As reported by the Associated Press moments ago:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday outlawed executions of people convicted of raping a child. In a 5-4 vote, the court said the Louisiana law allowing the death penalty to be imposed in such cases violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. "The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion. His four liberal colleagues joined him, while the four more conservative justices dissented.
How does this make you feel, NewsBusters? Is this a strong decision, or another example -- much like Boumediene! -- of how the five liberal members of this Court are completely in control? Will this become a campaign issue and further clarify the need for conservatives to rally around McCain regardless of their differences with the Arizona Senator? What say you?
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I agree with Bobby Jindal.
June 25, 2008 - 14:15 ET by stormy67I agree with Bobby Jindal. This is an outrage, and I am glad to know he's not taking it lying down.
Louisiana Governor Jindal vows to amend state law to maintain death as a penalty for child rape
This Bodes Poorly for the Heller Decision
June 25, 2008 - 14:23 ET by TinianIt's looking like Heller is going to be decided by the gang of five.
They know that no matter how weak McCain will be in appointing SC justices, Obama might lose and they'll never have this chance again. So look for the five jerks to basically uphold the D.C. gun ban.
More Disturbing
June 25, 2008 - 14:26 ET by MeanderingMore disturbing than this ruling is the rant by Mass. Rep James Fagan saying he will "rip" the young victim's apart on the stand and he would "make sure that the rest of their life was ruined." It sounds to me this guy needs to be impeached and FAST! Its disturbing and nauseating that this is how molested children are going to be treated by this wacko! So, to anyone in Mass. get Fagan out of office!
How Do I Feel?
June 25, 2008 - 14:26 ET by coffee260If I told you I'd get in trouble. However, let me put it like this. Does Marie Antoinette ring a bell?
Where's Bill and Hill on this??
June 25, 2008 - 14:36 ET by Mica the MagnificentWhere's Hillary (I've been fighting for children most of my life) Clinton on this?
Where is her "Children's Defense Fund" on this?
Hey! WTF!! Where's Bill on this? I thought he loved children?
One grandma and one pastor and it still doesn't need a front end alignment! - - Obama marveling at the quality of a bus he's thrown both under.
"the death penalty is not a
June 25, 2008 - 14:46 ET by Ruths husband Ben"the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child." Well, I gotta say I am with them on this one. It isn't proportional, but then again the cruel and unusual clause won't let us do to these creeps what we would like to. The worse we can do to them is kill 'em and let God give them what they really deserve.
VERO POSSUMUS - Latin for "Is that really your possum?"
"VERO POSSUMUS" I thought
June 25, 2008 - 15:49 ET by Indiana Joe"VERO POSSUMUS"
I thought it was Latin for "Play dead while we take over."
I think if you made RAPE
June 25, 2008 - 14:53 ET by Delsaa crime punishable by death if there is a "spedial circumstance" such as rape involving a child.
The state can change it's law to make the rape of a child a more gastly crime.
Kennedy's words are just so painful and without a soul.
Obvious, to the casual observer, when a child is raped, a death has occurred!
Period!
He looked at the case as one where rapists do not get the death penalty.
If there was no such "special circumstance" law in place then the legistatures should get going.
I'll have to read the opinion. To see if I understand the case in the first place it?
This decision made me sick
June 25, 2008 - 15:05 ET by bigtimerThis decision made me sick to my stomach this morning when I heard it...
I still am angry.
It should be up to the states...now his is going to affect a handful of other states too...
I dread what the DC gun ban decision will be very soon.
No this won't change my view on McCain one way or the other...he won't get any conservative judges through even if he picks real conservatives...they won't even make it out of the Judiciary Committee...let alone the Senate.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Sorry bigtimer but I must
June 25, 2008 - 17:07 ET by Ryan Mc.Sorry bigtimer but I must be a little sarcastic here.
So you would rather have a president that will definitely appoint liberals and get them through with no problem?
RM... No. "Never murder
June 25, 2008 - 17:14 ET by bigtimerRM...
No.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
This Supreme Court Proves the Need of the 2nd Amendment
June 25, 2008 - 15:12 ET by dwillmoreThis is why I believe it will be this Supreme court that perverts that amendment to mean something other than personal gun ownership.
After reading what this guy did to his step-daughter there is no way one can state that the death penalty is unusual or cruel, unless you believe that the death penalty in itself is cruel. Of course, SCOTUS has stated that the death penalty is not, in itself, cruel or unusual. My only thought then is that SCOTUS believes that this is not deserving of death:
Maybe this by jurist Kenedy helps us understand his ruling:
He is talking about the scum that raped his step-daughter and not the dignity of the victim.
Personally I'd rather the
June 25, 2008 - 15:28 ET by balboaPersonally I'd rather the rapist go to prison where he'll probably wind up understanding exactly how horrible rape is.
Sadly, as a child-molester,
June 25, 2008 - 16:02 ET by Indiana JoeSadly, as a child-molester, he'll likely be segregated from the general population. I hear convicts really don't like this type of criminal.
I just heard a "victim's advocate" on the news trotting out the old theory that having a death-penalty for rape would encourage a rapist to kill his victim. This is ridiculous on it's face. If the death penalty is a deterrent to a rapist killing his victim, why wouldn't it be a deterrent to rape in the first place?
I think he should be placed
June 25, 2008 - 16:28 ET by mjgI think he should be placed with the general prison population and take his chances there. I wonder how long before someone either kills him or castrates him. He would really deserve it as a part of payback. I can't believe the SCOTUS, first giving Gitmo detainees (terrorists) rights, now child molesters, what's next? Unbelievable.
Yes, he should be placed in
June 25, 2008 - 16:47 ET by Indiana JoeYes, he should be placed in G.P., but for his "protection" he will almost always be placed in segregation.
We can't protect the victim, but we can (and DO) protect the criminal.
Shameful.
Now granted I rarely agree
June 25, 2008 - 15:50 ET by taterNow granted I rarely agree with anything a lib does and what these people do to children is horrible and no child should ever experience that...but I would be okay if this type of crime the punishment was a life sentence with no parole (maybe even solitary confinement) and at the very least give the accused a chance to repent. If they don't...well what God does to these people will be far more worse than what any human will do.
...and a person can repent, read the story about St. Maria Goretti.
http://en.wikipedia....
www.theholyrosary.org
"There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we can not resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary." -Sister Lucia
What a Disgrace
June 25, 2008 - 16:13 ET by ChrisMatthewsiswackFor the second time in two weeks, Justice Kennedy has authored an opinion for the Court that will operate to make the public less safe.
Justice Kennedy claims his piece of judicial legislation relfects the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." A catergorial prohibition of the death penealty for such a dispicable crime is not the product of "evovling standards of decency." In fact, it serves as a sad statement on just how far our "maturing society" has permitted "standards of decency" to devolve; not evolve. States my not now conclude that raping a child is so dispicable that the perpetrators have given up their right to live; this simple, brightline standard can no longer exist. This decisions forces the states to endanger perhaps the most defenseless of its citizens by depriving the state of the chance to gaurentee that a child rapist will never strike again. And Why? solely because Justice Kennedy feels his moral judgment is superior to that of the people of the state of Louisiana.
The Supreme Court
June 25, 2008 - 16:16 ET by WR JonasWhat an incredible decision. Every time a case is considered the Constitution gets raped.
The will of the people thwarted again. An appropriate punishment cannot be carried out because 5 self important people decide their opinion supercedes all others. I have no faith that either candidate would nominate qualified constitutional judges. It's all politics all the time now.
What if the death penalty was common in the EU?
June 25, 2008 - 16:22 ET by Great DebaterIf the SCOTUS were to be honest, they arrived at their decision with international opinion in mind as much as a review of the US Constitution and related precedents. However, every one of them swore an oath before God Almighty to protect and defend the constitution of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ... not world-wide opinion!
What would happen in a normal world is the President and Congress would refuse to allow the ruling to be implemented, and would begin impeachment and removal proceedings. It's the SCOTUS job to ensure that laws are applied equitably and fairly. However, since none have ever been removed, or had a decision not enforced, they have taken it upon themselves to write laws when they want and strike down laws that they don't want. Something's gotta give.
McCain vs. Obama in 2008: Supreme Court Ages: Liberals: 68, 69, 71, 75, and 88. Conservatives: 53, 58, 60, and 72. Either McCain or Obama will likely nominate 3-5. Choose wisely on 11/4/08.
This is precicly why I
June 25, 2008 - 16:23 ET by amberThis is precicly why I would take the law into my own hands.
"Always remember that you are unique. Just like everybody else." --despair.com
Amber... I once watched
June 25, 2008 - 16:39 ET by Clear thinkerAmber...
I once watched one of those Cop shows where a young 9 year old girl had been raped and ran home to tell her Father. What happened afterwards was all caught on tape.
The local media just happen to be at this large apartment complex for another story when they saw a big commotion going on and went over with camera rolling to see what was up. It clearly showed a very angry man in his 40's swinging a large butcher type knife at a younger man in his late 20's. The young man was pretty well trapped at this point because a crowd had gathered and the word had spread that the young man just raped the other mans daughter. The Father proceeded to stab the an repeatedly whith all of it caught on tape. The Cops showed up and took the father to jail and the rapist to the hospital.
When the father went to court he was found innocent and all charges were dropped. The jury got to hear how the rapist had snatched the girl from her ground floor apt window and dragged her to his place where he proceeded to beat and rape her. His excuse was... he was high at the time. He was found guilty of kidnapping, battery (I think), and of course, raping the child. As far as I can remember, he got something like 60 years for his crimes.
My reaction to watching the man get stabbed on TV was a feeling of "this is real justice". If my granddaughter was to have ever gotten raped, or in the future, the rapist had better prepare himself to die! If the courts won't protect us, it is our duty as fathers to do so.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
Wisdom from Asia
June 26, 2008 - 02:51 ET by Unsane"The law is far, the fist is near." - Korean proverb
Can someone do a recap on
June 25, 2008 - 16:24 ET by amberCan someone do a recap on the terrible rulings of this court?
"Always remember that you are unique. Just like everybody else." --despair.com
I'm probably inviting
June 25, 2008 - 16:27 ET by Chris NormanI'm probably inviting trouble by admitting this, but I'm lukewarm towards the death penalty in the first place. Not because I have any sympathy with these scums, it's just that I'm libertarian enough that I'm reluctant to give the state the ultimate power to execute. Plus, it's very, very expensive and very, very slow in it's present form - with all the appeals, etc. However, I am in favor of life imprisonment with daily torture and am okay knowing that, despite the supposed segregation of molesters from the general population, that sooner or later there will be a death sentence carried out - as with Jeffrey Dahmer - and I would be even okay with guards looking the other way occasionally.
Chris... I respect your
June 25, 2008 - 16:30 ET by bigtimerChris...
I respect your opinion...I know RJ would totally agree with you if he was still here...
He and I had a little bit of a debate about all of this too..
I know the only problem I have with the Death penalty is some people are innocent, some people do get set-up by prosecutors ect...so it is quite the dilemma at times...but I do think it is up to each state.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
bt,Thanks. I guess one way
June 25, 2008 - 16:39 ET by Chris Normanbt,
Thanks. I guess one way of putting it is: I'm not so against it, it's just that I'm not so for it - if that makes any sense whatsoever.
Chris - I feel similar to the way you do
June 25, 2008 - 16:54 ET by Dee BunkIn most cases it's too expensive and too flawed to be acceptable.
I do think it should be used in Multiple Murder (serial killers) and multiple Pedophilia cases though because those people don't seem to be able to be rehabilitated. If it were limited to just those cases then the appeals process wouldn't be so long.
Pedophiles should not be allowed out ever after a second conviction. Pedophiles are treated way too leniently and always end up repeating their crimes. Obama was a big advocate for leniency on Pedophiles in IL and that is one of the things I can't stand about him.
No trouble from me, Chris.
June 25, 2008 - 16:42 ET by Indiana JoeNo trouble from me, Chris. Maybe an opportunity for discussion and debate?
If you agree that some crimes deserve death, someone has to perform the execution. If not the state, then who? I think any other choice for this would be rightly classified as "lynching." (Wait, can I say that? As long as I don't mention "noose," it's okay, right? Oh, damn!)
Now, in the name of libertarianism, you're okay with "daily torture," and some skel offing a perp just to see "justice" done? Then what do we do with the skel? Hope another con shanks him?
Are you familiar with the old saying, "does not compute?"
<edit: As to the expense, well, I agree with you there. The SCOTUS has put so many grounds for appeal in place, a death-sentence is more like a life sentence. In that regard, the system is broken. But justice shouldn't have a price tag.>
Joe, I haven't really given
June 25, 2008 - 16:45 ET by Chris NormanJoe, I haven't really given it a lot of detailed thought, but for some reason, giving government the right to kill anyone - no matter how despicable - just doesn't sit right with me. I guess it's the finality of it. It's the same distaste that made me sick to my stomach when the court ordered the feeding of Terry Schiavo be stopped. It's the reason why I'm opposed to abortion and any "right to suicide" laws that could one day lead to euthanasia. This is probably from my Catholic upbringing. I'm not strident on the subject.
No problem, Chris. I believe
June 25, 2008 - 16:51 ET by Indiana JoeNo problem, Chris. I believe there are some crimes that justify death as punishment. It is final, and there is the (slim, I feel) chance of a mistake. But I believe it has it's place.
