Capital punishment for child rape

[VLinvictus]

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment for child rape is unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy, on behalf of the majority (the more or less liberal justices), stated that however heinous the rape of children may be, capital punishment is not proportionate to the crime. Although conservatives will likely claim now that liberals support child rape, I think the court made the right decision.

Proportionality in punishment is a Biblical principle. The doctrine of "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, etc," rather than encouraging tit-for-tat revenge instead requires that the punishment fit the crime and not be either too severe or too lenient. One may not demand execution for gouging out a person's eye, nor should one get by with just a token fine.

Rape is a horrible a thing and the sexual abuse of children is an even more horrible thing. Yet, killing is a very serious thing, too, and horrible in its own regard. It is worth noting that the Bible does not enjoin capital punishment for rape unless the woman is married, in which case it falls under the rubric of adultery. Capital punishment for anything less than murder or a crime that threatens harm to the entirety of the social order (such as treason, for example) is excessive and should fall under the clause of "cruel and unusual punishment."

From another perspective, there is the issue of equity. I'm assuming that "rape" in this sense requires penetration, but sexual abuse can be just as harmful and devastating to children without penetration. Applying capital punishment only for "rape" is unfair to those victims who were not penetrated. Is the pain and damage endured by a child who is subjected to fondling, groping, psychological abuse and humiliation and forced to perform manual or oral acts less than that of a child who was penetrated? If one is going to argue that the seriousness of the crime warrants execution then the law is imbalanced and should apply capital punishment to ALL cases of childhood sexual abuse.

However, I'm not a fan of capital punishment. The taking of life is a serious business and I think it is only justified when the person being killed poses an immediate and definite risk to the lives of others. Capital punishment does not work as a deterrent nor as a form of social vengence. The only criminals I think should even be considered for such punishment are psychopathic killers who can never be trusted, even in prison, not to be a mortal danger to others.

Death is too good for scum who rape children. They should be locked away for the rest of their lives.

[metis]

Good post-- and I agree.

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

Interesting, I didn't even know this was on the table. 

Capital punishment for pederasty is not likely to be a deterrent to those who would commit it, anymore than current punishments are for it. 

Really, that can be said for most crime that occurs.  Most people who commit crimes are either to desperate to bother with considering the consequences, or, they don't think that they will be caught, and as such don't consider the consequences. 

I would like to see our system change from a punitive system, to a rehabilitative one, but I have no idea how to do that. 

As it stands, there is one thing going for capital punishment, the likelihood of the criminal re-offending pretty much drops to zero.

all

[VLinvictus]

I would like to see our system change from a punitive system, to a rehabilitative one, but I have no idea how to do that. 

I would support a kind of penal servitude gulag system in which incarcerated criminals give back to the society they harmed through forced labor.

[SquirleyWurley]

Rather than emphasizing rehabilitation or punishment, I think the issue is keeping some individuals AWAY from others for the sake of containing them so they can't harm others any more, when their criminality is such that they repeatedly exploit, abuse, harm, kill others.

Throw away the key, let them kill themselves in jail.

[TENAC]

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment for child rape is unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy, on behalf of the majority (the more or less liberal justices), stated that however heinous the rape of children may be, capital punishment is not proportionate to the crime. Although conservatives will likely claim now that liberals support child rape, I think the court made the right decision.

Proportionality in punishment is a Biblical principle. The doctrine of "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, etc," rather than encouraging tit-for-tat revenge instead requires that the punishment fit the crime and not be either too severe or too lenient. One may not demand execution for gouging out a person's eye, nor should one get by with just a token fine.

Rape is a horrible a thing and the sexual abuse of children is an even more horrible thing. Yet, killing is a very serious thing, too, and horrible in its own regard. It is worth noting that the Bible does not enjoin capital punishment for rape unless the woman is married, in which case it falls under the rubric of adultery. Capital punishment for anything less than murder or a crime that threatens harm to the entirety of the social order (such as treason, for example) is excessive and should fall under the clause of "cruel and unusual punishment."

From another perspective, there is the issue of equity. I'm assuming that "rape" in this sense requires penetration, but sexual abuse can be just as harmful and devastating to children without penetration. Applying capital punishment only for "rape" is unfair to those victims who were not penetrated. Is the pain and damage endured by a child who is subjected to fondling, groping, psychological abuse and humiliation and forced to perform manual or oral acts less than that of a child who was penetrated? If one is going to argue that the seriousness of the crime warrants execution then the law is imbalanced and should apply capital punishment to ALL cases of childhood sexual abuse.

However, I'm not a fan of capital punishment. The taking of life is a serious business and I think it is only justified when the person being killed poses an immediate and definite risk to the lives of others. Capital punishment does not work as a deterrent nor as a form of social vengence. The only criminals I think should even be considered for such punishment are psychopathic killers who can never be trusted, even in prison, not to be a mortal danger to others.

