Supreme Court rules Child rapists can't be executed

The Supreme Court ruled that child rapists cannot be executed, concluding capital punishment is reserved for murderers.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/25/scotus.child.rape/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Quotes from the story:

Anthony Kennedy -- supported by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer -- wrote that the prohibition against cruel punishment derives its meaning from the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."

You gotta be kidding me? Since when does prohibition of capital punishment mark the progress of a maturing society? Especially something that is as detestable as this ruling?

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissent, saying, "The harm that is caused to the victims and to society at large by the worst child rapist is grave." He was supported by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

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."

Thumbs up to Justice Samuel Alito.

Death penalty opponents contend, among other things, that it could give attackers a reason to murder their victims. In Wednesday's ruling, Anthony Kennedy agreed, writing, "A state that punishes child rape by death may remove a strong incentive for the rapist not to kill the victim."

But executing them for raping a child would give them strong incentive not to commit the crime in the first place, don't you think? This ruling benefits nobody but child rapists.

I agree with it.

Most people in prisons take care of people who do that to kids. :)

The prison population takes care of child rapists. Don't you worry.Jandurin

Indeed.

Murderers...rapists...paedophiles...I think they should all be killed.luke1889

Quoted for Truth

The prison population takes care of child rapists. Don't you worry.Jandurin

Throw them in prison, it will be better for them. Plus it saves us some money.ferrari2001

That doesn't make any sense. It saves us so much money coming straight out of the taxpayers pockets to just execute them. I think it is so unfair to make the taxpayers pay for a child molester to be kept alive.

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"]Throw them in prison, it will be better for them. Plus it saves us some money.-Austin-

That doesn't make any sense. It saves us so much money coming straight out of the taxpayers pockets to just execute them. I think it is so unfair to make the taxpayers pay for a child molester to be kept alive.

Sometimes I wonder if the Justices of the Supreme Court just sit back and plan out what stupid decision they should make to screw everybody over next time. . . .

Child rapists should be executed.

Prison inmates takes care of Pedos where capital punishment wont

[QUOTE="-Austin-"]

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"]Throw them in prison, it will be better for them. Plus it saves us some money.needled24-7

That doesn't make any sense. It saves us so much money coming straight out of the taxpayers pockets to just execute them. I think it is so unfair to make the taxpayers pay for a child molester to be kept alive.

Supposedly it costs like 40 k to keep someone in prison for year so a 25 year sentance would cost around a million bucks.

Neither should be executed. And no, I'm not trying to appeal to the "sanctitiy of life". No government should have the power to systematically kill its own citizens, no matter what they've done; or, as is the case with wrongful convictions and false confessions, what they haven't done.

Also, prison should not be a place where people are sent to be raped and killed, not only for the above reasons, but because small-time "criminals" like pot-smokers and cable thieves are often thrown in with the worst of the worst, and its not the severity of the crime you commited (or didn't commit) that determines whether you'll be brutalized; its a matter of physical prowess, how much protection your "faction" affords you, and your placement in the criminal foodchain.

"Eye for any eye" is a warped enough model for a legal justice as it is, but few realize that in this context it also constitutes "might makes right".

[QUOTE="-Austin-"]

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"]Throw them in prison, it will be better for them. Plus it saves us some money.needled24-7

That doesn't make any sense. It saves us so much money coming straight out of the taxpayers pockets to just execute them. I think it is so unfair to make the taxpayers pay for a child molester to be kept alive.

I still like my idea of execution upon conviction. :P

Give the judge a revolver. Problem solved. :lol:

I don't think anyone has the right to kill another person. Even the latter person has killed someone. So, I agree with the ruling.

[QUOTE="needled24-7"][QUOTE="-Austin-"]

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"]Throw them in prison, it will be better for them. Plus it saves us some money.luke1889

That doesn't make any sense. It saves us so much money coming straight out of the taxpayers pockets to just execute them. I think it is so unfair to make the taxpayers pay for a child molester to be kept alive.

