US Supreme Court strikes down death penalty for child rapists

I thought this case was interesting and was surprised to see no one brought it up.

Quote:

---

While the court ruling effectively ends the use of the death penalty for child rape, the court left open its use for crimes such as "treason, espionage, terrorism, and drug kingpin activity, which are offenses against the state," the ruling states. "As it relates to crimes against individuals, though, the death penalty should not be expanded to instances where the victim's life was not taken."

---

Let me start out by saying that I don't like the death penalty. I don't think that 'eye for an eye' is a good system of justice and that there is no particularly convincing evidence that the death penalty acts as a significant deterrent. However, I think the death penalty is within the authority of the state and can have it's place. As such, it should not be banned outright but it should be very limited in its application.

Having said all of that, I think this case was very poorly decided with little basis in anything other than the personal beliefs of the justices who supported the decision. None of them seem to argue that the death penalty in itself is a "cruel and unusual" punishment. What the court appears to be saying is that when, as they see it, the punishment is too severe for the crime a punishment that is normally acceptable somehow then becomes cruel and unusual- this makes no sense at all. If a punishment is cruel and unusual, then it is cruel and unusual all the time. When that punishment is handed out- whether for first, second, or third degree murder, child rape, or horse theft should be left up to the individual states and their elected legislatures to decide. By the court's reasoning, sticking bamboo shoots under your fingernails might not necessarily be cruel and unusual- just so long as the crime is heinous enough (in their view) to warrant it.

Personally, I don't really think that execution is appropriate for sex offenders- but me thinking that has no bearing on whether or not it's cruel and unusual. Thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

this makes no sense at all. If a punishment is cruel and unusual, then it is cruel and unusual all the time.

---

My thoughts exactly.

Another usurpation of the legislature. I'm not sure why people arn't more concerned with the way the Supreme court acts in the cases. They make things up and impose the morality of 5 on the rest of the country. I don't believe that that the death penalty for rape is really a great idea, but it is not "cruel and unusual punishment" according to the Constitution. The Constitution makes no such claim and the reality is that capital punishment was applied for any number of offenses for a very long time, not just murder.

These 5 justices seem to believe that if it isn't specifically stated in the Constitution that it is their call. I would assume that if it is not specifically stated in the constitution that is the call of the various state and federal legislatures. Their "legitimacy" came from another incorrect decision by the courts that struck down death penalty laws for the rape of an adult woman citing "cruel and unusual punishment". The Constitution, Bill of Rights and Amendments never seem to be a determining factor for these 5.

Why do we even need a legislature? Why don't we just have Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer & Kennedy write all our laws for us. It might expedite this processes they've already engaged themselves in, saving a tremendous amount of resources. We wouldn't even need to make an amendment to the enumerated powers, we could instead inform them of the change and they would make it so. Ah, European problem solving.

I think that if liberals really understood the concept of Original meaning that many would champion the likes of Scalia. Dershowitz and Tribe agree with his judicial philosophy while disagreeing with most of his personal and political ideas - which I can live with.

The rule of law isn't the impediment to appreciating the conservative justices - ideology and a misunderstanding of the Supreme Court's function seems to be.

If you don't kill anyone death penalty is too much, give back what you take, if that's a life that's what you have to give. Cruel and unusual punishment for childrapist, I can think of a few.

Another thing: does not such a ruling just implicitly encourage more vigilantism? If my mother, daughter, wife, sister is raped, and I know that the state will not kill the perp... in my grief, anger, and frustration, why don't I take the law into my own hands? After which, of course, the State will kill me, for having killed the perp, that not being cruel and unusual punishment.

Redemption

You think that the Supreme Court has gone to hell in a hand basket and then they go and TOTALLY REDEEM THEMSELVES.

Well, not exactly "They" - more like Anthony Kennedy. And not exactly "totally redeem themselves" - more like put some caulk in the seems of a bursting dam.

The power that Kennedy holds makes him the most powerful man in the country. The court tends to be split 4-4. Kennedy is almost always the tie breaker, deciding things arbitrarily. I would love to know what his judicial philosophy is. Wait - I've got it; "Gonzo Constitutionalism", or "Gonzo Judiciary"? Some might call him a "moderate", but they probably think that moderation consists of arbitrarily deciding things without any foundation or by looking a a chart of what you last voted and voting opposite.

Anyway, I can't wait for the inevitable challenge to the NY gun laws. WEeeeeeee

I love what Jindal's doing in lieu of executing them.

From a German perspective it seems to me that the judges wanted to play the disproportionality card

I just wonder why the judges didn´t say so if they meant it that way.

Xiaohu, has the application of the Principle of Proportionality (TM) been an issue in US constitutional law before?