Well if a person is
June 25, 2008 - 16:49 ET by taterWell if a person is pro-life then I feel in a way you have to be against capital punishment. Prison time and not seeing the light of day for these criminals would be the appropriate puinshment. It's too bad the justice system doesn't work correctly all the time. I say give the criminal a chance to repent (but don't let the criminal out of jail...you do the crime you do the time) and let God decide when to end the life.
www.theholyrosary.org
"There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we can not resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary." -Sister Lucia
I would only disagree that
June 25, 2008 - 16:56 ET by Indiana JoeI would only disagree that if one is "pro-life" (I prefer "anti-abortion" myself) one should also be against the death penalty. For me at least, the differences are huge. A criminal has a choice regarding committing a crime for which he knows death is a possible punishment. An unborn child is truly innocent, and has no say in it's death.
That's true an adult making
June 25, 2008 - 17:03 ET by taterThat's true an adult making choices and a baby who doesn't have a choice are two different things. I'm just saying in most cases I would be against the death penalty and more in favor of life in jail without any chance of getting out for these crimes and let God decide when the person should die. After all even though they are criminals, they still have a right to live but they should lose their right to freedom...which as you see in many countries who don't have it, that's a pretty harsh sentence.
www.theholyrosary.org
"There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we can not resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary." -Sister Lucia
Well, just as some crimes
June 25, 2008 - 17:08 ET by Indiana JoeWell, just as some crimes deserve a loss of freedom as punishment, I believe there are some that deserve the loss of life. Maybe not many, but some.
If there was no death
June 25, 2008 - 17:20 ET by Ryan Mc.If there was no death penalty there would be no Jesus. Just a thought.
I like the death penalty because the victims should get to know that the man/woman who hurt them is no longer able to. Life in prison in liberal justice world means life until a liberal judge decides the criminal gets out for some silly reason. Also there is some deterant effect to know you could die for the crime.
As to the possible case of mistaken conviction does it make you feel better to imprison a person for life by mistake. Many would prefer to die than be wrongly placed in jail for life. (me for one) Maybe you can be shown innocent while in jail but you get a few decades of appeals in death cases so you can find the error there too.
I am unusual amongst conservatives
June 25, 2008 - 16:38 ET by Iowa BoyI don't support capital punishment. Not because I don't believe ending the life of an extremely evil human being is immoral or wrong but, because human juries can screw up. (O.J. Simpson, anyone?)
I would much rather spend whatever dollar amount is necessary to hold an individual for life behind bars than to find out 20 years after the fact that a man was wrongly convicted and executed. You can release a wrongly convicted man. You can't bring one back to life.
"I'd rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the Boston
telephone directory than the 2,000 faculty at Hardvard Unversity." -
William F. Buckley Jr.
I can certainly respect that point of view
June 25, 2008 - 17:16 ET by sarcasmoBut killing people is one of the very few things governments actually do well (although with the expensive pseudomedical ghoulishness of lethal injections instead of the cheap simplicity of hanging, they're finally managing to screw THAT one up, too!). I worry about the death penalty when it comes to screwups, though, because it can't be taken back as you said, but some crimes seem to call out for it, IMO. It's not an easy call, that's for sure.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
I agree. That is my only
June 25, 2008 - 17:17 ET by Cureboy675I agree. That is my only argument against capital punishment. Is the fact that our legal system isn't quite perfect.
But I will say this: If an accused killer or child rapist isn't denying the accusations and enters a plea of guilty, then I say the moment they plead guilty take them down to the execution room and carry it out right then and there.
Some years ago in my state, there was a guy who raped and killed two children. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to death. But the execution wasn't carried out for another ten years because everybody had to argue whether or not it was cruel and unusual punishment. To me, that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
I gotta be pro-death penalty
June 26, 2008 - 02:54 ET by UnsaneOne other reason to be proud to be a Texan:
This state leads the country in executions, and has for 20 years!
Oh, but if we only had The Chair!!!
"Flash before my eyes, now it's time to die! Burning in my brain, I can feel the flame..." - Metallica, "Ride the Lightning"
Human juries do screw up,
June 26, 2008 - 03:17 ET by Conservative VoiceHuman juries do screw up, but your example...he got away. Seriously though, there are times where there is no doubt...the guy needs professional help, we're just making him an appointment to see the very man who can help him. Give him the death penalty out of love...and its for the children.
This is yet another 5-4
June 25, 2008 - 16:51 ET by ChrisMatthewsiswackThis is yet another 5-4 decision that comes out the wrong way, that would have come out the right way if the first person nominated for Justice Kennedy's seat on the Court was confirmed: the great Robert Bork.
Time to Impeach
June 25, 2008 - 17:11 ET by John StephensonPast time to impeach Kennedy!
