SCOTUS: Can't execute child rapists

[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 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.

No. Not exactly. You said in the previous post that their decisions never reflect the will of the people. Which has nothing to do with it at all.

What about Brown v. Board of Education? Was that a trampling of states rights? Because I'm willing to bet if you went by the will of the people, there's a handful of states that would STILL have segregated schools. Well, legally segregated, anyway.

 

[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.

No. Not exactly. You said in the previous post that their decisions never reflect the will of the people. Which has nothing to do with it at all.

What about Brown v. Board of Education? Was that a trampling of states rights? Because I'm willing to bet if you went by the will of the people, there's a handful of states that would STILL have segregated schools. Well, legally segregated, anyway.

You are absolutely right. There are times when the SCOTUS gets it right.

There are times when State's Rights can and should be tossed out the window. What you all seem to be saying is that in this case they made the right decision.

I disagree. Just as I did on the last eminent domain ruling.

 

[EStreetJoe]

Speaking of states rights... is eminent domain a state's rights issue or a federal issue?

I seem to remember a Supreme Court case last year (or the year before) from Connecticut where the Court ruled that the Federal Courts have no jurisdiction in telling local governments what properties they can take in the name of redevelopment.

The conservatives are up in arms over these "activist" judges for allowing homes to be taken when all the judges did was say "we have no right telling a local government the best uses for its land"

 

[RedSmithClone]

That's true, unless it's one of their own homes. Just ask Mr. Souter.

Man I so would have stayed at that hotel if it had passed.

 

[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 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.

No. Not exactly. You said in the previous post that their decisions never reflect the will of the people. Which has nothing to do with it at all.

What about Brown v. Board of Education? Was that a trampling of states rights? Because I'm willing to bet if you went by the will of the people, there's a handful of states that would STILL have segregated schools. Well, legally segregated, anyway.

You are absolutely right. There are times when the SCOTUS gets it right.

There are times when State's Rights can and should be tossed out the window. What you all seem to be saying is that in this case they made the right decision.

I disagree. Just as I did on the last eminent domain ruling.

But now it just becomes a matter of was this ruling right or wrong based on what you or I think, not whether it was a trampling of states rights. And the argument you seem to present is that because you disagree with the decision, it was therefore automatically the wrong decision and therefore automatically a trampling of states rights.

 

[EStreetJoe]

That's true, unless it's one of their own homes. Just ask Mr. Souter.

Man I so would have stayed at that hotel if it had passed.

So the Court should stay out of the way of state/local government if it wants to fry a criminal, but interfere when it comes to protecting the citizens from the metholds a state/local government wants to use to revitalize its economy?

 

[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.

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?

I am for the rights of states and the rights of the people and the rights of the federal government.

I personally oppose the death penalty, but am willing to get angry at murderers and rapists.

 

[gingerbread]

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?

Well, considering Obama disagrees with the Supreme Court ruling, you might want to reconsider that off-base assumption.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06252008/news/nationalnews/obama__supreme_court_off_base_117163.htm

Democrat Barack Obama said Wednesday he disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision outlawing executions of child rapists.
"I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes," Obama said at a news conference. "I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable that that does not violate our Constitution."
The court's 5-4 decision Wednesday struck down a Louisiana law that allows capital punishment for people convicted of raping children under 12, saying it violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[beardpuller]

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.

I had a bellyful of states rights, growing up in North Carolina in the '60s.
States rights can kiss my ass.
We fought a war over that nearly 150 years ago, and thank God, my ancestors lost (except for one guy who was too poor to own any slaves and fought for the North).
This is the United States of America, not a loose confederacy of nation-states.

 

[User 1019]

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.

How nice of you to politicize this.

Ahem.

Old_Tony will be here soon saying that this proves liberals love child rapists.

 

[Smallpotatoes]

I oppose the death penalty, always have. But I also realize that most people in this country think we need it and it's not going away in my lifetime.
I disagree with the court's decision because I believe that for reasons that are very understandable, if a child rapist is ever released from prison, there is no way they could have any fair chance to turn their life around and perhaps they shouldn't be allowed that chance.
If we're not willing to give them that chance, we should never let them out of prison in the first place.

 

[deskslave]

I oppose the death penalty, always have. But I also realize that most people in this country think we need it and it's not going away in my lifetime.
I disagree with the court's decision because I believe that for reasons that are very understandable, if a child rapist is ever released from prison, there is no way they could have any fair chance to turn their life around and perhaps they shouldn't be allowed that chance.
If we're not willing to give them that chance, we should never let them out of prison in the first place.

