Death penalty for child rapists? The Supreme Court says no:
"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.
That decision is a moral judgment I'd much rather have in the hands of state legislative bodies.
Posted by Eric Earling at June 25, 2008 08:00 AM | Email ThisHowever, I cannot see how the court came up with this "proportionality" rule. Has any theft of money resulted in thirty year sentences? It's only money. Here, the life of a child is involved. And I am sympathetic with the response above, from NativeSon. The impulse to wreck grevious harm on the perpetrator of such a crime against my own offspring would be strong. The words "justifiable homicide" come to mind.
The State of Louisiana has a death penalty. It decides which crimes rise to the level of that penalty.
Again, just another poorly decided case from judges who prefer their opinions of right and wrong over the meaning of the law. Would that they were able to restrain their impulse to do right, and exhibit their ability to review law. Or is this a case of "justifiable" legislating from the bench?
Posted by: OregonGuy on June 25, 2008 08:35 AMThere's also the impact of "deterrence." And in this matter, there are few things (Emasculation?) more of a deterrence then killing one of these scum.
Posted by: Hinton on June 25, 2008 08:41 AMThey revel in imposing it at least 20,000 times per year on innocent citizens. Every time they release one of their violent convicts back among us.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on June 25, 2008 08:42 AMIs it any wonder that sex crimes are out of control with such defenders in our courts watching out for these monsters?
Richard Pope, obviously the system would have provided ample time for the convictions to be overturned if they were false. After all, it takes decades of appeals before anyone is ever actually put to death. But jail just isn't a sufficient consequence to offset the obsession these monsters have with children. Frankly, even the death penalty isn't taken too seriously given the lengths to which liberals in the system work to overturn it. But anyone that would violate a child this way deserves far worse than simple lethal injection, if you ask me.
Posted by: Reality on June 25, 2008 09:22 AMIf someone steals a $30,000 dollar piece of jewelery, do they get the same sentence as someone that steals a $30,000 car?
What if they stole the jewelery multiple times, would they get off multiple times as the car thief? Both items are $30,000 dollar material possessions.....
How is proportionality determined? What is a proportional penalty for raping a child? What punishment compares to the emotional pain and suffering that child will probably have the rest of their life?
An eye for an eye was proportional - a proportion of 1:1. But a 1:1proportionality is now cruel and unusual.
Today's justice system feels that a proportion of .001:1 is fine.
This should have been left to the State The very clear message being, don't rape a child in Louisiana.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 25, 2008 09:36 AMIt seems the Court misses her presence even though there were more than adequate replacements.
Posted by: swatter on June 25, 2008 09:41 AMWith regards to the specifics, two points for those who are complaining: (1) Rape of a Child is very broad and often not consistent across the states, and (2) the death penalty itself has not proven to be a deterrent. Regarding the latter point, compare stats between pro-Death Penalty States and non-Death Penalty states. There isn't a correlation between crime and having the Death Penalty (e.g., having the Death Penalty will lower crimes in the area covered by the Death Penalty). Regarding the first point, Rape of a Child 1 in our state is soley based on age factors (age of child, i.e., under 12, and age of offender, i.e., three or more years older) and not the violence/or lack of violence. It also includes more than just what we think. Look it up yourself. For example, an eleven year, eleven month and 29 day old who provides oral sex to a 16 year old is Rape of a Child 1. Move the action ahead a couple of days and it is Rape of a Child 2. Same act, different sentence. Rape of a Child 3 could involve an 18 year old and 15 year old, eleven plus month victim.
Add to these factors the statute of limitations issues. The act could occur when the offender is 13 years old, yet they could be tried as an adult if it doesn't come to light until after they turn 18. The statute of limitations doesn't expire until the victim turns 21. So, we are holding 13-15 year olds responsible for adult reasoning capabilities, and by many here, want to put them to death.
Posted by: tc on June 25, 2008 11:10 AMO-brother, you really crack me up.
If it didn't take 15 to 20 years before we put them to death it would be a deterrent. And please don't go off on how we should just put them in jail for ever. "why you ask"
Because libs like you want to let them back out after 20 years in their so called life sentence. Can you say all the nuts of murdered in Manson's name.
And yes it does work as a deterrent because after they are put to death, they will never kill again!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 25, 2008 12:29 PMMaybe you all should post an item on Craigslist inviting these monsters into your neighborhoods and invite them over to your homes for dinner? Introduce them to your children and put your faith in the system to preserve everyone's rights and protect our society at the same time. You're all so cavalier with the safety of others with your thinking that it will never happen to you or one of your children.