Is it possible to impeach
June 25, 2008 - 17:25 ET by Cureboy675Is it possible to impeach somebody on the Supreme Court? It might very well be. But I always thought they were appointed for life, or until they retire.
Oops. I stand corrected. I just looked it up. It is possible to do that. But its only been attempted a couple of times.
JS... I am with you...we
June 25, 2008 - 17:28 ET by bigtimerJS...
I am with you...we all know it is never going to happen though.
Unfortunately...
I fear the DC decision coming up with the way Kennedy is voting.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
SCROTUS
June 25, 2008 - 17:26 ET by Chivalrous1_usHot on the heels of this vile interpretation of Justice, the FBI rounds up an whole network of humans excrement involved in "child-sex". Some of the "adult" prostitutes were believed to have been coerced at a young age into prostitution. I wonder if the SCROTUS considered
the implications of such vile "trade" as this. Doubt it. Long-sightedness isn't on the agenda of that august body it appears. Nor is upholding Justice for the most defenseless. Make no bones about it. Were a man or woman to rape a child of mine, it would Not be left to such an august body to dispense of the rubbish.
No, Justice in that instance would be mine, followed by the Lord's.
Chivalry Is Not Dead
Did anyone notice That Obama is against the Court's decision?
June 25, 2008 - 17:27 ET by Dee BunkI think it's ironic because he supported letting child sex offenders out on parole in IL
I don't necessarily agree with using the death penalty for one case of child rape, but I definitely disagree with the courts decision. They have no constitutional justification for it.
Every person in LA who would get the death penalty for this would be able to have their cases reviewed by the SCOTUS. For them to determine that it's never appropriate is overstepping their bounds.
I can't believe they used the "consensus" argument. They said that because most states didn't have it the public opinion was against it. Since when is public opinion relevant in a SCOTUS decision? The only "pulic opinon" that matters is laws made by the public and the SCOTUS is supposed to respect that. This is outrageous.
Hi Dee... Yes, I heard
June 25, 2008 - 17:30 ET by bigtimerHi Dee...
Yes, I heard Obama and his disagreement...I'm quite sure he is doing this for political reasons since he is for partial birth abortion.
JMHO.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
It could be a matter of immature rights
June 25, 2008 - 20:15 ET by needleIt may be that the unwritten reasoning of the Leftist Five goes something like this:
A fetus is not anything until it is born (should that occur as a foolish matter of choice).
When a minor becomes a major at the age 21 he/she becomes a full person with full rights.
So in those in-between years a child has a sort of pro rata status between nothinghood at the age of zero and full personhood at the age of 21. Therefore in the event that some pervert should ruin the life an entity in this in-between stage to full personhood, we should bear in mind that this entity is not really a full person, so its rights are not fully established, and therefore this entity surely cannot make a claim on the life of a pervert with full [criminal] rights.
++++++++++++
Also bear in that 90% of all criminals vote Democrat. You gotta figure that in too.
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
As I have said before, conservative SCOTUS my ____.
June 25, 2008 - 21:50 ET by R D HelmSorry, friends, as I know many of you truly believe the current Supreme Court of the United States is a conservative one.
However, several recent rulings handed down by this so-called "conservative" court have proven one thing:
Conservative it isn't.
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
No it's not RD...
June 25, 2008 - 21:58 ET by Clear thinkerAnd it's getting downright scary!
Just curious... what do you think it will take for the citizens of this country to wake up?
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
Ct, I'll be blunt here, even though I am going to p.o. some.
June 25, 2008 - 22:29 ET by R D HelmI am now convinced that we have literally reached the point that the majority of Americans are too stupid to live in a truly free society. I lay the bulk of the blame squarely at the feet of our government-controlled "educational" system.
As such, I think it is quite literally too late for the American people to "wake up" about much of anything, as most people have essentially become sheep.
As you point out, this is becoming scary, as it seems there are far too many things going wrong all at once. What is scarier still is that neither party's current offerings for POTUS appear to have the foggiest notion of what to do.
The current congress is even more clueless.
If this country is going to survive, it will be due to three things:
1) True libertarian principals that pertain to the concept of the rights of the individual (which I believe this country was founded upon to begin with) returning to the fore.
2) The large number of Americans who do not currently reside in major population centers pushing back in a really big way.
3) How many of us who value true freedom have vacuum-sealed our ammo supplies and burried them out in the boonies (if there are enough of us left.)
Other than the above, I haven't the foggiest notion.
I have long ago given up on the idea of a "revolution" at the ballot box. Yes, I think such a revolution still possible, but not very likely.
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz