Kennedy v. Louisiana - no death penalty for rape

[monter]

I haven't seen a lot of news coverage about this, but I think it's sort of a big deal, and I want to see what other people think about it!

Kennedy v. Louisiana was decided yesterday by the US Supreme Court. The petitioner, Kennedy, was accused of (and convicted of) raping his eight year old stepdaughter. The jury in Louisiana sentenced him to death. His case went all the way to the US Supreme Court, where they said that allowing the death penalty for rape violates the Eight Amendment's provision against cruel and unusual punishment - that the punishment is disproportionate to the crime.

Up until this decision, there were five states that allowed the death penalty for rape.

This decision does NOT affect the death penalty being a valid sentence in case of treason. However, the decision flat out says that murder is the only crime against an individual that warrants the death penalty. Thoughts? I have mine, but I want to see what others think before I spill.

 

[SkylarV217]

Still think it should be taken on a case by case bases. Some cases of rape are simply unthinkable. I feel that most courts are too lenient in the sentencing of a rapist b/c they tend to ruin lives, not reform get out of prison in a couple of months or years and do the same thing to other women. Personally I feel rape and molestation are on up there with murder. In the olden days a man would be put to death for raping another mans wife or daughter, but that was b/c they were property of the 1st man. ..... anyways Rape is a horrific crime that most people don't understand the gravity of until they or a loved one is affected by it. It's something that the victim NEVER fully recovers from. I think all of that should be taken into account ! (I may be a little harsh But then again i think that once a man goes to prison he should sit in a cell all day with no tv or internet and be allowed a book... Once you go to prison you are being punished .... ) I think if they won't give the death penalty for rape, they should be put in prison until they are not physically able to rape anyone again .... Castration also seems like a good option =)


Sorry if I rambled

 

[ratmist]

Capital punishment works on the principle of an eye for an eye, a life for a life.

The Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty is disproportionate because rapists usually do not intend to murder their victims. If it can be proven in court that the rapist also intended to murder the victim, then the death penalty may be an option for the prosecution.

Personally I'm pleased with the decision, but I'm against the death penalty anyway.

Also, before anyone else calls for male castration, there's a lot of research that shows that men who are castrated can still enjoy physical pleasure. I wrote a lot of posts about this in a pedophile thread on Deep Thoughts. This is why castration in many European countires as a penalty for pedophiles has been stopped. Long story short, it doesn't work. And there's nothing stopping a male rapist from using things other than a penis.

 

[monter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratmist The Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty is disproportionate because rapists usually do not intend to murder their victims. If it can be proven in court that the rapist also intended to murder the victim, then the death penalty may be an option for the prosecution.

I just read the opinion (located here for any of you that are interested

) in hopes that you were right and the news stories I read on it were wrong (I guess that gives my stance on it away!), but I didn't see that in there.

I think the "and was not intended to result in the victim's death" language is just limiting the opinion to cases in which the rapist/murderer intended for the victim to die - so it wouldn't apply to cases in which the victim died accidentally. (But I'm pretty sure that no state authorized the death penalty in cases like that anyway, so the distinction is kind of unimportant, as far as I'm understanding it?)

The opinion does state that "the death penalty should not be expanded to instances where the victim's life was not taken."

And interesting information about male castration! I did not know any of that, that a 'drive' is still there even if everything is gone. :x

 

[user79]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratmist Capital punishment works on the principle of an eye for an eye, a life for a life. The Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty is disproportionate because rapists usually do not intend to murder their victims. If it can be proven in court that the rapist also intended to murder the victim, then the death penalty may be an option for the prosecution. Personally I'm pleased with the decision, but I'm against the death penalty anyway. Also, before anyone else calls for male castration, there's a lot of research that shows that men who are castrated can still enjoy physical pleasure. I wrote a lot of posts about this in a pedophile thread on Deep Thoughts. This is why castration in many European countires as a penalty for pedophiles has been stopped. Long story short, it doesn't work. And there's nothing stopping a male rapist from using things other than a penis.

Totally agree with pretty much everything you said, lol. I'm against the death penalty anyhow, but I agree that if it is used, it should only be for murder. But I don't think it should be used at all, anyway.

 

[ratmist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by monter I just read the opinion (located here for any of you that are interested ) in hopes that you were right and the news stories I read on it were wrong (I guess that gives my stance on it away!), but I didn't see that in there. I think the "and was not intended to result in the victim's death" language is just limiting the opinion to cases in which the rapist/murderer intended for the victim to die - so it wouldn't apply to cases in which the victim died accidentally. (But I'm pretty sure that no state authorized the death penalty in cases like that anyway, so the distinction is kind of unimportant, as far as I'm understanding it?) The opinion does state that "the death penalty should not be expanded to instances where the victim's life was not taken."

"Writing for the court majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the Constitution barred a state from imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child when the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in the victim's death." - Reuters (here: Supreme Court strikes down death penalty for child rape | U.S. | Reuters)
​

Yeah, I was paraphrasing from what I'd read in the news, so I didn't phrase it exactly as written in the opinion. I agree with what you've said though, and now I'm not entirely sure if the death penalty is still an option if the victim dies as a result of the rape. I'd need to read the opinion again and more thoroughly but I don't have the time just now. It's also incredibly depressing reading. :/

Quote:

Originally Posted by monter And interesting information about male castration! I did not know any of that, that a 'drive' is still there even if everything is gone. :x

All of it is depressing reading to be honest. I got interested because I wanted to see if there was a chance that pedophiles could be rehabilitated, and whether there was on-going research into why people become pedophiles. In the end, there are more questions than answers, but one thing the researchers all agree on is that castration won't solve the problem or even stop a sex offender from re-offending. It may make a victim and the victim's family (and society) feel revenged, but that's not the point of the law.

Interestingly, Obama didn't agree with the ruling.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said he disagreed with the ruling.

"Had the Supreme Court said, 'We want to constrain the abilities of states to do this to make sure that it's done in a careful and appropriate way,' that would have been one thing. But it basically had a blanket prohibition and I disagree with that decision," Obama told a news conference in Chicago. (from the same Reuters link above)

​

 

[monter]

It's confusing language, and that IS how it is phrased in the opinion, how Reuters has it there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratmist Interestingly, Obama didn't agree with the ruling.

I'm surprised about this too - but pleasantly so. I'm liberal on most social issues EXCEPT ones pertaining to the criminal justice system. It's nice to know I'm not the only weird one out there.

My take on it is this: This case didn't touch using the death penalty for treason or espionage or what have you. The Court reasoned that it was because those are crimes against more than one person. (Along with their "consensus" argument and "trend" argument, which I personally think are total crap.

The dissent does a nice job of explaining this.) Rape is a crime against an "individual," according to the court, and the only crime against an individual that the death penalty can be a sentence for is homicide.

But isn't there a reason why it's "State" or "People" v. Defendant? Isn't it because society as a whole has been affected? There is only one victim and the TRUE harm only happens to one person (where in treason or whatnot, it can affect a much wider group of people and really hurt/kill the), but I don't know that that distinction is all that important.

Or what about serial rapists? Wouldn't that absolutely wreak havoc in a community? - like if a kindergarten teacher raped some of her students or something. Certainly affects more than just the official victim.

If the Court wants to lay down a bright line rule like that, I think the death penalty for treason and espionage and all that has to go, too - unless it actuall results in deaths.

Also: If the victim dies as a result of the rape and the death was due to reckless, substantial, active involvement, then it seems like the death penalty would still be allowed - but it would be a sentence for the conviction of murder, not rape. Rape would just be a factor in the "reckless, substantial, active involvement leading to victim's death" thing. (The court mentions Tison v. Arizona at one point, which is what I'm basing this on. :x)

And re feelings of revenge: Vengeance/retribution IS a valid use of the justice system. We just need to make sure it doesn't get out of hand. The Court here in Kennedy does point out that in child rape cases, the child may not feel "righted" by the death of the rapist - and in fact, may just cause more problems than good. I agree with that in some cases, but I don't think it applies to all cases. There probably ARE some kids that would feel better if their rapist was put to death - just as there are some families that do and some families that don't feel better after their deceased family member's killer is put to death.

I'll be bringing this up tonight in class (even though it's not ENTIRELY on topic

); I'll report back with our findings, haha.

 

[*Stargazer*]

If we actually put rapists and child molesters in jail for life, we wouldn't need to put them to death. Not that I have any issues with executing them either, tbh. As long as the end result was that the perpetrator wasn't able to victimize someone again, I'd be happy.

 

[SkylarV217]

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Stargazer* If we actually put rapists and child molesters in jail for life, we wouldn't need to put them to death. Not that I have any issues with executing them either, tbh. As long as the end result was that the perpetrator wasn't able to victimize someone again, I'd be happy.

EXACTLY

 

[kimmy]

rape is a violent crime.
violent crimes destroy lives.

i wholeheartedly believe that any violent crime should be punishable by death. perhaps if people knew they could face death for rape (or strong armed robbery, or assault, or any other crime classified as a violent crime) we would see a decrease in these cases.

 

[monter]

Something interesting we discussed in class today (it's Criminal Procedre: Investigatory Process, but my professor is a former IL appelate court justice, was the second in command of the Cook County State's Attorney's Office for a time, and also has done some private practice, so... he knows what's up!): The most recent two cases to affect the way we instute the death penalty have been Coker and Roper. One said that the death penalty can't be used on juveniles, the other said that the death penalty can't be used on people below a certain IQ or with low mental capacity. (It's late and I can't remember which case is which, nor can I remember the exact wording of the mental thing!)

Both of these cases protect the rights of the accused. It limits the class of convicted that are eligible for the death penalty. Because of that, an Eighth Amendment analysis is appropriate. In other words, it's okay to see if these peoples' rights to be free fom cruel and unusual punishment have been violated because it is limiting the class. Since the cases had to do with the qualities of the defendants, it was the defendant's rights that the analysis is concerned with.

In Kennedy, it didn't limit the class of eligible defendants. It limited the CRIME for which it is eligible. It's a totally different analysis - or at least, it should be. I haven't read Obama's entire statement about this case, bu my prof has a feeling (and I have a feeling he's right) that this is Obama's beef with the case. The Constitutional analysis is misplaced. (And considering Obama used to teach Constitutional Law at University of Chicago... he probably knows what he's talking about!)