Supreme Court does not protect kids

UGLY · 06-25-2008, 06:55 PM

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/new...aping-childre/

I think this was a terrible decision and I find it more cruel and unusual to keep these people alive with the chance to get out and rape again. When are we going to start protecting our kids and send a serious message to rapist. That message needs to be that if you rape or molest a child you die no question. They should limit the number of appeals based on the evidence that supports the case or possibly discredits the case and then kill them if they are guilty. I wish the Supreme Court could grow a pair or at the very least leave the states alone to make their own laws.

sgallan · 06-25-2008, 07:11 PM

I'm telling you.... the best solution is just to 'lose' those inmates into the general population. Things just tend to take care of themselves. It's not as if - even if they get the death penalty - they ever get executed. You know what the leading cause of death is for death roll inmates? Natural causes.

As always with Constitutional cases..... it is a system of checks and balances. If enough people feel that strongly about it there is always the ammendment process. It takes awhile but is fairly permanent.

UGLY · 06-25-2008, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by sgallan

I'm telling you.... the best solution is just to 'lose' those inmates into the general population. Things just tend to take care of themselves. It's not as if - even if they get the death penalty - they ever get executed. You know what the leading cause of death is for death roll inmates? Natural causes.

As always with Constitutional cases..... it is a system of checks and balances. If enough people feel that strongly about it there is always the ammendment process. It takes awhile but is fairly permanent.

I agree Scott but we both know they don't put child rapists in general population for just this reason.

I think this was a poor interpretation of the 8th amendment. Let us consider that Texas has a similar law and it was not even discussed or used as a point of reference. No legal facts were cited but the court did say it was an icky situation. Maybe we could look at what the people want that would be a grand idea. I think the majority of people if asked whether or not to kill child rapist they would say kill them.

matclone · 06-25-2008, 07:34 PM

Since there's apparently only two states (Tex. and La.) that would put child rapists to death, and since many states bar the death penalty altogether, I'd guess you are wrong about what you think the majority of people would say.

Once again, that hoary old U.S. constitution gets in the way.

sgallan · 06-25-2008, 07:39 PM

I agree Scott but we both know they don't put child rapists in general population for just this reason.

For the bad ones I am thinking "mistakes" are made more often than you might realize. Those unfortunate 'deaths' get chalked up to gang violence and nobody really cares to investigate. Now if they are on death roll those 'mistakes' don't get made.

JensenS · 06-25-2008, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by sgallan

I'm telling you.... the best solution is just to 'lose' those inmates into the general population.

You say this exact same thing every time this topic gets brought up.

Then I say the exact same thing in response, I 100% agree absolutely wholeheartedly. They don't play no games in there, not with that.

UGLY · 06-25-2008, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by matclone

Since there's apparently only two states (Tex. and La.) that would put child rapists to death, and since many states bar the death penalty altogether, I'd guess you are wrong about what you think the majority of people would say.

Once again, that hoary old U.S. constitution gets in the way.

Last I checked 30 plus states allowed executions. So unless my math is off I believe that is a majority of the fifty states, but hey I am no mathwizz. Also I am not wrong if you asked 1,000 people this question. If you son or daughter were raped or molested should the perpetrator of that crime be sentenced to death? the answer to that would most likely be yes 999 out of 1,000 times. Even if you asked them if someone child they knew were raped should the perpetrator be raped they would say yes.

You know maybe it is because I have and I am sure Scott has had personal interaction with rape victims or maybe because I have kids that I can not stand these scum and believe they deserve to die. Does anyone know the rehabilitation rate among rapist especially child rapist, Scott do you have some figures on that please.

UGLY · 06-25-2008, 08:05 PM

Oh and like I said they cited no legal precedence for the ruling. I am beginning to wonder why we even need a legislature or states rights when the Judiciary can obviously run the country themselves.

sgallan · 06-25-2008, 08:06 PM

Then I say the exact same thing in response, I 100% agree absolutely wholeheartedly. They don't play no games in there, not with that.

Indeed. People should visit level two and level one prisons sometime. Or watch the msnbc series that airs on Sunday's. The prisons are full of unique, interesting, fascinating people..... who will kill you just because it seemed like the thing to do at the time.

matclone · 06-25-2008, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by UGLY

Oh and like I said they cited no legal precedence for the ruling. I am beginning to wonder why we even need a legislature or states rights when the Judiciary can obviously run the country themselves.

Of course there is legal precedence for the ruling. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-343.pdf

The problem is, you listen to idiots who trade in misrepresentation, half-lies, and innuendo--whose apparent purpose is nothing more than to make you angry. You swallow their bullshit and you regurgitate it here.

Supreme Court does not protect kids

Politics & Religion