SubscribeSCOTUS: Death Penalty Only For Murders
From the Agence France-Presse:
US Supreme Court rejects executions for child rape
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the death penalty should not apply to a man convicted of raping a child, saying that capital punishment only applies to murderers.
"The Eighth Amendment (of the US Constitution) bars Louisiana from imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in the victim’s death," said the justices in a 5-4 decision.
In its ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the high court cited a "national consensus" reflected in the vast majority of US states that did not have laws allowing capital punishment for the crime of child rape.
Given previous court rulings and its interpretation of the US Constitution, the justices held that "the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the crime of child rape."
The case involved an appeal by lawyers for Patrick Kennedy, 43, who was sentenced to death in 2003 for raping the daughter of his girlfriend five years earlier, when the child was eight years old.
Since the death penalty was reinstated in the United States in 1976, it has only been carried out for crimes of murder.
In 1977 the Supreme Court overturned the death sentence of a rapist, saying the punishment for the crime was excessive and fell under the constitution’s proscription of "cruel and unusual" punishment…
This is just the latest fatwa from the five Imams on the Supreme Court.
In its ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the high court cited a "national consensus"
Remember when the Supreme Court used to make its rulings based on the Constitution?
And how do they know this is the national consensus? And will they follow the "national consensus" on other issues, such as abortion?
Meanwhile, here is the musty old Eighth Amendment says in toto:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Which somehow has been twisted by five mullahs to mean:
"The Eighth Amendment (of the US Constitution) bars Louisiana from imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in the victim’s death," said the justices in a 5-4 decision.
Even the worst Muslim scholars would not be so daring.
Texas, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Montana, Louisiana, Florida and George all have legislation allowing the death penalty for child rape.
Apart from them, the US Congress and other states and their citizens foolishly believed they could allow the death penalty for other crimes besides murder.
Other Statutes allowing the death penalty for non-murder crimes
Treason (Arkansas, Calif., Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Washington)
Aggravated kidnapping (Co., Idaho, Il., Missouri, Mont.)
Drug trafficking (Fl., Missouri)
Aircraft hijacking (Ga., Mo.)
Placing a bomb near a bus terminal (Mo.)
Espionage (New Mexico)
Aggravated assault by incarcerated, persistent felons, or murderers (Mont.)Federal capital statutes for non-murder crimes
Espionage (18 U.S.C. 794)
Treason (18 U.S.C. 2381)
Trafficking in large quantities of drugs (18 U.S.C. 3591(b))
Attempting, authorizing or advising the killing of any officer, juror,or witness in cases involving a Continuing Criminal Enterprise, regardless of whether such killing actually occurs (18 U.S.C. 3591(b)(2))
But obviously the Congress and state legislatures and the citizens they represent were sadly mistaken.
For now treason, espionage, kidnapping, drug trafficking, hijacking, bombing — are now no longer punishable by death.
Five unelected men in black robes have decided.
This is not the system our framers created. In fact, it is the very nightmare of despotism they had hoped to avoid.
Something will have to be done.
33 Responses to “SCOTUS: Death Penalty Only For Murders”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
June 25th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
All hail Emperor Kennedy, the wolf in sheeps clothing, Ronnie is rolling in his grave.
June 25th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Yes, we must protect heroes like this from any cruel and unusual punishment:
Note that this bravo was an ex-con.
June 25th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
I’ve always found it alarming how a liberal will fight to the death over cruelty to animals yet they have absolutely no regard for the most helpless life forms, an unborn and born child. Every ruling by liberals seems to take away any protection from defenseless children while they tie the hands of law enforcement when it comes to fighting child pornography, molestation and other crimes against children. I’m begining to think the libs are all pedophiles.
June 25th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
look on the bright side–perhaps his fellow inmates will exact upon him eye for an eye style justice–repeatedly for many years to come. Perhaps that is what justice kennedy meant by proportional punishment for his crime.
June 25th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
First they came for your property (Kelo), then the conveyed more rights on POWs that American citizens have giving the terrorists the right to come to the U.S. paid for by the taxpayer risking another liberal thinking judge who will turn the terrorists into the general public, now they say that no matter the torture your 8 year old child sustains, it doesn’t warrent the death of the torturer.
Texas has the death penalty for those who commit henious rapes against children.
Can we seceed again?
June 25th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
“I’m beginning to think the libs are all pedophiles.”
Bernie Ward?
June 25th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
A mob can be an ugly thing…and it’s time to get UGLY!!!
(paraphrasing Inspector Kemp from Young Frankenstein, but it IS time to get ugly)
June 25th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
I am beginning to think that what lies in our future is another revolution. The Amercan people, basically hard working, honest and want nothing more than the right to live their lives without dictators, will finally get fed up with four people, unelected, in black robes putting us all in danger.
When will SCOTUS take a stand on cases such as this? When it affects them personally. When one of their family is killed by an illegal immigrant, when one of them has had their social security number stolen, when one of their grandchildren is raped to the point that that child has had their lives destroyed, never to be able to live a normal life, when their whole family is wiped out by a terrorist attack.
