Unbelievable Decision from SCOTUS

[Falcon1]

Child rapists can't be executed, Supreme Court rules

Published: 6/25/08, 1:00 PM EDT
From Bill Mears CNN Supreme Court Producer

WASHINGTON (CNN) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Wednesday that child rapists cannot be executed, concluding capital punishment is reserved for murderers.

The ruling stemmed from the case of Patrick Kennedy, who appealed the 2003 death sentence he received in Louisiana after being convicted of raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter [emphasis added].



Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that "evolving standards of decency" in the United States forbid capital punishment for any crime other than murder.



See remainder of article here:
http://my.att.net/s/editorial.dll?pnum=1&bfromind=7405&eeid=5950792&_sitecat=1181&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=-2&ck=&ch=ne&rg=blsadstrgt



I just sent this letter (via email) to my US Senators and Representative:

"I am absolutely appalled that five black-robed mandarins on the United States Supreme Court have ruled that child rapists cannot be subject to the death penalty because of “evolving standards of decency.” Evidently, the five members in the majority have decided that the rape of children is decent. If these now self-proclaimed pedophile-lovers knew anything of human decency, they would have allowed the punishment provided under state law for this monster to stand. HE RAPED HIS EIGHT-YEAR-OLD STEP-DAUGHTER!!

"In Article 3, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, Congress is given the authority to remove cases from the jurisdiction of the national courts: 'In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.'

"I beg you, as a member of Congress, please discharge your duty to rein in the excesses of this judicial tyranny.

"I served my country for over twelve years as an Army officer on active duty and in the reserves. I do not even recognize what was my country anymore; instead, I see an emerging dictatorship, and I see Congress doing nothing to forestall its completion."


Before others post after having dissected the decision and say, "Well, that's not really what SCOTUS said," I'm not interested in giving my members of Congress a legal treatise. I want them to know my visceral reaction to this garbage from the court. :mad:

I find myself worried more and more about what the Heller decision will look like....

[crimsonaudio]

Yah, they got that one wrong - bad. I suggest that our forefathers never intended the 8thA to apply to sub-humans who rape children...

[towerclimber37]

where the law fails, Humans will eventually prevail. you will more than likely see it if this decision stands. People will begin to take the law into thier OWN hands because these people fail to administer it in the fashion that we deem decent.
I agree with you. I was sickened when I read that. I know if someone raped MY daughter and I knew they were going to get,what, 2 years and their picture on the internet? ...yah, I'd trade his life for 6 years.
I'm not macho..I'm not "cool"...and I'm not particularly up on the law or being sensitive to other folks needs, save my own family...but I know right from wrong and I agree with you.
Look at the case last year with Jessica lundsford. she was raped, then stuffed into a plastic bag and put under the steps while STILL ALIVE, so that the rapist could escape prosecution.
when the evidence is incontrovertable...yah..they need to die

[saintsfanbrian]

Actually, there is merit to this one. If you knew that you were going to be put to death for your crime you are less likely to leave a witness. The rapist is going to get the death penalty anyway so you might as well kill the child and there be a better chance of you not getting caught.

Do I like it? Nope, but I can see the point.

As far as it being cruel or unusual punishment? Well the document reads cruel AND unusual. As I heard on the way back from lunch, until 1938 the French still used the guillotine to execute criminals. Was it cruel? Yup! Was it unusual? Nope! Carry on Froggies.

[dralarms]

I think they are right in a way. the gut in LA that is on death row should not be on death row. They should have taken the SOB out and shot him in the middle of the court house square the day he was convicted. You should get death for any crime against a child.

[canynracer]

Whatever, someone rapes my child/children...they get the death penalty, if not by me, then by the prisoners.

the difference is, the prisoners will give them an "Eye for an Eye" before sending him to his grave.

[crimsonaudio]

***POSSIBLY NSFW***

Here's how they should be dealt with:
http://spikedhumor.com/articles/38182/Father_Of_Kidnapped_Son_Gets_Revenge.html

[towerclimber37]

I think they are right in a way. the gut in LA that is on death row should not be on death row. They should have taken the SOB out and shot him in the middle of the court house square the day he was convicted. You should get death for any crime against a child.

