|
|
Go to page 1~2 [Next] | ||||||||||
Vandy Grift Inner circle Milwaukee 3504 Posts |
Kennedy Cares
Saving the child rapists. By Ned Rice This week the Supreme Court granted a rare legal victory to one of America’s most down-trodden, least-understood special-interest groups: people who rape small children. In a 5-4 decision, the Court decided that it was unconstitutional to execute persons convicted of forcibly raping children under the age of 12. This came as welcome news to Patrick Kennedy, 43, who was sentenced to death for the rape of his eight-year-old stepdaughter in 2003. According to doctors, Patrick Kennedy raped his stepdaughter so brutally that both her reproductive organs and her digestive tract suffered significant damage, requiring immediate surgery. Luckily, doctors were able to treat her successfully, and in all likelihood she’ll go on to become as happy, healthy, and well-adjusted an adult as anyone who’d been brutally raped by her own stepfather at the age of eight could reasonably be expected to. In writing the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy, after generously noting that child rapes may be “devastating,” claimed that “in terms of moral depravity, and of the injury to the person and to the public, they cannot compare to murder in their severity and irrevocability.” Which is true, in the sense that child rape is arguably worse than murder: Murder is an act which at least brings an end to the victim’s suffering, whereas child rape creates mental anguish and despair that can last a lifetime. As Justice Kennedy has somehow failed to grasp, there are some fates worse than death: certain types of cancer, for example; some forms of mental illness; and, yes, the forcible rape of an eight-year-old girl by her own stepfather, a rape of sufficient severity to result in massive damage to her internal organs. The Louisiana law struck down by this ruling did not require the death penalty for child rapists, it merely allowed for it. But even that possibility was unacceptable to Justice Kennedy, who argued that allowing the death penalty would leave open the possibility of execution in less severe child-rape cases. Which suggests that, at least in Justice Kennedy’s mind, some forcible rapes of children are more heinous than others — for example, if the child was clearly asking for it based on his or her provocative dress or mannerisms. Even after allowing that juries and judges would surely note, during sentencing, the relative level of brutality of each particular child-rape case, Kennedy still worried that some of the less brutal child-rape cases — for example, ones that did not result in injuries that required emergency surgery — might result in a death penalty for the child rapist. Kennedy also claimed that allowing the death penalty for child rapists could place an undue burden on victims if their testimony could result in the execution of the child rapist, especially if the rapist is a family member. Which would seem to be an argument against allowing children to testify in any kind of abuse case, or any capital crime, or, ultimately, in any sort of criminal proceeding in which a relative might be implicated. A number of victim’s-rights groups concurred with this Court decision, arguing that since so many child rapes are committed by a relative of the victim it would be “unthinkable” to ask the child to implicate a family member who could then face execution. Somebody might want to inform these groups that once you’ve been forcibly raped by your own father at the age of, say, eight, the concept of “unthinkable” becomes pretty fluid. As with most efforts to abolish the death penalty, this opinion has nothing to do with the depravity of the offense. Rather, it’s based on the notion that capital punishment for any reason violates the Constitution because it’s cruel and unusual. But here’s the thing: “Cruel” is subjective; its definition varies. “Unusual,” on the other hand, is something we can quantify based on how frequently something occurs. And if something began to occur on a regular basis — say, the execution of men who forcibly rape eight-year-old children so brutally that they require emergency reconstructive surgery — it would become harder over time to characterize it as “unusual.” Which is why it is so important that we make the execution of child rapists, serial killers, terrorists, and others so clearly beyond human redemption as commonplace, even routine, an event as possible. Because once we get “unusual” out of the way, we can start working on “cruel” — and before you know it, the execution of the very worst criminals can be restored to its rightful place as the crown jewel of our criminal justice system. Now I’m going to use an expression I have never used before, and I couldn’t be more serious: My fellow Americans, let’s restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let’s do it . . . for the children. — Ned Rice is a writer in Los Angeles. Discuss.
"Get a life dude." -some guy in a magic forum
|
|||||||||
kid iowa Loyal user Oklahoma 300 Posts |
As long as they do an un-anesthatized castration prior to the execution, I'm all for it.
Any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life worthwhile...can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction, "I served in the United States Navy." J.F.K.
|
|||||||||
Margarette Special user Memphis area 956 Posts |
No death penalty for child rape? Fine as long as two conditions are met: 1)General population, and 2) their crime is on their pink prison garb. It wouldn't be considered cruel and unusual....general population requires fewer guards than having all sorts of prisoner segregations, and there's the jail administrator in Arizona that already uses pink uniforms for his inmates!
