Supreme Court rejects death penalty for raping children

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

I don't think people would plead guilty knowing they get the death penalty if they were innocent

Yeah, that's true, but that only applies to this specific case.

Take a look at some other examples here:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/wrongfullyconvicted/

In many of those cases, men were found guilty of murder and later exonerated. If Canada still permitted capital punishment for murder, how many of these innocent men would have been executed by the state?

Or, to put it another way, what ratio of guilty to wrongfully-convicted innocents are you willing to execute? 1:100? 1:1000? For me, killing even one innocent person is too many, so I can never support the death penalty.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

And for those of you that are in favor of this answer me this...should someone who abuses a child (in a non-sexual but equally traumatic way) also be given the death penalty? If not why not? The child is equally traumitized...

I will answer this, but can you show the results of your research on this? I am not going to argue that noone is traumitized

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

And for those of you that are in favor of this answer me this...should someone who abuses a child (in a non-sexual but equally traumatic way) also be given the death penalty? If not why not? The child is equally traumitized...

Equally traumatic to being raped by your step-dad who then drugs you and makes you testify against him in court?

Gonna need an example of that.

Edit: I don't want an example.

My answer is this: If I read through a case and thought to myself "that little girl would've been better off being raped" then yes, I would personally support the death penalty - with the caveat that there is not going to be a law already on the books (as there was with child rape) that permits execution.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

For me, killing even one innocent person is too many, so I can never support the death penalty.

I respect that, but I personally do not find it a practical system of justice.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I respect that, but I personally do not find it a practical system of justice.

Not practical in what sense?

I'm not against capital punishment for philosophical reasons -- I've seen the argument that "the state should never execute its own citizens", but I don't necessarily buy that. I would have no problem with someone like Paul Bernardo, for example, being put to death.

The problem I have is that wrongful convictions are a fact of life in our imperfect system of justice, and the thought of our goverment killing an innocent is so heinous to me that I cannot ever support the death penalty since it can lead to miscarriages of justice that can't be undone.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Not practical in what sense?

I'm not against capital punishment for philosophical reasons

Practical = actual, not theoretical. Do you think it's practical to protect everyone/anyone's life - regardless of how heinous their actions are?

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I would have no problem with someone like Paul Bernardo, for example, being put to death.

Apparently not.

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I'm not against capital punishment for philosophical reasons

I am against the death penalty for philosophical reasons. Killing someone should come with an incredible burden, but once in a rare while the greater good is served by execution.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I agree that this should be a legal/personal conviction issue more than a party line issue--but that's what I thought about Bush v. Gore, so I don't harbor any illusions that the court is in any way above the fray.

However, there aren't really 5 liberals on the court. In fact, only two of the justices were even appointed by a democrat: Ruth Bader-Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

On the other hand, there are 4 dependably conservative votes, all of whom were appointed by either Bush or his dad: Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts. After that there is one right-leaning swing voter, Anthony Kennedy, and two left-leaning swing voters in David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

At least, I think I have that right. As I said before, I'm not a lawyer.

EDIT For accuracy

I watched a fantastic interview of Justice Scalia who is a staunch originalist in that he interprets the constitution in its textual format - what the original drafters of the constitution meant when they wrote it at the time. The interviewer did a great job grilling him on the applicability of 200+ year old interpretation and Scalia defended it well.

Specifically, Scalia was asked about the constitutionality of the death penalty. He said that the death penalty is constitutional so long as it doesnt violate the 8th amendment, however, at the time the constitution was written, the death penalty was widely used for various crimes - not just "capital murder", treason, etc... Therefore, he argues, the death penalty is constitutional for any crime committed today that at the time of the constitutions drafting, would have been punishable by death.

Most importantly, Scalia says that he does not necessarily think the death penalty is a smart way to deal with punishing criminals, but it is, in his interpretation, constitutional. He goes on to say that if people want to outline what crimes are punishable by the death penalty, pass laws - that is the Legislative branches job.

A lot of the interview was also centered around this "political party" misconception. Scalia specifically rejected the notion that there are 'conservatives' and 'liberals' on the court. Rather, there are a variety of interpretations that sit on the court ranging from: originalists in Scalia and Thomas to a "living constitution" (similar to what Canada has) in Ginsberg and Breyer. In fact, Scalia's closest friend on the court and in life is Ginsberg because they value the other's interpretation.