I still like my idea of execution upon conviction. :P

Give the judge a revolver. Problem solved. :lol:

I like your thinking, I would prefer the guillotine though, or a good hanging.

The prison population takes care of child rapists. Don't you worry.Jandurin

good. no matter what any one does, every one has an irrevocable right to life. but Janduring speaks the truth[QUOTE="Jandurin"]The prison population takes care of child rapists. Don't you worry.BuryMe

Why would you think something silly like that?

Capital Punishment is the easy way out. Sitting in a cell for 23 hours a day for the rest of your life is by FAR much worse then dying a painless death. Anyone who's spent any time locked up in a maximum security prison can tell you that.

[QUOTE="needled24-7"][QUOTE="-Austin-"]

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"]Throw them in prison, it will be better for them. Plus it saves us some money.-Austin-

That doesn't make any sense. It saves us so much money coming straight out of the taxpayers pockets to just execute them. I think it is so unfair to make the taxpayers pay for a child molester to be kept alive.

Supposedly it costs like 40 k to keep someone in prison for year so a 25 year sentance would cost around a million bucks.

But executing them for raping a child would give them strong incentive not to commit the crime in the first place, don't you think?john_doe2

Yeah :roll: like that would really stop them.

We are talking about child rapists here. They are not reasonable people.

The Supreme Court ruled that child rapists cannot be executed, concluding capital punishment is reserved for murderers.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/25/scotus.child.rape/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Quotes from the story:

Anthony Kennedy -- supported by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer -- wrote that the prohibition against cruel punishment derives its meaning from the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."

You gotta be kidding me? Since when does prohibition of capital punishment mark the progress of a maturing society? Especially something that is as detestable as this ruling?

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissent, saying, "The harm that is caused to the victims and to society at large by the worst child rapist is grave." He was supported by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

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."

Thumbs up to Justice Samuel Alito.

Death penalty opponents contend, among other things, that it could give attackers a reason to murder their victims. In Wednesday's ruling, Anthony Kennedy agreed, writing, "A state that punishes child rape by death may remove a strong incentive for the rapist not to kill the victim."

But executing them for raping a child would give them strong incentive not to commit the crime in the first place, don't you think? This ruling benefits nobody but child rapists.

john_doe2

These Supreme Court judges are left-wing idiots.

Oh noes, I accidentally voted for "I agree"

Do I get anything?

[QUOTE="john_doe2"]

The Supreme Court ruled that child rapists cannot be executed, concluding capital punishment is reserved for murderers.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/25/scotus.child.rape/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Quotes from the story:

Anthony Kennedy -- supported by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer -- wrote that the prohibition against cruel punishment derives its meaning from the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."

You gotta be kidding me? Since when does prohibition of capital punishment mark the progress of a maturing society? Especially something that is as detestable as this ruling?

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissent, saying, "The harm that is caused to the victims and to society at large by the worst child rapist is grave." He was supported by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

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."

Thumbs up to Justice Samuel Alito.

Death penalty opponents contend, among other things, that it could give attackers a reason to murder their victims. In Wednesday's ruling, Anthony Kennedy agreed, writing, "A state that punishes child rape by death may remove a strong incentive for the rapist not to kill the victim."

But executing them for raping a child would give them strong incentive not to commit the crime in the first place, don't you think? This ruling benefits nobody but child rapists.

battlefront23

These Supreme Court judges are left-wing idiots.

I don't mean to rain on everyone's parade, but don't child rapists get "special" prisons?Dutch_Mix

I don't mean to rain on everyone's parade, but don't child rapists get "special" prisons?Dutch_Mix

[QUOTE="Dutch_Mix"]I don't mean to rain on everyone's parade, but don't child rapists get "special" prisons?Jandurin

The mods are on vacation.

Why can't we have judges like in Judge Dredd? That would make things flow so much smoother.Boba_Fett_3710

That's one of my all time favorite crappy movies. You know, the kind of movies that are so bad they're good.