the death penalty is Constitutionally impermissible for raping children.
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.
I haven’t read the decision, so my initial response may be wrong, but I think I side with the conservative four on this one. My personal problems with the death penalty have nothing to do with the severity of killing a criminal; but rather with the problems of proof leading up to the imposition of the sentence. Our system is imperfect, and the death penalty is irrevocable. Theoretically, some people deserve to die for their actions. In practice, it’s difficult to identify those people with sufficient accuracy.
As far as the proportionality of the punishment to the crime, I can certainly imagine scenarios where the harm to society of raping a child is worse than the harm of a murder.
“A Time to Kill” is a great Grisham novel that covers this topic. It is not about whether or not the state could/should kill a child rapist, but a story about a black father who chooses to kill the two white rednecks who bound and brutally raped his young daughter; and about whether or not it is okay to seek vigilante justice.
If you can be certain someone raped a child, I too would vote to revoke their breathing privileges.
Reading the facts of a murder case I’ve often thought, “KILL ‘EM!”
But then, reflecting on the over-all impact on society and the legal system, I still lean toward the view that once the wrongdoer is in custody they are no longer a threat; and therefore, killing them would be murder. The fact that it’s a govermental act only make me more uncomfortable.
So, sure, some criminals probably deserve to die, but that doesn’t make killing them good policy. It’s only good policy if killing them, on balance, makes the world better. I’m not convinced that it does.
Senator Obama disagrees with the courts decision also and sides with the minority opinion as do I.One thing is for sure these pedophile types never stop and will repeat offend if given the chance.
I’m against capital punishment on principle,but it’s impossible to put this heinous act into any perspective except legal precedent. My question is that if capital punishment is applied to one rape case,would that open up an argument for other rape cases and then the new argument would be ‘which rape cases are heinous enough for capital punishment?.Could this be the reasoning of the SC?
I have seen one reasoned argument against capital punishment in these cases – that it would remove any incentive for the perpetrator to keep the victim alive, and so it might result in more murders of children.
I’m not sure I find that fully convincing, but thought it was worth taking into consideration. I think this is a matter for the states to determine, in any case.
Parker-Didn’t think about that one. I can see a perp saying, “Well, if I’m going to get the needle, I might as well go all the way.”
I could go either way on this, just sitting here at my desk typing about it.
But whenever I watch “Lockup” on MSNBC, I keep thinking society would be better off if we just quit feeding a lot of those guys. They seem to have too much time on their hands, and not a lot of interest in putting it to good use.