What's going on in the Supreme Court?

Question

Now they're opening the gateway for child rapists. Does this rub you the wrong way or what?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/25/scotus.child.rape/

Answer 1

I would love to see all guilty child rapists beheaded after they are beat within a n inch of thier lives of course. BUT what about people who aren't really guilty?

In the 80's there was a preschool that was brought up on charges of Satanism and child rape. Everyone was just SURE the kids were all telling the truth.

Later it came out that the children were "lead" by the people interviewing them. If it happens on that big of a scale who is to say that it won't happen to someone else.

Yeah Child rapists are scum of the earth. And I kinda wanted (in my own sadistc way) to see the supreme court rule they could be put to death but at the end of the day I have to agree with the courts ruling.

Answer 2

Child rapists today.  Who is next?  You because you didn't stop at a red light?  Murder takes and ends a life that  is where the death penalty should be.

Answer 3

While I can understand the sentiment, there is nothing in the constitution that would make the Death Penalty for Child Rape unconstitutional.

Much like the first poster, SCOTUS decided the case from emotion, not law.

Making it a feasible punishment doesn't mean that the punishment MUST occur, only that it can.  The Libs need to realize this.  

Child Sexual abuse in all its forms is the most heinous crime, and should be treated as such.

Answer 4

Just because child predators can't be executed doesn't mean that states will be required to swing open the gates to the prisons and let them all out on the streets. Get a clue.

BTW, would YOU want to witness a child victim on the witness stand if a defense attorney was grilling him when the life of the client was on the line?? You ever seen an ADULT rape victim on the witness stand??

Having the same punishment for both rape and murder of a child is likely to increase the deaths of child rape victims, as the perp will figure he's got nothing to lose and potentially something to gain by killing the only witness to the crime.

THINK ABOUT IT.

EDIT: We should NOT make public policy based on the emotionality associated with an obviously heinous crime. Just because I might WANT to kill someone if they ever did anything like this to my children, is NOT a reason to formulate a state's policy to allow it to happen. Contrary to the poster below, neither the SCOTUS nor I am arguing from an emotional position. Quite the contrary, the SCOTUS argued from a position of proportionality and I am arguing from one of pragmatism. BOTH are preferable to one of emotion.

Answer 5

Execution of a child rapist is to easy. There are punishments in this life worth than death. Lock him up for the rest of his life and let the cons torture him. I think this is a much better punishment. As for the supreme court, Kennedy has been the swing vote for libs in a lot of issues. He is not the conservative we we were led to believe. If Obama is allowed to become president he will choose liberal judges that will step all over the constitution taking away your rights at every turn.

Answer 6

I will defend what Judy said because you are wrong to characterize the Court's decision as if the Court had opened the gateway for child rapists. Do not exaggerate what the Court did. The Court did not open any gateways; it commuted the death sentence.

All of the Sup. Ct. Justices rub me the wrong way. It also rubs me the wrong way to see Justice Kennedy cite the fact that most states do not execute child rapists as being a part of the reasoning why no states should be allowed to. But the core issue of what was at stake is whether or not execution is a punishment that is too severe in relation to the nature of the crime committed. And I think that in this case, the Court made a decision that is validly within its discretion.

Answer 7

Move to Georgia.  We hate kiddie fiddlers here and make their lives miserable.

Answer 8

They banned a punishment that, for all intents and purposes was never used. No reasonable person could characterize this as "opening the gateway for child rapists." The ruling was based on the fact that the punishment has become so uncommon that imposing it would amount to cruel and unusual punishment. This is based on established Court jurisprudence. It was not based on emotion, it was based on stare decisis. Without this, out legal system would not be able to function.