The only stupid question is the one not asked.
|
|||||||||
Doug Higley 1942 - 2022 7152 Posts |
Ah the lefty court. Get prepared for the Obamoron appointments...not that any could be more disgusting than this decision...wait, I take that back...they'll find one.
Higley's Giant Flea Pocket Zibit
|
|||||||||
EsnRedshirt Special user Newark, CA 895 Posts |
Doug- actually, neither McCain nor Obama supported this decision.
Personally, I'm conflicted over the death penalty for any offense, for a number of reasons. One- capital punishment, after appeals and all, ends up being more expensive to the taxpayer than life in prison without parole. Two- there have been wrongful convictions; and while it's possible to release an exhonerated prisoner, once you flip the switch, you can't give them their life back. The third comes down to an individual's view of the penal system- what is its goal? Rehabilitation, vengence, or to set an example? If it's the first, then the death penalty is pointless except in cases where the offender cannot be rehabilitated- psychopathic serial killers who have no remorse for their actions, etc. For those cases, the death penalty is a mercy killing. If the point is vengence, then we better start lining up more electric chairs and lethal injection machines. If the point is to set an example, we'll need to bring back public hangings, because nobody talks about the death penalty anymore. Quick- when was the last time your state executed a prisoner? Can't remember? What kind of example is that? Those points being said, I'm supportive of castrating child-rapists with a rusty spoon and letting them bleed to death slowly.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.
* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt. |
|||||||||
kregg Inner circle 1950 Posts |
I'm not for State sanctioned death sentencing. I'm for life sentencing without parole,hard labor, cold meals, no fraternizing with inmates, no techno luxury's, and if they need a medical procedure to keep them alive ... DENIED.
POOF!
|
|||||||||
Doug Higley 1942 - 2022 7152 Posts |
I didn't say he did...in fact he never did anything. I'm saying what he will do based on his Marxist leanings. McCain won't do much of anything eihther since he ain't gettin' in and if in will forget why he got there.
We're screwed...might as well deal with it.
Higley's Giant Flea Pocket Zibit
|
|||||||||
Vandy Grift Inner circle Milwaukee 3504 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-07-03 14:00, EsnRedshirt wrote: Are those the only possibilities? What about punishment? I thought that was the goal. We don't send people to prison for the express purpose of rehabilitation or to set an exapmle, we send them there as punishment for commiting crimes. Why that never entered into your list of possible "goals" is somewhat interesting. Maybe I misunderstood, are "vengence" and "punishment" one and the same in your book?
"Get a life dude." -some guy in a magic forum
|
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-07-03 14:00, EsnRedshirt wrote: There are many goals of the penal system, and very often, they're not in conflict. One you didn't mention in incapacitation - removing the offender from "polite society." In broad terms, the goals are retributional or utilitarian - we punish someone because he deserves it, or because society will benefit. Utilitarian goals can be further subdivided (incapacitation, general deterrence (deterring others), specific deterrence (deterring this guy from re-offending), etc. With respect to Obama, he has said specifically that he supports the majority decision in the DC gun case. Personally, I believe him; however, it's almost a lead-pipe cinch that any justice he would appoint to the Supreme Court would have been on the other side.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
kregg Inner circle 1950 Posts |
Guys, I thought you'd get a kick out of this little twist: hotair.com
POOF!
|
|||||||||
Vandy Grift Inner circle Milwaukee 3504 Posts |
Ha!
Quote:
On 2008-07-03 14:00, EsnRedshirt wrote: Sorry I couldn't let his go. If you have a question about the goal of the penal system, start by looking up the word "penal". If nothing else you may be less likely to use such loaded words as "vengeance" in the future. The main goal of the penal system is defined by it's very name.
"Get a life dude." -some guy in a magic forum
|
|||||||||
EsnRedshirt Special user Newark, CA 895 Posts |
True, I did overlook some additional goals of the system. Punishment and removal from society are two additional goals. However, it's easy to argue that the US prison system just isn't currently set up to accomplish some of those goals. In some cases, instead of rehabilitating a prisoner, we're training them to commit more crimes.
Vengence is separate from punishment- vengence is done with malice, for the benefit of the victims and their families (whether it works in this manner is debatable- some victims feel justified, some do not.) Strict punishment as deterrant to re-offending only works with some prisoners. Those who don't care, or don't think what they've done is wrong will be less affected by the sentence. Prisoners confined to solitary need rehabilitation before release- separating someone from human contact for extended periods will cause psychological damage. Some of those prisoners are actually afraid of being released- they know they can no longer cope with life on the outside. Punishment is, necessarily, a gray area- it must be geared towards the individual criminal to be effective. While no politician wants to appear soft on crime, laws that restrict judges in meting out appropriate penalties often cause more harm. Not every judge is, of course, perfect- but neither are convicts, and it takes human judgement to determine the individual outcome of a crime. Hmm. I've rambled too much and forgotten my point. Sorry!
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.
* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt. |
|||||||||
stoneunhinged Inner circle 3067 Posts |
I've been trying to find some other commentary on this decision, because it shocks me. Anybody have a few other links from, say, constitutional scholar blogs or such?
Lobo? |
|||||||||
Vandy Grift Inner circle Milwaukee 3504 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-07-03 14:44, EsnRedshirt wrote: I'm not accusing you of this. But I hear this point of view, and varations on it, expressed fairly often. What's funny is that the argument usually comes from people who seem to think more and more, and stricter and stricter laws, such as gun control will deter criminals from using guns to commit crime. As if somehow writing something in a book and putting it on a shelf is more of a deterrent than actually punishing someone for a crime once it has been comitted.
"Get a life dude." -some guy in a magic forum
|
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-07-03 14:53, stoneunhinged wrote: I haven't read these in a while, so I don't know what (if anything) they have to say about Kennedy v. Louisiana. These are both outstanding minds and among the top scholars in the field of constitutional law. Eugene Volokh is a professor at my former law school (though I didn't have him for Constitutional Law). Tung Yin was a childhood friend from ages 10-14, who went on to become a constitutional law professor at the University of Iowa, also a top law school. http://www.volokh.com/ http://yin.typepad.com/ I don't know if Erwin Chemerinsky blogs, but he's another top constitutional law scholar.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
Leland Stone Inner circle 1204 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-07-03 14:00, EsnRedshirt wrote: Your conflict is appreciated, as people who don't grapple with profound questions, IMO, don't understand the gravity of those questions. Like you, the cost and error aspects of the application of capital punishment were ones I found troubling. However, it seemed to me that these were actually arguments for efficiency and accuracy, not the abolition of capital punishment. Error can never be completely eliminated from any human endeavour, and irreversibility shouldn't make capital punishment uniquely qualified for abolition; why shouldn't those convicted of lesser crimes be permitted to exercise this benefit of doubt, and all punishment be proportionately reduced? Since some are wrongly accused of all manner of crimes, shouldn't their sentences be reduced or set aside, since the system is fallible? As to the cost, it is partly a necessary function of the legal system's refinement, reducing the chance of wrongful execution (which function, IMO, is open to abuse by attorneys with manifestly guilty clients whose cases are appealed based on inconsequential errors or irrelevant post-conviction information such as character reformation or religious conversion -- that of their clients, not themselves! ). As to an one's view of the penal system, mine is that it should serve to modify behaviour through punishment. Certain criminals have their behaviour modified through the deprivation of liberty, others through enforced restitution or imposition of monetary penalty, others through some combination thereof, and still others by the involuntary forfeiture of their lives. IMO, it is not the province of the state to "reform" its citizenry into something other than what they are; this decision is best left to individual conscience. |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-07-03 17:39, Leland Stone wrote: Unfortunately, efficiency and accuracy are generally at odds here; for example, a longer lag time between sentencing an execution increases accuracy (more time for subsequently discovered evidence, exhausting appeals, etc. but also increases efficienty (cost)).
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
Leland Stone Inner circle 1204 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-07-03 14:44, EsnRedshirt wrote: Disagreed. Malice towards the perpetrator is not a necessary component of vengeance, and both "vengeance" and "punishment" denote the maintenance and restoration of balance and fairness. Further, if vengeance is also defined by individual benefit from the imposition of punishment on a perpetrator, the agency of the state (acting in its executive capacity) does not eliminate this benefit. Even where punishment is exacted by the government, that government is acting as a corporate representative of its citizenry, of whom the victim is a part. Thus, the victim benefits from the actions of the state and vengeance is exacted FOR, rather than BY, the victim. Lastly, even if vengeance contains an element of malice towards the perpetrator and it is solely for the benefit of the injured party, how is that wrong? I am not suggesting that restraint is inappropriate (such restraint having been the basis of even the oft-maligned "eye for an eye"), but is it wrong to be angry towards those who act despicably? |
|||||||||
Leland Stone Inner circle 1204 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-07-03 17:53, LobowolfXXX wrote: Understood and agreed, but the trade-off of accuracy for efficiency is one I support (although I also favour the elimination of meritless appeals). |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-07-03 18:03, Leland Stone wrote: I support it, also; that was just for the sake of completeness. I try not to leave out points I think are relevant just because they might undercut my position. Another factor that merits consideration is the recidivism rate. I remember reading in law school that a study of a few thousand convicted murderers revealed that "only" 9% of them had previous murder convictions. How comforting...only several hundred people were murdered by convicted murderers who were left alive and later either released or escaped from prison.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The Supreme Court's other recent decision. (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |