Supreme Court Strikes Down Death Penalty for Child Rapists

[TDmvp]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,371353,00.html

The Supreme Court has struck down a Louisiana law that allows the execution of people convicted of a raping a child.

In a 5-4 vote, the court says the law allowing the death penalty to be imposed in cases of child rape violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.



BOOOOOOO
BRING them to my house i'll show them cruel and unusual punishment ...

[W*GS]

Good. Time to end capital punishment forever.

[Bronco Jamus]

How about the cruel and and unusal punishment brought on by a lifetime of psycological damage done to a child?

[enjolras]

How about the cruel and and unusal punishment brought on by a lifetime of psycological damage done to a child?

I guess we should put bullies to death as well? What about those girls that attacked their classmate and put it on YouTube? Surely that takes a psychological toll. Hell, I had a neighbor who was the victim of a home invasion where they tied her up and locked her in her bathroom... lets put those guys to death too.

Maybe more to the point, my wife was raped at the age of 15. Its terrible, but she seems to have come through OK.

Raping a child is terrible, but it's not life ending. That 'lifetime' of damage is repairable with the right support and mental strength. We should punish the rapists severely, but death just isn't commiserate with the crime. That's not justice, its vengeance. It seems like a great many people in America are having a lot of trouble telling (or caring about) the difference these days.

[Denver Crush]

THese mother****ers should get more time then they are currently getting now. Hell, non violent drug offenders get more time than a rapist or other sex offenders for the most part. Talk about ****ed up priorities.

[TDmvp]

they should @$$ rape them with a bat.... and then give them life ... if i can't get me some dead rapist i want some probed rapist ...

[Bronco Jamus]

I guess we should put bullies to death as well? What about those girls that attacked their classmate and put it on YouTube? Surely that takes a psychological toll. Hell, I had a neighbor who was the victim of a home invasion where they tied her up and locked her in her bathroom... lets put those guys to death too.

Maybe more to the point, my wife was raped at the age of 15. Its terrible, but she seems to have come through OK.

Raping a child is terrible, but it's not life ending. That 'lifetime' of damage is repairable with the right support and mental strength. We should punish the rapists severely, but death just isn't commiserate with the crime. That's not justice, its vengeance. It seems like a great many people in America are having a lot of trouble telling (or caring about) the difference these days.


Come back if this has been performed on your child and tell us how you feel about it. These "people" need to be removed one way or another. At the very least they should never see the light of day again. Just because it doesn't appear to have adversly affected your wife doesn't mean that it's the same in the case of every victim. It's something that children should not have to endure. And if these "people" are released back into society there is the massive chance they'll do it again. We should not tolerate it nor should these criminals be able to induldge on society's weak approach to it. Like anything, if we take away the consequences then we invite this trouble to become even more pervasive.

[cutthemdown]

I thought most people thought the Supreme Court too conservative? If you want a liberal court then you have to expect decisions like this.

[TexanBob]

My only problem with the death penalty for child rapists is that I would need to be convinced by physical evidence that the act took place, not anyone's eyewitness testimony. I feel the same way about the death penalty for murderers. There needs to be physical evidence, not just eyewitnesses, that tell me <i>this</i> guy did it and it couldn't have been anyone else.

But once that's established, fry 'em. Society is better off without them.

I like the way Texas does it. I know the libs single out Texas because they perform so many executions but in order to qualify for the death penalty there, you either have to be convicted of *two* capital crimes or be convicted of committing a felony while in the act of committing a capital crime.

In other words, if you commit one murder only, you can't be executed. But if you commit multiple murders or if you commit murder while in the act of commiting a robbery or a rape, etc, only then are you eligible for the death penalty.

There should be a high threshhold for reaching a death penalty sentence but I strongly believe the death penalty should still exist.

I think, by this decision, the Supreme Court will increase the number of people who will take justice into their own hands.

[Smiling Assassin27]

as someone who believes the death penalty is essentially obsolete in just about every case, i approve of the decision but can only shake my head at kennedy's opinion.

being ruled by unelected philosopher kings is utterly repulsive.

[Bronco Jamus]

being ruled by unelected philosopher kings is utterly repulsive.

It really does come off that way doesn't it? Cruel is subjective.

[BroncoInferno]

I thought most people thought the Supreme Court too conservative? If you want a liberal court then you have to expect decisions like this.


I find it astonishing that conservatives--who in most every other sphere bemoan handing power over to the gov't (or at least claim to)--support the gov't having the ULTIMATE power possible over it's citizenry...the right to kill them.

[BroncoInferno]

I think, by this decision, the Supreme Court will increase the number of people who will take justice into their own hands.

??? Executions for anything other than murder have not taken place or been allowed in over 40 years. Given that fact, how in the world do you conclude that this will increase vigilante crimes?

[epicSocialism4tw]

I'm not a fan of the death penalty.

[Northman]

I guess we should put bullies to death as well?

Would you really miss them? ROFL!

[cutthemdown]

I find it astonishing that conservatives--who in most every other sphere bemoan handing power over to the gov't (or at least claim to)--support the gov't having the ULTIMATE power possible over it's citizenry...the right to kill them.

I don't support the death penalty because it's too expensive. Cheaper just to give them life in prison from what I have heard. All I said was if the court goes more liberal you will have more decisions like this. Just an observation but go ahead and be astonished.