Death is too good for scum who rape children. They should be locked away for the rest of their lives.

Thanks for starting this thread.

While I would back the death penalty for such, all you really need to do is sentence them for six months in the general prison population of any Federal system.

They wouldnt last a month.

[VLinvictus]

It would be better to condemn them to slave labor for the rest of their lives. Think of the money we'd save. Also, by using convicts to do nasty vile jobs decent Americans don't want to do we'd eliminate a nice for illegal immigrants to fill thus discouraging them from invading our country.

In addition, it would be immoral to abandon a prisoner -- no matter how heinous -- to be murdered by other inmates. No one has the right to kill another human being and the categorical imperative, the social contract, and the Bible all obligate each person who can intervene to prevent someone from being killed to do so.

[SquirleyWurley]

I always found it to be sadistic and cruel that a prisoner may be put in solitary confinement for long periods, or subjected to horrible attacks, threats, torture by inmates (or guards), but then when that prisoner attempts suicide they are kept from doing so and might get solitary... instead of letting them die by their own choice.

[TENAC]

I am sorry for sounding so.....you name me.

This prisoner we are talking about raped a child.  RAPED A CHILD

In a sense, that child's life ended at that moment, having to relive the ordeal likely the rest of their natural life.

The prisoner?  He will get a shot in the arm, go to sleep, never feel a thing.

The majority opinion is another travesty in this ruling.  If you havent read it, find it.  Kennedy sounded like he based his decision on the mood of the country, not within the judicial confines of the constitution.

The supremes should rule the death penalty is constitutional  Or not.

If it IS, then it is up to the states to administer it.  Not the supremes.

[VLinvictus]

I am sorry for sounding so.....you name me.

This prisoner we are talking about raped a child.  RAPED A CHILD

In a sense, that child's life ended at that moment, having to relive the ordeal likely the rest of their natural life.

The prisoner?  He will get a shot in the arm, go to sleep, never feel a thing.

Right. So, the punishment that the criminal suffers does is not commensurate with the harm suffered by his victim. The "eye for an eye" principle goes both ways: sentences should not be too severe nor too lenient. In one sense, capital punishment is too severe; in another sense, it is too lenient.

Moreover, think of the real-world ramifications. If child rape is capital crime, what incentive would there be for the perp to leave his victim alive?

In addition, most child sexual abuse takes place in the context of preexisting, often family relationships. The perps are very successful in gaining the child's silence by saying that if anyone finds out about their "little secret" then something bad will happen to him. This would only increase the effectiveness of that ploy.

The majority opinion is another travesty in this ruling.  If you havent read it, find it.  Kennedy sounded like he based his decision on the mood of the country, not within the judicial confines of the constitution.

Have you read the opinion? The "mood of the country" as you put it is relevant toward determining whether capital punishment in this sense qualifies as "cruel and unusual punishment" -- which is quite obviously a subjective term.

The supremes should rule the death penalty is constitutional  Or not.
If it IS, then it is up to the states to administer it.  Not the supremes.

This is not the first time you've seemed to not understand what the Supreme Court does or how it works.

The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal, which means that cases only reach it if lower courts haven't reached a universally accepted decision. This Louisiana law was contested through the legitimately-constituted court system and finally submitted to SCOTUS. That "the Supremes" decided to hear the case indicates that they deemed it worthy of consideration; if they had agreed with the Louisiana decision outright they would not have taken it on. The vast majority of cases submitted to SCOTUS are not reviewed: they only review cases whose decisions are questionable or which have potential constitutional ramifications.

The question was not whether capital punishment stam was constitution or not; the question was whether capital punishment met the constitutional test of "cruel and unusual punishment" as applied to rape of a child. I assume you would agree that capital punishment is generally fitting for first-degree murder but excessive for vandalism or petit larceny -- the role of the Supremes in this case was to determine where along that continuum the present case fell.

So, the Court has ruled that capital punishment for child rape is not proportionate to the offense and thus is not constitutional. Now, it is "up to the states to implement." What part of this do you not understand?

[metis]

Capital punishment reflects on an idea that people cannot change, which makes no sense.  In a society whereas there may be no jails or prisons, capital punishment may be the only recourse in order to protect society; but in a society that has them, capital punishment is just revenge, pure and simple-- well, maybe not so "pure".  How many times have we seen people go to prison, such as Charles Colson for example, and come out a different person? 

Along with that, we have to realize the capital punishment simply does not undo the damage but just adds more damage.  And if the purpose of our court and prison systems is to protect society, then locking a child rapist up for life, or at least a very long time, accomplishes that task-- especially if you put him in the same cell as Bubba  .     

[Acumen]

Capital punishment reflects on an idea that people cannot change, which makes no sense.

Why does capital punishment reflect the notion that people cannot change?  Why assume that all punishment needs to be rehabilitative or perhaps a deterrence?  Why not assume, for instance, that punishment should be for social compensation? 

[VLinvictus]

Why does capital punishment reflect the notion that people cannot change?  Why assume that all punishment needs to be rehabilitative or perhaps a deterrence?

Are you suggesting that giving people the opportunity to repent and reform is a bad thing? Or are you, like Hamlet seeing Claudius at prayer, concerned that such rehabilitation might prevent them from ending up in hell?

Why not assume, for instance, that punishment should be for social compensation? 

How does the death of anyone "compensate" society? Two debits don't balance the ledger.

My idea -- of penal slave labor for life -- would actually come a long way toward "compensating" society. While no labor a convict could perform could ever replace the infinite value of the life/lives s/he took, it would still be a way of giving back to society.

[Acumen]

Why does capital punishment reflect the notion that people cannot change?  Why assume that all punishment needs to be rehabilitative or perhaps a deterrence?

Are you suggesting that giving people the opportunity to repent and reform is a bad thing? Or are you, like Hamlet seeing Claudius at prayer, concerned that such rehabilitation might prevent them from ending up in hell?

Neither.  I'm suggesting a punishment that is considered a just corollary to the crime. 

Why not assume, for instance, that punishment should be for social compensation? 

How does the death of anyone "compensate" society? Two debits don't balance the ledger.

I'm not talking about society, but rather the victims of a crime.

My idea -- of penal slave labor for life -- would actually come a long way toward "compensating" society. While no labor a convict could perform could ever replace the infinite value of the life/lives s/he took, it would still be a way of giving back to society.

I have no problems with that.

[Thorolf]

Have you read the opinion? The "mood of the country" as you put it is relevant toward determining whether capital punishment in this sense qualifies as "cruel and unusual punishment" -- which is quite obviously a subjective term.

No, the "mood of the country" should not be a factor. Sorry, but "mood" is hardly a legal or constitutional term.

This is not the first time you've seemed to not understand what the Supreme Court does or how it works.

The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal, which means that cases only reach it if lower courts haven't reached a universally accepted decision.

This is actually not correct. Cases may very well reach the SCOTUS even if every single lower court has been in unanimous agreement... unless you're referring to the two parties to the case, in which case there is never going to be a "universally accepted decision."

This Louisiana law was contested through the legitimately-constituted court system and finally submitted to SCOTUS. That "the Supremes" decided to hear the case indicates that they deemed it worthy of consideration; if they had agreed with the Louisiana decision outright they would not have taken it on. The vast majority of cases submitted to SCOTUS are not reviewed: they only review cases whose decisions are questionable or which have potential constitutional ramifications.

Whether or not they agreed with the lower courts' decisions is irrelevant. The SCOTUS does not make that determination before even hearing the case. They use several factors in determining whether or not to hear a case, but the standard of disagreement with a lower court is not among them.

How could it be? What would be the point of hearing ANY cases if they already know how they're going to rule?

As for what cases they do hear, Constitutional questions are certainly among them, as are some cases where there has been substantial disagreement among lower courts. However, that is not the limit... the SCOTUS may hear any case for which they receive a writ of certiorari, so long as four of the justices wish to hear it - for pretty much whatever reason they see fit.

The question was not whether capital punishment stam was constitution or not; the question was whether capital punishment met the constitutional test of "cruel and unusual punishment" as applied to rape of a child. I assume you would agree that capital punishment is generally fitting for first-degree murder but excessive for vandalism or petit larceny -- the role of the Supremes in this case was to determine where along that continuum the present case fell.

The SCOTUS is not bound to decide ONLY by the exact question of the case. They COULD HAVE struck down the Constitutionality of capital punishment because it is directly or indirectly related to the case. If capital punishment is unconstitutional, then of course it is also not applicable to child rapists...

What part of this do you not understand?  [sic]

[SquirleyWurley]

I think the majority argment was totally b.s., re: the 'mood of the country'...

I think what some of them really meant was that they don't like capital punishment at all, but were unwilling to out and out declare it unconstitutional.  Instead of finding some more reasonable or substantial argument, they used this 'mood' thing, and even at that, I don't think they have a clue what the 'mood' of the country is on the subject, nor do they actually care to find out.

[VLinvictus]

I'm not talking about society, but rather the victims of a crime.

Ah. You used the term "social compensation" and that is what confused me.

If a person is dead, how does killing the person who killed them compensate the deceased?

My idea -- of penal slave labor for life -- would actually come a long way toward "compensating" society. While no labor a convict could perform could ever replace the infinite value of the life/lives s/he took, it would still be a way of giving back to society.

I have no problems with that.

 

[VLinvictus]

I think the majority argment was totally b.s., re: the 'mood of the country'...

I think what some of them really meant was that they don't like capital punishment at all, but were unwilling to out and out declare it unconstitutional.  Instead of finding some more reasonable or substantial argument, they used this 'mood' thing, and even at that, I don't think they have a clue what the 'mood' of the country is on the subject, nor do they actually care to find out.

That doesn't make any sense. They did rule that capital punishment, as the punishment for rape even of a child, is unconstitutional. That was the issue at stake in the case, not capital punishment itself. The "mood of the country" -- which was TENAC's words, not Kennedy's -- is an oversimplified description of the reasoning by which they determined that capital punishment is an unconstitutional punishment for this crime.

The Court could not have just decided that capital punishment is unconstitutional and be done with it -- that's not how it works. So far, the Supreme Court has deemed that capital punishment is a constitutional option and have concerned themselves only with the application thereof, not of the issue itself.

[SquirleyWurley]

They did rule that capital punishment, as the punishment for rape even of a child, is unconstitutional. That was the issue at stake in the case, not capital punishment itself.

True.  But they could have commented on capital punishment in general if they wished to at this time, if they had enough agreement on it, etc.  There was nothing to bar them from doing so.

The "mood of the country" -- which was TENAC's words, not Kennedy's -- is an oversimplified description of the reasoning by which they determined that capital punishment is an unconstitutional punishment for this crime.

It is a simplification, but it is a simplification drawn from the way SCOTUS tried to summarize and simplify their argument.

The Court could not have just decided that capital punishment is unconstitutional and be done with it -- that's not how it works.

Maybe you are right on that, I don't know.  I was under the impression they could do this, some of them want to do this, but for whatever reason didn't.

So far, the Supreme Court has deemed that capital punishment is a constitutional option and have concerned themselves only with the application thereof, not of the issue itself.

Yes.  I think if you want to argue whether a punishment fits the crime, argue that a bit better.  Granted I skimmed this far more than I should have, so in the interest of clearing any error I may be making, please point out what you think their actual argument was, and how they argued that the punishment didn't fit the crime.

I based what I said on what I read, but I admit I probably missed a lot and skimmed too much.

What about their formal opinion makes you feel that I am misunderstanding?

[VLinvictus]

True.  But they could have commented on capital punishment in general if they wished to at this time, if they had enough agreement on it, etc.  There was nothing to bar them from doing so.

They did comment on capital punishment in general:
p8 ..."For these reasons we have explained that capital punishment "must be limited to those offenders who commit 'a narrow category of the most serious crimes' and whose extreme culpability makes them 'the most deserving of execution.'"...Though the death penalty is not invariably unconstitutional...the Court insists on confining the instances in which the punishment can be imposed."

It is a simplification, but it is a simplification drawn from the way SCOTUS tried to summarize and simplify their argument.

It's not really that simple. The process they used was drawn from Roper v. Simmons and Coker v. Georgia that whether or not a punishment is deemed "cruel and unusual" is to be determined by "objective inidicia of society's standards as expressed by legislative enactments and state practice with respect to executions," that is the laws on the books and not "the mood of the country." This is explained in great detail in p11ff.

Maybe you are right on that, I don't know.  I was under the impression they could do this, some of them want to do this, but for whatever reason didn't.

That's not how the Supreme Court works. It is, at base, a court of appeals. It must decide on cases as they are brought to them. The question in Kennedy v. Louisiana was not whether capital punishment itself was constitutional but whether the Louisiana statute imposing it for child rape was. That is the question they were given and the one one which they ruled. As I quoted above, the decision affirms that capital punishment is not unconstitutional per se.

Yes.  I think if you want to argue whether a punishment fits the crime, argue that a bit better.  Granted I skimmed this far more than I should have, so in the interest of clearing any error I may be making, please point out what you think their actual argument was, and how they argued that the punishment didn't fit the crime.

Based on Coker, they upheld the standard that capital punishment, which is "unique in its severity and irrevocability," is excessive punishment for a crime that does not take human life. (p27). The Court also highlighted other practical problems in the application of capital punishment for child rape. A capital case would require the intense involvement of a child in a years-long process that would add even more trauma to the child and also be potentially unreliable in terms of testimony (p33ff). As I noted above, equating child rape with murder removes any incentive for the rapist to leave the child alive (p35).

So, because of the prevailing precedent against capital punishment for rape and other non-homicide crimes, the fact that the Louisiana statute is anomalous compared to other state law codes, and the unlikelihood that this statute would deter child rape or would be manageable to implement are also parts of decision why in this case, capital punishment for this crime is not constitutional.