You will notice that the five judges who constantly rule contrary to the Constitution are the ones who stay within the halls of their secured building. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito are the only ones who venture out into the real world, living among the great unwashed masses.
What does that tell you?
June 25th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
I guess the death penalty for rape doesn’t matter to me. Anyone raping my wife and/or daughters will endure a fate far worse than death. That is, before the coup de grace.
Not sure if this is a ‘Pulp Fiction’ kinda crowd, but, the whole ‘blow torch and a pair of pliers’ is apropos…
June 25th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Colonel, it’s a shame you weren’t my wing commander…anyone who can apply Quentin Tarentino to this situation is someone I gladly would have been SAM bait with.
June 25th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Much obliged. I am, however, a civilian. My moniker was bestowed upon me because of my Father’s first career…
Cheers to you for your service to our country, sir!
June 26th, 2008 at 7:29 am
I know this may sound like a bad made for T.V. movie script but I swear, if I had to pawn everything I owned, use every internet search engine, hire a detective, whatever it took. I’d find the person or persons that hurt my child or wife in such a manner.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:12 am
I must admit that I’m disappointed with the SCOTUS ruling, but for much different reasons than anyone else has stated. The death penalty should be used sparingly, even for particularly heinous crimes. The reason? In prison, felons can do little to harm people outside the prison walls. Thus life sentences are preferable to death penalties. But felons in prison can wreak harm on fellow prisoners. Thus solitary confinement is preferable to the death penalty. But there are those who, even in the most secure locations in the prison, still present an active threat. And it is those people–the ones completely unwilling to work with the system, so sociopathic they have no qualms about recourse to violence–for whom the death penalty should be reserved. And the truth is, some of those serial pedophiles with hundreds of victims are exactly the sort of sociopath.
What strikes me chilling about dealing with any of these cases of rape or sexual abuse is this. The vast majority of sexual assault is committed by a family member, a step-family member, or a parent’s boyfriend/girlfriend. All this talk of liquidating all assets to find whoever it was that hurt your child is hyperbole at best, because you won’t have to go far. In a few, very few, cases you might have to look for a stranger, but that’s it.
The reason I mention this is that in a different type of case, when it is, say, the father who rapes his own daughter, the call for the death penalty does indeed threaten to become disproportionate to the crime. While the father may spend years in prison, there’s still the chance of reconciliation. For those who might scoff at the idea, reconciliation is indeed possible and can be very important in the healing process, for both father and daughter. Execute the father, and you’ve removed a parent from a child’s life. This can be more harmful than the rape, both in the loss of a parent and the recrimination the child could feel.
The final reason is that a life sentence in prison, as opposed to the death penalty, gives a felon every chance he needs to truly repent his sins and try to live a better life. I don’t believe someone should be denied the chance to find perfect contrition unless there is overwhelming evidence there will never been any remorse, any repentance. For those of you would pull out pincers and flames for sex offenders, I would ask you to recall that God loves sex offenders, too. He hates their crimes, which turn them away from Him, but He gives them every chance to return to His love. As good Christians, we should all remember that. Instead of crucifying them in our minds and hearts (especially if they did nothing to us personally), we should pray for them, that they might have the courage to face the consequences of their actions, that they might find true remorse for their deeds, and that they might find the strength to overcome those disordered sexual desires that led them into such despicable behavior in the first place.
Even so, the states should reserve the right to use the death penalty when they deem it necessary, for whatever crime is committed.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
The SCOTUS is not supposed to make the laws or decide the penalties for breaking them. They are clearly infringing the states’ rights.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Cairone - so the possibility of repentance is the most vital reason to keep a criminal alive - what about his/her entire life up to that point - many, many moments to not only not commit the crime, but also to repent. . .
Felons in prison do wreck havoc both within prison (shankings, rapes, murders, riot etc) but also outside of prison (gang deals, lawsuits, victim intimidation etc) - since when should convicted criminals have more rights than society?
Reconciliation should not (such as frequently is the case in the confusion and blending of forgiving and forgetting) be confused and blended with recovery. It is not only possible but more likely to recover without reconciliation - especially with the crime of rape.
-’This can be more harmful than the rape’- I personally don’t think so - as I’ve had both occur and believe me the rape still affects much more in my life than the absence of my father (whom I watched die). . .Go figure, but I’d bet you are a man, after a comment such as that. . .
Tragically you make this comment -’gives a felon every chance he needs to truly repent his sins and try to live a better life’- when in the beginning you actually made a truthful statement on this issue. . .-’so sociopathic they have no qualms about recourse to violence–for whom the death penalty should be reserved’- anyone who finds any positive/reason/excuse for child rape falls into the second catagory not the first. . .So you have set your own parameters which you then completely ignore.
-’For those of you would pull out pincers and flames for sex offenders, I would ask you to recall that God loves sex offenders, too’- You then step immediately into the confusion of forgiveness (God loves sex offenders, too) with forgetting (no reprecussion for committing a crime, ever) - even Jesus said ‘render unto Ceasar (the law) what is Ceasar’s (penalty for violating the law). . .’ And I won’t go into the Old Testament where God struck liars, murders and other assorted criminals dead instantly - gives one pause to really consider what God does thing about criminals. . .And that is another point - this was the law in LA at the time the guy did it - so why should he not suffer the penalty that is on the books at the time?
