28 total posts
IMHO a very bad and disgusting decision.
Would it be better if he killed the child?
You can't know that would happen...
Death penalty would not be automatic in all child rape cases. To rule it completely out could also have the opposite effect: "They can't execute me no matter what I do, so I'll do what I want."
It's moot anyway. Actual executions in this country are far too rare.
This case in particular...
In 1998, Patrick O. Kennedy's eight-year-old step-daughter awoke to find a grown man atop her, raping her. Even though Kennedy concocted a wild story about the rape of his step-daughter, that story fell apart when forensic investigators assessed the physical evidence.
The eight-year-old girl had emergency surgery to repair the damage Kennedy inflicted upon her reproductive system. In 2003, the court sentenced Kennedy to death under a 1995 Louisiana law making rape of a child a capital crime.
The Court ruled that the penalty was "disproportionate" to he crime! Oh really? IMHO death would have been too good for him.
The majority of justices held that imposing the death sentence for raping a child violated the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Of course, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, could not make that argument on the grounds of historical interpretation of the Constitution nor on the grounds of legislative intent.
So Justice Kennedy and the majority relied on another way of reading the Constitution - "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."
And note that he didn't kill hert....
in spite of being eligible for the death penalty. I don't think monsters like this are concerned with the possible punishment, because they don't think they are going to be caught.
because we all see what our courts do to them
I find myself in agreement ...
with the decision BUT I do believe the Supreme Court should also have determined that it could be applied at the jury's discretion based on the evidence they (the jury) saw pending modification of currently available mechanical bulls to enable their use as punishment on conviction.
RE: condemns the victim.
Death penalty condemns us all. As it always has, death penalty simply teaches society, in particular our young and other incorrigibles that to destroy Human life for the sake of convenience, hatred, vengeance or revenge, even in the name of so-called jurisprudence is acceptable. And I figure, as has been the case for so long, we will continue to see with practically unfettered growth, folks killing one another over silly foolishness.
So, you don't really believe in Equality?
reply to: So, you don't really believe in Equality?
If some one killed you, you would kill them back?
I'd leave that to the "revenger of blood". Justice belongs not to the state, but to those who were wronged, and to those who have been robbed by the death of a family member. The state is supposed to insure it happens. When the state fails to perform it's duty, then another should do it.
reply to: No
Though "revenge" may not be directly defined so, I believe "revenge" (or vengeance) simply implies the carrying out of and act of hatred in exchange for perceived personal or societal satisfaction. And as far as I am concerned hatred is not, and has never been a good excuse for causing harm to another person, especially when that person has been rendered helpless or defenseless.
Vengence is mine saith the Lord
Yes, and if you don't get'em, He will.
Unfettered? Excellerated! ! !
Considering the court's recent misinterpretation of the Constitution's Well Regulated Militia Amendment it is not a great feat of imagination to see the rapid onset of the fate you propose.
your so wrong
scotus finally got 1 right
soon the states that don't follow the constitution will be free of there Marxist laws
"" and hope so!
Do you really, in your wildest dreams imagine that the Founding Fathers intended citizens to not be armed?
I believe you are the one misinterpreting. You are elevating a subordinate clause meant to clarify and expand on the main clause to take over and eclipse the whole Amendment.
Very clearly the intent of the Amendment is to guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
I've a feeling the "well regulated millitia" refers to use of the fire arms rather than use of the people.
"Death penalty condemns us all."
I just don't buy that, or your take on the death penalty. There are some people whose transgressions against society are so bad that they don't deserve to continue living. It is society's obligation to put them to death. To do less would be to dodge that
It has nothing to do with revenge or even punishment. It is simply setting things right and doing what's needed.
RE: or even punishment
Then why is it called "punishment"? And never does it set things "right," as it never sets things the way they were. Capital punishment refers to a decree of "punishment" (originally referring to removal of the head) for crimes against the state and some forms of political decent. I have heard many refer to such punishment as an "eye for eye, and tooth for a tooth" for the sake of trying to justify it's imposition. But I figure such thinking would eventually leave us all blind and toothless, which in the same since is what we see actually occurring. I believe such thinking is right up there with praying to volcanoes and Lunar eclipses for mercy.
Just my take on it. But you are welcome to be wrong as much as you like.
The term Capital punishment used as a way to say punishable by death dates from 1526 according to the Oxford dictionary.
By the 1700s, 222 crimes were punishable by death in Britain, including stealing, cutting down a tree, and robbing a rabbit warren. Hanging was a quite common way of execution.
"You are welcome to be wrong as much as you like. "
I'm of two minds on this
While I've long believed in the death penalty, I also think it would be much better if we didn't have to spend so much money on the appeals process. Also, as someone mentioned, the death penalty has been a rare event -- too rare.
But I've come to believe that maybe we could save the money on the death penalty while at the same time urging my representative and senator to make sure rapists rot in jail for the rest of their lives. I don't think this kind of behavior is conducive to a cure.
And, maybe we could use some of the money we saved on building more prisons.
And by conservative Judges no doubt
Several appointed by our acting President. I've never been a big fan of his decision making abilities.
Several? He's only appointed two.
Could the deleter please
tell me what TOS violation there was?