I'm with you Carolyn.... I think this was the WRONG decision.... but maybe the death penalty is too EASY on the jerks! Put 'em in general population and let the other inmates take care of them.... maybe that might me more "fitting punishment" after all.  Just don't let 'em out till they're good and DEAD!!!

Hugs BD

Charlie

It was close Brew.  I have not dug into it yet. Interested to see how it shook out.  Could it have been along Party lines?

Carolyn, if I'm this guy I would contest the decision. Give me death..please!

Steve G

While the supreme court’s ruling on the death penalty is completely ridiculous to me, it is--if nothing else--consistent. It is consistent with a long standing national policy of not taking sexual violence towards children seriously. We simply treat it like a minor annoyance, rather than the unforgivable act of a monster. We aren’t sending mixed signals here: our country’s policy is that raping a child is not worthy of our most severe punishment, because it’s not that severe of a crime.
Chalk one up for the molesters!

I guess in my opinion, when they rape a child, they do take a *life*.  No, they don't kill the child, but that child's life is forever altered and no matter what, that child will NEVER forget what happened.  Look at the one case in LA, he raped his 8 year-old step-daughter and damaged her so badly that she had to have surgery?

Although, I did agree with their second ruling, now the *thugs* in DC might think twice!

They dare not repealed the death penalty for Treason.  They want to reserve that to prosecute the first wave of the Revolution.

Steve G

To me if ya rape a child you DIE!!!  Get the trial over with, no appeal no life in prision to hell with all that mess. Let someone RAPE them oh about a million times with a base ball bat dipped in rozin (sp) then in broken glass, THEN if they live they can have the injection. Hell put the "animals" in ole spakey!!! When I heard about the LA thing I was pissed off to say the least. It just chapes my ass!!

Glad to see I can still keep my guns!!! Even if they said I couldnt I would have any way. I found a shirt that says it all
"They can have my guns when they pry them outta my cold dead fingers!" Cuz thats when they will get mine and NOT before!!!
Leesa, gun owner for LIFE 

Oh heck, with Susan Smith it wouldn't work. She's SORRY now that she's found God. The kids are still DEAD, but she's SORRY - she just didn't know what she was doing at the time...  yeah right!!!! And you tell me what's too bad to do to her?

Hugs BD

Groov wrote on Jun 27^th, 2008 at 7:36pm:

That's the part that still concerns me the most - that 4 people on the highest court were ready to re-write the Constitution.

Well, I've read the 8th amendment as many times as I can and I see absolutely nothing that would prohibit the use of the death penalty in the cases that were just overturned (specifically child rape).  The 8th amendment specifically states, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.".

Now, given that this was written/ratified around 1785, what would *you* think would have been the punishment for a person who raped a child?  (1) It probably never would have gone to trial, (2) The defendent probably couldn't have found an attorney that would have defended him had he survived  being found out, and so on.

Think about it, back when this was written, the death penalty was meted out in far less heinous cases than the rape of a child.

In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) Justice Brennan wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."

The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.
"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."
"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."
Continuing, he wrote that he expected that no state would pass a law obviously violating any one of these principles, so court decisions regarding the Eighth Amendment would involve a "cumulative" analysis of the implication of each of the four principles.

To be quite honest, unless states started trying to expand the scope of the death penalty, I don't see how frying a child rapist violates any of the precepts laid out by Justice Brennan.

When written, according to other writings by James Madison, "cruel and unusual" referred to burning at the stake, the rack, drawing and quartering, and other things of that nature.  Hanging was commonly used, but had to be with a drop, not slowly as to intentionally cause suffocation. 
Firing squad was also used, but less commonly.  To have had the high court have to rule on pain caused by trying to insert the needle into a vein as cruel and unusual would have been laughed out of the court, and the attorney bringing the case would have been disbarred for wasting the Court's time.

Jerry