Brian,
I understand how you feel, but here's flaw in your logic.

1. chances are, if he rapes her, he's going to kill her anyway because if she identifies him he's going to go to jail..ergo no more victims for him. If he's sick enough to abduct her from her own dwelling, in order to rape A CHILD, then the chances are he's going to kill her. after all, she's defenseless, that's why he picked her. any threat to him,real or implied warrants death.

2. they will still live in our society causing harm. with this decision, not only do we allow them to cause harm to our society, WE have to pay for it. (like we don't already..they need an express lane to the electric chair here)

3. accepting this kind of sickness so as to show hope that they will go easy on the victim doesn't work. these slimes aren't people. they're worse than animals. they're predators that will take any advantage that they can to do the damage and escape punishment.
they don't CARE about society, only their own sick wants so the thought that they will go "easy" on their victim and not kill them is absurd. How many children have been found alive after they've been done like this?
how many bodies have been identified after the fact.

I think the ratio of dead vs. children found alive bears out the fact that they don't view them as people. simply as objects so there is no fear of killing them afterward.
I submit that we, who are a part of society shouldn't have to be shackled with this INFESTATION of evil.
give them the steps and the string, and straightaway, when the evidence is incontrovertable.

[The Rabbi]

Actually I think that's a mis-reporting of the decision.
The decision disallowed the death penalty where the death of the victim was not intended. How you determine that is a different question.
I don't think sitting in jail, especially as a child molester, for the rest of your life is exactly a picnic. That might actually be worse.
My issue was that they stepped in on what a state legislature had decided. I think the judiciary needs to give legislatures, as representatives of the people, broad leeway in setting penalties.

[towerclimber37]

Actually I think that's a mis-reporting of the decision.
The decision disallowed the death penalty where the death of the victim was not intended. How you determine that is a different question.
I don't think sitting in jail, especially as a child molester, for the rest of your life is exactly a picnic. That might actually be worse.
My issue was that they stepped in on what a state legislature had decided. I think the judiciary needs to give legislatures, as representatives of the people, broad leeway in setting penalties.


Oh look. the Federal government steps on States rights. Nooo that couldn't happen!!!

[Marswolf]

I saw a story in the news today that under a new Georgia law, sex offenders can't even volunteer at a church or it is a felony. Up to now, they just couldn't be paid by the church.

Let's all have a feelie moment for the poor sex offenders who have found Jesus. :rolleyes:

What is really weird is that I know of a sex offender in Georgia who propositioned two kids in restrooms. One event was in Florida and the other in Kingsport. He got out of jail and moved to Georgia. He is not on the Internet Georgia sex offender list because of a cut-off date. Last I heard, this gay guy was volunteering as marriage counselor at a Catholic Church. Yes, you read that correctly. Somehow that almost sounds appropriate. :p

Of course, if he actually got caught twice....

[bkelm18]

I agree with their decision personally. A good point has been brought up, testimony from children regarding their rape has been noted as being quite unreliable at times. Take for example that story of the 8yr old being raped by her step father. Her ORIGINAL story was that two boys had raped her but the police wanted her to pin it on her dad and she refused to do so. So after about a year and after she gets removed from his custody then placed back into his custody, she changes her story and blames the rape on him. He is arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to death based on her testimony. I call that unreliable and you can't put someone to death on unreliable testimony.

[slothful1]

Look, it doesn't matter whether you think child rapists ought to be executed or not. That's completely irrelevant to this decision. Maybe it's bad public policy to do so, because of unintended consequences, or whatever. The Supreme Court has no authority to make that decision. That is a legislative decision.

The SCOTUS only had to decide whether it is unconstitutional, and it's NOT. The issue here is not the death penalty, or child molesting. It is the illegal usurpation of one branch of government by another.

[The Rabbi]

But they decided it was unconstitutional. And they are the ultimate authority in interpretation.

[Ranger Rick]

Whatever, someone rapes my child/children...they get the death penalty, if not by me, then by the prisoners. the difference is, the prisoners will give them an "Eye for an Eye" before sending him to his grave.


