Supreme Court: an EMBARRASSMENT to ALL Americans

[usaf0016]

I think we should hang them! by their balls...

[Kevan]

Originally Posted by Dads Toy

Nice to see you members feel this way. I have a couple of friends that work at the prison in Leavenworth. The inmates DO take special interest in any inmate who commits crimes against children. The guards somehow are not in the area when special treatment is administered.

By "special treatment", you mean hugs and group therapy sessions, right?

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

Originally Posted by Bobpantax

Hi Chuck. The Louisiana statute at issue allowed the death penalty when the victim was twelve or younger

That changes things obviously. But I'm still not a big advocate of the death penalty. Not for moral reasons but because it seems like an easier way out than prison, particularly under the circumstances in which they are put to death nowadays which amounts to nothing more than falling asleep. Big deal, why would anyone be afraid of that?

Regardless, you'd never see me making a big deal for either side. Whichever the people want is fine with me.

Ideally if there was some way the criminal could work towards paying back the victim I'd be all for it. But society is more interested in vengeance than restitution.

[carmined]

Give them the death penalty, then they are no longer a burden on society and can never harm anyone again.

[Bobpantax]

"Ideally if there was some way the criminal could work towards paying back the victim I'd be all for it. But society is more interested in vengeance than restitution."

How do you give a child back his or her innocence? You can't. The scar hurts for a lifetime. The five Justices who ruled for the majority were wrong on every level - constitutionally, morally and emotionally. If they are not already, they should be ashamed of themselves. This decision is one of the darker and more incompetent days of the Supreme Court. I honor and respect the Supreme Court as an institution. I have lost a great deal of respect for the five individuals who decided this case in favor of the Defendant. They have obviously become so detached from the every day reality of a victim of this type of crime that they can no longer effectively judge this type of case. Some would say that their detachment is a good thing. I disagree. In a case involving sentencing, where one of the factors is the suffering of the victim, their ability to empathize with the victim is crucial.

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

Originally Posted by Bobpantax

How do you give a child back his or her innocence?

You don't. How does the death penalty give a child back their innocence?

Financial restitution seemed to somewhat heal the scars of a few alter boys. If there was a way to administer similar punishment for other criminals I'm betting there are more than a few victims who would choose restitution over death, regardless of the crime. And I wouldn't blame them.

[Kevan]

I've got $5 here that says the 5 that voted against it are so old dirt calls them "Dad!".

[Bobpantax]

Originally Posted by Chuck 98 RT/10

You don't. How does the death penalty give a child back their innocence? It doesn't. That's the point. In some cases restitution does not work. Aggravated rape of a child under twelve is one of those cases. This was not a priest fondling the genitalia of an alter boy. ( Certainly an evil and despicable act but not the same as a violent rape.) The victim in this case was eight years old, ripped and bloodied and required surgery to repair the damage done by the Defendant. In some cases, terminating the existence of the rapist is the only way that emotional closure can be provided to the victim and his or her family.

Financial restitution seemed to somewhat heal the scars of a few alter boys. If there was a way to administer similar punishment for other criminals I'm betting there are more than a few victims who would choose restitution over death, regardless of the crime. And I wouldn't blame them.

You may be right in some cases - particularly if the victim has a forgiving/redemptive religious orientation. But I think in most cases of aggravated child rape restitution would not be preferred over the death penalty. Also, maybe there is a rare exception, but convicted child molesters who committed aggravated rape on a child under twelve generally do not have the means to pay any restitution. In the case of priests, it is the church that is paying.

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

Originally Posted by Bobpantax

You may be right in some cases

That's all I'm saying.

For example, Michael Jackson paid off his victims to the tune of millions. Now he is on the verge of self destruction. Justice is served and victims who will never have the worries of life's financial burdens (if spent somewhat responsibly anyway). I have no problem with that.

But then California virtually eliminated the possibility of this sort of restitution by changing the law so they could go after similar cases regardless if charges were brought. So now, the next millionaire that bangs down a couple kids will result in the victims getting screwed twice - once by the perp and another by our pathetic justice system that will leave them with nothing.

It would be good for many victims of many different crimes if our justice system could come up some form of restitution. Currently there is zero.

[Gerald]

I know I'm going to get HAMMERED here but don't you think DEATH is a little... harsh ?..., for the charge of rape against a child? I agree with everything said here just not the death penalty. Give them the max in the law. Lets the 'cons sort 'em out.

Death for rape? It's kinda scary to think of the day when punishents will be that severe for non-lethal crimes against other people, child or not..

G

[Bobpantax]

Hi Gerald. Once again. This was a case of aggravated child rape of a child under twelve. Do you have children? If so, think about the facts of this case. The victim was eight years old. The crime involved viloence and intimidation. Keep in mind that the death penalty was not imposed lightly. There was a separate sentencing hearing where the jury heard arguments from both sides and then made a recommendation to the Judge who then had to review their recommendation and see if it comported with the law and the factors set forth in the law. Also keep in mind that the available data shows that a violent sexual criminal of the type convicted in this case has about a zero probability of rehabilitation. It's easy to be against the death penalty and many are but those same people would never allow the offenders they coddle to live anywhere near them. So, to the extent this type of offender does get out of prison, they end up living among the more powerless and more vulnerable segments and areas of our country. Is that fair or right? NO. That's why, in my opinion, when the facts satisfy the statutory requirements, they should be executed. The Supreme Court's opinion was incorrect.

[V10SpeedLuvr]

I agree with Chuck. The death penalty this day is a joke. The day we outlawed cruel and unusual punishment, the world started going downhill. Just going to sleep is NOT the way the death penalty should be administered. Set them on fire, lock them in a room with gas all over the floor and let them burn to death (the instinct to stop, drop and roll would be extremely hilarious). Make it as PAINFUL as humanly possible. Sell it on PPV. Give all the proceeds to the victim's family. Victim's family gets some restitution, the person never commits any crime again and everyone else would see for the 1st times in DECADES the USA actually gives a damn about punishing criminals. They caused enough pain to someone else to warrant their death, let's repay the favor. An eye for an eye.

As for Gerald's opinion, I won't hammer you, but it'd be humanly impossible for me to disagree with your opinion more.

[musicncars]

Originally Posted by carmined

If I were the victim's father, they wouldn't make it to prison.

curious.....what would you do if you were the rapists father?

[musicncars]

while you're at it, kill the drug dealers who are selling our kids drugs at school.

[Bobpantax]

Originally Posted by musicncars

curious.....what would you do if you were the rapists father?

Be ashamed and pray that the death penalty was allowed so that the horror could end. By the time it was over, it would probably be a relief with little sense of loss. I disagree that the constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment is inappropriate. To me, there are certain acts which, if committed, should result in a loss of the right to exist. That loss should be accomplished in a humane fashion so that the punishment is not morally confused with a criminal act. We put down a dangerous pet or animal in a humane fashion. The termination of the life of a dangerous human, when authorized by law, should be accomplished by using a similar procedure - like lethal injection.

FYI for everyone. The prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment is one of the cornerstones of a civilized society. See below. It is found in the Eighth Amendment to our Constitution. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Eighth Amendement has changed over the years to reflect, in part, the changes in our culture. Strict constructionists would argue that there has been too much culture based Court caused change and that the meaning has now strayed too far from the intent of the original drafters. The Supreme Court opinion which gave rise to this thread was/is an unfortunate and incorrect decision.

From Wikipedia: The statement that the government shall not inflict cruel and unusual punishment for crimes is found in the English Bill of Rights signed in 1689 by King William III and Queen Mary II who were then the joint rulers of England following the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688.
These exact words later appeared in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1787). The British Slavery Amelioration Act of 1798 also used the term, forbidding slave owners from using "Cruel and unusual punishment" on slaves in the British Caribbean colonies.
Very similar words ('No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment') appear in Article Five of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (A/RES/217, December 10, 1948). The right, under a different formulation ('No one shall be subjected to [...] inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.') is found in Article Three of the European Convention on Human Rights (1950). The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) also contains this fundamental right in section 12 and it is to be found again in Article Four (quoting the European Convention verbatim) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000). It is also found in Article 16 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.