[enjolras]

Come back if this has been performed on your child and tell us how you feel about it. These "people" need to be removed one way or another. At the very least they should never see the light of day again. Just because it doesn't appear to have adversly affected your wife doesn't mean that it's the same in the case of every victim. It's something that children should not have to endure. And if these "people" are released back into society there is the massive chance they'll do it again. We should not tolerate it nor should these criminals be able to induldge on society's weak approach to it. Like anything, if we take away the consequences then we invite this trouble to become even more pervasive.

Come back when you understand the American system of Justice. Again, your talking about vengeance. The last person who should hand out punishments is a victims relative (particularly a father). Justice is about what is best for society. Justice is not blinded by emotion.

I hardly see how our approach is 'weak'. There are a lot of alternatives, each incredibly penal, that don't involve killing another human being.

[enjolras]

THese mother****ers should get more time then they are currently getting now. Hell, non violent drug offenders get more time than a rapist or other sex offenders for the most part. Talk about ****ed up priorities.

Citation?

I'm guessing that is not at all anywhere close to being true.

[enjolras]

Just because it doesn't appear to have adversly affected your wife doesn't mean that it's the same in the case of every victim. It's something that children should not have to endure. And if these "people" are released back into society there is the massive chance they'll do it again. We should not tolerate it nor should these criminals be able to induldge on society's weak approach to it. Like anything, if we take away the consequences then we invite this trouble to become even more pervasive.

No where did I argue that kids should have to endure it at all. Its a sick crime, which should have severe penalties attached. Just not death. There are still consequences. The reality is, given the nature of the crimes involved, executions would serve as a very minimal deterrent. Child rapists, almost by definition, are hardly a rational lot. From what I've seen and read it seems like they themselves are generally deeply traumatized or completely bat$*** crazy. Not a group that's going to be deterred by most anything. Putting them to death only serves to assuage the emotional urges for violent retribution of the masses. America is better than that.

[Bronco Jamus]

Come back when you understand the American system of Justice. Again, your talking about vengeance. The last person who should hand out punishments is a victims relative (particularly a father). Justice is about what is best for society. Justice is not blinded by emotion.

I hardly see how our approach is 'weak'. There are a lot of alternatives, each incredibly penal, that don't involve killing another human being.

It has nothing to do with understanding our justice system, and everything to do with ruining someone's life forever. Like I said tell us how you feel if this happened to your child?

[Bronco Jamus]

America is better than that.

And we're better off without them.

[BroncoInferno]

It has nothing to do with understanding our justice system, and everything to do with ruining someone's life forever. Like I said tell us how you feel if this happened to your child?

I guess the whole point of his post went flying over your head. In our criminal justice system, justice is designed to be meted out by IMPARTIAL citizens. An angry parent is the very LAST person who should be consulted on the appropriate punishment for an offender. How the parent "feels" is, and ought to be, irrelevant in terms of establishing sentences. It's vengenance, plain and simple.

Also, as enjolras pointed out, child sex offenders are not a bunch a logicians, and are not likely to be deterred from offending by threat of execution. On the contrary, there would be greater motivation to actually kill the victim. After all, if the punishment for the sexual offense is exactly same as murder, the offender has NOTHING to lose and everything to gain by permantly silencing his victim. Far from deterring offenders, it would probably result in an increase of victims being murdered.

[Northman]

I guess the whole point of his post went flying over your head. In our criminal justice system, justice is designed to be meted out by IMPARTIAL citizens. An angry parent is the very LAST person who should be consulted on the appropriate punishment for an offender. How the parent "feels" is, and ought to be, irrelevant in terms of establishing sentences. It's vengenance, plain and simple.

Also, as enjolras pointed out, child sex offenders are not a bunch a logicians, and are not likely to be deterred from offending by threat of execution. On the contrary, there would be greater motivation to actually kill the victim. After all, if the punishment for the sexual offense is exactly same as murder, the offender has NOTHING to lose and everything to gain by permantly silencing his victim. Far from deterring offenders, it would probably result in an increase of victims being murdered.


So, in your opinion its ok if they serve a couple of years and go back on the street to rape or molest someone again? Just because you add murder to the penalty plate does not mean that they wont get caught if they do murder their victim. They wont be deterred one way or another so why not go for the maximum penalty and end any chance of them repeating the offense. I would rather they be put down than back on the street to harm more people.

[BroncoInferno]

So, in your opinion its ok if they serve a couple of years and go back on the street to rape or molest someone again? Just because you add murder to the penalty plate does not mean that they wont get caught if they do murder their victim. They wont be deterred one way or another so why not go for the maximum penalty and end any chance of them repeating the offense. I would rather they be put down than back on the street to harm more people.

Where did I say I was OK with them only serving a couple of years? I would have no problem with life without parole as a punishment.

And, no, it does not mean they won't get caught if they murder the victim. What it does mean is that there is no reason for them not to kill the victim, because they face the death penalty either way. Why not silence them for good? Even if you get caught, you're no worse off if the death penalty is applicable either way.

[Northman]

Where did I say I was OK with them only serving a couple of years? I would have no problem with life without parole as a punishment.




That will never happen. Most crimes when it comes to rape or molestation rarely meet the punishment that is deserved. Some rape cases the guy is out in 5 years.

[BroncoInferno]

That will never happen. Most crimes when it comes to rape or molestation rarely meet the punishment that is deserved. Some rape cases the guy is out in 5 years.

Instead of going to the extreme of the death penalty, why not increase length of sentences? Why do we need to go to the absolute extreme?

[enjolras]

Will SOMEONE please cite some evidence that these child rapists are getting extremely short and abbreviated sentences? Until then, stop saying it.

[TailgateNut]

THese mother****ers should get more time then they are currently getting now. Hell, non violent drug offenders get more time than a rapist or other sex offenders for the most part. Talk about ****ed up priorities.


Hit the nail square.

The irreparable damage done deserves no less than life without parole or death. Maybe then they'll think twice before commiting these heinous, and unexcusable crimes.

[Bronco Jamus]

I guess the whole point of his post went flying over your head. In our criminal justice system, justice is designed to be meted out by IMPARTIAL citizens. An angry parent is the very LAST person who should be consulted on the appropriate punishment for an offender. How the parent "feels" is, and ought to be, irrelevant in terms of establishing sentences. It's vengenance, plain and simple.

Also, as enjolras pointed out, child sex offenders are not a bunch a logicians, and are not likely to be deterred from offending by threat of execution. On the contrary, there would be greater motivation to actually kill the victim. After all, if the punishment for the sexual offense is exactly same as murder, the offender has NOTHING to lose and everything to gain by permantly silencing his victim. Far from deterring offenders, it would probably result in an increase of victims being murdered.

Play semantics all you want, it's ridding society of a problem. Like I asked, tell us how you would feel if it were your daughter that got violated?

[Northman]

Instead of going to the extreme of the death penalty, why not increase length of sentences? Why do we need to go to the absolute extreme?


Why not? What good does it serve to have a rapist or molester sitting in prison for 50 years or more? For them to better themselves? For them to get free bed and board? Reform and rehab? Why do they deserve that? And even with all that if they get out and repeat the offense than we just allowed them to do that by not putting them to death. Sure, if by some chance the death penalty gets added to those kinds of crimes murder could go up (but thats just in hypothetical theory anyway ), but it would also spare possible future episodes of rape and molestation. Just because enjolras wife had no problem getting over her rape does not mean that she speaks for the rest who have a lifetime of emotional issues from those episodes. There are many victims whose lives have been a struggle dealing with such episodes so in a way, they are dead already as they have a hard time coping with it.

[Northman]

Will SOMEONE please cite some evidence that these child rapists are getting extremely short and abbreviated sentences? Until then, stop saying it.


Less than half of those arrested for rape are convicted, 54% of all rape prosecutions end in either dismissal or acquittal. The conviction rate for those arrested for murder is 69% and all other felons is 54%. (The Response to Rape: Detours on the Road to Equal Justice) 21% of convicted rapists are never sentenced to jail or prison time, and 24% receive time in local jail which means that they spend an average of less than 11 months behind bars. (The Response to Rape: Detours on the Road to Equal Justice)

This analysis only went up to 1996, but i doubt it has changed all that much in 10 years.
http://sa.rochester.edu/masa/stats.php

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Play semantics all you want, it's ridding society of a problem. Like I asked, tell us how you would feel if it were your daughter that got violated?

You can't let your personal emotions be taken into account. I agree with the court in this case because i dont think the punishment fits the crime (even though its absolutely deplorable). It also would depend on how many times it happened, what the actual act was...etc.

As far as the perils of a "liberal" court, I'll gladly accept rulings where they decide that the government doesnt have too much power over human rights. A court that protects the constitutional amendments and a court that doesn't tell people what they can and can't do with their bodies.

[W*GS]

It has nothing to do with understanding our justice system, and everything to do with ruining someone's life forever. Like I said tell us how you feel if this happened to your child?

How would you feel if your son was incorrectly convicted of such a crime and was put to death?

[SonOfLe-loLang]

How would you feel if your son was incorrectly convicted of such a crime and was put to death?

i cant believe we agree on something

[W*GS]

i cant believe we agree on something

I'm a libertarian, and opposed to abuses of state power. Capital punishment gives the State too much power, and innocent people have been murdered. That's unconscionable.

[Northman]

You can't let your personal emotions be taken into account. I agree with the court in this case because i dont think the punishment fits the crime (even though its absolutely deplorable).

Explain how it doesnt fit the crime?

A court that protects the constitutional amendments and a court that doesn't tell people what they can and can't do with their bodies.

Yet, protects those who violate other people's bodies and rights. Yea, that makes sense.

::)

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Explain how it doesnt fit the crime?



Yet, protects those who violate other people's bodies and rights. Yea, that makes sense.

::)

How is not putting them to death protecting them exactly? It can be argued that spending a life time in jail is just as bad anyway.

[SonOfLe-loLang]

I'm a libertarian, and opposed to abuses of state power. Capital punishment gives the State too much power, and innocent people have been murdered. That's unconscionable.

This is true. I do appreciate your consistency if nothing else

[Bronco Jamus]

You can't let your personal emotions be taken into account. I agree with the court in this case because i dont think the punishment fits the crime (even though its absolutely deplorable). It also would depend on how many times it happened, what the actual act was...etc.


The punishment more than fits the crime, IMO. It's a lifetime worth of psychological damage. Again, we are talking about a child raped under the age of 12. But as you allude to, it's a case by case basis.

[Bronco Jamus]

How would you feel if your son was incorrectly convicted of such a crime and was put to death?

If my son was proven in a court of law to be guilty he would still have his appeals and DNA evidence would have to show that he did infact commit the act. If he was innocent, then he most likely wouldn't be convicted based on the statistics posted earlier. But if he were truly innocent and convicted I would of course be upset and try to stop it at every turn. Wouldn't be any different if he was wrongly convicted of murder and received the same sentence.

[Bronco Jamus]

How is not putting them to death protecting them exactly? It can be argued that spending a life time in jail is just as bad anyway.

It's closure. It's knowing that the person will never hurt you or anyone else ever again.

[BroncoInferno]

If my son was proven in a court of law to be guilty he would still have his appeals and DNA evidence would have to show that he did infact commit the act. If he was innocent, then he most likely wouldn't be convicted based on the statistics posted earlier. But if he were truly innocent and convicted I would of course be upset and try to stop it at every turn. Wouldn't be any different if he was wrongly convicted of murder and received the same sentence.

Well, let's suppose your child was offended, and someone arrested, tried, convicted and executed for that crime. After basking in the glory of your achieved vengence, evidence later proves the now-executed man innocent. How would you feel?

[Bob]

THese mother****ers should get more time then they are currently getting now. Hell, non violent drug offenders get more time than a rapist or other sex offenders for the most part. Talk about ****ed up priorities.

Yup...you are right.

I guess the logic for the Surprime Court was saying that killing Child rapists is not equal to teh crime that they committed? How about we put all child rapist in the general population until they are dead -- and turn a blind eye to what happens to them...

[Bob]

[QUOTE=enjolras;1991536]I guess we should put bullies to death as well? What about those girls that attacked their classmate and put it on YouTube? Surely that takes a psychological toll. Hell, I had a neighbor who was the victim of a home invasion where they tied her up and locked her in her bathroom... lets put those guys to death too.

Not equal, this is perhaps the most stupid comparison I have ever seen on the Mane -- and that is saying something.

[Bronco Jamus]

Well, let's suppose your child was offended, and someone arrested, tried, convicted and executed for that crime. After basking in the glory of your achieved vengence, evidence later proves the now-executed man innocent. How would you feel?


Even though you won't answer my question, I will still answer yours despite your adjectives about glory. I am very sure I would feel terribile no matter what had occurred. But it's not about me. It's about my daughter.

I hear your point though. DNA evidence is going to show that this happened. That can't be faked. And I am all for adding a DNA clause to an amendment. In this senario, we would have a minimum amount of DNA quantity to be allowed as evidence. An amount that could not be faked. Plus, all the other evidence there would be and the subjective nature of a jury. There has to be no reasonable doubt. We aren't talking about adult rapes. We are talking about children under the age of 12. It's hard to prove and always has been.

But,

Kennedy is right. It's not the same as murder. It's worse. It's a lifetime of damaged relationships. It endures and has the chance to cause a host of other types of negative behaviors for the victim. In my opinion, we cannot tolerate this as a society despite the tough decision to put them to death. It's a conseqence that will eliminate some of the problem.

[Bob]

Even though you won't answer my question, I will still answer yours despite your adjectives about glory. I am very sure I would feel terribile no matter what had occurred. But it's not about me. It's about my daughter.

I hear your point though. DNA evidence is going to show that this happened. That can't be faked. And I am all for adding a DNA clause to an amendment. In this senario, we would have a minimum amount of DNA quantity to be allowed as evidence. An amount that could not be faked. Plus, all the other evidence there would be and the subjective nature of a jury. There has to be no reasonable doubt. We aren't talking about adult rapes. We are talking about children under the age of 12. It's hard to prove and always has been.

But,

Kennedy is right. It's not the same as murder. It's worse. It's a lifetime of damaged relationships. It endures and has the chance to cause a host of other types of negative behaviors for the victim. In my opinion, we cannot tolerate this as a society despite the tough decision to put them to death. It's a conseqence that will eliminate some of the problem.

Wonderful, thoughtful Post. Some folks that are raped will find a path to healing...like has been augued here, but there are some that can find a way to forgive those that murdered a loved one -- people should not have punishment reduced becuase some people are very resilliant. Death is very much equal to the horrific act of child rape.
The problem with some is that they care about the right of criminals more than victims. In my mind when someone does this type of thing (rape) they have forfitted their right to live, and I am not interested in rehabbing that person (as I dont think that happens in the vaste magority of cases anyway.) Its not about revenge, it is about justice and protecting future generations.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Capital punishment is the answer of an uncivilized society (murder the murderer in most cases). Until man advances past this barbaric act (melt out as justice) man will exist as just another animal (self proclaimed as superior) here on Earth.

[spdirty]

Once again, Kennedy is the most powerful man in America. This is more or less like a 1 person court.

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Once again, Kennedy is the most powerful man in America. This is more or less like a 1 person court.

You act surprised! He's the swing vote...though most of their decisions are actually not 5-4...but a good amount are.

[spdirty]

You act surprised! He's the swing vote...though most of their decisions are actually not 5-4...but a good amount are.

I'm not surprised, just...I don't know. Tomorrow they are suppose to decide whether the 2nd Amendment is Constitutional in DC and I guaruntee you at least 4 people on the SC will say it isn't.

[Spider]

Killing child molesters hey ..so where is the line drawn ?
18 year old boy romancing the sheets with a 15 year old ..Death ?
girl sneaks into a bar with a fake ID , some poor bastard thinks he scored .....she turns out ot be 13 ........ Death ? Some of you idiots need to think

[TexanBob]

I want to know what sort of barbaric society doesn't see life in prison without parole as cruel and unusual pinishment? You're going to condemn a man to rot in jail for the rest of his life, taking up space, oxygen, food and public resources for the next 50 years while doing absolutely nothing productive for society the rest of his life? What's the purpose of that? Better to just off the guy and hope he does better in the next life.