That was my first thought too.

This guy would deserve to be someone's "girlfriend" for quite some time. :mad:

[unreconstructed1]

But they decided it was unconstitutional. And they are the ultimate authority in interpretation.

and that is one reason why the constitutional republic, as envisioned by the forefathers, has failed miserably.

[Marswolf]

"Cruel and Unusual" is the legitimate territory of SCOTUS.

And I agree that kid's testimony is particularly suspect. Sitting on a jury, I never trusted LE testimony, and found eye-witness testimony to be suspect to wishes and often incorrect. But that is an area I've researched a lot.

Honestly it would depend on a lot of things. A 23 year old sleeping with a 17 year old? I wouldn't even vote to convict.

A 50 year old's DMA test proven semen in a 10 year old? Take him out and shoot him.

Around this area, there is a long history of grandpa "breaking in" his granddaughter. Sick.

But the ruling should not be that the death penalty is always inappropriate.

[Marswolf]

BTW, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives SCOTUS a right to decide constitutionality.

That is a long discussion involving Judiciary Acts and some interesting political stuff on the part of early justices.

Let's just say it is accepted that SCOTUS gets to rule on these matters. Then again there is Andrew Jackson's comment about Indian matters that the court had made it's decision - now let us see them enforce it. Jackson won in the real world.

[Im Neero]

Mars brings up an often ignored point. Without the support of the Executive branch, the Supreme Court can rule whatever it wants, but no one really has to listen. It's not like they can sick the "Supreme Court Police" on you or anything.

[The Rabbi]

Mars brings up an often ignored point. Without the support of the Executive branch, the Supreme Court can rule whatever it wants, but no one really has to listen. It's not like they can sick the "Supreme Court Police" on you or anything.
Yeah, and then you end up with a big constitutional crisis.
Anyone remember the last time this became an issue?

[Im Neero]

Yeah, and then you end up with a big constitutional crisis.
Anyone remember the last time this became an issue?

I think Mars already cited the most notable example.

[gunslinger707]

What we need is some Modern day "Judge Roy Bean's" :D:D .Just my worthless 2 cent's !!

[Luckyforward]

Excellent comment, Rabbi . . .

[slothful1]

Yeah, and then you end up with a big constitutional crisis.
Anyone remember the last time this became an issue?

Why is it a constitutional crisis when the executive defies judicial authority, but not when the judiciary defies legislative authority?

[The Rabbi]

I think Mars already cited the most notable example.
Showing your age I see.

I guess no one under about 44 would remember Nixon and the Watergate tapes. Nixon opposed Congress, which had subpoenaed the tapes. Case went to SCOTUS. Nixon said he would only abide by a "clear majority." Didn't define what a clear majority was. In any case the decision was unanimous.
But it was a close-call constitutional crisis with rumors of a dictatorship.

[The Rabbi]

Why is it a constitutional crisis when the executive defies judicial authority, but not when the judiciary defies legislative authority?
Judiciary has the right of judicial review. Ipso facto they cannot defy legislative authority.

[Falcon1]

Judiciary has the right of judicial review. Ipso facto they cannot defy legislative authority.

Perhaps they can, however, defy the will of the people....

[towerclimber37]

Perhaps they can, however, defy the will of the people....

which begs the question: was the law made for man, or was man made for the law?

[slothful1]

The branches of government are supposed to have checks and balances. The Supreme Court is not some kind of super-branch, and the Constitution never grants it absolute god-like power. Article III states in part, "... In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Congress is explicitly empowered to regulate the scope of judicial authority. So yes, the judiciary can defy that.

[The Rabbi]

The branches of government are supposed to have checks and balances. The Supreme Court is not some kind of super-branch, and the Constitution never grants it absolute god-like power. Article III states in part, "... In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Congress is explicitly empowered to regulate the scope of judicial authority. So yes, the judiciary can defy that.
And the checks are that the justices are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate. Also that a case must be brought.
You will never find a case where the Congress simply ignored what the SC said. Typically they go back and recraft the legislation in light of court rulings, which usually spell out what the objectionable part is. That has been the case with abortion and affirmative action.