It was extremely insightful and would help debunk lots of myths about how the judges actually view cases and the constitution.

Edit: I should have been more clear Iowa, I dont think you are confusing the definition of conservative/liberal in the party sense... more the constitutional approach sense. Also, Scalia was nominated by Reagan, not Bush Sr. There has been numerous justices that were nominated by either party who later regretted the nomination because of the specific justices' interpretation of constitution: Kennedy, O'Connor, Stevens are recent ones off the top of my head.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

I watched a fantastic interview of Justice Scalia who is a staunch originalist in that he interprets the constitution in its textual format - what the original drafters of the constitution meant when they wrote it at the time. The interviewer did a great job grilling him on the applicability of 200+ year old interpretation and Scalia defended it well.

Specifically, Scalia was asked about the constitutionality of the death penalty. He said that the death penalty is constitutional so long as it doesnt violate the 8th amendment, however, at the time the constitution was written, the death penalty was widely used for various crimes - not just "capital murder", treason, etc... Therefore, he argues, the death penalty is constitutional for any crime committed today that at the time of the constitutions drafting, would have been punishable by death.

Most importantly, Scalia says that he does not necessarily think the death penalty is a smart way to deal with punishing criminals, but it is, in his interpretation, constitutional. He goes on to say that if people want to outline what crimes are punishable by the death penalty, pass laws - that is the Legislative branches job.

A lot of the interview was also centered around this "political party" misconception. Scalia specifically rejected the notion that there are 'conservatives' and 'liberals' on the court. Rather, there are a variety of interpretations that sit on the court ranging from: originalists in Scalia and Thomas to a "living constitution" (similar to what Canada has) in Ginsberg and Breyer. In fact, Scalia's closest friend on the court and in life is Ginsberg because they value the other's interpretation.

It was extremely insightful and would help debunk lots of myths about how the judges actually view cases and the constitution.

Edit: I should have been more clear Iowa, I dont think you are confusing the definition of conservative/liberal in the party sense... more the constitutional approach sense. Also, Scalia was nominated by Reagan, not Bush Sr. There has been numerous justices that were nominated by either party who later regretted the nomination because of the specific justices' interpretation of constitution: Kennedy, O'Connor, Stevens are recent ones off the top of my head.

Very good post. Nothing really to add--it's sort of outside my area of expertise, and I'll just accept your correction on the substance.

I'll just add that I've heard interviews with Scalia, and I think the mistake liberals make too often is to assume that he's a mindless conservative monster. He has beliefs that I find unconscionable, but he's a very articulate guy, really smart and well spoken as I suppose anyone in his position would have to be.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Not practical in what sense?

I'm not against capital punishment for philosophical reasons -- I've seen the argument that "the state should never execute its own citizens", but I don't necessarily buy that. I would have no problem with someone like Paul Bernardo, for example, being put to death.

The problem I have is that wrongful convictions are a fact of life in our imperfect system of justice, and the thought of our goverment killing an innocent is so heinous to me that I cannot ever support the death penalty since it can lead to miscarriages of justice that can't be undone.

Nope, death is too good for Bernardo. What we need is a way to make offenders like this suffer and greatly for the rest of their days. The human rights activists can whine at me all they want but I consider these offenders monsters, not humans. Make em suffer!

[Gozer]

I find I almost always agree with Scalia.

[llama64]

Death Penalty? Naw. I barely see how that benifits anyone in any case outside of serial murders.

Castration and life long state service I can see. Why is the death penalty considered when non lethal, debilitating punishments can be used instead.

It's a waste for society just to dump people like these away. Better to put them to work in some undesirable job, and take away their compulsion to do bad things. If full brainwashing existed, I'd be all for it in cases like this.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by llama64

Death Penalty? Naw. I barely see how that benifits anyone in any case outside of serial murders.

Castration and life long state service I can see. Why is the death penalty considered when non lethal, debilitating punishments can be used instead.

It's a waste for society just to dump people like these away. Better to put them to work in some undesirable job, and take away their compulsion to do bad things. If full brainwashing existed, I'd be all for it in cases like this.