Otherwise, you get freaks like Charles Manson having orgies funded by your tax dollars because states like California are too chicken**** to off the clown. So, how many of you would love to have seen Timothy McVeigh coming up for parole every couple of years and the families of the victims having to relive his cowardly act over and over again at parole hearings rather than just putting the bastard in the ground and moving on?

[Spider]

I want to know what sort of barbaric society doesn't see life in prison without parole as cruel and unusual pinishment? You're going to condemn a man to rot in jail for the rest of his life, taking up space, oxygen, food and public resources for the next 50 years while doing absolutely nothing productive for society the rest of his life? What's the purpose of that? Better to just off the guy and hope he does better in the next life.

Otherwise, you get freaks like Charles Manson having orgies funded by your tax dollars because states like California are too chicken**** to off the clown. So, how many of you would love to have seen Timothy McVeigh coming up for parole every couple of years and the families of the victims having to relive his cowardly act over and over again at parole hearings rather than just putting the bastard in the ground and moving on?
what I want to know is why are you allowed to post without parental supervision ........

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I want to know what sort of barbaric society doesn't see life in prison without parole as cruel and unusual pinishment? It is severe but not barbaric. It also leaves room for mistakes to be corrected (wrong person convicted). And many, not all murderers convicted with no possible chance of parole live in tiny cells with only limited exposure to the outside every week. Their lives are living hell but they took another human life.

Most studies show that trying to murder a human for murdering a human is more expensive than incarceration for the rest of their lives.

But the point is who has the right to murder another human for any reason in the name of justice?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I guess we should put bullies to death as well? What about those girls that attacked their classmate and put it on YouTube?

GTF outa here!

Surely you're not trying to compare a bully to a child rapist?

[kappys]

Killing child molesters hey ..so where is the line drawn ?
18 year old boy romancing the sheets with a 15 year old ..Death ?
girl sneaks into a bar with a fake ID , some poor bastard thinks he scored .....she turns out ot be 13 ........ Death ? Some of you idiots need to think

You telling the story of how you romanced your wife again? Ah memories.

[cutthemdown]

Killing child molesters hey ..so where is the line drawn ?
18 year old boy romancing the sheets with a 15 year old ..Death ?
girl sneaks into a bar with a fake ID , some poor bastard thinks he scored .....she turns out ot be 13 ........ Death ? Some of you idiots need to think

Rape is different then 2 people consenting. Child molestation is a crime because kids not old enough to consent. It's still not the same however as forcible rape of a child. I don't think anyone advocating we kill over statutory rape.

I tend to agree with you though that killing people over sex crimes is a dangerous slope. Women lie. Kids lie. I think life in prison is bad enough and keeps us just as safe from the animals.

[Bob]

Capital punishment is the answer of an uncivilized society (murder the murderer in most cases). Until man advances past this barbaric act (melt out as justice) man will exist as just another animal (self proclaimed as superior) here on Earth.

I think I just threw-up in my mouth...

The "Just Imagine" :peace: mantra messin with reality again, and getting little children raped this time...

"Imagine all the people living for today" is problematic if one cares more about the rights of monsters than innocent children and breaking the perpetuating cycle.

[cutthemdown]

I don't even see it as punishment or justice but rather keeping them away from us so they can't do it again. If I was a victim then I'm sure I would want more the punishment side. If we even execute one person who wasn't guilty then we have done the worst imaginable crime to an american that is possible. Taken away all of his chance to pursue happiness.

With the fact we get reversals based on DNA, people finally telling the truth, prosecutorial misconduct, etc makes me feel it's better to get rid of the death penalty altogether.

Prison reform would have to go along with that however.

[Bob]

Killing child molesters hey ..so where is the line drawn ?
18 year old boy romancing the sheets with a 15 year old ..Death ?
girl sneaks into a bar with a fake ID , some poor bastard thinks he scored .....she turns out ot be 13 ........ Death ? Some of you idiots need to think

Like some have posted already...

I want the guy who rapes the little child dead. Not sure where the line should be drawn perfectly, but far enough back so the circumstances you outline above would be in an all-together category. The other idea of DNA proof makes sense. But yes, the guy who rapes a 5 year old should = death. What is the percentage of those who would do such a thing would ever be "rehabbed?" And if they can never be trusted again, and with limited funds we need to keep track of them (more money) and if their presence on earth is likely to result in more children being violated, I am not interested in protecting the monster's rights at tax payer's expense. At what point do we do anything to protect kids? I say, this is this line! They cross it -- they die. Part of the logic the court used to say that was illegal is that there were too many damn freaks running around (I think they used a bit more tact however.) I think it would be very hard to not enforce the death penality yourself, if someone violated your child

[cutthemdown]

Bob but life in prison is just as effective at protecting society from that person. Seems easier and cheaper to go life in prison because death penalty has so many appeals. Also the chance the person could be innocent is a big deal to me. Kids often make things up or dont remember things correctly.

[Bob]

Rape is different then 2 people consenting. Child molestation is a crime because kids not old enough to consent. It's still not the same however as forcible rape of a child. I don't think anyone advocating we kill over statutory rape.

I tend to agree with you though that killing people over sex crimes is a dangerous slope. Women lie. Kids lie. I think life in prison is bad enough and keeps us just as safe from the animals.

Doesnt DNA level burden of proof make for a much smaller set of folks who would be killed?

[Northman]

Bob but life in prison is just as effective at protecting society from that person. Seems easier and cheaper to go life in prison because death penalty has so many appeals. Also the chance the person could be innocent is a big deal to me. Kids often make things up or dont remember things correctly.

But they dont get life in prison and right now its nothing more than a slap on the wrist. And the chance of someone being innocent is very small to begin with. With the type of forensics we have now the likelihood is far less. Most of the people being released now is the result of forensics that they didnt have back when they were prosecuted to begin with.

[Bob]

It is severe but not barbaric. It also leaves room for mistakes to be corrected (wrong person convicted). And many, not all murderers convicted with no possible chance of parole live in tiny cells with only limited exposure to the outside every week. Their lives are living hell but they took another human life.

Most studies show that trying to murder a human for murdering a human is more expensive than incarceration for the rest of their lives.

But the point is who has the right to murder another human for any reason in the name of justice?

Society has the right -- always has. Regarding cost, if we allow for endless trials and re-trails it clogs up the courts and jacks up the prices. I believe in the right one has to appeal one's case -- given real new evidence -- but think we may be going too far in some cases.

[Bob]

Bob but life in prison is just as effective at protecting society from that person. Seems easier and cheaper to go life in prison because death penalty has so many appeals. Also the chance the person could be innocent is a big deal to me. Kids often make things up or dont remember things correctly.

Change the law so that death for rape could only be on the table for the cases where DNA proof is part of it -- remove the doubt. Again change the law so that the monster cant have endless appeals based on what? We assume that just becuase we do something moronic, that we HAVE to continue to do things that way. By reducing the number of games that lawyers get paid to play the process is sped up, and thus the time I have to pay for the guy to eat balloney sandwhiches. I get that all of this talk is horrific, but the COST is SO huge for kids, that I can only feel so much pity for the monster... I honestly feel that the process IF DNA were part of it were included that more monsters would get off, than would reach that level of proof ... so there it is.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Society has the right -- always has.Has the right to murder in the name of justice, "to play God", why? And do you know which countries are left in the world that murder it's own people in the name of justice? We are in fine company, right?

Regarding cost, if we allow for endless trials and re-trails it clogs up the courts and jacks up the prices. I believe in the right one has to appeal one's case -- given real new evidence -- but think we may be going too far in some cases. No, going too far is executing (murdering) another human as punishment or justice for committing a crime.
Change the law so that death for rape could only be on the table for the cases where DNA proof is part of it -- remove the doubt. .Impossible, as long as humans (emotions) are involved, there is always a possibility of doubt.
I think I just threw-up in my mouth...
The "Just Imagine" :peace: mantra messin with reality again, and getting little children raped this time...
"Imagine all the people living for today" is problematic if one cares more about the rights of monsters than innocent children and breaking the perpetuating cycle.This reeks of ignorance and platitudes. People are being put in jail for life in some states for possession (not distribution) of kiddie porn on their PCs.

If someone raped my child and I got to them first, there life would be over. There is a difference between a society systematically murdering their own citizens and that situation.

[TailgateNut]

I have an answer for both "sides of the argument".

Castrate the bastard and place his "jewels" into a freezer for reattachment in the event he is found innocent at a later date.

Happy?

[BroncoInferno]

Change the law so that death for rape could only be on the table for the cases where DNA proof is part of it -- remove the doubt. Again change the law so that the monster cant have endless appeals based on what? We assume that just becuase we do something moronic, that we HAVE to continue to do things that way. By reducing the number of games that lawyers get paid to play the process is sped up, and thus the time I have to pay for the guy to eat balloney sandwhiches. I get that all of this talk is horrific, but the COST is SO huge for kids, that I can only feel so much pity for the monster... I honestly feel that the process IF DNA were part of it were included that more monsters would get off, than would reach that level of proof ... so there it is.

The threat of the death penalty will do nothing but increase the number of children murdered by their violators. As I mentioned earlier, if the punishment is the same either way, they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by ensuring their victim remains silent--permantly. You won't be protecting the kids--more of them will simply be murdered.

[Spider]

You telling the story of how you romanced your wife again? Ah memories.

you can kiss my mother ****ing ass .........

[Spider]

Rape is different then 2 people consenting. Child molestation is a crime because kids not old enough to consent. It's still not the same however as forcible rape of a child. I don't think anyone advocating we kill over statutory rape.

I tend to agree with you though that killing people over sex crimes is a dangerous slope. Women lie. Kids lie. I think life in prison is bad enough and keeps us just as safe from the animals.

So a kid has sex then screams rape when she is caught so not to get into trouble , it is ok to put the man to death ...... forcible rape is ugly no doubts about it as a father of 3 girls , one of my worst nightmares .... If one of my angles gets raped ...Personaly instead of death I want 10 minutes alone with the rapist in a room ........ mother ****er wont rape anyone again and it will save tax payers a bundle

[Spider]

Like some have posted already...

I want the guy who rapes the little child dead. want in one hand **** in the other tell me which one fills up faster .......


