Louisiana allows the death penalty to be imposed for rape if the victim is under 12. Kennedy v. Louisiana is before the Supreme Court right now. The are currently two men on death row for capital rape in the US; Patrick O. Kennedy & Richard L. Davis. Nobody’s been executed for anything other tham murder in this country for over 40 years. The last time this issue came before the court was Coker v. Georgia, but that involved an adult woman, not a child. Which way will they rule? Do any other states have capital rape laws on the books?
IIRC, LA is the only state that imposes this for first time child rapists. A couple of other states (Texas?) impose a possible death sentence for a subsequent conviction of child rape…
At least with a properly and prompt investigation there would be little doubt as to the identity of the perpetrator…
“Cruel and unusual”… that “unusual” part has long troubled me. Who defines what’s usual now?
As for my bit, if you rape a little girl… you’ve basically surrendered your rights. If there is an open-and-shut. Otherwise… I have qualms about this form of punishment. We tend to get things wrong - particularly when race is involved.
IIRC, Texas once carried a death sentence for contributing to the delinquency of a minor’s via drugs.
I don’t have that problem because I am an originalist/textualist. If you an I sign an agreement today, shouldn’t the controlling language be what those words meant in 2008 at the time of signing, and not some date in the future when the words have changed meaning?
I know that the “evolving” language people will say that it is impossible to know what the founders meant, but shouldn’t that be what we are looking for instead of having judges reinvent the Constitution to suit their whims? If so, then why have legislatures or the Congress? Just do some action X have the SCOTUS decide whether action x is a fundamental constitutional right, or whether you should be put to death for it…
This way of thinking makes me uneasy. I’ve always thought that the founding fathers used the term “inalienable rights” for a reason.
They didn’t forbid capital punishment. And I’m fairly certain some of the supported it.
And you are quoting the Declaration, not the Constitution.
I tend to trend towards originalism… but regardless - they are then asking us to use what was usual then as a measuring stick. With little room for change. At a minimum they established a lower bound beyond which we shouldn’t stoop - you know… slavery, hangings and such.
It’s distinctly contextual. And they were smart enough to know that definitions would change, understandings would shift, evolve, whatever…
It’s vague, perhaps purposefully so, but vague nonetheless.
Unless you’re saying that all capital punishment is (or should be) uncontitutional, I don’t see any reason to claim that raping a child wouldn’t be a crime that would merit it.
When was the last time anyone was executed for a crime that wasn’t murder. From what I read when the SCOTUS reinstated the death penalty it implied but didn’t state, it could only be used for death cases or cases resulting in death. Of course that was 30 years ago so the court may have changed it’s mind since then.
The law ain’t what it says, it’s what the SCOTUS say it is.
I’m more trying to go for the “do as I say, not as I do” interpretation. They also said “all men are created equal”, but obviously didn’t mean it.
Don’t they execute people for treason? that would imply murder is not necesary for the death penalty.
Which reflects the thinking of many of the founding fathers. It’s not as if Jefferson dashed it off one night and promptly sent it to King George.
Maybe so, but the D of I holds no legal authority in this country.
“Inalienable rights” still could be legally forfeited. The three so enumerated were “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Well, if you commit a capital crime, you’ve forfeited your right to life if you are convicted. If you commit a jailable offense, you forfeit your rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness if you are convicted.
To the OP- nope. Whether or not adding it to the list of capital crimes is wise is another matter. If we can enforce HIGH standards of evidence and also not have the statute deter children from reporting, I’d say go for it. It’s the latter I worry most about.
I do not support the death penalty. If I did, I would support the death penalty only in cases where someone is convicted of first degree murder. I wouldn’t support it for any other reason, including child rape.
The constitution doesn’t seem to have any particular ban on it, though. “Unusual” is stuff like pulling out fingernails, forcing someone to scrub a toilet with a toothbrush and then brush their teeth with it, or forcing someone to watch rape porno like in a Clockwork Orange. “Unusual” doesn’t mean “excessive”. It means “unusual”.
What does “cruel and unusual” mean? Because that’s the actual text in the 8th amendment (and it has been found to ban punishments found to be excessive, most relevantly, that capital punishment for the rape of an adult is unconstitutional.)
When did the SC say that? It doesn’t have to be specifically addressed in the Constitution to be illegal.
Coker vs Georgia (1977). And it was found to be unconstitutional, not just illegal. From the opinion:
IANAL, but I believe that most SCOTUS limits on the death penalty (like the recent case against inflicting capital punishment on the mentally ill) use similar reasoning based on the 8th amendment.
ETA: opinion here, btw: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=433&page=584
Thanks for fighting my ignorance! Looks like we’re still stuck on the original question, then.