The Scotus Blog covers the Supreme Court’s decision that it is unconstitutional to impose the death penalty for the crime of raping a child. “The broad declaration that death sentences should be reserved “for crimes that take the life of the victim” will apply, the Court said, to crimes against individuals — thus leaving intact, for example, a possible death sentence for treason.” Justice Kennedy argued that one reason “for nullifying a death sentence for raping a child was that the child victim gets enlisted, perhaps repeatedly, to recount the crime, forcing on the child ‘a moral choice’ that the youngster is not mature enough to make.” But Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy cites Justice Alito’s dissent on this very point.
A major theme of the Court’s opinion is that permitting the death penalty in child-rape cases is not in the best interests of the victims of these crimes and society at large. In this vein, the Court suggests that it is more painful for child-rape victims to testify when the prosecution is seeking the death penalty. Ante, at 32. The Court also argues that “a State that punishes child rape by death may remove a strong incentive for the rapist not to kill the victim,” ante, at 35, and may discourage the reporting of child rape, ante, at 34–35.
These policy arguments, whatever their merits, are simply not pertinent to the question whether the death penalty is “cruel and unusual” punishment. The Eighth Amendment protects the right of an accused. It does not authorize this Court to strike down federal or state criminal laws on the ground that they are not in the best interests of crime victims or the broader society. The Court’s policy arguments concern matters that legislators should—and presumably do—take into account in deciding whether to enact a capital child-rape statute, but these arguments are irrelevant to the question that is before us in this case. Our cases have cautioned against using “ ‘the aegis of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause’ to cut off the normal democratic processes,” Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. 304, 323 (2002) (Rehnquist, C. J., dissenting), in turn quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 176 (1976), (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and STEVENS, JJ.), but the Court forgets that warning here.
CNN reports that “in his dissent, Alito wrote that the majority ruled against the death penalty ‘no matter how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted and no matter how heinous the perpetrator’s criminal record may be.’ ” The PrawsBlawg asks whether as a practical matter the death penalty isn’t slowly being phased out.
In recent years the Supreme Court has prohibited the execution of the mentally retarded and those who were under 18 when they committed their crimes. Add to that list today those who commit crimes that do not “take the life of the victim” and it is clear that the Supreme Court is attempting to limit, though certainly not eliminate, the use of the death penalty in the U.S. The Court appears to be taking seriously the mandate it has set out at least since Furman v. Georgia was decided in 1972 that states limit the imposition of the death penalty to the worst of the worst of criminal offenders. And the numbers bear this out. Since their highs in the late 1990s, executions are down by more than half and new death sentences are down by more than two-thirds. With more than 3,000 people on the nation’s death rows and only 42 put to death last year, the nation has a nearly 80 year supply of condemned inmates at the moment.
Contribute to the Belmont Club.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
43 Comments
1. geegeetee:For a long time, I’ve thought that justice would not be served until we elevated child-rape to the level of murder.
I fail to see how the SCOTUS could think the damage done to the child victim of rape is not equal to murder.
Jun 25, 2008 - 9:36 am 2. Richard Fernandez:Scotus Blog quotes another part of the Alito dissent which reiterates the argument that the Court is making policy and not law. Alito argues that the “national consensus” cited by the Court in support of their decision is in fact an atmosphere of their own manufacture.
Jun 25, 2008 - 9:52 am 3. Peterike:Wow. What moral idiots those five robed tyrants are.
The Court keeps handing McCain perfect campaign issues if he were smart enough to exploit them (which I doubt) and articulate enough to convey them (which I’m sure he isn’t). He could point to recent decisions in his supposedly famous “straight talk” and lay them out in language that Bubbah understands — “These judges have given foreign terrorists rights that are equal to and in some cases beyond the rights of law abiding Americans. And now they are saying child rapists are too good to receive the death penalty. In both cases they have encouraged people to prey on American citizens. Do you want more of this kind of thing? Then vote for Obama.”
Obama will no doubt find the decision full of hope…. for child rapists.
Jun 25, 2008 - 10:06 am 4. Jim,MtnViewCA,USA:We seem to have a serious failure in the area of “consent of the governed”. In fits and starts the body politic will wake…
Jun 25, 2008 - 10:13 am 5. Anthony (Los Angeles):I have to agree with Justice Alito. This is another case of the COurt acting like an unelected parliament.