Not sure where the line should be drawn perfectly, but far enough back so the circumstances you outline above would be in an all-together category. The other idea of DNA proof makes sense. But yes, the guy who rapes a 5 year old should = death. What is the percentage of those who would do such a thing would ever be "rehabbed?" And if they can never be trusted again, and with limited funds we need to keep track of them (more money) and if their presence on earth is likely to result in more children being violated, I am not interested in protecting the monster's rights at tax payer's expense. At what point do we do anything to protect kids? I say, this is this line! They cross it -- they die. Part of the logic the court used to say that was illegal is that there were too many damn freaks running around (I think they used a bit more tact however.) I think it would be very hard to not enforce the death penality yourself, if someone violated your child if you are not sure , then err on the side of justice .NOT VENGENCE

[sisterhellfyre]

I'm not surprised, just...I don't know. Tomorrow they are suppose to decide whether the 2nd Amendment is Constitutional in DC and I guaruntee you at least 4 people on the SC will say it isn't.

Good call, spdirty. The vote was 5-4 again.

Regards,
m.

[spdirty]

Hell yeah Bobby!!!!!! And hell yeah to Nick Gautreaux for sponsoring the bill!

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/21656994.html?index=1&c=y

Jindal signs chemical castration bill

<!--startclickprintexclude--><!--Beginning of sidebar content -NGS 02/07/08--><!--If the content item has a data box specified to appear above its photo, show it. -NGS 02/06/08--><!--Display the content item's photo(s), if existent -NGS 02/06/08--><!--Display a Google map, if coordinates were entered in the content item. -NGS 04/29/08--><!--Display columnist info, if story is in a columnist's section; otherwise, clear the photo caption floats -NGS 02/08/08-->
<!--If the content item has a data box specified to appear below its photo, show it -NGS 02/06/08--><!--If there are any items in the story's "Links beneath digest field", display them -NGS 02/06/08--><!--Display related content. -NGS 02/22/08--><!--Show the sidebar ads, if enabled by the content item -NGS 02/07/08--><!-- Requested ad type: Google 200x200 --><SCRIPT type=text/javascript><!--google_ad_client = "pub-8977051089362964";google_ad_width = 200;google_ad_height = 200;google_ad_format = "200x200_as";google_ad_type = "text_image";google_ad_channel = "";google_color_border = "04298F";google_color_bg = "FFFFFF";google_color_link = "04298F";google_color_text = "000000";google_color_url = "04298F";//--></SCRIPT><SCRIPT src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT>
<!--Strip out "by" from author name, if it is mistakenly included in the content item -NGS 02/07/08--><!--Display story's author, with a mailto link if email address is set in the content item -NGS 02/07/08-->
<!--Display editor's notes, if any are provided in the content item -NGS 02/08/08-->
<!--If story is not archived, display comments total; if it is, display archives message -NGS 02/08/08-->Characterizing sex offenders as monsters, Gov. Bobby Jindal signed legislation Wednesday that would force convicted rapists and others to undergo chemical castration.


“I am glad we have taken such strong measures in Louisiana to put a stop to these monsters’ brutal acts,” the governor said in a prepared statement.
Jindal signed Senate Bill 144 into law on the day that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Louisiana cannot execute people who rape children under the age of 12.

The governor blasted the high court’s decision.

“I am especially glad to sign (SB144) into Louisiana law … on the same day the Supreme Court has made an atrocious ruling against our state’s ability to sentence those who sexually assault our children to the fullest extent,” he said.

SB144 is “a good bill,” Jindal said, that sends the message that Louisiana will fully punish those who harm children.

The bill’s sponsor, state Sen. Nick Gautreaux, D-Meaux, did not return a call for comment late Wednesday afternoon.

During the legislative session, Gautreaux said the bill was inspired, in part, by the crimes of the Rev. Gilbert Gauthe.

Gauthe, a Roman Catholic priest, pleaded guilty in 1985 to molesting a number of boys in Vermilion Parish. He was arrested earlier this year near Galveston for allegedly failing to register as a sex offender.

The bill would allow judges to order chemical castrations for convicted rapists and other sex offenders.

Most debate about the bill during the legislative session centered on which crimes should apply.

Originally, the legislation was written broadly, extending to crimes like simple kidnapping and molestation of a juvenile.
Lawmakers whittled down the list of crimes.

SB144 now applies to aggravated rape, forcible rape, second-degree sexual battery, aggravated, incest and aggravated crimes against nature.

On a first offense, a judge would have the option of ordering injections of medroxyprogesterone acetate, which suppresses a man’s sex drive by reducing testosterone levels.

The injections would be mandatory on a second offense.

The castration treatments would start no later than a week before an incarcerated offender’s release from prison.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Hell yeah Bobby!!!!!! And hell yeah to Nick Gautreaux for sponsoring the bill!

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/21656994.html?index=1&c=y

Jindal signs chemical castration bill
No chance of standing up in a court of law IMO.

[spdirty]

No chance of standing up in a court of law IMO.

Depends on which side of the bed Anthony Kennedy wakes up on the morning its decided.

[gunns]

That will never happen. Most crimes when it comes to rape or molestation rarely meet the punishment that is deserved. Some rape cases the guy is out in 5 years.

There lies the problem. With people within churches (any religion) suddenly being convicted of this crime, some people cannot fathom putting a church authority to death or life without parole Someone needs to look at this crime and be able to say that rapist will never do it again. That has NEVER been proven to me. I don't think there is any rehabilitation for rapists or molesters of any type.

I am against the death penalty. It is no deterrent and where have we been given the right to kill another human being. I would love the life with no parole. Life would be horrific for these criminals in prison (especially if jail house justice should befall them). But until they do a study of this crime and realize it's not one that can be rehabilitated, it will continue with increasing horror with minimal sentences. Crimes against children have the lightest sentences. I'd rather be around someone that commits a crime against an adult than one that does against a child.