The hard truth is that you cannot do both, preserve every right for every human being and protect our society, as hard as your hearts push you to believe. But your foolishness is putting my children in danger and that does not make any of you my friends.
"Putting someone away for life without parole does the same effect that you desire "
It absolutely does NOT have the same effect. The risk of death versus a long life of leisure behind bars are two completely different consequences. And as much as leftists convince themselves that they are the same, you are kidding yourselves. Not to mention putting at risk law enforcement and prison employees who are killed routinely in our institutions by murderers incarcerated with no chance of parole.
A true deterrent prevents the first crime from being committed because of the consequences. But understanding that requires the ability to reason; something the left chooses to ignore regularly.
Posted by: Reality on June 25, 2008 01:20 PMThere are 20,000 murders per year, and a mere 20 executions for such per year. You'd think that the odds against execution are so greast that the existing death penalty rates could never deter murder. But several recent scientific studies actually show that it does.
Life in prison doesn't really exist as a punishment since society's changing morality often releases them in a matter of years. See the Andress case. Murders can be ordered from prison and murders occur in prison.
Statistics show that within one year of release, 60% of violent crminals will re-offend with a similar crime.
Each time a repeat violent offender commits a violent crime, in or out of prison, the STATE has aided and abetted that criminal.
That IS STATE sanctioned murder and violent crime.
And keep this in mind. There is STILL no documented example of the wrong person being executed.
Wrong TC. I'm from So CA and watched that whole thing.
They had more than enought proof on OJ. Because of who he was and wanting not to look wrong with the blacks of LA. They picked a jury was not from the area he was from and ensured OJ would never be found guilty.
But we don't have a justice system based on personal retribution, so my feelings wouldn't matter much in the trial.
Even without the death penalty, it's not as if child rapists do easy time in prison.
As a policy matter, I don't support the death penalty.
That being said -- I think the court overstepped its bounds here. The states are supposed to have police power, and I don't think it's unreasonable for a state to decide that the rape of a child is a capital offense. Personally, I think that's an unwise crime policy, but that doesn't mean its an irrational one. Now, if a state had a ridiculous law -- one that, say, allowed capital punishment for statutory rape -- I'd see things differently. But I don't think that was the case here.
Posted by: Zeeb on June 25, 2008 02:26 PMSmall point: While I'm not from SoCal, I'm pretty sure the OJ trial was playing all the time, everywhere.
Posted by: Zeeb on June 25, 2008 02:32 PMThe jury was set by the DA, he wanted to wanted to be seen as equal with the blacks in LA.
OJ should have had a jury of HIS peers, he didn't
The judge became a TV fool and there was no chance of finding him guilty. Do you remember as the jury was walking out after they said he was not guilty. They gave the black power salute.
OJ trial was a sham.
In regards to the retribution issue, I have read a few articles today that state the judges referring to having to take a life to justify the death penalty. I don't believe this is the case. I do believe on the federal level that treason is potentially punishable by death. However, they may be correct that Rape (not Rape of a Child) has throughout the 50 states not, in itself, carry a sentence of death. Therefore, equating equal punishment, if Rape doesn't carry it, then Rape of a Child is not a more serious offense. In fact, if you look at our own state's sentencing guideline, Rape 1 is in the same level of offense as: Assult1, Assault of a Child 1, Malicious placement of an imitation device 1, Rape of a Child 1 and Trafficking 2. This is a Level XII offense by the states sentencing grid. There are four levels above it. Level XII sentencing grid runs from 9y (93-123 mos) (i.e., first offense, no priors, no aggregating conditions, etc.) to 23y 3m (240-318 mos). In reality, it also falls under the three strikes and two strikes law (the latter being for sex offenses). Only Level XVI (Aggregated Murder 1) carries Life without parole/death penalty in our state.
Reference: RCW 9.94A.515 and RCW 9.94A.510
RCW 9A.44 lists the sex related crimes. You should go to RCW 9A.44.010 to find how the state defines such terms as "sexual intercourse," and "sexual contact." RCW 9A.44.073 provides our states definition of Rape of a Child 1, which is based on three factors: (a) sexual intercourse definition, (b) victim under 12, and (3) offender twenty-four months older than victim. There is not stipulation as to level of violence in the definition. The statute of limitations for this is covered in RCW 9A.04.080, paragraph (1)(b)(iii). You should also note, RCW 13.40.020 that provides definitions relating to the Juvenile Justice Act of 1977. In those definitions, it provides the definitions of juvenile offenders. The Juvenile Court has no jurisdiction to even consider a case committed by some under 18, but not brought before the court until after they are 18 (i.e., like a juvenile committing an innocent sexual offense and being under the statute of limitations until the victim turns 21).