Jun 25, 2008 - 10:19 am 6. Roderick Reilly:I am not so much for the death penalty as I am against abolishing it, for the following reason:
The same mind-set that believes the death penalty is wrong is the same one that is permissive on violent crime in general. When a society abolishes the death penalty it is saying that it will also choose to show a depraved indifference to the right to life and safety of the law-abiding majority of citizens. It has never proven possible to have a society with no death penalty that otherwise chooses to be tough on crime, because the ideological and sociological forces that are most ardent in their pursuit of abolishment are always — without exception — the same ones that bend over backwards (or forwards) for the “rights” of those among us who are vicious predators.
America had no death penalty from the late 60’s to the early 70’s. Crime soared, victims and their families suffered in multiple ways, and were treated with contempt by the justice system and its social engineering allies.
In Europe, the situation is even more perverse. Not only is their no death penalty for vicious, depraved takers of life, but there are officially-sanctioned provisions for taking the lives of inconvenient innocents. It is no coincidence that the mentality that would sentence a confessed cannibal to a manslaughter-length sentence will decide that an elderly person be put to sleep to free up a hospital bed in a nationalized health care system.
Jun 25, 2008 - 10:34 am 7. Brock:There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the Supreme Court gets the final say on matters of Constitutional interpretation. On deciding the facts of a case, yes, they are the Court of last resort, but I do not believe that these unelected rulers-for-life should be the body of last resort for political matters. Congress is clearly the political body, not the Court.
The simple fact of the matter is that the Constitution is silent on who gets final say. But as two-thirds of Congress is necessary to amend the Constitution, I would think the Supreme Court would recognize a two-thirds approval of a “Letter of Interpretation”, or what have you. Congress could either draft its own opinion on the matter or perhaps endorse one of the minority positions as the “right” one. I think ratification by the States would not be necessary as long as the plain text of the Constitution remains unchanged and reasonably consistent with the Interpretation.
Brock / aka, Cardozo Bozo
Jun 25, 2008 - 10:34 am 8. Captain Ramen:Like ‘Jackass’ Jackson once said, ‘now let him enforce it.’
You know what happens to convicted child molestors in prison? They usually get executed by fellow inmates. Even convicted felons know what the appropriate penalty for child rape should be, but our oh so august federal courts don’t.
Jun 25, 2008 - 10:41 am 9. Whitehall:The Court is risking a fatal breakdown of our Republic. What happens when citizens and officials start ignoring their decisions? We have case after case where five members are acting as unelected lawgivers, not law intepreters.
This would be even more dangerous than the impeachment of a justice.
The first instance may well come from the battlefield, an area where SCOTUS is increasingly sticking its nose in matters of immediate life-and-death. It is easy to see a commander in the heat of battle making a call that, second guessed by lawyers, would violate a SCOTUS directive. Public opinion could rise to the defense of the commander, the jury could nullify the charge, and the court will have been diminished. Smacks of a military coup, does it not?
Remember the military hero, President Andrew Jackson’s exclamation: “Justice Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it.”
Self-restraint on the part of 5 justices is the only way to avoid this happening again.
Jun 25, 2008 - 10:51 am 10. Lilith:Brock: There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the Supreme Court gets the final say on matters of Constitutional interpretation.
The Constitution is the highest law in the land, but not the only law in the land.
The United States Judiciary Act of 1789 (1 Stat. 73) was a landmark statute adopted on September 24, 1789 in the first session of the First United States Congress establishing the U.S. federal judiciary. Article Three of the United States Constitution created the Supreme Court and gave Congress the power to establish inferior courts. It made no provision, though, for the composition or procedures of any of the courts, leaving this to Congress to decide.”
Jun 25, 2008 - 11:41 am 11. Weary G:“The Court is risking a fatal breakdown of our Republic. What happens when citizens and officials start ignoring their decisions?”
I am becoming increasingly worried about this becoming a reality, not only in regard to the Supreme Court, but judges and the law in general.
NOT that I don’t think that there is cause to ignore them, based on what seems like ever increasing rule by fiat on the part of judges and politicians.
In fact, that’s the issue. These two groups, who wield alot of power in this country (something we invested in them) seem intent on ignoring the will of the people, EVEN WHEN THEY’VE EXPRESSED IT AT THE BALLOT BOX.
When a large enough portion of the population becomes convinced that the courts and seats of power are intent on doing whatever the hell it wants, people will HAVE to start ignoring them.
The powers that be, unwilling to be ignored or lose the power, will try and force their will.
The people will be forced to resist.
I believe that is how civil wars start.
Jun 25, 2008 - 11:56 am 12. 3Case:“I fail to see how the” 5 Liberal Justices of “SCOTUS could think the damage done to the child victim of rape is not equal to murder.” Needed the additional language so that it would be an accurate statement.
In the early ’90s I dated a woman whose younger sister had been raped when she was 8. From what I could see, the rapist, in one afternoon, had sentenced the little girl to a lifetime of internalized torture, despite the efforts she and her loved ones took to smooth over the effects of that assault.
Jun 25, 2008 - 12:01 pm 13. NahnCee:I’m confused. Wasn’t there a lot of caterwauling about Bush’s nominees being conservative and how that was going to mortally tilt the Court’s views from now until forever?
How, then, did they get in the business of handing down demented liberal judgments that 50% of the country have no intention of following? First citizen’s rights for alien terrorist POW’s and now protecting child rapists. The next thing the Supremes need to do is try to ban handguns and then there really will be a civil war in the U.S.
There *are* procedures spelled out in the system to over-ride the Supreme Court. Too bad the progressives in Congress have such a bad case of BDS that they probably can’t be persuaded to join with the White House to pass some legislation to teach the Supremes some manners and humility.
Jun 25, 2008 - 12:48 pm 14. RWE:Shortly after I moved to California in 1978, a man there raped a girl of age 14 and then attempted to kill her by cutting off her arms. She ran away, trying to hold her arms up to “keep the muscles from falling out” – one tough little girl. They saved her life at the hospital and fitted her with two artificial arms; Lindsey Wagner later visited her when she had heard the girl had remarked that she was going to be like The Bionic Woman.
They caught the rapist, put him in jail and let him out in 1993, the year I moved to Florida. He also moved to Florida then, among some degree of outrage from the the people here. And shortly thereafter he raped and killed a woman and then committed suicide.
So I guess scum like that will go on to serve sentences only for rape when they are not good enough at killing little girls.
Jun 25, 2008 - 1:16 pm 15. Brock:
Jun 25, 2008 - 1:38 pm 16. Brock:Not really, unfortunately. The plain text of the document is silent as to who has final authority on interpretation. I think it makes the most sense for Congress to have this authority, but that’s not official.
http://groups.google.com/group/separation-of-court-and-politics/web/introduction
Jun 25, 2008 - 1:43 pm 17. fred:I honestly think that the inmates in The Big House will dispose of these vile creatures in less time and with less hassle than it will take the states to execute them. Saves the taxpayers money. Plus, I would imagine that the method of execution these saner men will administer to the sadistic perverts will fit the crime.
The vast majority of citizens are simply not with the Court on this one. Morality trumps legal manipulativeness any day, in the long run.
Jun 25, 2008 - 1:57 pm 18. Lilith:3Case: In the early ’90s I dated a woman whose younger sister had been raped when she was 8. From what I could see, the rapist, in one afternoon, had sentenced the little girl to a lifetime of internalized torture, despite the efforts she and her loved ones took to smooth over the effects of that assault.
That’s a very sad story, but if the rapist was put to death, how would that smooth over the effects of the assault when the love and care of her family failed to do so? “Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord. I will repay.” Besides, the biblical penalty for rape is a fine of 50 shekels, not death.
Jun 25, 2008 - 2:11 pm 19. Uncle Jefe:Child rape should result in public hanging, in the community where the violation took place.
Jun 25, 2008 - 2:41 pm 20. Gus:It is certainly as bad as murder.
The 5 ‘justices’ who have given terrorists the same rights as US citizens now tell child rapists that what they do isn’t such a bad thing…
Lilith: Besides, the biblical penalty for rape is a fine of 50 shekels, not death.
Given inflation, thats at least worth an arm and leg by now…
Jun 25, 2008 - 3:21 pm 21. Annoy Mouse:I think they should go ahead and euthanize the victim too. Their life is already gone as has been noted so that would put them out of their misery and square the circle as far as the law is concerned. The sentence should be applied when the victim is underaged and include up to midnight of the victims 18th birthday after which point the death penalty would not be warranted.
Jun 25, 2008 - 3:36 pm 22. Richard Fernandez:The law prescribes when and how society can deal out death. The fate of rapists, murderers, enemy combatants, the unborn and the terminally ill are each governed by a certain set of legal rules. If all these rules were self-consistent then any reasonable person would find the application of their principles equivalent: that is, that the same underlying logic governs all cases.
But I don’t think this is the case. If the law were logically self-consistent then it should be possible to write an algorithm to determine the legal value of each situation. There wouldn’t be any sudden hairpin turns or surprises in the legal framework. Because the law isn’t necessarily self-consistent, but often contradictory — calling for the weighing of one set of considerations against another — society creates a body of judges who make arbitrary decisions: who arbitrate. Hence, the courts can reverse themselves, and often do, simply because a different set of people are making an arbitrary decision.
Maybe this is the least imperfect way to conduct human affairs. However that may be, it necessarily means a struggle for control over the appointment of the arbiters. The more evenly split society is on a legal issue, the more likely it is that the real process of appeal will involve who gets to select the next generation of arbiters. Some unspeakable child rape, an alteration in social attitudes, a new set of justices appointed to the bench and maybe the record spins again.
Jun 25, 2008 - 4:10 pm 23. qrstuv:I see the Supreme Court once again removing policy decisions from effective reach of the voters.
The Robed Five don’t seem too clear on this representative government shtick.
Jun 25, 2008 - 4:26 pm 24. Storm-Rider:The only rational solution that I can envision to the repeated perversion of our Constitution by the Supreme Court is for the states to reclaim their powers under the tenth amendment.
http://oklahomacity.craigslist.org/rnr/728041661.html
An alliance of states which will agree to live under the United States Constitution as written could then impeach or issue arrest warrants for Supreme Court Judges who exercise unconstitutional and tyrannical power – unjust power which does not derive from the consent of the governed – government power which has now become destructive of our inalienable God-given rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. After reconstituting a just Supreme Court which limits its power to that sanctioned by the Constitution, there could then begin the process of rescinding all previous unconstitutional Supreme Court decisions from the past.
All states which are willing to defend and abide by the United States Constitution as written, as intended and as consented to, will in fact be the real United States of America. Those states not joining will comprise some new un-American and un-Constitutional confederation of states which would be unrecognizable to our founding fathers, including Abraham Lincoln.
The states hold the key to restoration of our Constitutional republic. States which elect to continue things as is, i.e.: in an unconstitutional manner, would no longer be within the United States, but they could re-join once they take up their states rights under the tenth amendment and declare themselves under the rule of the Constitution – the supreme law of the land. I realize this is radical, but it is required to cure the radical unconstitutional Supreme Court. As regards the Constitution of the United States, I’ll give Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln the last word:
“Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.” Thomas Jefferson
“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.” Abraham Lincoln
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
Jun 25, 2008 - 4:56 pm 25. Cardozo Bozo:I have tried to post this several times, I hope from home it can get through. Is there a rule that limits comments to one-per-person-per-post?
To elaborate on what I said before, and to respond to Richard and Storm-Rider, there is a third way. Allow Congress to be the final arbiter of Interpretation, not the Courts. I have detailed the idea at the below link (also the link on my name).
http://groups.google.com/group/separation-of-court-and-politics/web/introduction
Regards,
Jun 25, 2008 - 5:04 pm 26. Cardozo Bozo:Brock / Cardozo Bozo
I have tried to post this several times, I hope from home it can get through. Is there a rule that limits comments to one-per-person-per-post?
To elaborate on what I said before, and to respond to Richard and Storm-Rider, there is a third way. Allow Congress to be the final arbiter of Interpretation, not the Courts. I have detailed the idea at the below link.
http://groups.google.com/group/separation-of-court-and-politics/web/introduction
Regards,
Jun 25, 2008 - 5:05 pm 27. fred:Brock / Cardozo Bozo
Where does “Lilith” get off on issuing flip, obviously sarcastic remarks about the Levitican code? The purpose of severe punishment for those who offend and violate society in the most degrading and violent of ways is to exert a lot of deterrence. Granted, not everyone is susceptible to deterrence. We know that. The purpose of the law is not revenge. It is to be punitive and we the people can make the laws which effect that. The Court has no right to usurp the powers which belong to legislatures and voters. The threat of violence to those who commit certain crimes is like the homeowner who hears his home being broken into, grabs his gun, confronts the intruder and tells him that to come any further into the house will result in being shot. Society has a right to such defense.
My ONLY hangup about the death penalty – and it drives my fellow conservatives crazy, since they wonder if I am still a Leftist when I voice it – is the very real risk and the proven fact that innocent people have been executed. I don’t think it has been a large number, but it isn’t insignificant. And I truly do not want to execute innocent people. I just don’t want to see it happen. I had an experience many years ago of having been unjustly treated by the legal system. Fortunately, the judge saw the situation for what it was and threw out the false charges against me, but I had to sit in a courtroom and listen to perjury being uttered of the most fiendish kind. Mistakes and malice happen. It forever changed my view of the justice system. I still respect it, but I know it’s not infallible. And a sentence of death is about as final as it gets. And I want no mistakes.
Jun 25, 2008 - 5:27 pm 28. Stephen:I think folks who rape children need killing, just like boils need lancing.
HOWEVER, I believe I read somewhere that in pre-20th century Russia the penalty for highway robbery was hanging and that as a result the victims of highway robberies rarely lived to tell their tales. Beware of the law of unintended consequences.
Jun 25, 2008 - 5:32 pm 29. fred:Justice Ginsburg was an important official and member of the ACLU. Everybody knows the Leninist origins of the ACLU, and that today’s ACLU is faithful to its original consensus that there should be very few sexual crimes. It wanted libertinism to the max. The ACLU has never stood for protecting children, but it will defend organizations that give instructions on how to lure young boys into intimate situations. The ACLU NEVER protects children from sexual predation. Not once. And it never will.
A court with Obama appointees is going to render verdicts even more infuriating and bizarre than this one.
Jun 25, 2008 - 5:47 pm 30. Ben Franklen:Nahncee, the congress DID remove the Habeus for detainees issue from the court’s jurisdiction as allowed by the constitution. The court chose to ignore that fact and issue a ruling anyway. It is significant that they waited until the make-up of the congress had changed so as to not risk their own impeachment.
It’s funny, the court asked the congress to set rules for military commissions but just couldn’t restrain themselves long enough to let those commissions work before ruling them unconstitutional. They then did not provide any standards to use in the hearings they mandated so that the military, executive and legislative branches must continue to guess as to what the law is during a time of war. Bush should call their bluff and start bringing tens of thousands of prisoners over to the US courts from Afghanistan and Iraq to make sure we are in compliance. If the Supreme Court wants to run the war then let them do it. I also wouldn’t provide any extra funds for them to handle the extra workload.
Given Kelo, McCain-Feingold and the two more recent rulings I think it is pretty clear that we have a rogue Supreme court on our hands. If they rule the wrong way in Miller it will be interesting to see how things play out.
Jun 25, 2008 - 5:58 pm 31. Were That It Could Be Slightly More Than So In The US « 36 Chambers - The Legendary Journeys: Execution to the max!:[...] of judges as neutral arbiters of the law rather than activists who push for certain outcomes and who decide cases based on policy, as our esteemed Supreme Court did [...]
Jun 25, 2008 - 6:15 pm 32. fred:Ben Franklen,
How long had Boumedine been sitting in the docket at SCOTUS? The timing of their deliberations and decision is curious.
Jun 25, 2008 - 6:19 pm 33. NahnCee:Isn’t there something the Constitution that any two arms of the government can gang up and overrule the other arm? So that if both Congess and the White House agree on something — like treating foreign terrorists as foreigners and not citizens — then they can over-rule a Supreme Court decision? If they enact that concept as a law, can the Supreme Court then declare it unconstitutional and throw it out? Surely not.
Jun 25, 2008 - 6:37 pm 34. NahnCee:But *why* is the supposedly conservative-majority Bush-hand-picked Supreme Court suddenly giving us all these progressive leftist rulings?
Has anyone checked their bank accounts recently to see if there’s been a sudden influx of oily-smelling or soros-tainted dollars?
And if so, what can be done about it, since I’m not sure there is any such thing as impeaching a Supreme Court justice.
Although it’d be fun to try. (Right after we re-elect Bush for the third time.)
Jun 25, 2008 - 6:41 pm 35. fred:NahnCee,
On the Court there seems to be two blocks. On one side, ideologically-speaking, is Antonin Scalia and his conservative instincts, backed up by the strict-constructionist Roberts. The other side is led by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the liberal-Left former ACLU bigwig. Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, has gone fully over to the liberal camp. Souter was a stealth liberal who got into the court because a former Senator from my state named Rudman advanced him to George H.W. Bush and from thence on to the bench. When Clinton appointed Ginsburg, everyone knew what they were getting. She never hid her views or her leanings. Kennedy clearly changed over the years. Souter deceived everyone.
Jun 25, 2008 - 7:02 pm 36. Peterike:Fred, Kennedy hasn’t “changed.” Oh no no. He’s “matured.” He’s “grown.” He’s…. going to be the winner of many “Strange New Respect” awards from the media. Start the countdown until his flattering profile in the Washington Post and Kennedy making the cover the NY Times magazine. And oh, the parties he’ll be invited to now! And how the socialites will fawn.
Anyone without strong Conservative ideology inevitably moves Leftward when they hit the court and realize what’s to be gained by it. You know, something about gaining the world… I forget the other part.
Jun 25, 2008 - 8:12 pm 37. Tamquam Leo Rugiens:Many moons ago, when I was just a lad serving in the Navy, a Turkish destroyer moored outboard of us at the Long Beach Naval Station. She was in for a refit and training, it seems. One day, quite unexpectedly it seems (there were no tugs), she cast off and sailed away. That evening she came back again and tied up as before. Shortly after Rumor Control had it as definitive from Scuttlebutt Central that one of her sailors had raped an American woman in the town. She then got underway, steamed out beyond the 12 mile limit and hung the perpetrator from the yard arm and his body cast into the sea.
It made a lot of sense to my shipmates and I, we approved the sentence and the execution. For raping a child, it seems to me, a perp should be not just hung, but drawn and quartered as well.
Jun 25, 2008 - 9:29 pm 38. fred:Nothing surprising about Muslims raping kafir women. One tried to do it to my wife many years ago before I met her. But my wife was a smart one and gave him a good shove out the door and then used the bolt lock right away. Instead of a Turk sailor, he was a son of a wealthy Arab in Washington, D.C.
Next to murder, rape is the most serious crime. Raping adult women is bad enough. Raping CHILDREN is horrific. In fact, I consider crimes against children the most reprehensible. Anyone who does not “get” that has some wires crossed in the brain.
Jun 25, 2008 - 9:36 pm 39. The Wobbly Guy:There are fates worse than death. We should think about legalizing them. Castration, for one.
Jun 26, 2008 - 4:47 am 40. someone:“Where does “Lilith” get off on issuing flip, obviously sarcastic remarks about the Levitican code?’
Fred, she’s a lesbian. They are what they are.
Jun 26, 2008 - 6:17 am 41. Richard Aubrey:Kennedy talks about evolving standards of decency.
Jun 26, 2008 - 8:21 am 42. David M:Volokh has some survey stats. Seems the evolution is going against Kennedy.
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 06/26/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Jun 26, 2008 - 9:47 am 43. Roderick Reilly:I just read an account of the rape in question at Michelle Malkin’s blog.
What the child rapist, saved today by Supreme Court liberals, did to his 8-year-old stepdaughter.
It was so horrible I felt faint from reading it.
Here’s the thing:
Jun 26, 2008 - 4:28 pmJust as in the Guantanamo ruling, the Justices have an utterly surreal notion of what the issues are. What this “Patrick Kennedy” did to his stepdaughter amounted to attempted murder; she likely would have died had he not called 911 (at which time — and for some time thereafter, he lied about being the rapist). Whether this warrants the death penalty may still be argued, but it wasn’t just about rape in the usual sense of these kinds of crimes against children. I am increasingly appalled by the clinically limpid standards that judges — right up to the Supreme Court — apply to horrible crimes. Is this what Kennedy means by “evolving standards of decency?” Isn’t he the same twit who thinks we should be influenced by Western European jurisprudence?
Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.