What is wrong with the Supreme Court?

Read this and discuss.

What's wrong with it? As nasty as Child Rape is, It is NOT a death penalty crime. As they stated, that is reserved for crimes against the state (treason usually) and murder. In which case people are killed first before the guilty person themselves are done in.

Chances are, any child rapers in prison are going to wish they had been executed by the time they get out. Your typical prisonor does not care for rapists.. ESPECIALLY child rapists

The Supreme Court is a political entity that buckles to the will of whichever Republican President is running the country.

Every narrowly voted issue is decided by this group of book deal signing weenies in the smoking parlor.

I wish my vote counted, and someone could actually vote in a democracy versus the crap the current goverment calls democracy (Partisan Profiteering)

Hmmm.... to me the Supremes have many times bent to the will of the Dem Prez.

Anyway, child rape disgusts me. I would cheerfully strangle a child rapist with my bare hands.

The thing that bugs me about the Louisiana law is that it is very similar to a hate crime law: it's not bad enough to put someone to death over unless the victim falls into a certain category. Sorta like if you beat someone, you get 5 years; if that someone is gay you automatically get an extra 3 years tacked on. If Louisiana wants to make rape a death penalty offense period, that would make more sense to me.

As much as I hate child rapists, I'm with the SCOTUS on this one. It's not something the state should put you to death for.

Of course, again, I'm not even sure where I stand on the death penalty.

At first I was pretty ticked off. But then I thought about the guys who are on death row and we find out their innocent. That or guys who served 20+ yrs and find out they were innocent.

Those facts alone have turned me against the death penalty. We have the luxury of locking them up indefinitely. I say we do that.

Xceler8x wrote: At first I was pretty ticked off. But then I thought about the guys who are on death row and we find out their innocent. That or guys who served 20+ yrs and find out they were innocent. Those facts alone have turned me against the death penalty. We have the luxury of locking them up indefinitely. I say we do that.

how is that a luxury? a feather pillow is a luxury. a jacuzzi is a luxury. private schooling is a luxury. a child rapist being fed clothed and housed by my tax dollars is a burden, NOT a luxury. i'd rather use that money to feed clothe house and educate my family.

i would buy a ticket to be allowed to have a swing of the club that ends the life of that guy. could be the first swing or the last, or anywhere in between.

The other issue with the death penalty is the extreme cost of the court and appeals process time. As I understand, it's actually cheaper just to lock them up for life.

I agree with this decision too, for the same reasons Mad_Machine noted.

Also, the Supreme court is pretty good at not bending to anyone's will. That's why they serve for life, because that lets them be free to exercise they're own judgement. Sure, they are appointed by presidents and tend to favor one political ideology or another, but a Supreme court justice can tell the president to go berkeley off if he tries to tell them how to rule on a case.

Same here. I have no problem with killing a child rapist but I have a bigger problem giving the power to people that have repeatedly shown they can't get it right.

Xceler8x wrote: At first I was pretty ticked off. But then I thought about the guys who are on death row and we find out their innocent. That or guys who served 20+ yrs and find out they were innocent. Those facts alone have turned me against the death penalty. We have the luxury of locking them up indefinitely. I say we do that.

If you believe that the punishment for murder is death, then the parallel to that for a child rapist is being put into prison with the normal population. Fresh meat. Sounds fair to me.

An eye for an eye. . .

At least in prison that would still work for a child rapist.

Now a luxury?!? I'm with Angry Corvair, burden is a much better word. And unfortunately he won't be locked up for life. Our parole systems is too screwed up to allow that.

The lawyer hired by the Democratic, feel good society (see we can go that way if you can go "the will of the Republican president") argues quite successfully to the parole board that "He is no longer a menace to society. He has gotten religion and has not molested a single child in the past 10 years."

The Parole Board says, "But he's been in jail for 10 years."

The lawyer hired by the Democratic, feel good society says "But he hasn't molested a single child so he must be reformed which proves the system works!"

The Parole Board says "Parole granted." And everyone is happy until 3 days later when another child is molested.

The particular case before the Supreme Court is a great example of why the death penalty for child rape is a bad idea. The child in question maintained the same story for two weeks that two boys she didn't know had raped her. The police then told her she couldn't go home unless she changed her story and said her step-father had raped her. She missed her home and her Mom and after being reassured by a psychologist that she should change her story she did. That change in story is what resulted in the conviction. Not any physical evidence.

Any conviction that relies on the testimony of the child is extremely suspect.

Regarding the constitutionality of the law, I personally don't see why the law itself was unconstitutional. I do think it is a bad law but the legislature needs to fix it and not the courts.

If you want to be able to be given a fair chance if you ever end up on that side of the legal system, the flip side to that is that everyone needs to be given that same chance.

In this country you are innocent until proven guilty.

Yes, that means that guilty people and bad guys will walk free. It also means that you have some protection from being falsely accused, or having the government just declare people like you illegal.

I will not trade liberty for retribution or "safety".

John Brown wrote: The Supreme Court is a political entity that buckles to the will of whichever Republican President is running the country. Every narrowly voted issue is decided by this group of book deal signing weenies in the smoking parlor. I wish my vote counted, and someone could actually vote in a democracy versus the crap the current goverment calls democracy (Partisan Profiteering)

AMEN!

I'm all for down home, Justice!

Let the family avenge the crime.

The Supreme Court is to interperate the Constitution. And yet, could only come up 5-4 to support the Second Ammendment!

Read Ron Paul's book Revolution, a manefesto

The second amendment thing was a question of whether it was a communal or personal right. The 2nd A ruling specified that this is a personal right. It makes it explicit that gun ownership is not limited to people in a militia.

There's an ongoing question of, "to what degree can the people's personal access to firearms be limited by state and federal legislation?" Which even Scalia recognizes must be limited ("no guns for convicted felons or the mentally ill").

I frequently wonder though, how often the justices intentionally decide to split a vote 5-4. It seems like they're either 5-4 or 9-0 (occasionally 8-1). Rarely are they 6-3. In my perception. I suspect they come to their decisions to intentionally show solidarity or difficulty in coming to the decision.

John Brown wrote: The Supreme Court is a political entity that buckles to the will of whichever Republican President is running the country. Every narrowly voted issue is decided by this group of book deal signing weenies in the smoking parlor. I wish my vote counted, and someone could actually vote in a democracy versus the crap the current goverment calls democracy (Partisan Profiteering)

Your vote counts exactly as it was intended within the confines of a representative democratic republic. Those who drafted the Constitution were rightfully wary of a "true" democracy and the pitfalls of "mob rule".

Hence the rule-of-law, not the rule-of-man.

You may disagree, but your position supports the thought that the founding fathers were, indeed, very wise men.

one thing I heard on NPR this morning that swayed me in favor of this decision, is the likely hood that the rapist is a family member.

Most child rapists are family members, and if that person is guaranteed death it is believed that more children won't have the strength to come forward. It is also believed that small children, when confronted with the idea that they may cause a family member to die, will change their stories or clam up.

I think it makes sense.

Like it or not, Stevie Wonder could've seen it coming. No matter how much the media wants to act like this is big news, anybody who's taken Constitutional Law and is intellectually honest knows the correct answer.

(BTW, the same was true for the 2nd Amendment case.)

I was initially in favor of the death penalty for child rapists, but on CNN yesterday morning there was a woman who made a very good point. If the guilty part is subject to the death penalty for the act of rape, once that crime has been committed, there is no disincentive to murder the child who has been raped. Assuming that the rapist has any capacity for rational thought, not having the death penalty may save the life of a victimized child or two.

I support the death penalty only for murder cases. I agree that it shouldn't be applied to other criminals.

That being said, a child rapist has a choice in prison: permanent solitary, or death by multiple sodomy. Sounds about right.

And I would definitely say that SCOTUS caves to the Democratic/liberal side far more frequently.

Salanis wrote: The other issue with the death penalty is the extreme cost of the court and appeals process time. As I understand, it's actually cheaper just to lock them up for life.

IIRC a life sentence is 1/10 the total cost of the death penalty.

Maybe but the death penalty is totally bad ass

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/supreme_court_rules_death_penalty

Duke wrote: And I would definitely say that SCOTUS caves to the Democratic/liberal side far more frequently.

Even though the majority of Judges were appointed by Conservatives (not just Republicans, but clear conservatives).

No, I think the real truth is that is liberal relative to YOU. In reality, they interpret what the Consitutions says, and how it relates to laws. Many times, laws are poorly written, or written in the heat of something.

I think they get it right more often than not. It's just that recently, there's been a rather large abundance of things that have stomped on personal rights, and the SCOTUS have upheld those rights of ALL individuals.

In this case, the right of not cruel or unusual punishment.

The quick previous case- the right to bear arms.

A few weeks ago- the right to a trail, face the accused, and being told what you did wrong...

Based on how many times DNA evidence has recently let people OFF of death row, to FREEDOM, I'm not for the death penalty at all- we are just not capable of being wielding such power on an individual.

(now, you'll quote this as we should let all prisoners go- which ISN'T what I'm saying, but if you want to miquote me on that, feel free- it's your conscience)

Eric

Allowing the death penalty to be used for anything outside of capital murder trivializes its power. By allowing their executions, we're giving into committing a man to death out of sheer emotion. If raping a child is considered a capital crime, why isn't raping an adult a capital crime as well? The standards by which the state goes by in allowing these executions are too arbitrary, and one would think that their legislators would act less emotionally and more rationally when determining which crimes should be punishable by death.

Wally wrote: Maybe but the death penalty is totally bad ass http://www.theonion.com/content/video/supreme_court_rules_death_penalty