You speak of retribution and assume the adult pedophile in your frame of reference. The law does not make this distinction. It treats the confused, hormonal charged, not fully developed teenager under the same level of penalty as the adult, serial pedophile. Have you looked at the Recidivism of juvenile sex offenders? Here is a good paper discussing some of the common misconceptions about adolescent sex offenders.
My main point is we need to treat adolescent offenders differently than adult and this is independant of when the charge is brought. So, when people here refer to death penalty for sex offenders, I feel they don't have a clue of the current law and they lump everyone in together. The first thing you should do is actually educate yourself on the subject. The current law is a mess and needs reforming. It needs to better define the seriousness of the offense as opposed to just basing it on age alone. It needs to be reformed to treat juvenile offenders, no matter if they are tried as juveniles or adults, under different rules than adult offenders. I do agree that the serial, adult pedophile should be punished harshly (retribution). I don't agree with the death penalty, since it is overkill and not equitable to crimes of similar stature. I also don't agree with the state lumping everyone in together. If you really look at the laws, it makes behavior that many adults participated in when they were teenagers fall into the sex offender strategy. Read the RCW definition of sexual contact. Read the RCW list of sexual offenses, in particular RCW 9A.44.096. For this crime, you can spend up to a year in jail and have to register as a sex offender for 10 or more years. Yet, if you look at the teenage sex studies, over 50% of high schoolers have committed this crime.
Posted by: tc on June 25, 2008 03:57 PMI really wasn't disagreeing with what you said. I just made the point that pretty much anyone who wanted to could have watched the O.J. trial, regardless of whether they lived in Southern California. Like my New Jersey mom, who was borderline obsessed with it.
I don't have much of an opinion about the OJ trial, save for my near-certainty that he got away with murder. And I'll add that the prosecution did a terrible, terrible job. They had an open and shut case, and were completely out-lawyered. Not a good day for justice.
But anyway, this is completely irrelevant to the thread.
Posted by: Zeeb on June 25, 2008 04:02 PMRCW 9A.44.089 would cover more likely cases going on in high schools today.
Do I agree with the action? No! Don't get me wrong. My main point is the soley age based limits on these laws and lumping them in with the adult pedophile. Adults, whether teachers, coaches, relatives, or people that prey on adolescents should be punished, forcefully. We need to however not lump adolescents in the same boat. Adolescents should only be lumped in if they demonstrate predatory behavior, which is definable.
Posted by: tc on June 25, 2008 04:07 PMKennedy specifically addressed treason in his opinion. From the opinion:
We do not address, for example, crimes defining and punishing treason, espionage, terrorism, and drug kingpin activity, which are offenses against the State.
The consideration that "crimes against the state" are somehow worse than simple crimes against the individual is contemptible. The state is not superior to the individual in our country...so far.
Posted by: iconoclast on June 25, 2008 09:38 PMCan anyone defend Joseph Duncan's release and subsequent crimes? Had he been sentenced to death earlier, at least four people would still be alive and one little girl would not have been raped and forced to witness her brother's rape and death.
Posted by: Elaine on June 25, 2008 09:40 PMWe finally agree. The violent rape of a child is NO LESS HEINOUS that the violent rape of an adult of any age.
One of my pet peeves. What's all the fuss about violence against children without a lot of fuss about violence against the rest of us?
Why are sexual offenders worthy of notice to the neighborhoods while murderers are not?
I say expand the death penalty to all violent criminals.
Where does a victim barely breathing and left for dead fall in your crime continuum compared to a cold stiff murder victim with a hole in their head? Maybe "left for dead" is MORE heinous.
Don't you think?
We hear about the criminals with "rap" sheets three feet long, yet still out there killing and maiming. Please locate the WAC relating to the two or three strikes and "yer out" situation.
I want to know why it is rarely applied.
I suppose we are expected to omit this topic when the Leftists cry, "It's for the children." It's not really about the children is it, TC? It's really about accepting twisted people to gain donations and votes.
Posted by: Elaine on June 26, 2008 09:33 PM