[spdirty]

There lies the problem. With people within churches (any religion) suddenly being convicted of this crime, some people cannot fathom putting a church authority to death or life without parole.


I personally don't know anyone who believes this. I think that most people feel that those in that position of authority who does that should be given a harsh penalty, whether it be life or the death penalty. Those who believe what you just described should be bltchslapped.



where have we been given the right to kill another human being.

Does this view of yours also apply to partial birth abortion?

[El Minion]

Depends on which side of the bed Anthony Kennedy wakes up on the morning its decided.

QFT

The role of Sandra Day O'Conner will now be played by Anthony Kennedy

[BroncoInferno]

Depends on which side of the bed Anthony Kennedy wakes up on the morning its decided.

You do realize Kennedy was appointed by Reagan, don't you? In fact, 7 of the 9 serving justices were appointed by Republicans. Some liberal court Uhh

[cutthemdown]

Doesnt DNA level burden of proof make for a much smaller set of folks who would be killed?

DNA would only prove that sex took place not rape. I understand your point totally and honestly if they executed them I wouldn't argue it was wrong. I'm looking at it more from a view that with all the appeals its just to costly.

[cutthemdown]

But they dont get life in prison and right now its nothing more than a slap on the wrist. And the chance of someone being innocent is very small to begin with. With the type of forensics we have now the likelihood is far less. Most of the people being released now is the result of forensics that they didnt have back when they were prosecuted to begin with.

I certainly don't advocate short sentences for rapists.

I argue that the death penalty doesn't seem to make us safer or keep prisons from being over crowded. Remember your talking to someone who worked 3 yrs for the public defender in Los Angeles. I worked 3 death penalty cases in that time. The dude were thugs the world is better off without. In that time however I wasn't there long enough to even see one of them to completion. It takes like a decade to execute someone. I feel the courts resources get sapped out by all the appeals.

I also wouldn't advocate making it easier to execute because prosecutors lie, witnesses lie, and experts can make mistakes when it comes to DNA. Yep that's right DNA is not 100 percent because people are not perfect or always honest.

Life in prison with no possibility of release IMO would protect society from convicted rapists.

[spdirty]

You do realize Kennedy was appointed by Reagan, don't you? In fact, 7 of the 9 serving justices were appointed by Republicans. Some liberal court Uhh

Don't be so ****ing shallow. Stevens, I don't know, he was probably always a liberal, Kennedy was Reagan's 3rd choice, and if that ****ing shltbag Teddy Kennedy didn't smear the name of Robert Bork, this court WOULD be solidly conservative right now.

Oh and Souter. Yeah. Thats Bush 41's legacy right there. As good as the Thomas appointment was, this one was the exact opposite. He didn't even meet with the guy before nominating him.

And I will guarun-damn-tee you Souter and Stevens vote with Breyer and Ginsberg waaaaaaay more than they vote with Thomas and Scalia.

So don't try to throw that bullshlt against the wall, cuz it won't stick. Right now you have 4 radical liberals, 2 of which were appointed by Republicans, 4 constitutionalists, and Kennedy, who votes with whomever he likes that day.

The SC has gotten so damn politicized its sickening.

[Bronco Jamus]

I don't mind the court representing people of a variety of beliefs, but their personal beliefs shouldn't matter. Some on the court add meanings that aren't really there and in essense make laws that are beyond the document.

[Bob]

Has the right to murder in the name of justice, "to play God", why? And do you know which countries are left in the world that murder it's own people in the name of justice? We are in fine company, right?

I think that there is something that perverts the mind of some so they no longer can see any truth, I am not sure if you have uttered one thing that has made any sense. Many of the great company I am sure you are citing will be destroyed under the weight of its own collective guilt, and self-absorbition (so they never have a child -- as we are a collective cancer and stain on the planet anyway) which would make their bloated governments more sustainable.

No, going too far is executing (murdering) another human as punishment or justice for committing a crime.

killing a guilty person, is government santioned justice -- letting children be raped because you dont care enough about them, and worry about what the international community thinks, or teh "rights" of monsters more than children is perverted.


Impossible, as long as humans (emotions) are involved, there is always a possibility of doubt.

Little or no doubt with DNA -- if that is one of the standards.

This reeks of ignorance and platitudes. People are being put in jail for life in some states for possession (not distribution) of kiddie porn on their PCs.

So when your giant Federal government kicks in, you can correct that, take away guns, and re-educate the rest of us.

If someone raped my child and I got to them first, there life would be over. There is a difference between a society systematically murdering their own citizens and that situation.

I guess I have to take back my ealier statement that you never get anything right...

but why is it ok for YOU to murder, but not ok for the government to hold a legal trail, and through a process and use of DNA evidence have a jury of peers condemn that person?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I guess I have to take back my ealier statement that you never get anything right...

but why is it ok for YOU to murder, but not ok for the government to hold a legal trail, and through a process and use of DNA evidence have a jury of peers condemn that person?I didn't say it was OK, I said that if I caught someone before the police did I would probably end them because of the personal emotion being experienced. I don't know if I'd regret it later or not. To systematically murder someone under the name of justice as a "civilized society" is completely different. It is hypocritical, barbaric and definitely not civilized.
No one I've talked to so far can explain to me how any human has the right to kill another as punishment.
If the human race is going to advance this notion of murdering other humans in the name of justice will have to end. Otherwise, never ending war will be our destiny.