Castration doesn't fix what's wrong with these people, they just aren't wired right.

You'd advocate a Clockwork Orange style brainwashing?

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

I will answer this, but can you show the results of your research on this? I am not going to argue that noone is traumitized

Let me clarify...I am NOT trying to say that they are always equally traumatizing...I have no proof research etc. It would be pretty absurd to try to quantify trauma...IMO

However, I am assuming that physical violence against a child could be as traumatizing in some cases as some cases of sexual abuse and thus why not put child abusers to death as well?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Nope, death is too good for Bernardo. What we need is a way to make offenders like this suffer and greatly for the rest of their days. The human rights activists can whine at me all they want but I consider these offenders monsters, not humans. Make em suffer!

What possible benefit is there in doing that? What's the point? Revenge?

What's in it for you? You going to feel better knowing that Paul Bernardo is in prison getting gang raped everyday?

I know I'm not. It wouldn't make me happy. His suffering doesn't bring anyone back. It doesn't change anything. Well, it changes us. Into barbarians.

[MelBridgeman]

Give them the death penalty, we can use the millions of tax dollars saved to use towards green research!

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Give them the death penalty, we can use the millions of tax dollars saved to use towards green research!

Given the absence of green text, I'm going to assume that you're not being sarcastic and are unaware that many studies have shown that executing an inmate in the US costs the taxpayers more money than keeping that same criminal in prison for life without parole.

Here's one such study:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/northcarolina.pdf

Comparing two hypothetical cases, one of which concludes with the defendant's execution after ten years on death row, and the other with the defendant serving 20 years in prison, yields an answer of $163 thousand as the extra cost for the capital case.

[...]

It is possible to use our data to make a rough estimate of the statewide costs incurred over a particular time period. Over the two-year period 1991 and 1992 there were a total of 94 defendants tried capitally (excluding retrials and resentencing hearings). Of these, 29 were sentenced to death. These capital trials would have cost the state and counties about $4.3 million less if they had proceeded noncapitally. If the death-sentenced cases follow a postconviction track similar to that of cases from previous years, the cost to the state will total about $2.8 minion for appeals and postconviction proceedings, and $1.4 million for retrials and resentencing proceedings ordered by the appellate courts. Recent history suggests that approximately 10 percent of the death-sentenced defendants will be executed, at a savings in imprisonment costs of $0.5 million.. Combining all these figures gives an overall extra cost on the order of $8 million, or an average of $4 million per year.

The extra costs of adjudicating murder cases capitally outweigh the savings in imprisonment costs. As it is currently implemented, the death penalty cannot be justified solely on the grounds of economy. The death penalty is usually justified on the basis that it offers public benefits in the form of greater deterrent and retributive value than life imprisonment; these benefits, if they exist, are not free, but rather come at a substantial cost to the public.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Castration doesn't fix what's wrong with these people, they just aren't wired right.

You'd advocate a Clockwork Orange style brainwashing?

Castration is there to appease the "righteous justice seekers". Give them their pound of flesh...

I'd advocate any psychological solution that would permanently alter a convicted persons personality to ensure that future problems would not occur.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Given the absence of green text, I'm going to assume that you're not being sarcastic and are unaware that many studies have shown that executing an inmate in the US costs the taxpayers more money than keeping that same criminal in prison for life without parole.

Here's one such study:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/northcarolina.pdf

Sorry should be been green text! Anways i am aware that the anti-death penalty group uses that arguement, I don't care what the validatity is...and i find it hard to believe also. Anyhow, take'em out back, get it done,give the guard 50 bucks -there saved the tax payers some cash.

Edit: ok i read your quote. So if someone is convicted without any doubt (DNA evidence, his own admission) and he is executed righ there vs someone who spends his life in jail - i don't think you can argue that the execution still costs more. I am sure being on death row with all those appeals and everything would cost more than some dude who is just doing his time.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by llama64

I'd advocate any psychological solution that would permanently alter a convicted persons personality to ensure that future problems would not occur.

Sounds nice, not possible.

[LChoy]

interesting, didn't know about the mental aspect. Only reason I thought of castration was because I read somewhere that pedophiles were paying to have it done so they won't reoffend. Thought it was a good idea, the proactive approach