SCOTUS: Can't execute child rapists

[deskslave]

Here's a candidate ...

Life for R.I. child-killer's 'unforgivable' crime
By ERIC TUCKER
Associated Press Writer

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) _ A man who admitted raping and strangling an 8-year-old neighbor was sentenced Wednesday to life in prison without the possibility of parole after he called his actions "despicable and unforgivable."

Joshua Davis, of Woonsocket, was given the maximum sentence for the abduction and death of Savannah Smith on May 7, 2006.

Davis said drugs and alcohol had ruined his life and told the girl's family that he could not imagine the heartache he had caused them.

Davis pleaded guilty in April to first-degree murder and other crimes, admitting he abducted Smith from a park near her home in Woonsocket and drove her south to a wooded section of Cranston, where he raped, strangled and beat her.

Smith's mother, Lisa Smith, called Davis "the lowest piece of scum that this earth has."

"I want him to die in prison," she added. "I'll never get my baby back."

Not the same thing. He killed that child. Big difference.

Also, one of the points that has been made is that having the death penalty for a non-capital crime removes from the perpetrator at least some small incentive not to kill the victim.

 

[Starman]

Believe it or not, I don't support the DP for child rapists.

I do support the DP for virtually anybody and everybody convicted of an intentional murder, yes.

Child rapists, life in prison in a 6 x 6 cell.

The child killers, lights out.

 

[Songbird]

Here's one coming down the local pipe today ...

TRENTON — Prosecutors say 41-year-old Shawn Brown of Trenton performed cunnilingus on a 12-year-old girl across the street from a police station, but the defense says the man’s apartment is above a bail bond office and that nobody heard anything out of the ordinary that day, not to mention the girl keeps changing her tune.

 

[RedSmithClone]

Whether you or I agree or disagree with the death penalty on any level or for any crime has nothing to do with the overall argument here.

Again, this is a State's Rights issue. I think you are all overlooking that fact.

 

[EStreetJoe]

Here's one coming down the local pipe today ...

TRENTON — Prosecutors say 41-year-old Shawn Brown of Trenton performed cunnilingus on a 12-year-old girl across the street from a police station, but the defense says the man’s apartment is above a bail bond office and that nobody heard anything out of the ordinary that day, not to mention the girl keeps changing her tune.

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?

 

[EStreetJoe]

Funny how when liberals want to rant and rave about conservatives, they like to bring up the fact that various policies "hurt children." Welfare, education, etc. But I guess when a pervert rapes a child, they care more about the pervert.

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"

 

[buckweaver]

Whether you or I agree or disagree with the death penalty on any level or for any crime has nothing to do with the overall argument here.

Again, this is a State's Rights issue. I think you are all overlooking that fact.

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.

 

[RedSmithClone]

Whether you or I agree or disagree with the death penalty on any level or for any crime has nothing to do with the overall argument here.

Again, this is a State's Rights issue. I think you are all overlooking that fact.

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.

 

[Dickens Cider]

Whether you or I agree or disagree with the death penalty on any level or for any crime has nothing to do with the overall argument here.

Again, this is a State's Rights issue. I think you are all overlooking that fact.

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?

 

[Ace]

Whether you or I agree or disagree with the death penalty on any level or for any crime has nothing to do with the overall argument here.

Again, this is a State's Rights issue. I think you are all overlooking that fact.

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.

It appears that the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

 

[deskslave]

Whether you or I agree or disagree with the death penalty on any level or for any crime has nothing to do with the overall argument here.

Again, this is a State's Rights issue. I think you are all overlooking that fact.

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.

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.

 

[RedSmithClone]

Whether you or I agree or disagree with the death penalty on any level or for any crime has nothing to do with the overall argument here.

Again, this is a State's Rights issue. I think you are all overlooking that fact.

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.

It appears that the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

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.

 

[Dickens Cider]

Whether you or I agree or disagree with the death penalty on any level or for any crime has nothing to do with the overall argument here.

Again, this is a State's Rights issue. I think you are all overlooking that fact.

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.

It appears that the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

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?

 

[Flying Headbutt]

So it's a mistake when you disagree with it, but a good ruling when you don't?

 

[RedSmithClone]

Whether you or I agree or disagree with the death penalty on any level or for any crime has nothing to do with the overall argument here.

Again, this is a State's Rights issue. I think you are all overlooking that fact.

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.

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.

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.

 

[deskslave]

Whether you or I agree or disagree with the death penalty on any level or for any crime has nothing to do with the overall argument here.

Again, this is a State's Rights issue. I think you are all overlooking that fact.

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.

It appears that the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

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.

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?

 

[deskslave]

Whether you or I agree or disagree with the death penalty on any level or for any crime has nothing to do with the overall argument here.

Again, this is a State's Rights issue. I think you are all overlooking that fact.

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.

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.

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.

But who defines the big difference? You? Me?

What about armed robbery? I'd argue it's awfully traumatizing, maybe for life, to have a gun shoved in your face. Should we execute them too?

But keep on trying to deny criminals Constitutional protections. After all, when you break the law, you forfeit any right to be treated with decency and fairness.

 

[RedSmithClone]

Whether you or I agree or disagree with the death penalty on any level or for any crime has nothing to do with the overall argument here.

Again, this is a State's Rights issue. I think you are all overlooking that fact.

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 formed 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.

It appears that the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

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

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

Exactly. And this situation falls directly under State's Rights in said Constitution. The will of the people in that state and their elected officials chose death for child rapists. That decision is protected under the Constitution.

Thus the four who agreed with the state on this issue are actually strict constitutionalists. The five others, despite some being selected by Republicans, are nothing more than S-P puppets, who try their hardest to wave a magic wand over the country and change laws as they see fit.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, and I get to watch another state be stripped of its right to govern itself how it sees fit under the Constitution.

 

[Ace]

I think RedSmith has an idea. Instead of a Supreme Court, we should have an American Idol type show with sexy lawyers and dancers. The public can text in their verdicts.

If we charge 95 cents a vote, we'll be out of debt soon and can subsidize oil down to 25 cents a gallon.

I'm sure that if we have reality TV back in the Ben Franklin days, the framers would have never bothered with the judges thing.

I expect royalties, dammit.

 

[RedSmithClone]

I think RedSmith has an idea. Instead of a Supreme Court, we should have an American Idol type show with sexy lawyers and dancers. The public can text in their verdicts.

If we charge 95 cents a vote, we'll be out of debt soon and can subsidize oil down to 25 cents a gallon.

I'm sure that if we have reality TV back in the Ben Franklin days, the framers would have never bothered with the judges thing.

I expect royalties, dammit.

Well I guess we know where Ace stands on State's Rights issues.

Let me guess, you are in the Obama mold of I know what's best for you and yours, so just shut the F up and take it?