Supreme Court does not protect kids

matclone · 06-26-2008, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by UGLY

Clone if there is such legal precedence then why not overturn the Texas law also. The precedence is not there they gave legal cases on which they may have based their decision (a 5to 4 decision I might add). In the end they had a chance to do something better and then they split down party lines and failed us yet again.

They probably didn't overturn the Texas law because it wasn't before them.

For many many years now the court has consisted of 7 justices appointed by Republican Presidents and 2 by Democrats, so, no, it isn't a decision along party lines. You should give these men and women (who know far more about the law than you or I will ever know) some credit for the difficult job they do instead of castigating them whenever you don't like a decision.

UGLY · 06-26-2008, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Ground&Pound

I don't trust the system enough to increase capital punishment.

The next thing you know, some poor black 18 yr old will be getting fried for sleeping with his white 17 yr old girlfriend.

Too many times, the state is interested in convicting people rather than finding the truth. I just don't want to give them any more power to kill when they have historically made so many mistakes.

I dont think statutory(sp) rape applies in this case.

Clone all it comes down to is the justices had a chance to protect the kids and they did not. They based the decision off a case that had to do with the rape of an adult women, which in my mind does not make sense. Read the desenting views of the court, they are smarter than you ever will be so maybe you will learn something.

FloggingSully · 06-26-2008, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by UGLY

Clone all it comes down to is the justices had a chance to protect the kids and they did not.

It isn't the court's job to protect kids, the executive branch is supposed to do that. If you want the court to make rulings based on what's good policy, your asking them to legislate from the bench.

matclone · 06-26-2008, 12:14 PM

Ugly, I agree, the dissenting judges are smarter than me. And try to remain open to learning new things. But one thing I've learned so far, is that issues such as this are not so black and white as you like to present them. Your constant use of rhetorical arguments (e.g. the Supreme Court does not protect kids) is tiring.

ban basketball · 06-26-2008, 12:40 PM

If you read the court's opinion, their basic position was that in cases of child rape, testimony of children can often be suspect, and in many cases, coached. When issuing the death penalty, courts must be sure that there are no possibilities for wrongful convictions (even though we have almost 150 cases of this), and in these cases, the risks of this were simply too great.

To reiterate: this is the court's opinion. I am only the messenger.

matclone · 06-26-2008, 12:47 PM

Sounds like a pretty reasonable argument to me.

ccbig · 06-26-2008, 03:07 PM

[quote=JustFishing;74350]

Originally Posted by arm-spin

Forgive? Yes.

Have no consequences for their actions? No.

Romans 13
"Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil."

The Bible says a child rapist must marry the child and pay the father of the child 50 shekels of silver (about 1 1/4 pounds or 0.6 kilogram)(About 345 U.S. Dollars at today's silver prices)

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [a] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

I can't imagine any parent wanting their child to have to marry their rapist but hey, the Bible can't be wrong so....

UGLY · 06-26-2008, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by ban basketball

If you read the court's opinion, their basic position was that in cases of child rape, testimony of children can often be suspect, and in many cases, coached. When issuing the death penalty, courts must be sure that there are no possibilities for wrongful convictions (even though we have almost 150 cases of this), and in these cases, the risks of this were simply too great.

To reiterate: this is the court's opinion. I am only the messenger.

But if the child ends up dead and can not testify then they can kill the perv. Here is a portion of Justice Alito's desenting argument. Please take the time to read it and tell me what argument you have against it.

The Court’s final—and, it appears, principal—justification for its holding is that murder, the only crime for which defendants have been executed since this Court’s 1976 death penalty decisions,8 is unique inits moral depravity and in the severity of the injury thatit inflicts on the victim and the public. See ante, at27–28. But the Court makes little attempt to defend these conclusions.

With respect to the question of moral depravity, is it really true that every person who is convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death is more morally depraved than every child rapist? Consider the following two cases. In the first, a defendant robs a convenience store and watches as his accomplice shoots the store owner. The defendant acts recklessly, but was not the triggerman and did not intend the killing. See, e.g., Tison v. Arizona, 481 U. S. 137 (1987) . In the second case, a previously convicted child rapist kidnaps, repeatedly rapes, and tortures multiple child victims. Is it clear that the first defendant is more morally depraved than the second?

The Court’s decision here stands in stark contrast to Atkins and Roper, in which the Court concluded that characteristics of the affected defendants—mental retardation in Atkins and youth in Roper—diminished their culpability. See Atkins, 536 U. S., at 305; Roper, 543 U. S., at 571. Nor is this case comparable to Enmund v. Florida, 458 U. S. 782 (1982) , in which the Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the death penalty where the defendant participated in a robbery during which a murder was committed but did not personally intend for lethal force to be used. I have no doubt that, under the prevailing standards of our society, robbery, the crime that the petitioner in Enmund intended to commit, does not evidence the same degree of moral depravity as the brutal rape of a young child. Indeed, I have little doubt that, in the eyes of ordinary Americans, the very worst child rapists—predators who seek out and inflict serious physical and emotional injury on defenseless young children—are the epitome of moral depravity.

With respect to the question of the harm caused by the rape of child in relation to the harm caused by murder, it is certainly true that the loss of human life represents a unique harm, but that does not explain why other grievous harms are insufficient to permit a death sentence. And the Court does not take the position that no harm other than the loss of life is sufficient. The Court takes pains to limit its holding to “crimes against individual persons” and to exclude “offenses against the State,” a category that the Court stretches—without explanation—to include “drug kingpin activity.” Ante, at 26. But the Court makes no effort to explain why the harm caused by such crimes is necessarily greater than the harm caused by the rape of young children. This is puzzling in light of the Court’s acknowledgment that “[r]ape has a permanent psychological, emotional, and sometimes physical impact on the child.” Ante, at 24. As the Court aptly recognizes, “[w]e cannot dismiss the years of long anguish that must be endured by the victim of child rape.” Ibid.

The rape of any victim inflicts great injury, and “[s]ome victims are so grievously injured physically or psychologically that life is beyond repair.” Coker, 433 U. S., at 603 (opinion of Powell, J.). “The immaturity and vulnerability of a child, both physically and psychologically, adds a devastating dimension to rape that is not present when an adult is raped.” Meister, Murdering Innocence: The Constitutionality of Capital Child Rape Statutes, 45 Ariz. L. Rev. 197, 208–209 (2003). See also State v. Wilson, 96–1392, p. 6 (La. Sup. Ct. 12/13/96),685 So. 2d 1063, 1067; Broughton, “On Horror’s Head Horrors Accumulate”: A Reflective Comment on Capital Child Rape Legislation, 39 Duquesne L. Rev. 1, 38 (2000). Long-term studies show that sexual abuse is “grossly intrusive in the lives of children and is harmful to their normal psychological, emotional and sexual development in ways which no just or humane society can tolerate.” C. Bagley & K. King, Child Sexual Abuse: The Search for Healing 2 (1990).

matclone · 06-26-2008, 04:30 PM

Ban already gave you an argument (a succinct and clear one at that). In turn, you present a portion of the dissent that doesn't address that argument. The issue at hand, as with many issues before the court, requires the weighing of different arguments (hence the scales of justice) to arrive at the best choice. But you tell us in essence that this is unnecessary and that you have the only correct answer. That works in despotism, but not so well in democracy.

UGLY · 06-26-2008, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by matclone

Ban already gave you an argument (a succinct and clear one at that). In turn, you present a portion of the dissent that doesn't address that argument. The issue at hand, as with many issues before the court, requires the weighing of different arguments (hence the scales of justice) to arrive at the best choice. But you tell us in essence that this is unnecessary and that you have the only correct answer. That works in despotism, but not so well in democracy.

Clone did you even read what I posted. This is the exact reason why we need laws like LA wanted. To assume a child would lie or be coaxed is probably true but given the fact that you need more than just the testimony of the child to get a rape conviction it doesn't hold water with me. They have to have some physical proof that a rape took place in order to convict someone and these people are still given their due process.

Supreme Court does not protect kids

Politics & Religion