Supreme Court Rejects Death Penalty for Child Rape
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 4, on Wednesday that sentencing someone to death for raping a child is uncons utional, assuming that the victim is not killed.
“The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court. He was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
The dissenters were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., generally regarded as the conservative wing of the tribunal.
Not since 1964 has anyone been executed in the United States for a crime other than murder, and of about 3,300 inmates now on death row, only two are facing execution for an offense that did not involve a killing — and both of those inmates are in Louisiana. Patrick Kennedy, was sentenced to death for the rape of his 8-year-old stepdaughter and the other is Richard Davis, who was condemned for assaulting a 5-year-old girl.
The case of Kennedy v. Louisiana, No. 07-343, was the latest in a series in which the justices have weighed particular applications of capital punishment. In 2002, for instance, the Supreme Court barred the execution of mentally re ed defendants, and in 2005 it banned the execution of people for crimes they committed before they were 18.
But, as Chief Justice Roberts observed when Kennedy v. Louisiana was argued on April 16: “This is quite different. It is focused on the nature of the offense.” Indeed, a theme that ran through the argument was that, while the death penalty is a punishment like no other, the rape of a child is a crime like no other.
In 1977, the Supreme Court banned death sentences for rape. But the victim in that case, Coker v. Georgia, was a young married woman, and the ruling did not specifically discuss the rape of a child. Over the past 13 years, several states have reacted to public outrage over crimes against children by amending their statutes to make the rape of a child punishable by death.
Louisiana was the first state to do so, amending its death-penalty law in 1995 to include rape of a child under the age of 12. But unlike Louisiana, the other states with similar provisions (Georgia, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas) generally limit the death penalty to defendants previously convicted of sex crimes against children.
Mr. Kennedy’s lawyer, Jeffrey L. Fisher, argued before the justices that it was “at odds with national values” for the state to execute his client, who had never committed such a crime before.
But Justice Scalia pressed Mr. Fisher on that assertion, noting that the recent trend has been “more and more states permitting the capital punishment” for the rape of a child.
As for the case at hand, Juliet L. Clark, an assistant district attorney from Gretna, La., countered that Mr. Kennedy, who weighs 300 pounds, had committed “a very savage rape” that caused serious injuries to his victim. And R. Ted Cruz, the Solicitor General for the State of Texas, who argued as a “friend of the court” on the side of Louisiana, said that Mr. Kennedy (like Mr. Davis, the other child-rape defendant on Louisiana’s death row) had “committed crimes that are just unspeakable.”
Responding to a question from Justice Ginsburg, Ms. Clark said the Louisiana child-rape law could apply regardless of the sex of the criminal or that of the victim.
And in support of her argument that crimes against children have long been viewed with special revulsion, and as deserving of special punishment, Ms. Clark pointed out that the Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that states can make it a crime to possess child pornography even in one’s home.
That ruling, in Osborne v. Ohio, carved out an exception to a 1969 Supreme Court ruling that the Cons ution protects the possession of obscene material in the privacy of one’s residence. Justice Byron R. White wrote for the 6-to-3 majority in the Osborne case, reasoning that Ohio was justified in trying to “destroy a market for the exploitative use of children.”
Of the current Supreme Court, only Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Stevens took part in the 1990 Osborne decision. Justices Scalia and Kennedy were in the majority; Justice Stevens joined with Justices William J. Brennan Jr. and Thurgood Marshall in finding the Ohio law to be uncons utionally broad.
LINK
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justices Cut Damages Award in Exxon Valdez Spill
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
(Can't inline this one with AP crying these days)
LINK
Anthony Kennedy might just be the single most powerful man in the country at this point.
I think crimes against children are abhorrent and should be punished harshly. But I also don't believe in the death penalty under any cir stances, but I'm particularly against the death penalty where the convicted hasn't actually killed another person. I think this is a cons utionally-appropriate outcome, though I must admit to being a bit surprised that this Court would actually strike down that law.
Before children: Anti-death penalty in any scenario.
After children: Seriously considering death for that particular form of child abuse (which goes against all my principles pertaining to criminal punishment). It's amazing how two little beings will change the very foundation of what you believe.
If you're oppossed to the death penalty in any situation then I can understand.
However, for those in favor of the death penalty this ruling is a crying shame.
Eh, from what I hear about the treatment of child molesters in prison, I kind of like the idea of keeping them alive a long time.
Honestly, that's a pretty good point that I hadn't thought of. While I totally disagree with this ruling, you've just given me a small sense of comfort about it.
"should be punished harshly"
Suggestions? 40 years imprisonment will cost about $1M, plus free medical care.
"will cost"
I'm just going to start cherry picking like Boutons.
But he'll get a daily anal probing for free.
i would normally be all for the death penalty for child rapists, or rapists of any kind for that matter, but if some sicko knows he's going to get the death penalty if anyone finds out, wouldn't that give more reason to kill the victim?
It used to be the crime of 'horse thievery' was a hanging offense. I am all for bringing stricter sentences and more death penalties as a deterrents.
I agree with this ruling. Death shouldn't be used as a punishment for anything other than murder...doing it for any other crime is actually an incentive to commit murder.
And yes it's a just punishment for murder...provided you know beyond all doubt the person is guilty of murder.
A great point many people fail to consider.
At the same time,
Maybe if the death penalty had every proven to be a deterrent, this would be a good starting point for a pro-death penalty argument. Unfortunately, there has been shown no link between death penalty and any deterrent impact.
Now, if you want to argue pro-death penalty for punishment, it is hard to argue (for me) against punishing people for the same crime they committed.
For the posters that believe that the Death Penalty for raping a child is incentive to murder the child, what's your rationale behind that position?
If you are getting death either way, why stop at rape? Plus, with the murder the s bag gets the added "bonus" of the primary witness not being around to point the finger at him.
I'd be interested in hearing Psychological or Psychiatric reports that might substantiate one way or the other criminal mindset on this.
IMO, If this crime is premeditated (my thinking is that the criminal mind usually fantisizes about this type of crime before acting on it), I would think the perpetrator goes into it with the mindset that he either wants to rape the victim, or that he goes into it wanting to rape and kill the victim. Whatever give him the biggest thrill.
I can't imagine that the wacked out decision to murder on top of rape is related to a "death penalty either way" mentality.
FTR, I don't care what the cost to taxpayers is, the longer the sentence the better.
I have to do more research on this, but I seem to recall some case studies that indicate that some of these people have fantasies of the victim actually submitting and enjoying the act. After they carry through with the crime, and notice the victim's response, they normally get scared and panic, and only at that point start thinking of the consequences.
No doubt, that not all offenders would be driven to murder - but certainly you could see the presence of an incentive and can imagine a scenario in which at least a few would happen.
And again, what is the incentive here? Is it vengence? Deterrence? We know the death penalty does not serve as an effective deterrence - and I question whether it is a "worse" punishment than a long sentence in GenPop where any serious child offender will have a target on their back.
A sticky subject, no doubt. These guys are disgusting, and we need to protect our children - but I have serious doubts as to the death penalty's ability to do so any more effectively.
Obama disagrees with high court on child rape case
AP Story, follow the link: LINK
And what do you propose? Turn them loose on society? Do you have any vacancies in your neighborhood? I have a nice child rapist that needs a place to live and rape your children.
Oh, and bountons, that is why we pay taxes to keep the bas s in jail. You know the other use of our tax dollars.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
