http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080625/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_child_rape
Kennedy strikes back.
It’s a fucking travesty. First the bogus Guantanamo Detainee ruling (to clarify, I think that the precedent set was absolutely horrible, even if I do think that the detainees in Cuba should be charged, tried and disposed of, one way or another. It’s much like Roe V Wade-I support the right of a woman to have an abortion, but recognize that Roe is terrible law and a horrible example of judges making up new “rights” out of whole cloth), now this. This country better elect McCain in the fall, this shit’s gotta stop.
Once more, Kennedy makes stuff up. Irritating. I don’t think the DP shoudl be a punishment for rape, but “cruel and unusual” it ain’t.
Here is my take on it. Kennedy feels that it is too harsh of a punishment to put someone to death for raping a child, since the child didn’t die, and death for rape is too much, in his opinion.
I can respect that. I disagree with it, but I respect it. If he was a member of the Louisiana legislature, then he could vote that way. But to say that the constitution prohibits such a punishment is absurd.
It seems like when some people get on the Supreme Court it is not longer a matter of is X constitutional or not, it is a matter of “do I think X is a good idea” or not.
How many of the current Court were appointed by Republican presidents, most of whom were significantly more right wing than (it is claimed) McCain is?
“Cruel and unusual” traditionally encompassed punishment not suited to the crime. The DP for stealing an apple would be disproportionate. Child rape is one of those iffy things, so I’d need to read the ruling. Still, the Court should be following what the will of the people is here-- if states generally allow the DP for child rape, then the Court should not interfere.
Personally, I’m against the DP in all instances. But I can’t see that it is unconstitutional in all instances, and that should be left up to the people to decide.
It really doesn’t have anything to do with party or even how “right wing” a president is, it has more to do with judicial philosophy (which does tend to split down conservative/liberal lines, admittedly). McCain has said he favors constructionist judges, that’s exactly what the SCOUS should be made up of. Frankly, it’s one of the main, if not the main, reasons I’m gonna vote for McCain in November.
How many of the current Court were appointed by Presidents who claimed to favor constructionist judges?
You’re looking at it from the wrong angle. How many “constructionist” judges were appointed by presidents who did not favor that judicial philosophy? If this is a critical issue for someone, then clearly McCain is the better bet, even if he’s not a sure thing.
I understand that side of it certainly. But the initial comment seemed to say that electing McCain would “stop this shit.” My point really was that electing prior POTUSs committed to constructionist judges hasn’t seemed to do it very successfully.
Which might make me think that people don’t want constructionist judges as much as ones that rule in manners they agree with.
OK. And of course McCain would have to get his nominees thru a decidedly Democratic Senate (most likely), so it’s actually unlikely that so-called constructionist judges would end up on the SCOTUS. If Obama is elected, however, that will certainly not happen.
Stevens appointed by Ford ®
Scalia appointed by Reagan ®
Kennedy appointed by Reagan ®
Souter appointed by G. H. W. Bush ®
Thomas appointed by G. H. W. Bush ®
Ginsburg appointed by Clinton (D)
Breyer appointed by Clinton (D)
Alito appointed by G. W. Bush ®
Roberts appointed by G. W. Bush ®
That was in response to villa’s question regarding the party breakdown of the Presidents who’ve appointed the current court.
I agree with it. Why is rape alongside murder in things where the death penalty is called for? I don’t take rape lightly, but outside of rape, the death penalty is usually reserved for psychotic killers, obviously the worst crime you can commit. I’d say that rape is up there, but certainly not before killing a person.
But then again, I’d be happy to see the death penalty go away entirely.
While I agree with the majority contention that cruel and unusual punishment is an evolving standard (and was always intended to be so), I agree with the sentiment that rape, even child rape, should not carry the death penalty; I also agree that the death penalty should be abolished…
… I think the decision is wrong. I don’t think applying Kennedy’s standard that society has moved away from the idea that executing child rapists would be justifiable. I certainly don’t think that the death penalty is per se unconstitutional (though I think it is unconstitutional as procticed, and it may be practically impossible to design a system of capital punishment in the US that is not unconstitutional); and I don’t see that the constitution provides grounds to limit it solely to murder.
'Twas a rhetorical question, plnnr.
In this case, the prosecutor argued that there is a nationwide consensus that the DP is appropriate in cases like this. Did the prosecutor bring this up on his own initiative, or was it in response to a query from the SC?
-FrL-
I’m ambivalent about the decision. I’m against the death penalty, not because I think it’s cruel or unusual but because of its demonstrated potential for error and its racially disproprtionate application. On the other hand, I don’t agree with the reasoning behind this particular decision. I do think that child rape is just as bad as murder and deserves the same punishment. I just don’t think that punishment should be execution unless and untill it can be proven that the system won’t kill the wrong people.
I also worry that this decision could be used to undermine other sentences for sex crimes on the grounds that the punishmnt should always be less than that for murder. I think the rape of a child should buy somebody life without parole, just like murder.
…Apparently one policy-based rationale behind the decision (I haven’t yet read the opinion itself yet, so if any of you have you can correct me) is that if child rape is punished as severely as child rape + murder, then there is no disincentive in that regard for a child rapist not to murder his victim as well.
Which makes a decent amount of sense to me, at least if you’re one of those people who believes that the death penalty has a deterrent effect.
That strikes me as hardly a constitutional basis for a decision…