SCOTUS: Can't execute child rapists

Since that's walking distance from the Trentonian offices, anyone know if they've got a photographer on the street with a zoom lense aimed at the window to see what else goes on in that apartment?

 

Think about it this way -- if the Supreme Court gave the green light to execute a child rapist, what's to stop the child rapist from saying "either way I'm going to get the needle, so I might as well kill the kid and hide the body"

 

Respectfully disagree, Red. The death penalty is an issue that we need to come to a consensus on eventually -- not something where one state has it, and another doesn't. Taxes, smoking laws, sure. To each his own. Life or death? No, let's figure this one out.

 

The consensus was formerd long ago that states have the right to determine if the death penalty can be applied or - no pun intended - executed. Given that fact, the state of Louisiana and its people have every right to choose life or death for a child rapist.

 

Then what? What if Mississippi decides to make an example of drug dealers? Where is the line drawn?

 

It appears that the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

 

But given that fact, they also have the right to choose life or death for burglars, or three-strikes criminals, or vandals, or whatever else. You're saying that at no point does the Supreme Court have the right to step in and say something is prohibited under the U.S. Constitution, which does still apply to the state of Louisiana.

 

Of course they do. Except their consensus is never formed by the will of the people. Thier consensus is formed by their own past nine-member mistakes. OOOPS, I mean rulings.

 

What does this even mean?

 

You can all throw out ludicrous ideas you want.

There is a big difference from a rapist of children or adults and that of non-violent "burglars, or three-strikes criminals, or vandals, or whatever else."

But keep on trying to make the criminal the victim.

 

I thought they were supposed to make their decisions based strictly on the Constitution and the intentions of the framers?

And as has been pointed out here many times before, if the Court went by the will of the people, we never would have had such decisions as Brown v. Board of Education. Of course, that's a states-rights issue too, so the Court probably overstepped its bounds there, too, right?