Which is why most of them get life without parole. That does have the distinct advantage of allowing for their release if they're ever proven innocent. And rapists are more than occasionally proven innocent.

 

[HackyMcHack]

The Bill O'Reilly solution: Supermax Alaska. Life at HARD labor. Make 'em wish that they were dead.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

One reason I think SCOTUS can tell states about how to apply the death penalty is the 8th Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[ScribePharisee]

By DEBORAH HASTINGS
AP National Writer

The efforts of nearly a dozen states to execute child rapists were derailed Wednesday by a Supreme Court decision that incensed supporters of such punishment. At least one state said it wasn't ready to give up.
"I think the people of Oklahoma have spoken loudly that this is one of the most heinous of crimes. We will certainly look at what options we have," said Sen. Jay Paul Gumm, a strong proponent of his state's 2006 law subjecting those who sexually abuse children to the death penalty.
Five states have laws that explicitly permit such executions. At issue before the high court was a Louisiana case involving Patrick Kennedy, sentenced to die for raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter in her bed in 1998, an assault so severe she required surgery.
In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled the death penalty a disproportionate punishment for raping children under the age of 12, despite the horrendous nature of such acts.
Justices made a similar ruling in 1977, when they said the death penalty was unconstitutional punishment for a Georgia man convicted of raping a teenager who was an adult under the law.
Louisiana's law, passed in 1995, is the broadest in the country. It also makes first-time offenders eligible for the death penalty, unlike Texas, South Carolina, Oklahoma and Montana — which required at least one previous conviction for child rape. Following Wednesday's ruling, all become unconstitutional.
Nationwide, only two men have been sentenced to death for sexually abusing children — both in Louisiana. The second case involves a man convicted of repeatedly raping a 5-year-old girl.
Several states, including Missouri, Alabama and Colorado had been considering similar laws. Supporters there were incensed by Wednesday's ruling.
"Anybody in the country who cares about children should be outraged that we have a Supreme Court that would issue a decision like this," said Alabama Attorney General Troy King, who represented one of nine states that filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Louisiana in the Kennedy case on the grounds that child rape represented "manifest evil."
Justices are "creating a situation where the country is a less safe place to grow up," King said.

I think it's disproportionate. Or, different.

What's good punishment is for the pervie to be locked up for life, or until the boys behind bars, many of whom live to beat the **** out of these kinds, get bored with them.

 

[armageddon]

One reason I think SCOTUS can tell states about how to apply the death penalty is the 8th Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.

One could argue 30 or 40 or 50 years in the pen is far more cruel than the death penalty.

In fact, at least two posters have suggested as much.

 

[ScribePharisee]

With this kind of crime, yes.

I couldn't imagine committing that kind of crime, but I would think that 30-50 years of that kind of hell would make me want to kill myself. It's pretty simple.

 

[suburbia]

One reason I think SCOTUS can tell states about how to apply the death penalty is the 8th Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.

One could argue 30 or 40 or 50 years in the pen is far more cruel than the death penalty.

In fact, at least two posters have suggested as much.

I agree. Which is why I oppose the death penalty except in the rare cases where said criminal had the means to hurt or kill others while still alive (such as the head of a big drug cartel, a mafia don or Bin Laden or his equivalent). If someone commits a crime heinous enough to warrant being executed under our laws, why should they get put out of their misery quicker?

But it's easier to convince voters that "death" is a harsher punishment, plus you can claim that by not having to pay to house and feed those criminals for the rest of their lives, you're saving the voters tax dollars.

 

[greenlantern]

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.

He also plead g

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.

He pleaded guilty, which I believe removes capital punishment as an option.

 

[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.

He pleaded guilty, which I believe removes capital punishment as an option.
[/quote]

Well, it's Rhode Island, so it was never an option to begin with. But pleading guilty doesn't necessarily negate the death penalty; it's just that the elimination of the death penalty is usually the primary condition of a guilty plea to a capital crime. It's happened before that a guy pleads guilty of his own volition and then gets death anyway, sometimes after specifically asking for that punishment.

I've wondered before why more conservatives don't oppose the death penalty based on financial considerations. Given what it costs to lock someone up, even for decades, versus what it costs to pursue the legal process for a death sentence, it would seem a no-brainer.

Of course, then the right likes to argue that the condemned shouldn't be allowed access to the appeals process, because of course criminals don't get any rights, and granting them the right of appeal is showing sympathy to murderers. (And if a jury convicted them, they must be guilty.)