U.S. Supreme Court Gives the OK for the Worst Crime Ever

Making a personal attack in lieu of a rational argument?

That's exactly like you. Back on ignore troll!

 

Right.

Ah, but that's punishment or restitution, not guilt of a crime.

My issue isn't that stabbing someone isn't more serious than slapping them. It's that you can't say that slapping someone isn't a crime if it's an adult that is slapped, as opposed to a child.

Punishment must come after a crime, not before it. The "it's the kids" argument gets used to convict people or promote certain laws/behaviors, regardless of the circumstances or rationality of such. And that is where I have a problem.

Parents supplement the security of children. Infants don't wander around eluding kidnappers and molesters by hiding behind trees. You're a dad, so I know you get what I am talking about. I'm sure you do all kinds of things to provide for and protect your kid(s).

 

Supreme Court Bans Death Penalty For Child Rape

Obama said the decision's blanket prohibition on punishing the rape of a child by death went too far. McCain called the ruling "an assault on law enforcement's efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime."


Fair Justice

 

This reasoning is right, as is Stox's, and Guerilla's is a load of crap (I have to add "in my opinion," but that should be obvious). Precisely here, as with the issue of laws against pedophilia, where age, or age gaps, are inherently the primary consideration, so is this issue concerned with vulnerability and personal harm, and it is ridiculous to tap dance wrapped in the cloak of manure as we see on display here, far too often, respecting children and their protection.

Stox indicated it goes to vulnerability of children, as did Grim. Guerilla (as always) attempted to paint with an emotionally thick charge of "fear," when this is nothing of what anyone is saying. It does get old.

 

I think it should be a case by case decision. Brutal rape and torture and left for dead or several physically injured should be taken into consideration. There are a lot of factors that need to be considered and if the crime is heinous enough then the consequence need to be severe enough to be a deterrent. What happened to the victim’s rights and the Supreme Court protecting society as a whole?

 

Left for Dead will carry the same penalty as attempted murder.

You don't see it but the Supreme Court is protecting Society as a Whole. Once we start "lynch mobbing", and putting capitol punishment on non-capitol crimes, that sky is the limit to how far it will go.

We are so quick to want to kill people just because they piss us off, which is exactly why I am glad sane, sound judges make and enforce the law according to the way they are laid out in the Constitution, not what ever public fear and opinion are this week.

The constitution may protect a dirt bag every now and then, but it protects society as a whole every single day.

God Bless America ! {Salute}

 

The main problem I have with this decision is not the fact that they banned the death penalty for child rape, but rather that they took this decision away from the state. It should be for the state to decide, not the federal government.

 

How do you figure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

Thats not a bad idea considering everyone is always grim and complaining about the fed robbing power and money from the state level of government and justice.

 

There are certain powers granted to the feds via the constitution.

You might read it some time

 

If someone (man women or child) is raped, mutilated, tortued for months on end and then left for dead. Justice would be served better by life imprisonment? The state should seek the death penalty and let the courts handle the appeals. It should be a case by case basis’s not a broad decision.

 

homebizseo....had to show a noose hanging from a tree, huh?

 

I doubt he meant it in the way you're thinking it.

 

I was showing different forms of death penalties throughout the thread, Electric chair, noose and lethal injection table so far.

Although lethal injection has become the primary mode of prisoner execution in the United States, eight forms of capital punishment are still practiced in the world today, and four of these methods are still occasionally put to use in the United States.
Lethal Injection
A lethal injection gurney.

Gas Chamber Executions
at San Quentin in California.

The Electric Chair
"Old Sparky"

Execution by Firing Squad
Firing Squad

Death by Hanging


Death by Stoning


Death by Beheading


Death by Crucifixion

 

The Surpreme Court ruled that capital punishment for child rape is cruel and unusual - and that's something that we have no choice but to live with. However, in my personal opinion, I don't think it is especially cruel (given the crime) nor would it be unusual (if it was allowed to be exercised by the state).

 

Well you went from saying the feds shouldn't have say, but according to the constitution they surely should.

Where does it start and where does it end. Anyone who is railroaded, flimsy evidence, a 18 year old sleeping with a 15 year old?

 

I understand. Just poking a little fun. I didn't think you meant anything off color by it.

 

To be fair, I should clarify my view. I believe that, according to the constitution, the federal government should have a say in issues such as this. The 8th amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court rules that capital punishment for child rape is cruel and unusual; the Court has done their duty and interpreted the law. This is their job. Should they have not found this particular method of punishment as cruel and unusual, they would be infringing on state's rights. Since it is, according to them, "cruel and unusual" they're in the right in this instance; I simply disagree with the Courts interpretation. I have trouble understanding how the execution of someone who rapes a child is particularly cruel.

In regards to evidence/punishment for a alleged crime (or specifically child rape)? Defining what is "reasonable" doubt, sufficient evidence, and other "gray" areas has always been and will always be an issue. I don't think it is overly an issue in this situation. The law that the Supreme Court struck down was only applicable if the rape victim was under 12 (or was it 13?). The decision of if a punishment for a crime is appropriate or not (or if there's sufficient evidence) should be up to the jury.

 

#1 Was there an age? I didn't read the entirety, however from what I read I could have sworn it struck down child rape being punishable by death from a few states, no 'age' was apart of the decision, or was it?
#2 A jury is given instructions on what constitutes the punishment for a given case, as well as what level of evidence it must have.

Without a clear indicator on this the pro death stance is going to lose a lot of possible supporters, myself included

 

#1 - I don't know about all states involved. However, in the Louisiana case that was dealt with specifically, the death penalty punishment was only on the table for children under the age of either 12 or 13. And previously, I believe the Supreme Court banned the death penalty as punishment for all rape cases involving adult victims.

#2 - That being the case, then I don't think the the "gray" areas or other factors really are all that relevant. If the evidence for child rape is sketchy, the fact that there is a potential death sentence shouldn't have any bearing on the ruling.

A clear indicator on what, specifically? So you were pro-death penalty, now you're not? If so, what made you change stances?