I don't agree with the death penalty in peacetime, but if you have it, use it for this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

I don't agree with the death penalty in peacetime, but if you have it, use it for this.

---

The real question is: who should be deciding this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

I love what Jindal's doing in lieu of executing them.

---

Out of curiosity, what is an "aggravated crime against nature"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I thought this case was interesting and was surprised to see no one brought it up.
Let me start out by saying that I don't like the death penalty. I don't think that 'eye for an eye' is a good system of justice and that there is no particularly convincing evidence that the death penalty acts as a significant deterrent. However, I think the death penalty is within the authority of the state and can have it's place. As such, it should not be banned outright but it should be very limited in its application.

Having said all of that, I think this case was very poorly decided with little basis in anything other than the personal beliefs of the justices who supported the decision. None of them seem to argue that the death penalty in itself is a "cruel and unusual" punishment. What the court appears to be saying is that when, as they see it, the punishment is too severe for the crime a punishment that is normally acceptable somehow then becomes cruel and unusual- this makes no sense at all. If a punishment is cruel and unusual, then it is cruel and unusual all the time. When that punishment is handed out- whether for first, second, or third degree murder, child rape, or horse theft should be left up to the individual states and their elected legislatures to decide. By the court's reasoning, sticking bamboo shoots under your fingernails might not necessarily be cruel and unusual- just so long as the crime is heinous enough (in their view) to warrant it.

Personally, I don't really think that execution is appropriate for sex offenders- but me thinking that has no bearing on whether or not it's cruel and unusual. Thoughts?

---

I think it makes complete and perfect sense. You don't throw someone in jail for 25 years for jay walking and you don't kill someone for rape.

Where does the constitution mention the principle of proportionality? How about the Bill of rights or its addendum?

Nowhere? What authority does the Supreme Court of the United States have in adopting modern European political concepts in order to suppress U.S. legislative action?

"Cruel and Unusual" is the name of the game. I don't think that it is either. I wouldn't necessarily ask my representatives to endorse a bill in NY mandating the death penalty in cases of the rape of a child, but I damn sure wouldn't oppose other democratically elected legislatures in other states from making or upholding the laws.

Full text of the DC v Heller decision. If you'd rather have it in PDF format, that's okay too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Full text of the DC v Heller decision. If you'd rather have it in PDF format, that's okay too.

---

Lemur

What do you think of the decision, having read the full text?

Surely it's not cruel to execute traitors, but it is to execute those that take candy from children?

I reckon capital punishment should only apply in some cases, ie

The Scum of the Earth offences, such as Treason, Genocide etc

Murder after being released from prison following a murder conviction

Frankly the essence of the ruling is correct - elevating rape - even child rape to a capital offense is not portional to the crime.

Frankly the criminal justice system - ie the prisoners themselves do a better job of eaking out the punishment for child rapists

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Frankly the essence of the ruling is correct - elevating rape - even child rape to a capital offense is not portional to the crime.

Frankly the criminal justice system - ie the prisoners themselves do a better job of eaking out the punishment for child rapists

---

Proportionality is not for the SCOTUS to decide. A punishment is either cruel and unusual, or it is not- there's no sliding scale. Proportionality is completely subjective and is best left to the state legislatures and their criminal courts.

As I've said, using fuzzy standards like this, they could allow or disallow literally any punishment dependent only on their whim. Sure, flaying someone alive is cruel and unusual unless the crime is heinous enough- then it's fine. :dizzy2:

Right. The reality is that it is for the electorate to decide, whether on a state or federal level. I'm not saying that it is right, but who are 4 people to say it is wrong? Let the electorate say it is wrong if they are so inclined - make the case to them.

I'm actually inclined to agree with Tuff and Xiahou on this one.

I say, let the legislature/people decide. I, personally, am very for capital punishment. I think that the death penalty is no where near cruel and unusual in its current incarnation. You get decades to appeal and your death is now painless and relatively quick. The only form of punishment that seems cruel and unusual for me would be anything involving torture or extending punishment to those related to the criminal, but not participants of the crime

"The Supreme Court is composed of seven elderly men, who remember the past, and forget about the future."

~FDR

Amendment VIII to the US Constitution:

Quote:

---

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

---

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...#amendmentviii

The constitution, like usual, is very vague on the subject.

I'm going to have the agree with SOTUS on this such case: Something can be cruel and unusual on one crime, but not on another.

It would be cruel and unusual to execute someone for a parking ticket.

However, it would not be cruel and unusual to execute someone for giving sensitive data to the enemy in wartime resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Americans.

So if they allowed the death penalty for child rape would that mean that the fundmentalist mormons would be facing the chair as surely their practices would amount to them being classed as repeat offenders

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So if they allowed the death penalty for child rape would that mean that the fundmentalist mormons would be facing the chair as surely their practices would amount to them being classed as repeat offenders

---

SCOTUS' decision does prevent such a sentence. Yes, Texas was one of the states wherein this penalty was available to prosecutors.

However, the case against the FLDS is apparently running into evidentiary problems. Getting proper evidence against individuals may prove difficult and they're facing "fruit of the poisoned tree" issues as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

None of them seem to argue that the death penalty in itself is a "cruel and unusual" punishment. What the court appears to be saying is that when, as they see it, the punishment is too severe for the crime a punishment that is normally acceptable somehow then becomes cruel and unusual- this makes no sense at all. If a punishment is cruel and unusual, then it is cruel and unusual all the time.

---

:2thumbsup: Absolutely. They (and some posters here) seem to be confusing proportionality (ie punishment fitting the crime) with "cruel and unusual". These are two separate ideas and shouldn't be conflated -- UNLESS there is some previous ruling that disproprtionate sentencing is by definition cruel and unusual, but I don't know whether there is or not.

I seem to recall hearing something in the past year or so that certain methods of applying the death penalty have been suspended due to reasons that could classify under "cruel and unusual" - ie drawn out agony, unreliable effects etc etc, but even so, that doesn't apply to the SENTENCE, only the method.

FWIW I do not support capital punishment, mostly because I've seen too many innocent people pardoned and released years after conviction, and I believe the role of criminal justice should be focussed on protecting the innocent above punishing the guilty :bow:

Another case of court activism.

Anyways, what was especially stupid was they used the 'evolving standards of decency' or whatever - in essence, that public opinion doesn't support this.

But public opinion supports this, and in a poll at CNN (unscientific I know, but CNN is hardly a right-wing bastion) 75% of people supported it.

A pathetic ruling; they've taken it upon themselves to dictate the national opinion and use it to alter law as they see fit.

CR

Even criminals have the right to life - the death penalty is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Even criminals have the right to life - the death penalty is wrong.

---

The constitution of the United States does not share that opinion. Neither do the vast majority of Americans. There are instances in which the practice is allowable, defensible and consistent with most types of human ethical philosophies.

Who says it is wrong? Why should your opinion obfuscate those of our constitution and and popular opinion?

It sounds like you've got some work to do convincing everybody.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

The constitution of the United States does not share that opinion. Neither do the vast majority of Americans. There are instances in which the practice is allowable, defensible and consistent with most types of human ethical philosophies.

---

The constitution is nuetral on the death penalty. It's language leaves it up to society to determine what penalty will be handed out to those convicted of crimes. At one time the Supreme Court of the United States even ruled that the death penalty violates the constitution. So be careful in attempting to place an absolute on the constitution that is not inherent in the language of the constitution. Especially given the fact that the death penalty is often challenged based upon the 8th and 14th Amendments to the document.

Quote:

---

Who says it is wrong? Why should your opinion obfuscate those of our constitution and and popular opinion?

It sounds like you've got some work to do convincing everybody.

---

Personally I have no problem with people who oppose the death penalty. Freedom of speech allows them to voice that opinion regardless if they are the minority opinion or the majority opinion. Remember at one time for a short period of time the Death Penalty was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

The minute we attempt to silence the dissent on a social issue, is the minute that we lose the fundmental reason why the constitution is one of the greatest governmental documents in history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

The constitution is nuetral on the death penalty. It's language leaves it up to society to determine what penalty will be handed out to those convicted of crimes. At one time the Supreme Court of the United States even ruled that the death penalty violates the constitution. So be careful in attempting to place an absolute on the constitution that is not inherent in the language of the constitution. Especially given the fact that the death penalty is often challenged based upon the 8th and 14th Amendments to the document.



Personally I have no problem with people who oppose the death penalty. Freedom of speech allows them to voice that opinion regardless if they are the minority opinion or the majority opinion. Remember at one time for a short period of time the Death Penalty was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

The minute we attempt to silence the dissent on a social issue, is the minute that we lose the fundmental reason why the constitution is one of the greatest governmental documents in history.

---

I'm not trying to stifle dissent. I'm trying to say that the arguement should be posited toward voters, not courts

"no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property... without the due process of law"

If read sensibly this line litterally means that, through the due process of law, a person can be deprived of life, liberty or property.

Proportionality is not established except in cases of excessive fines or bail.

I don't believe that the death penalty, particularly mandatory death penalties based on certain charges are a great idea because they may deter a confused morallistic jury into not guilty verdicts when the evidence is in favor of guilty (among other reasons), but It is pretty clear that people can be deprived of life with due process of law.