Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supremely Screwed Up
The Weekly Standard ^ | 08/04/2008 | Terry Eastland

Posted on 07/26/2008 11:03:18 AM PDT by areukiddingme1

The Supreme Court ended its term this year by making a mistake in one of its most controversial cases--the case in which it held unconstitutional a Louisiana law authorizing capital punishment for the rape of a child under 12 years of age.

(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; US: Louisiana
KEYWORDS: deathpenalty; incompetence; judiciary; mediocrecourt; military; scotus; supremecourt; terryeastland
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last
In Kennedy's "independent judgment...the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child."

Are you kidding me? I cannot think of a more appropriate punishment for raping a child.

1 posted on 07/26/2008 11:03:18 AM PDT by areukiddingme1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: areukiddingme1
Although the thought of executing child rapists is very satisfying,I'm against it for one reason...and only one reason.No...not because of “cruel and unusual” or because of “proportional punishment” but because if a guy can get the chair for *raping* a child he has every incentive to *kill* that child in order to hide evidence,etc.
2 posted on 07/26/2008 11:07:51 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Obama:"Ich bein ein beginner")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areukiddingme1
> In Kennedy's "independent judgment...the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child."

Independent judgment is not the task of the USSC.

The task in the case in question is is the death penalty Cruel and Unusual Punishment for the rape of a child under 12 years of age.

It obviously is not because it has been the legal penalty in a great many states for many years.

3 posted on 07/26/2008 11:19:00 AM PDT by Pontiac (Your message here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areukiddingme1

to be cut and quartered sounds aptly appropriate.


4 posted on 07/26/2008 11:19:58 AM PDT by Operation_Shock_N_Awe (I'd rather be a conservative nut job than a liberal with no nuts and no job)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areukiddingme1; cpforlife.org

“This remarkably complete failure to take notice of an obviously relevant federal law quickly became a topic of speculation inside Washington. But more important than why it happened is whether the Court will reconsider the case.”

The court doesn’t revisit a case just because they erred. There is a more heinous failure to recognize federal precedent that has resulted in millions of slaughtered, alive, unborn children. The Roe decision claimed there was no federal ruling where the unborn were recognized as persons, yet just a few months before the Roe decision was supposedly argued, a Federal case was decided in which the unborn were recognized as persons as defined by the Constitution. That precedent is known to the SCOTUS yet they refuse to revisit the Roe decision and subsequent Doe v Bolton decision because it would no doubt embarrass the court which has been the supporter of so many slaughtered alive unborn.


5 posted on 07/26/2008 11:21:23 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

Generally, they kill the victim anyway. So that line of reasoning doesn’t hold water. And they try to hide the evidence no matter.


6 posted on 07/26/2008 11:21:32 AM PDT by Parmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative
but because if a guy can get the chair for *raping* a child he has every incentive to *kill* that child in order to hide evidence,etc.

That presumes the perpetrator thinks he is going to get caught. In this particular case, it was a family member who was doing the raping. Obviously, the death penalty did not deter him from raping the child nor did he kill the child to cover it up.

Incentives or not, people are going to commit crimes and society has the right to mete out justice. In the state of LA, the state decided that the death penalty was the appropriate punishment for this crime. SCOTUS in essence declared it cruel and unusual punishment. So if LA now declares that life imprisonment with no parole is the proper punishment, do you think that this will also act as an "incentive" for the rapist to kill the child? Where do you draw the line on punishment so the rapist no longer has the "incentive" to kill the child? Is this the way we should determine what the punishment should be for this crime and other crimes?

7 posted on 07/26/2008 11:22:12 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative
....incentive to *kill* that child in order to hide evidence,etc

You get the death penalty for murder too.

Now the fact that children lie or can be coerced is a different argument.

8 posted on 07/26/2008 11:22:17 AM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (Election '08, the year McCain defined the word "dilemma")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative
Although the thought of executing child rapists is very satisfying,I'm against it for one reason ... because if a guy can get the chair for *raping* a child he has every incentive to *kill* that child in order to hide evidence,etc.

I disagree with your reasoning. As I understand it, the perverts who commit this crime look at their actions very differently than healthy people do. At least for most of them, killing the child would spoil the experience, and they don't expect to get caught in any case.

Penalties for state crimes are an issue for state law, so long as they are consistent with the Constitution of the United States: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The death penalty is unrelated to bail or fines. Since it's constitutional for murderers, a fact so obvious that even the Supreme Court eventually admitted its truth, then it cannot violate the prohibition on cruel punishments. If it's the standard punishment for those who rape children in Louisiana, then it's not unusual in the legal sense. The Court should have stayed out of the issue.

9 posted on 07/26/2008 11:31:29 AM PDT by RogerD (Educaiton Profesionul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

I understand your point, but I think, IMHO, that if they have done it once, they will do it twice...and so on and so on.

I could only imagine the horror that that child and that child’s parents had to endure.

I’m positive, again, IMHO, that most fathers would love to personally carry out the justice required in this particular situation.


10 posted on 07/26/2008 11:33:22 AM PDT by areukiddingme1 (areukiddingme1 is a synonym for a Retired U.S. Navy Chief Petty Officer and tired of liberal BS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Operation_Shock_N_Awe

You seem like someone that would appreciate this Hank Williams Jr., song (similar subject) -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ktq7JaXszqo


11 posted on 07/26/2008 11:36:16 AM PDT by areukiddingme1 (areukiddingme1 is a synonym for a Retired U.S. Navy Chief Petty Officer and tired of liberal BS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: areukiddingme1

What is the point of having a court system if judges don’t do anything anyway? All they do is find excuses for letting criminals go.


12 posted on 07/26/2008 11:41:42 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

“All they do is find excuses for letting criminals go.”

That is my fear as a parent - the more liberal the judicial system becomes the concerned I am, seriously, where do honest, hard working, law abiding citizens go for protection and justice if we can’t find in our legal system. Scary.


13 posted on 07/26/2008 11:45:31 AM PDT by areukiddingme1 (areukiddingme1 is a synonym for a Retired U.S. Navy Chief Petty Officer and tired of liberal BS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: areukiddingme1

Is there for congress to overturn this ?


14 posted on 07/26/2008 11:47:55 AM PDT by Charlespg (Peace= When we trod the ruins of Mecca and Medina under our infidel boots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areukiddingme1

Is there anyway for congress to overturn this ?


15 posted on 07/26/2008 11:49:24 AM PDT by Charlespg (Peace= When we trod the ruins of Mecca and Medina under our infidel boots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Charlespg

“Is there anyway for congress to overturn this?”

Not sure if that is a serious question or not?

Is there anything a Pelosi lead congress will do?


16 posted on 07/26/2008 11:59:05 AM PDT by areukiddingme1 (areukiddingme1 is a synonym for a Retired U.S. Navy Chief Petty Officer and tired of liberal BS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Charlespg
Is there anyway for congress to overturn this ?

No, Congress does not have the power to overturn decisions made by the Supreme Court.

17 posted on 07/26/2008 12:10:10 PM PDT by MozarkDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RogerD

Given the miserable state of the penal system, which lets criminals out’on good behavior’ and other absurdities, frying a child rapist would act as a certain deterrent in that perps case for sure. I say put them into the dust of the ground ‘for the sake of future at risk children’.


18 posted on 07/26/2008 12:16:00 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MozarkDawg
I thought there was a way to overturn them in Bill of Rights ect
19 posted on 07/26/2008 12:55:50 PM PDT by Charlespg (Peace= When we trod the ruins of Mecca and Medina under our infidel boots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Charlespg
I thought there was a way to overturn them in Bill of Rights ect

The Bill of Rights are amendments to the Constitution whereby specific rights of the people were deemed to be so important that they ought to be specifically enumerated, Amendment IX pointing out that the people retain rights that have not been enumerated as well.

Congress has not the power to overturn a decision by the Court, only an amendment could do this. Now, this DOES involve Congress, an amendment must be proposed and passed by 2/3 majority in each house, along with approval of 3/4 of the States legislatures in order to ratify it. The approval of Congress can be by-passed by the States, ie. the People, calling for a Constitutional Convention -- this would open up the Constitution to all manner of excises and deletions by those with ill agenda, not recommended.

20 posted on 07/26/2008 1:13:40 PM PDT by MozarkDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson