This bill – which is just a bill now, not yet passed – would impose the death penalty for the rape of a child under thirteen years old.
Obviously this is a heinous crime.
Equally obviously, imposing the death penalty for it violates the Constitution (since Kennedy v. Louisiana, anyway) – imposing the death penalty for rape where death was not the result of the crime is not permissible.
It irritates me when politicians make a grandstanding gesture like this, knowing that the courts will shoot it down.
I can easily accept that someone may feel the Court reached the wrong result in Kennedy, and the death for such a crime is NOT violative of the Constitution, but that ship has sailed; changing that result won’t happen by passing a state law that blatantly contradicts a Supreme COurt case result.
The death penalty is wrong. But even if you feel it’s right, this attempt at it is foolish.
Wasn’t there a problem with the intitial ruling? I thought I’d read somewhere that after the fact, some more laws popped up that might support the idea of a consensus that were missed in the initial tally.
Is this an attempt to force a rehearing of the case?
Also, if, for example, all 50 states passed laws to this effect, shouldn’t that change the constitutionality of it? Cruel and Unusual basically hinges on the current opinion, doesn’t it? So if current opinion changes, shouldn’t the constitutionality of the punishment change as well?
Three years ago, when the same thing happened in a different setting (I’m not sure if you started a thread on it back then, though), I found this article that was on point and interesting.
“Is test legislation that challenges existing precedents always legitimate? Some people think so. Most famously, Thomas Jefferson–and later, Abraham Lincoln–took the view that it was always open to elected officials to act on their own understanding of the Constitution, so long as they respected the judgment of the courts in particular cases.”
Me too. But most politics is symbolism over substance. And it will always be because people allow pols to get away with it, even defending such crap.
For example, a few years ago when San Francisco was pushing a handgun ban I pointed out that the mayor was grandstanding the issue even though he publicly admitted the courts would shoot it down. I was basically told to shut the fuck up.
Just out of curiosity, is that because (in the rapist’s/killer’s mind) you would no longer have an eyewitness, and since the punishment is the same either way, might as well remove that witness?
Must have missed that in my copy of the constitution. Also, it must not be that obvious, given this-
Bolding mine. And the following quote (dismissing the above) is downright scary, when you consider the fact that ruling allegedly revolved around whether or not there existed a national concensus as to whether or not the death penalty visited upon child rapists constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
Have I misread, or do you mean to imply that the status quo is as likely to be changed by doing nothing as by implementing legislation that challenges it? The number of states with such laws on the books apparently played a key role in the ruling, and another state adding such a law would nudge the stance closer to national consensus, and, ergo, constitutionality.
Cite?
That’s the rationale-that imposing the death sentence on rapists would incentivize murder. It’s a good point, but I’m always dismayed by the relish with which people bring it up.
I suppose there may be statistics that show whether this is the case, by comparing rape->death penalty states to the other ones (before the Supreme Court stepped in). I don’t know where to look, and I’m not sure I want to google those things from work.
This is a stupid question but here goes: Pretty much all civilized countries have abolished the death penalty and the USA stands in the company of China, Saudi Arabia and other such countries when it comes to the death penalty (torture, kidnapping…). This ought to tell you something.
Are you kidding me? That crazy fucker in Texas who shot his neighbor’s burglar would be happy to see the death penalty for someone who steals shit. This is what the American Mind seems to crave.
I suspect that this might just be political maneuvering within the CT Senate. I happened to have the opportunity to speak to another State Senator two weeks ago and he mentioned his plans to introduce a bill banning the death penalty. Given that this bill was introduced by a Republican and the Sen. I spoke to was a Dem., I can imagine that this is grandstanding.
+1. Wasn’t a central part of the opinion the idea that the “evolving standards of decency” and the fact that so few states had the DP for child rape meant that it was cruel and unusual?
If so, then CT and other states passing these types of laws could cause the case to come back before the Court with the argument that it is not as outlandish as orginally thought…
Well, you could always look up one of Brennan’s or T. Marshall’s dissents from the denial of cert. in death penalty cases – if not strictly law, they’re sometimes powerful writing.
I actually believe in the appropriateness of a death penalty for rape–in some cases. But it’s pretty odd to put this out there knowing that the present SCOTUS is against it. Do they know something we don’t?
What was the last time someone was sentenced to death by a CT court? I’m fairly certain it hasn’t happened since the death penalty was re-legalized in the 70’s, in which case I imagine that even if the proposed law is passed, it will never be applied, and thus never challenged.
I did this because you presented it as a statement of fact, not an opinion, and by my playing the Cite? card, you’ve had to make that admission.
No they haven’t, and I apologize for implying as much. That was a sort of aside about the times I’ve heard that rationalization IRL, and I should have said as much.
It tells me which way the zeitgeist is blowing, but it still doesn’t tell me why is it ‘right’ to use societal resources to support individuals who have proven themselves irredeemably detrimental to society. YMMV.
I’m not sure what you mean by “sentenced to death by a CT court,” but there are 9 or 10 inmates presently on Connecticut’s death row, including a cop killer, a guy who killed an eight months pregnant woman, a guy who killed his wife and son, and a guy who smashed in a 13 year old boy’s head with a sledgehammer, to see what it was like. Michael Ross was executed four years ago–that was the first execution in decades.
There are at least two other defendants facing the death penalty–the two pieces of shit involved in a home invasion two years ago which involved the murder of a mother and her daughters.