Therefore you are the prime example as to why the death penalty should be carried out - those who are against it will give this criminals a pass thus possibly enabling their release to prey upon society again - the death penalty eliminates any possibility that someone who can not even stand on one side or the other of an issue does not set these subhumans free again, ever to prey on society.
Even so, the states should reserve the right to use the death penalty when they deem it necessary, for whatever crime is committed - which LA did - their slim definition was repeat offenders which 60% of the populace approved - and 5 guys just overturned it. Once again, you came down on both sides of the issue.
You are the type of liberal who is going to destroy America from within.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
“National Consensus” eh?…..I can’t wait until they use this completely unconstitutional reasoning to force the stealth socialism “cure” for “climate change” down our throats….Be leery of anyone using “consensus” as the basis for their arguments…
Shame on me for hoping “certain someones” get gravely ill or expire before a particular date….
BTW. Have not seem many capital cases for treason……What gives? This is a fertile field right now…..
June 26th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
I agree with wardmama.
I am sick of Christians who take the approach..”but if we do not let this person live they might not have a chance to repent and they will spend eternity in hell.” They do have a chance to repent, right before the toxic coctail reaches their veins. The God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New Testement. God said to stone them to death. We are not talking about some woman who may or may not have had sex with a married man who had no witnessess and no trial and the man was nowhere to be seen, we are talking about a man (or woman) who decided that another life was their’s to control and do whatever they wanted t it. God appears to have a special place in hell for them, even Christ said, “woe to anyone who leads any one of these children astray, it would be better if a millstone were tied around their necks ….” The death penalty is not about punishment, prison is about punishment. The death penalty is for those who have gone so far that there is no punishment for them anymore, they made their choice, maybe the afterlife can teach them what this present life could not.
June 26th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
What the Supremes have done is eliminated the death penalty. By declaring it cruel and unusual, how long until it will be challenged even in case of murder? Additionally, they have abrogated the rights of state legislatures. State legislatures are supposed to have the right to make laws and determine punishments…but if the Supremes have called the death penalty “cruel and unusual”, and if the Constitution states that “cruel and unusual” punishment is not allowed, then the death penalty is unconstitutional. That removes the right of legislatures to impose it.
>>Even so, the states should reserve the right to use the death penalty when they deem it necessary, for whatever crime is committed.>>
They don’t have that right any more. The Supremes just took it away.
As for the repentance issue: With the death penalty, a criminal has a gift than others do not have - he knows the day and the hour of his death. He can repent if he wills. His eternal fate is in the hands of God. Let justice come.
June 26th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
The only way I could be against the death penalty is if we had a system that would make the convicted felon pray to die every minute of every day, and actually do whatever they could to end their miserable zero future life..
Leave the repenting for those who can forget what that felon did to get to prison in the first place. Sorry…..especially for child rapists……no mercy. EVER.
June 26th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Once upon a time, it was argued (rightfully) that an innocent person might wind up being put to death. But that was before the days of DNA testing. It was before the days of these animals making films or audio tapes of themselves doing their crimes. It was before the days when heinous crimes like child rape and sadistic tortures were almost unheard of.
Those days are long gone.
If the evidence is there and it is overwhelming, then I see no reason to not put them to death.
Repent? Oh puh-leeeze! Most of these bastards are incapable of feeling guilt. As amber says: they can repent when they’re being executed.
A lot of liberals will say that that sounds more like vengeance than justice. Here’s a news flash: you’re Goddamn right it’s vengeance. Someone tell me what’s wrong with that?
Maybe a crime or two might not have been committed had the perpetrator known that his victims would be avenged. And even if it’s nothing more than closure for the victim or the family of the victim -Hey, I can work with that.
Anyone with a higher IQ than a chimpanzee, knows that the justice system is not just failing the public -it is getting them raped and butchered in increasing numbers. If the naysayers want to see a day where people are shot simply for looking suspicious, then we’re well on the right track for that.
June 26th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
I agree with DW wholeheartedly……when someone destroys a life, and vicariously the lives of all they touched and loved…..they dont deserve any consideration for their well being and most of all, whether the punishment is cruel and unusual.
I suspect that the rapist or the murderer didnt take any time whatsoever to consider the feelings or the rights of the person who was being violated or murdered. Their deaths or rapes were horrific, painful and brutal at the very least.
For those who say the death penalty only lowers us to the level of criminals, or some other pandering smarmy wishy washy excuse, well I say tough sh*t! To me, the criminal’s feelings or emotions should be left in the grave of their victims. Cruel and unusual? Because the IV needle hurt? Get the f*ck out of here….who cares?
