SCOTUS: Can't execute child rapists

[Ace]

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.

Yeah, I was wrong. T sent his posse out instead.

 

[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.

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.

Frankly, I think it should be up to the victims, or their families, to decide the punishment. Wouldn't change things much, but at least the victim could get a small measure of revenge against the perp.

 

[WaylonJennings]

Why can't this discussion - anything regarding the death penalty or crime and punishment - ever occur without advocates claiming that opponents "sympathize with the pervs" or "care more about the rapist/murderer than the victim"? I know it's frustrating to some of you that others aren't in lockstep with your strong feelings about the issue, but you're making a Grand Canyon-sized leap and I think if you were intellectually honest with yourself, you would admit that.

These are such complex legal and moral issues that spewing inflammatory rhetoric does a disservice not only to discourse in this country when it comes to these matters, but also your own side, which likely has legitimate points that get lost in the tidal wave of your lowest common denominator appeals.

Oh, and this appeals equally to the people on the left who use similar inflammatory language to argue against the Iraq War, Bush social policies and onward and so on.

 

[Trouser_Buddah]

Why can't this discussion - anything regarding the death penalty or crime and punishment - ever occur without advocates claiming that opponents "sympathize with the pervs" or "care more about the rapist/murderer than the victim"? I know it's frustrating to some of you that others aren't in lockstep with your strong feelings about the issue, but you're making a Grand Canyon-sized leap and I think if you were intellectually honest with yourself, you would admit that.

These are such complex legal and moral issues that spewing inflammatory rhetoric does a disservice not only to discourse in this country when it comes to these matters, but also your own side, which likely has legitimate points that get lost in the tidal wave of your lowest common denominator appeals.

Oh, and this appeals equally to the people on the left who use similar inflammatory language to argue against the Iraq War, Bush social policies and onward and so on.

You said that better than I could have...

 

[WaylonJennings]

Why can't this discussion - anything regarding the death penalty or crime and punishment - ever occur without advocates claiming that opponents "sympathize with the pervs" or "care more about the rapist/murderer than the victim"? I know it's frustrating to some of you that others aren't in lockstep with your strong feelings about the issue, but you're making a Grand Canyon-sized leap and I think if you were intellectually honest with yourself, you would admit that.

These are such complex legal and moral issues that spewing inflammatory rhetoric does a disservice not only to discourse in this country when it comes to these matters, but also your own side, which likely has legitimate points that get lost in the tidal wave of your lowest common denominator appeals.

Oh, and this appeals equally to the people on the left who use similar inflammatory language to argue against the Iraq War, Bush social policies and onward and so on.

You said that better than I could have...

The catch-22 is that this kind of emotionally heightened language works politically - it rallies people. That's been proven again and again. But at what cost? Not worth it to me to weaken and divide the republic in the process.

 

[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.

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?

Not yet.

This tidbit came out in court today:

TRENTON - The 12-year-old girl who claims a city man sexually attacked her in August 2006, was on her way home after having sex with her boyfriend when Shawn Brown allegedly called to her from a third-floor window to come to his apartment.

 

[deskslave]

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?

Not yet.

This tidbit came out in court today:

TRENTON - The 12-year-old girl who claims a city man sexually attacked her in August 2006, was on her way home after having sex with her boyfriend when Shawn Brown allegedly called to her from a third-floor window to come to his apartment.

Poorly written lead. Is she 12 now? Was she 12 then?

 

[Songbird]

12 then.

 

[Smallpotatoes]

Why can't this discussion - anything regarding the death penalty or crime and punishment - ever occur without advocates claiming that opponents "sympathize with the pervs" or "care more about the rapist/murderer than the victim"? I know it's frustrating to some of you that others aren't in lockstep with your strong feelings about the issue, but you're making a Grand Canyon-sized leap and I think if you were intellectually honest with yourself, you would admit that.

These are such complex legal and moral issues that spewing inflammatory rhetoric does a disservice not only to discourse in this country when it comes to these matters, but also your own side, which likely has legitimate points that get lost in the tidal wave of your lowest common denominator appeals.

Oh, and this appeals equally to the people on the left who use similar inflammatory language to argue against the Iraq War, Bush social policies and onward and so on.

Today, I've heard at least two people say this ruling said that it was OK to rape children, as if the only two options for dealing with child rapists were to execute them or not punish them at all.
Huh?

 

[DanOregon]

So let me get this straight. The Scalia block thinks punitive sanctions against businesses found liable in torts shouldn't exceed the financial damages, but in the case of child rape (which I agree is a horrible crime), the sanction can exceed the damage inflicted.
I realize we're talking apples and oranges here, but if you cross that line of expanding the death penalty for crimes other than murder how do quantify what deserves the death penalty. Statutory cases? The nature of the attack. I honestly believe if you started putting the death penalty on the table for white collar crime, you might actually deter the crime.
But dead is dead. Eye for eye. We shouldn't allow the government to unfairly apply the death penalty to more cases. Lock em up throw away the key.

 

[RedSmithClone]

So let me get this straight. The Scalia block thinks punitive sanctions against businesses found liable in torts shouldn't exceed the financial damages, but in the case of child rape (which I agree is a horrible crime), the sanction can exceed the damage inflicted.
I realize we're talking apples and oranges here, but if you cross that line of expanding the death penalty for crimes other than murder how do quantify what deserves the death penalty. Statutory cases? The nature of the attack. I honestly believe if you started putting the death penalty on the table for white collar crime, you might actually deter the crime.
But dead is dead. Eye for eye. We shouldn't allow the government to unfairly apply the death penalty to more cases. Lock em up throw away the key.

Some would say, and many have, that a child who is raped is dead inside for the rest of their lives.

By the way, did anyone catch the state rep from my beautiful home state of Massachusetts on the floor discussing Jessica's Law and why he is against it? Of course as a criminal defense attorney, he seems to care more about his wallet than he does his constituents.

ENJOY: http://hubpolitics.com/tag/james-fagan/

 

[WaylonJennings]

So let me get this straight. The Scalia block thinks punitive sanctions against businesses found liable in torts shouldn't exceed the financial damages, but in the case of child rape (which I agree is a horrible crime), the sanction can exceed the damage inflicted.
I realize we're talking apples and oranges here, but if you cross that line of expanding the death penalty for crimes other than murder how do quantify what deserves the death penalty. Statutory cases? The nature of the attack. I honestly believe if you started putting the death penalty on the table for white collar crime, you might actually deter the crime.
But dead is dead. Eye for eye. We shouldn't allow the government to unfairly apply the death penalty to more cases. Lock em up throw away the key.

Some would say, and many have, that a child who is raped is dead inside for the rest of their lives.

By the way, did anyone catch the state rep from my beautiful home state of Massachusetts on the floor discussing Jessica's Law and why he is against it? Of course as a criminal defense attorney, he seems to care more about his wallet than he does his constituents.

That is an absurd, divisive generalization.

 

[RedSmithClone]

So let me get this straight. The Scalia block thinks punitive sanctions against businesses found liable in torts shouldn't exceed the financial damages, but in the case of child rape (which I agree is a horrible crime), the sanction can exceed the damage inflicted.
I realize we're talking apples and oranges here, but if you cross that line of expanding the death penalty for crimes other than murder how do quantify what deserves the death penalty. Statutory cases? The nature of the attack. I honestly believe if you started putting the death penalty on the table for white collar crime, you might actually deter the crime.
But dead is dead. Eye for eye. We shouldn't allow the government to unfairly apply the death penalty to more cases. Lock em up throw away the key.

Some would say, and many have, that a child who is raped is dead inside for the rest of their lives.

By the way, did anyone catch the state rep from my beautiful home state of Massachusetts on the floor discussing Jessica's Law and why he is against it? Of course as a criminal defense attorney, he seems to care more about his wallet than he does his constituents.

That is an absurd, divisive generalization.

If you say so.

But tell me how a crimminal defense attorney, who pretends to be rep of the people, takes the side of his personal profession over what those who voted him into office expect him to fight for and pass?
This is and always has been one of the biggest problems with the Massachusetts legislature - too many trial lawyers running for and somehow getting elected to office, and then tossing the people who elected them under the bus to protect their own personal business outside of the legislature.

 

[WaylonJennings]

So let me get this straight. The Scalia block thinks punitive sanctions against businesses found liable in torts shouldn't exceed the financial damages, but in the case of child rape (which I agree is a horrible crime), the sanction can exceed the damage inflicted.
I realize we're talking apples and oranges here, but if you cross that line of expanding the death penalty for crimes other than murder how do quantify what deserves the death penalty. Statutory cases? The nature of the attack. I honestly believe if you started putting the death penalty on the table for white collar crime, you might actually deter the crime.
But dead is dead. Eye for eye. We shouldn't allow the government to unfairly apply the death penalty to more cases. Lock em up throw away the key.

Some would say, and many have, that a child who is raped is dead inside for the rest of their lives.

By the way, did anyone catch the state rep from my beautiful home state of Massachusetts on the floor discussing Jessica's Law and why he is against it? Of course as a criminal defense attorney, he seems to care more about his wallet than he does his constituents.

That is an absurd, divisive generalization.

If you say so.

But tell me how a crimminal defense attorney, who pretends to be rep of the people, takes the side of his personal profession over what those who voted him into office expect him to fight for and pass?
This is and always has been one of the biggest problems with the Massachusetts legislature - too many trial lawyers running for and somehow getting elected to office, and then tossing the people who elected them under the bus to protect their own personal business outside of the legislature.

OK, I took it that you were painting all criminal defense lawyers with the same broad brush. Perhaps I misspoke.

 

[Smallpotatoes]

So let me get this straight. The Scalia block thinks punitive sanctions against businesses found liable in torts shouldn't exceed the financial damages, but in the case of child rape (which I agree is a horrible crime), the sanction can exceed the damage inflicted.
I realize we're talking apples and oranges here, but if you cross that line of expanding the death penalty for crimes other than murder how do quantify what deserves the death penalty. Statutory cases? The nature of the attack. I honestly believe if you started putting the death penalty on the table for white collar crime, you might actually deter the crime.
But dead is dead. Eye for eye. We shouldn't allow the government to unfairly apply the death penalty to more cases. Lock em up throw away the key.

Some would say, and many have, that a child who is raped is dead inside for the rest of their lives.

By the way, did anyone catch the state rep from my beautiful home state of Massachusetts on the floor discussing Jessica's Law and why he is against it? Of course as a criminal defense attorney, he seems to care more about his wallet than he does his constituents.

ENJOY: http://hubpolitics.com/tag/james-fagan/

Yeah, it was over the top, but a defense attorney's job is to defend his client to the best of his ability. He could have picked a better way to make that point, but he is right about that.

 

[RedSmithClone]

So let me get this straight. The Scalia block thinks punitive sanctions against businesses found liable in torts shouldn't exceed the financial damages, but in the case of child rape (which I agree is a horrible crime), the sanction can exceed the damage inflicted.
I realize we're talking apples and oranges here, but if you cross that line of expanding the death penalty for crimes other than murder how do quantify what deserves the death penalty. Statutory cases? The nature of the attack. I honestly believe if you started putting the death penalty on the table for white collar crime, you might actually deter the crime.
But dead is dead. Eye for eye. We shouldn't allow the government to unfairly apply the death penalty to more cases. Lock em up throw away the key.

Some would say, and many have, that a child who is raped is dead inside for the rest of their lives.

By the way, did anyone catch the state rep from my beautiful home state of Massachusetts on the floor discussing Jessica's Law and why he is against it? Of course as a criminal defense attorney, he seems to care more about his wallet than he does his constituents.

ENJOY: http://hubpolitics.com/tag/james-fagan/

Yeah, it was over the top, but a defense attorney's job is to defend his client to the best of his ability. He could have picked a better way to make that point, but he is right about that.

Actually he is wrong.

Because if you as a defense attorney do what he says he will do, a jury will convict his client just because he is an a-hole.

I know plenty of defense attorneys who say there is no way in hell a lawyer would step up in court and schred a child on the stand. It would be like committing suicide for their own career and their client's life.

 

[Smallpotatoes]

So let me get this straight. The Scalia block thinks punitive sanctions against businesses found liable in torts shouldn't exceed the financial damages, but in the case of child rape (which I agree is a horrible crime), the sanction can exceed the damage inflicted.
I realize we're talking apples and oranges here, but if you cross that line of expanding the death penalty for crimes other than murder how do quantify what deserves the death penalty. Statutory cases? The nature of the attack. I honestly believe if you started putting the death penalty on the table for white collar crime, you might actually deter the crime.
But dead is dead. Eye for eye. We shouldn't allow the government to unfairly apply the death penalty to more cases. Lock em up throw away the key.

Some would say, and many have, that a child who is raped is dead inside for the rest of their lives.

By the way, did anyone catch the state rep from my beautiful home state of Massachusetts on the floor discussing Jessica's Law and why he is against it? Of course as a criminal defense attorney, he seems to care more about his wallet than he does his constituents.

ENJOY: http://hubpolitics.com/tag/james-fagan/

Yeah, it was over the top, but a defense attorney's job is to defend his client to the best of his ability. He could have picked a better way to make that point, but he is right about that.

Actually he is wrong.

Because if you as a defense attorney do what he says he will do, a jury will convict his client just because he is an a-hole.

I know plenty of defense attorneys who say there is no way in hell a lawyer would step up in court and schred a child on the stand. It would be like committing suicide for their own career and their client's life.

Do you think there may be cases where it might be best for a defense lawyer to just tank it?

 

[RedSmithClone]

So let me get this straight. The Scalia block thinks punitive sanctions against businesses found liable in torts shouldn't exceed the financial damages, but in the case of child rape (which I agree is a horrible crime), the sanction can exceed the damage inflicted.
I realize we're talking apples and oranges here, but if you cross that line of expanding the death penalty for crimes other than murder how do quantify what deserves the death penalty. Statutory cases? The nature of the attack. I honestly believe if you started putting the death penalty on the table for white collar crime, you might actually deter the crime.
But dead is dead. Eye for eye. We shouldn't allow the government to unfairly apply the death penalty to more cases. Lock em up throw away the key.

Some would say, and many have, that a child who is raped is dead inside for the rest of their lives.

By the way, did anyone catch the state rep from my beautiful home state of Massachusetts on the floor discussing Jessica's Law and why he is against it? Of course as a criminal defense attorney, he seems to care more about his wallet than he does his constituents.

ENJOY: http://hubpolitics.com/tag/james-fagan/

Yeah, it was over the top, but a defense attorney's job is to defend his client to the best of his ability. He could have picked a better way to make that point, but he is right about that.

Actually he is wrong.

Because if you as a defense attorney do what he says he will do, a jury will convict his client just because he is an a-hole.

I know plenty of defense attorneys who say there is no way in hell a lawyer would step up in court and schred a child on the stand. It would be like committing suicide for their own career and their client's life.

Do you think there may be cases where it might be best for a defense lawyer to just tank it?

Tanking it and cross examining a child without screaming and berating them are two different things.

You do what you can as a lawyer, but you do it with some class. This isn't an adult we are talking about, it's a child and people will look down on you as a lawyer if you do what he says to do.

 

[Bubbler]

Frankly, I think it should be up to the victims, or their families, to decide the punishment. Wouldn't change things much, but at least the victim could get a small measure of revenge against the perp.

I forgot. Justice is about revenge. :

 

[deskslave]

So let me get this straight. The Scalia block thinks punitive sanctions against businesses found liable in torts shouldn't exceed the financial damages, but in the case of child rape (which I agree is a horrible crime), the sanction can exceed the damage inflicted.
I realize we're talking apples and oranges here, but if you cross that line of expanding the death penalty for crimes other than murder how do quantify what deserves the death penalty. Statutory cases? The nature of the attack. I honestly believe if you started putting the death penalty on the table for white collar crime, you might actually deter the crime.
But dead is dead. Eye for eye. We shouldn't allow the government to unfairly apply the death penalty to more cases. Lock em up throw away the key.

Some would say, and many have, that a child who is raped is dead inside for the rest of their lives.

I'm not saying this is or isn't true, because I have no idea. But if I were a child who had been raped and I read something like this, even years later, I'd feel pretty horrible knowing that there are people that think I have no opportunity to ever be happy again. Again, I don't mean in any way to minimize that level of suffering, but do we really want to send the message to victims of this sort of crime that they'll only ever enjoy some kind of cursed half-existence?