the court is a bunch of pussies

[Lammycat]

The Constitution states that the death penalty for convicted child rapists is cruel and unusual?

According to the 5-4 Supreme Court Justices' ruling, yes, the death penalty for this particualr crime is cruel and unusual in the context of The Constitution.

 

This, too: "There has not been an execution in the United States for a crime that did not also involve the death of the victim in 44 years."

[bleedorange]

According to the 5-4 Supreme Court Justices' ruling, yes, the death penalty for this particualr crime is cruel and unusual in the context of The Constitution.

 

This, too: "There has not been an execution in the United States for a crime that did not also involve the death of the victim in 44 years."

 

That's the point, though. Where is the court's justification for this. Essentially the majority is using its own sense of morality to determine if something is cruel and unusual. That isn't their job. Plus, it's inconsistent, as Alito pointed out in his dissent:

 

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

[MrRain422]

That's the point, though. Where is the court's justification for this. Essentially the majority is using its own sense of morality to determine if something is cruel and unusual. That isn't their job.

 

To the contrary, that is exactly what their job is. Their job is to interpret the Constitution and apply it to the law in question in this case. The Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment, but gives no basis whatsoever for determining what constitutes "cruel and unusual". The only way for them to apply the Constitution, then, is to use their own judgment (informed by society's general feelings on what constitutes cruel and unusual, plus the opionins of experts) combined with legal precedent. To me, this is a much more fair application of law than the "don't be a bunch of pussies" doctrine.

[Lammycat]

That's the point, though. Where is the court's justification for this. Essentially the majority is using its own sense of morality to determine if something is cruel and unusual. That isn't their job. Plus, it's inconsistent, as Alito pointed out in his dissent:

While I would agree with Alito's dissent, it is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the law. Unfortunately, it has become somewhat expected and accepted practice to create/amend law instead of interpreting law.

 

ed. dammit MrRain beat me to it....

[MattZ]

That's the point, though. Where is the court's justification for this. Essentially the majority is using its own sense of morality to determine if something is cruel and unusual. That isn't their job.

 

I dont agree with you. I think the dissent is using their morals just as much as the majority. You just don't agree with the majority's morals. At least the majority's morals are supported by evolving standards of decency in not just this country, but the world.

 

And this entire issue is a moral issue! Blame the framers for leaving the 8th amendment so broad. How would you expect that morals not be involved here? Would you propose amending the constitution to specifically provide for the limited instances when something is cruel and unusual?

[bleedorange]

To the contrary, that is exactly what their job is. Their job is to interpret the Constitution and apply it to the law in question in this case. The Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment, but gives no basis whatsoever for determining what constitutes "cruel and unusual". The only way for them to apply the Constitution, then, is to use their own judgment (informed by society's general feelings on what constitutes cruel and unusual, plus the opionins of experts) combined with legal precedent. To me, this is a much more fair application of law than the "don't be a bunch of pussies" doctrine.

 

Their job is not to use whatever morality they themselves feel is right. And as Alito points out, society's general feelings on the death penalty for these specific cases is evolving towards allowing it. Five states had allowed it, five more were in the process of passing similar legislation, and in Louisiana, juries in 2 out of 4 cases involving this statute returned a death sentence.

 

It can easily be argued that the societal tide was turning in favor of allowing capital punishment for the most depraved perpetrators of this crime.

 

I dont agree with you. I think the dissent is using their morals just as much as the majority. You just don't agree with the majority's morals. At least the majority's morals are supported by evolving standards of decency in not just this country, but the world.

 

And this entire issue is a moral issue! Blame the framers for leaving the 8th amendment so broad. How would you expect that morals not be involved here? Would you propose amending the constitution to specifically provide for the limited instances when something is cruel and unusual?

 

My personal morality would not include implementation of the death penalty. I'm not sure what bearing my personal feelings on the issue has.

[MattZ]

I'm not sure what bearing my personal feelings on the issue has.

 

Fair point. Perhaps yours has no bearing (as you pointed out). However it does seem that most of the people agreeing with the dissent are doing so on moral grounds.