As for all of the namby pamby anti death penalty jerks out there…..while they are humming along at the candlelight vigil for a convicted killer being put to death, the warden should project a slide show on the side of the prison wall….for all to see…..of the victim, then the crime scene, the morgue shots, the funeral, the relatives left to deal with it, and loop the tape to run continuously to force those clueless dorks to realize WHY THE PERSON IS BEING EXECUTED!!!!!!!!
Lethal injection is neither cruel nor unusual. Let me be in charge. I can show them cruel and unusual. Especially child rapists…..
June 27th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Wardmama4,
Yes. Yes, I am a male, just to set your mind at ease. And as upsetting as you found my comments, there are certainly comments you have made that I find particularly disturbing.
>>> so the possibility of repentance is the most vital reason to keep a criminal alive - what about his/her entire
>>> life up to that point - many, many moments to not only not commit the crime, but also to repent. . .
I find it hard to follow this line of thought. How can you repent a crime you never committed? And yes, I do believe the possibility of repentance is the most vital reason to keep a criminal alive. What could be more important than reclaiming that soul for God? The felon’s crimes are serious. Never think that I believe otherwise. The use of another person for one’s own gratification, especially if that person is child who is easily, severely damage by such actions, is abominable. But Jesus suffered for his crimes, as well.
>>>Felons in prison do wreck havoc both within prison (shankings, rapes, murders, riot etc) but also outside
>>>of prison (gang deals, lawsuits, victim intimidation etc) - since when should convicted criminals have
>>>more rights than society?
You seemed to have missed my point. People who continue such abusive behavior even in prison are those for whom the death penalty is reserved. And convicted criminals don’t have more rights than society. I challenge you to cite exactly where criminals come out on top over normal citizens. Felons lose the right to vote and the right to bear arms. They lose freedom for the time they are in prison. They lose the right to work many types of jobs. Some of these rights they can earn back, true, but that at best brings them back to on par with normal citizens. I grow tired of hearing how criminals have more rights, because this isn’t about what rights criminals have or don’t have, it is about how the criminal isn’t suffering enough to satisfy the victim. And I’m not saying a criminal shouldn’t suffer for his crimes. He should and will, no doubt about it. But the desire on others’ part to see harm, and not just justice, done is worrisome.
>>> -’This can be more harmful than the rape’- I personally don’t think so - as I’ve had both occur and
>>> believe me the rape still affects much more in my life than the absence of my father (whom I watched die)
My condolences on both parts. But I wish I remember the studies I had read talking about the impact of guilt on the victim’s part for the punishment the felon receives so I could cite them here. But the general idea is this: it happens (though how frequently I don’t recall), especially when the felon is a close family member, that the victim feels responsible for the felon’s suffering, thus incurring some amount of guilt. The victim, not wanting to feel guilty, continues to harbor anger towards the criminal. This anger prevents the victim from ever healing, because in order to heal, the victim has to move on from the abuse. Moving on would strip away the anger, exposing the guilt. Thus avoiding the guilt keeps the anger in place, preventing a victim from moving beyond her abuse.
>>>so sociopathic they have no qualms about recourse to violence–for whom the death penalty should be
>>>reserved’- anyone who finds any positive/reason/excuse for child rape falls into the second catagory not
>>>the first. So you have set your own parameters which you then completely ignore.
I have hardly ignored my parameters. I have firsthand evidence that a man can rape a child and not be a sociopath. I have witnessed firsthand these men struggling to understand why they did what they did so that they will never do so again. I have seen them reach that understanding and move on to lead (relatively) normal lives. To suggest that every child rape is committed by a sociopath is wrong for two reasons. One is factually, which I have just explained. The other is that it glosses over the main problems of sexual assault. If you simply dismiss all child rape as committed by sociopaths, then you do not see the real factors involved that influence a majority of incidents of child rape. If you can’t see the real factors, you can’t fix them. (Some of the real factors involve our culture of victimhood, our contraceptive mentality, and our inability to tolerate even moderate discomfort.)
>>>You then step immediately into the confusion of forgiveness (God loves sex offenders, too) with
>>>forgetting (no reprecussion for committing a crime, ever)
Now you are feeding words into my mouth. My call is completely for reserving the death penalty (one and only one form of punishment) for those cases where it is really the only feasible option for dealing with a criminal. I do not confuse forgiveness for forgetting. My intent in stating that God loves sex offenders, too, is that Jesus died to give those sinners a chance. Maybe we should give them a chance, too. But before everyone slams me with the hammer of indignation, consider what I am saying. I’m not saying “don’t punish the criminal”. That’s ridiculous. Of course a criminal should be punished, and more harshly for more heinous crimes. And the reason I would prefer people to withhold their own vigilante justice is not for the criminal’s sake, but their own. Such hatred, such hardness of heart, and such delight in another person’s pain, no matter how justified, turns a person away from God. (See, I’m being consistent here. I want all souls saved.)
>>> And I won’t go into the Old Testament where God struck liars, murders and other assorted criminals
>>>dead instantly - gives one pause to really consider what God does thing (sp) about criminals. . .
I would actually invite you to go deeper into this. Consider why God might do such a thing. Now, it is impossible for us to fully know the mind of God, but we can probably reason out a few things. Perhaps God killed them to stress how important obedience to Him and His laws really is. Perhaps God, with His unique vantage of omniscience, knew that with those he killed, there was absolutely no possibility of them repenting. I’m not saying either of these are the case, but I did pause to really consider what God does think about criminals. And I especially consider that in the light that Jesus kind of made a routine habit of forgiving even career criminals.
>>>And that is another point - this was the law in LA at the time the guy did it - so why should he not suffer
>>>the penalty that is on the books at the time?
Apparently you didn’t read my full post. I said was disappointed in SCOTUS’s decision. Unless I read the article incorrectly, they ruled against the LA law. I have no personal idea if this rapist in LA truly deserves the death penalty, but I firmly believe that the option to use the death penalty even in case of rape should be reserved. Let me repeat. I support the death penalty. I just feel that it should be limited–not by law, but by due consideration of the criminal at hand–to those that cannot be handled in any other way. If this guy in LA is indeed a sociopathic rapist who will continue on no matter what punishment you hand him, then yes, he should receive the death penalty. But consider the remark from sheehanjihad (who I usually find makes good, pointed comments):
>>>Let me be in charge. I can show them cruel and unusual. Especially child rapists…..
To repeat, I find this disturbing, not for the rapists’ sakes, but for sheehanjihad’s. We should never delight in someone else’s suffering. The only reason to delight in someone else’s pain is to make ourselves feel better, and that can be habit forming. Once it is habit…yes, this is the slippery slope argument, but haven’t we been validated in many other places that the slippery slope is indeed slippery? To do DW’s comment:
>>>Here’s a news flash: you’re Goddamn right it’s vengeance. Someone tell me what’s wrong with that?
What’s wrong is the very nature of vengeance itself. It is making yourself feel better through someone else’s suffering. Initially you can justify it through the despicable deeds of others, but it rarely stops there. You make a habit of hurting others because you’re hurting, and what does that lead to? Just minor things like sociopathy and abuse. So, yes, sheehanjihad, if we use the death penalty as vengeance, vengeance and not justice, it can (not necessarily does, but certainly opens the door wide to) lower us to the level of criminals. Why? Because following that path will ultimately lead you to commit crimes.
>>>Therefore you are the prime example as to why the death penalty should be carried out - those who are
>>>against it will give this criminals a pass thus possibly enabling their release to prey upon society again -
>>>the death penalty eliminates any possibility that someone who can not even stand on one side or the
>>>other of an issue does not set these subhumans free again, ever to prey on society.
Once again, you place words in my mouth. I said nothing about giving them a free pass. I offered life imprisonment, even life in solitary, as alternatives to the death penalty. Neither of those release a criminal to prey upon society again unless a decision is made that the criminal is rehabilitated enough to rejoin society.
>>>Even so, the states should reserve the right to use the death penalty when they deem it necessary, for
>>>whatever crime is committed - which LA did - their slim definition was repeat offenders which 60% of the
>>>populace approved
Note that that first sentence is directly quoting me. Do I need to defend my belief that we should have and use (prudently) the death penalty?
>>>- and 5 guys just overturned it.
Which I deplored. And I deplore it for exactly the reason you stated above. LA wanted to use it, approved by 60% of the populace, and I find it despicable that SCOTUS shot it down.
>>>Once again, you came down on both sides of the issue.
No, I’m just being consistent. I want all souls saved. I want the criminals’ souls saved, and I want the souls of those who salivate at the thought of exacting their own personal punishment saved. I want the death penalty to remain a viable option, but I don’t want it abused. I felt I had to post because I feel there’s a danger in succumbing to the hateful mentalities that are so abundant whenever crime is discussed. I stated disagreement with SCOTUS’s ruling and then outlined when I felt the death penalty should or should not be applied, and then sought to justify–succinctly, I had hoped, since I’m not very good a succinct–my stance of when it shouldn’t be applied.
>>>You are the type of liberal who is going to destroy America from within.
I find such slanderous libel hurtful. Maybe it would be useful to see where I’m coming from. I am a Catholic, a Republican, and consider myself a staunch conservative: pro-life, small government, free market, pro-gun, against homosexual actions, against the redefinition of marriage, anti-illegal immigration, against climate regulations, against socialism and the welfare state, and so on. About the only thing against me in that list is being Catholic, since Catholics have traditionally been Democrats. So please don’t sling that ‘liberal’ smear around. I’m not squeamish about killing people if they need to be killed. If a state determines a criminal should be executed, so be it. I hardly think suggesting a criminal merely be incarcerated for life instead of receiving the death penalty if the death penalty isn’t needed makes me a flaming liberal.
Anyway, I’ve carried on too long already. I hope this better explains what I’m after.
June 27th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
not for the rapists’ sakes, but for sheehanjihad’s. We should never delight in someone else’s suffering.
I agree with you there Cairone….but to differentiate between enjoying something that needs to be done, and just getting it done because kind hearted souls simply cannot is what I must explain.
I liken it to a real cute doggy, except this one has rabies. He bit a kid, and nobody had the heart to kill the pup, so he bit another…and another. At the pound, he tried to bite every animal and human near him. Nobody had the heart to kill him.
I would like to either…but I am pragmatic enough to know a true danger to society when I see it. So I wouldnt delight in killing the cute lil pup, but I wouldnt hesitate to do so because I value the reality of the situation over ideology and personal beliefs.
Child rapists are like rabid animals to me. To suggest that I would delight in killing them or seeing to it that they suffered immeasurably is actually putting words in my mouth. I said, and I repeat, I see no reason for keeping a man who preys on children alive for whatever reason, be it redemption or not.
Thus, there are people like me who can and will do the dirty work that kind good hearted folks such as yourself cannot. That is the way of things…..there are those who cling to beliefs and walk the moral high ground, and I applaud them for doing so!
However, there are also those of us who know why things need to be done, and we do them without worry or concience…..because it is our belief that it is the right thing to do. So, if I am mistaken and go straight to hell for it….oh well! That’s my fate. You can look down and shake your head and go tsk tsk…..but I will revel in the fact that now I get another shot at the bastards who rape children!!
Some things are unpleasant. I defer the morality to you. You have an ability I have lost over the years. Forgiveness. I have seen too much to have that luxury ever again. But I dont fault you your opinion….so dont get me wrong.
June 27th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
>>You have an ability I have lost over the years. Forgiveness.>>
Except he doesn’t have the _right_ to offer forgiveness. That right belongs to God and the victim. Society’s right - and obligation - is to offer justice. At least, to the best of its ability.
June 27th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
-’I challenge you to cite exactly where criminals come out on top over normal citizens’- 1) Criminals are the only Americans guaranteed healthcare and 2) Criminals get 3 hots and a cot - at taxpayer expense - that does make them getting more rights than the average citizen.
-’And yes, I do believe the possibility of repentance is the most vital reason to keep a criminal alive’- then you go to the prison and start working - there are prison outreaches all over the country - even those going to the death chamber are provided a religious person - as I and others have stated - there are countless moments to repent. No, I am not stupid - I did not mean to repent a crime before it was committed - but if you bother thinking for a second - people do not simply step out and commit murder and rape one day - bet if you look into their lives - they started with smaller (misdomeaners) before they commit more serious crimes. And hence, have time to repent before destroying another life.
-’Thus avoiding the guilt keeps the anger in place, preventing a victim from moving beyond her abuse’- You sound like a psychologist here - but actually that is the prime reason that criminals do these horrible things to others - acting out their own anger, guilt and hatred done onto them onto others. So why must the victim be forced to face their problems and deal with them, but not the criminal?
-’not just justice’- And this is my point - the current law, passed in LA was that this criminal die - the people approved it and even then, the jury had the ability to say No - but saw no reason to keep this predator (remember the LA law reads repeat offender) alive to risk preying on society again. Justice does not exist in this country as the law is not carried out to protect society nor to avenge the victim - our system is now skewed toward protecting the criminal. They stay alive and if they get really lucky - beat the system. See Kenneth McDuff (TX) for what I fear most about you people who want criminals to stay alive. Released by someone who did not care about his life without parole and he killed 4 more women. . . Life does not mean life, without parole does not mean without parole, heck a sentence doesn’t even stand anymore as many states give half or two thirds as time - and we know that in most states death doesn’t mean death. . . And we the taxpayers feed them, house them, pay for their lawyers and so on and so on. As I said, more rights than law abiding citizens.
-’such delight in another person’s pain’- Don’t go putting words into my mouth or assuming what I think or feel.
-’I have hardly ignored my parameters. I have firsthand evidence that a man can rape a child and not be a sociopath’- Actually you have, but that is typical as I said of people who can’t take a stand on an issue - and I’d love to have real proof that a man can rape a child and not be a sociopath. Look up the definition of sociopath, please.
-’I want all souls saved.’- Then go and read the whole Bible - I suggest a Bible study called Precepts which just uses the Bible and a concordance for the various languages that they Bible was written in - God gave man free will - He could have saved us all - but he did not. When people would not follow his Laws - he sent the Savior, so that people could chose. Yes it would be nice to save all souls - but you are not God - you can’t do it and you should be a mature enough or educated enough Christian to know what God has planned for Man and why. . .And that statement shows a self-centered and egotistical view of Christianity.
God metted out punishment, extreme ones on His own creation. Why can’t civilized peoples and society have the right to say - No this is not allowed and here is the punishment. I’ve pointed out that America’s problem is that life is not life, death isn’t even death anymore - the criminals see that and laugh at society.
Did you know when the Death Penalty was re-instated and states started using it again - those states saw a 44% decrease in the homicide rate? Make a punishment that stops the criminal - and society becomes safe - and civilized again.
June 27th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Wardmama4…..exactly.
June 27th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Wardmama–fantastic, very well put and researched.
June 28th, 2008 at 1:57 am
Try seeing this video: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/vid.....e.rant.cnn
It took me some time to digest what this piece of scum, James Fagan was saying. Try sitting through the first 30-40 seconds as this creep from hell rants he will torment and rip apart child rape victims who take the witness stand if the state legislature passed stiff mandatory sentences for child sex offenders. I almost threw up… God save us!
June 28th, 2008 at 2:11 am
Oh, and did I forget to mention that Mr. Fagan happens to be a Democrat? I can just imagine the MSM working themselves into a frenzy of spittle-mouthed delight had this individual been Republican.
June 28th, 2008 at 4:13 am
Not much of a challange actually. In the case of my grandchild (8 years old at the time), he is dead and the evil bastard that kidnapped, sexually assaulted, sexually mutilated, tortured and killed him is alive. I’d say that is coming out on top. Your logic is nonsense and more than a bit moronic.
June 28th, 2008 at 4:44 am
when child rapists remain ALIVE, then they come out on top over normal citizens. Normal citizens cant kill them. Now the liberal socialist SCOTUS wont. You wring your hands and pray as though somehow you can attone for his atrocity, and wish him life. That makes no sense.
Cairone: Look, Wardmama4 hit it on the head. 1RS and a lot of others agree. Warmonger lives everyday with that emptyness that this prick caused, and yet you wish him redemption. It boggles my mind that people can overlook the horrid psychotic remorseless acts these people do to kids….all because of a religious belief.
It is possible for a normal citizen to punish this bastard yet! Too bad the ROE prevent me from saying how!
June 28th, 2008 at 5:04 am
Cairone:
Just one (of many) other things I should have mentioned:
The bastard has been locked up four years now and within six months the first of his appeals hearings will be held based on harsh sentencing of life without parole for an 18 year old at the time of conviction. We of course will attend that hearing as we will the many more that will certainly follow (all at taxpayers expense of course). I probably won’t live long enough to attend them all. And the bastard will sit there and smirk at the family though it all, just as he did at trial. So we get to relive it all over again, over and over again. We’re sure he will never be released, but it doesn’t stop him from getting over on us normal citizens everytime we have to appear in the same room with the scumbag. So you see, people with your views just don’t get it because you haven’t lived the nightmare. And it truely is a never ending nightmare. It’s not just about retribution, although that’s part of it. It’s about finally putting an end to the endless torture the family must endure through all the steps of appeal. For us anyway, that’s the hardest part. He, and all his ilk, should no longer be a living, breathing member of the human race even if murder wasn’t part of the equation.
June 30th, 2008 at 11:27 am
First: sheehanjihad, my apologies for putting words in your mouth. That was never my intent. I’m sorry. And you’re right: pragmatically, we have to do something about people who commit vile acts. I admit, I’m a theorist (mathematician first, computer scientist in application), so almost all my viewpoints come from a theoretical standpoint.
Forgiveness isn’t something I really have over you, as you implied. I’m not a very forgiving person; I just believe we are called to forgive, and not just because the tenets of my faith ask it of me. (Yes, I’m going psychologist again, but please bear with me.) The reason to forgive, I think, is not for the benefit of the perpetrator, but for the benefit of the victim. After all, forgiveness does not mean the past is suddenly change, or that we no longer care what happened. Forgiveness is what allows the victims to move on with their lives, regardless of the state of the perpetrator. It is a terribly hard thing to do, and at times it seems cruel to ask a victim to forgive the perpetrator. But then, if the answers here were easy, we wouldn’t even need to debate the issue, right?
To be honest, cases like Warmonger Infidel’s really try my beliefs. I don’t know what I can say to avoid sounding like a heartless bastard, and while I do offer empathy and condolences, I know that doesn’t help much. My answers are far from perfect, and I have no problems with people pointing that out.
For example:
>>>They stay alive and if they get really lucky - beat the system. See Kenneth McDuff (TX) for what I fear
>>>most about you people who want criminals to stay alive. Released by someone who did not care about
>>>his life without parole and he killed 4 more women. . . Life does not mean life, without parole does not
>>>mean without parole, heck a sentence doesn’t even stand anymore as many states give half or two thirds
>>>as time - and we know that in most states death doesn’t mean death
If even a sentence of consecutive life sentences can eventually be paroled, that shatters one of the cornerstones of my theoretical justice system. When it is a choice between executing a felon and keeping him behind bars for the rest of his life (again, under the assumption that he’s not too dangerous that even keeping him in prison is too risky), that’s one thing. When the choice is between the death penalty and eventually being released on the streets after so long, then it makes a charade out of the whole system. I agree wholeheartedly with that. My view is that, if a person is going to peaceably rot in prison for the rest of his life, why would we need the death penalty (in this specific case, not altogether, mind)? On the one hand, if he eventually comes to a realization of the severity of what he has done and finds true remorse for his deeds, isn’t that worthwhile? On the other hand, if he suffers every day of his life during that sentence because he believes his incarceration unjust, isn’t that a fitting punishment in itself? But again, this means nothing if a life sentence without parole doesn’t mean a life sentence without parole. If that’s the way the world works, then my theories crumble. However, if my theories have any merit in the theoretical world they exist in–and you’re free to call me a moron even in this theoretical world, too–then just maybe we could try to bring the real and theoretical worlds closer together.
To address more of wardmama4’s reply:
>>>1) Criminals are the only Americans guaranteed healthcare and 2) Criminals get 3 hots and a cot - at
>>>taxpayer expense - that does make them getting more rights than the average citizen.
I would have said television. I don’t know if prisons nationwide require televisions for inmates, or if that is just state law. You’ll call me a moron again, but the incarceration of criminals is a service we expect of the state, and thus it makes sense for our tax dollars to pay for the incarceration. (I don’t know–does the thought of privately run prisons make any sense? It almost seems like it might.) And I personally hesitate to agree with your two examples, simply because if you deprive a person of the ability to provide for themselves, what are you supposed to do with them? I teeter on whether or not to agree with you that this constitutes to a right on the part of the criminal as opposed to a responsibility on the part of the state.
>>>then you go to the prison and start working - there are prison outreaches all over the country
I would actually like to do that, once I finish with my doctorate.
>>>Look up the definition of sociopath, please
sociopath: a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.
One who is affected with a personality disorder marked by antisocial behavior.
(taken from http://www.dictionary.com)
While the domains of child rapists and sociopaths do intersect, they are not synonyms for each other. As for proof of this, this comes down to actually dealing with such a person firsthand, and not dealing with this person by yourself (because you can fool some of the people all of the time…). Those criminals that have hundreds of victims, yes, I’ll believe that they are ipso facto sociopaths. Those that only have a few, I would suggest there is room for doubt. But there is nothing I can say or quote that is a knockdown argument, and I guess we’ll just have to disagree on this point.
>>>No, I am not stupid - I did not mean to repent a crime before it was committed - but if you bother thinking
>>>for a second - people do not simply step out and commit murder and rape one day - bet if you look into
>>>their lives - they started with smaller (misdomeaners) before they commit more serious crimes. And
>>>hence, have time to repent before destroying another life.
Whether someone starts into major criminal activity by working up to with smaller crimes or simply jumps in head first depends more on the nature of the crime than anything. People into theft and drugs tend to work their way up. Sex criminals, on the other hand (assuming they aren’t of the released-early-from-prison-and-are-now-recidivist sort) tend to have no criminal record before being convicted of their sex crimes. Their behavior tends to start in the heavy masturbation/pornography usage realm, which are not considered ‘crimes’ by today’s standards (but probably should be). I’ll agree that there definitely should be thought, reconsideration, and repentance for those deeds. However, to delve into the full cycle of deviance and the byplay of thought and emotion is too long and complicated to get into here.
>>>-’I want all souls saved.’- Then go and read the whole Bible
For this I have to beg for forgiveness. Upon re-reading my post, I realize that my attempt to wax eloquent really came across as holier-than-thou pretentious. I am deeply sorry for that. Maybe sometime later I’ll try again to explain, but for now I’ll make do with an apology.
>>>God metted out punishment, extreme ones on His own creation. Why can’t civilized peoples and society
>>>have the right to say - No this is not allowed and here is the punishment. I’ve pointed out that America’s
>>>problem is that life is not life, death isn’t even death anymore - the criminals see that and laugh at society.
I wanted to say something about this in my last post, but (as you could tell) it was running rather long. I believe strongly we need to shore up our justice system. I’m fed up with the slap on the wrist punishments many criminals receive, and I would like to see better laws and better sentencing.
>>>Did you know when the Death Penalty was re-instated and states started using it again - those states
>>>saw a 44% decrease in the homicide rate? Make a punishment that stops the criminal - and society
>>>becomes safe - and civilized again.
Which is why I agree that the states should reserve the right to use the death penalty. There are two factors that greatly influence crime rates: the severity of the punishment for the crime, and the likelihood that punishment will be exacted. However, the first means very little if the second is sufficiently small. You can make a penalty as severe as you want, and it won’t deter crime if that penalty is rarely enforced. On the other hand, you can dish out slaps on the wrists all you want, and that won’t deter crime, either. The obvious conclusion is to increase the severity of the sentence and make sure it gets enforced regularly.
I’m going to hazard a guess that you think I’m a blind idiot who doesn’t see this a reason to use the death penalty more often. I’ll admit, the case for my idiocy does seem rather compelling. But then, in all reality, my whole point in posting really boils down to this statement (though this doesn’t quite capture my whole point):
Execute them if you must, but don’t do so with hate in your hearts.
I think sheehanjihad did really well in his statements. And I don’t think it is dirtying your hands to do what must be done. I don’t think it is wrong to execute criminals who deserve death, and I certainly don’t feel there’s any reason to suggest the executioner damns himself either for calling for or carrying out the execution. But I still stand by my original assertion that the death penalty should be used sparingly. I suppose any argument about that should either suggest that it is already used sparingly, or perhaps too sparingly.
As a final comment, thank you for putting up with my long, rambling, and contentious comments. I was prepared for a harsh burning, but you have treated fairly kindly and with a lot of patience. Again, sorry for my mistakes.