 

And to play devil's advocate with myself, you are right that it's a slippery slope. Democracies can easily fall prey to "majority rules" and the constution should be immune to the rising (and/or falling) tide of popular consensus.

 

That being said, I think it's a strained argument to say that death for child rape is anything other than disproportionate. Although I agree that an argument can be made.

[MrRain422]

Their job is not to use whatever morality they themselves feel is right.

 

Explain how to rule on "cruel and unusual" without morality coming into it. Isn't "cruel" inherently a morality judgement?

 

And as Alito points out, society's general feelings on the death penalty for these specific cases is evolving towards allowing it. Five states had allowed it, five more were in the process of passing similar legislation, and in Louisiana, juries in 2 out of 4 cases involving this statute returned a death sentence.

 

It can easily be argued that the societal tide was turning in favor of allowing capital punishment for the most depraved perpetrators of this crime.

 

The long term trend (i.e. from the beginning of jurisprudence until now) is strongly, strongly moving away from using the death penalty. I understand that the short term trends may not necessarily reflect that, but you know, I'm just saying.

[Guest Jules]

On emotional grounds, as a father, hell yes I'd want the bastard to fry.

Only if at my hands.

[Elixir Sue]

That isn't their job.

I know this has already been handled, but I can't resist: It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

[Guest Jules]

I know this has already been handled, but I can't resist: It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

What are you, a lawyer or something?

[Elixir Sue]

What are you, a lawyer or something?

[myboyblue]

They may want to consider allowing an adult that was a victim of child rape to wake the prisoner up each morning by stomping on their balls. Just one idea.

[bleedorange]

I know this has already been handled, but I can't resist: It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

 

Establishing judicial review and the actual implementation of it are two different things. And, no, it's not their job to let their own personal belief system or morality guide their decisions on the constitutionality of a law.

[bjorn_skurj]

They may want to consider allowing an adult that was a victim of child rape to wake the prisoner up each morning by stomping on their balls. Just one idea.

"unusual"

[Lammycat]

They may want to consider allowing an adult that was a victim of child rape to wake the prisoner up each morning by stomping on their balls. Just one idea.

Again, if we just remove the balls....

[MattZ]

there are too many lawyers in this thread. present company excluded of course.

[MrRain422]

Establishing judicial review and the actual implementation of it are two different things. And, no, it's not their job to let their own personal belief system or morality guide their decisions on the constitutionality of a law.

 

 

Explain how to rule on "cruel and unusual" without morality coming into it. Isn't "cruel" inherently a morality judgement?

[bleedorange]

Explain how to rule on "cruel and unusual" without morality coming into it. Isn't "cruel" inherently a morality judgement?

 

Rule very carefully and don't bring your personal biases into it, which Kennedy does. Isn't that what we ask all judges to do? Alito gets at it in his dissent:

 

Consequently, upholding the constitutionality of such a law would not

[Analogman]

Obama disagrees with high court on child rape case

 

By SARA KUGLER, Associated Press Writer 13 minutes ago

 

CHICAGO - Democrat Barack Obama said Wednesday he disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision outlawing executions of people who rape children, a crime he said states have the right to consider for capital punishment.

 

"I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes," Obama said at a news conference. "I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our Constitution."

 

The court's 5-4 decision Wednesday struck down a Louisiana law that allows capital punishment for people convicted of raping children under 12, saying it violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

 

The ruling spares the only people in the U.S. under sentence of death for that crime

[LouieB]

I doubt that perpetrators of child rape have a very good time of it in prison. I would imagine, however uneducated I may be on the subject, that death may be preferable. So i say, life in prison, being tortured by your fellow man works for me.

Yea me too.....

 

LouieB

[cryptique]

Well, I guess this is something on which I disagree with Barack Obama.

 

That and the recent FISA legislation.

 

I'm not crazy about capital punishment in the first place, though I can't say it's an issue that I feel all that passionate about. I do, however, agree with the Court's decision. I think if you start to equate any other crime with murder, you've started down a slippery slope.

[Good Old Neon]

"While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes

[mountain bed]

As a self described Christian, shouldn

[cryptique]

Sounds like you have a pretty narrow idea of what "Christian" is.