# Supreme Court rejects death for child rape



## jazzy1 (May 2, 2006)

Patrick Kennedy was convicted of repeatedly raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter for over a year. A jury found him guilty and he was sentenced to death. Louisiana is a state where the death penalty can be adminsitered for child rape.

In a 5-4 vote, the supreme court said the law allowing the death penalty to be imposed in cases of child rape violates the U.S. Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. "The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child."

Do you agree with the decision?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I haven't read the whole decision, but I've skimmed the dissent. What I found interesting is that the dissenters don't seem to challenge the idea that the concept of "cruel and unusual punishment" can evolve over time, so that what was not considered cruel in 1798 might well be considered cruel in 2008. If I'm reading this correctly, this would seem to undermine the originalist project that some of the most conservative justices have been engaged in.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Yep-- "unusual" is by definition relevant only to current situations. Do you see it a lot? It is usual. If not, it is unusual. I hear there's an obscenity case that is going to rely on Google to find out what community standards actually are. Similar thing here.

"Cruel" is a harder one. It is hard to argue for an objective definition, but one could reasonably say that what meaning the word has isn't different from 200 years ago. Now if we only knew what THAT was.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I think it's absolutely disgusting.

I'm ashamed of the Supreme Court; and the rationalizations of Kennedy, et al are shameful.



> ... Kennedy said the absence of any executions for rape and the small number of states that allow it demonstrate "there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape."
> 
> Kennedy also acknowledged that the decision had to come to terms with "the years of long anguish that must be endured by the victim of child rape."
> 
> ...


So, treason is worse than raping a child? BS, I say, but I hope he can make that argument convincingly before God; because he's gonna have to someday.

I would also tell Justice Kennedy that I believe a Justice making this ruling is committing treason; they are violating their oaths IMHO. A crime against the federal government is not greater than a crime against an Individual. This country is based on recognizing the sanctity of Individual rights.

I also believe only people who have some immorality or perversion in their own life can't find the conscience and will for the dealth penalty for pedophiles.

I think everyone who touches a child should hang, but a parent or guardian who violates the trust of a child should be put down for sure.

This is only going to cause people to take the law into their own hands because they will know there is no justice in this land.

"A fair trial and a first class hanging" is not cruel and unusual punishment. You can fry them in the chair if you prefer.


----------



## LotharoftheHillPeople (Apr 30, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I would also tell Justice Kennedy that I believe a Justice making this ruling is committing treason; they are violating their oaths IMHO.


How does this decision violate a Justice's oath to uphold the Constitution?


----------



## jazzy1 (May 2, 2006)

What is Cruel and Unusual is to let an 8 year old girl be raped by a three hundred pound man and not seek the highest level of punishment for this monster.

The fact that he did the same thing to his goddaughter twenty years earlier when she was the same age tells me that pedophiles cannot be rehabilitated IMHO


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I would also tell Justice Kennedy that I believe a Justice making this ruling is committing treason; they are violating their oaths IMHO.


You've really lost it this time if you think that anyone who disagrees with how you think the Constitution should be interpreted is guilty of treason.

I also think it's irresponsible to attack the decision based on news reports instead of on the content of the decision.


----------



## LotharoftheHillPeople (Apr 30, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> You've really lost it this time if you think that anyone who disagrees with how you think the Constitution should be interpreted is guilty of treason.


Hey, all the kids are doing it!



> I also think it's irresponsible to attack the decision based on news reports instead of on the content of the decision.


Jack, it's much easier to read a Yahoo! snippet than trying to slog through all that nuanced lawyer mumbo-jumbo contained in the Court's opinion. Who needs the Judicial Branch? They're not even elected!


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

This is certainly an emotionally-charged thing to contemplate and it seems emotions are largely overrunning any other considerations. I'm usually wary of those that loudly call for the deaths of other people. 

One can read the decision and decide if the Supreme Court's logic is faulty or not (it's written in English despite the usual flood of references and citations and what anyone may think in general of legal writing):



It's docket 07-343 Kennedy v. Louisiana

Cordially,
Adrian Quay


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> What I found interesting is that the dissenters don't seem to challenge the idea that the concept of "cruel and unusual punishment" can evolve over time, so that what was not considered cruel in 1798 might well be considered cruel in 2008. If I'm reading this correctly, this would seem to undermine the originalist project that some of the most conservative justices have been engaged in.


True, and disappointing. Although Scalia's position is that the Eighth Amendment is unique in that the original meaning of the clause included the expectation that it be subject to re-interpretation. So, in this instance, to change its meaning is to honor the original meaning.

But the question is even more complicated that that. The prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment initially had no requirement that a punishment be proportionate to the offense. It only prohibited particular types of punishments, and had no application to claims that a punishment, while allowable generally, was excessive. That was added later. Perhaps proportionalism _ought_ to be part of the Constitution, but the originalist position is that it is not.

I was working with a front-line prosecutor in Louisiana in 1995 when this extension of the death penalty was enacted. He was an interesting guy, thoughtful, young (not much older than me at the time). I remember talking about this issue with him, and at the time, I supported the death penalty in this situation. He agreed, but said he was convinced that it would be held unconstitutional. It looks like he was right.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

I believe rape, especially that of a child, to be an equally haneous of a crime as murder.

There is no reason the individual should not be put to death. He was tried by a jury of his peers who believed that was the best punishment for the crime.

These liberal justices should stop replacing law and their own personal beliefs to make a ruling.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

The kicker is this:
"there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape."

Let the states decide individually. There is a consensus in Louisiana and four other states that child rapists should be executed for their crimes. Why should other states' opinion have any bearing on any state runs itself.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> There is a consensus in Louisiana and four other states that child rapists should be executed for their crimes. Why should other states' opinion have any bearing on any state runs itself.


Don't you get it? Decentralization of power is dangerous. It is not to be tolerated. What are you, some kind of rebel? A terrorist?

The meta-message of this opinion is that the national government rules. That's all they care about. End of story. That meta-message is more important to national government officials than the ruling on the narrow topic of the proper punishment for child rape.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Ironically enough for this day when the Supreme Court is issuing decisions, it is also George Orwell's birthday. Somehow this seems related!

Cordially,
Adrian Quay


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The inherent flaw in the death penalty is we cannot make reparations should the individual be later found innocent, a rather common occurance as shown by DNA testing, jailhouse snitch testimony and improperly tried cases. So, as ghastly as prison is, until we somehow come up with a perfect trial system, or at least equitable punishment without regard to race, soical position or regional opinion the death penalty is flawed. We imprison, or execute people primarily to protect society, not punish, though punishment is an obvious elephant in the room. There are monsters with utterly no redeeming gifts aside from organ doantions we shouldn't even consider safely tucked away in prison. It would be expedient and prudent to execute the Mansons, Bundys and Dalmers . But we cannot, unless you feel a Jew lynched for the rape and murder he did not commit is justified. And besides, child molesters and murderers are the lowest of hte low in prison society. Living in that condition will be far more 'cruel and unusual.'


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Phinn said:


> Don't you get it? Decentralization of power is dangerous. It is not to be tolerated. What are you, some kind of rebel? A terrorist?
> 
> The meta-message of this opinion is that the national government rules. That's all they care about. End of story. That meta-message is more important to national government officials than the ruling on the narrow topic of the proper punishment for child rape.


The anti-federalists died out a long time ago. So I guess I would be put in the category of rebel.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Why is there no way to hold justices accountable?

What I learned in history is that the supreme court has no way to enforce its rulings, therefore Louisiana can do what it wants.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> You've really lost it this time if you think that anyone who disagrees with how you think the Constitution should be interpreted is guilty of treason.
> 
> I also think it's irresponsible to attack the decision based on news reports instead of on the content of the decision.


You've lost it if you can't see the difference between disagreement and failing to keep one's oath. I very clearly stated what part was treasonous. Perhaps you should be the one reading more carefully instead of griping about others reading news accounts? If you need clarification, ASK. I am not attacking the decision based solely on a news report although the news report contains quotes I fail to see your squabble. I have also downloaded the 65 pages, but thanks for making two irrelevant points.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

LotharoftheHillPeople said:


> How does this decision violate a Justice's oath to uphold the Constitution?


I don't know. That's not part of the oath of a federal judge so I can't answer that question.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

LotharoftheHillPeople said:


> Hey, all the kids are doing it!
> 
> Jack, it's much easier to read a Yahoo! snippet than trying to slog through all that nuanced lawyer mumbo-jumbo contained in the Court's opinion. Who needs the Judicial Branch? They're not even elected!


Speak for yourself. I have the decision on my desktop. There are other deplorable snippets.

What is easier is pretending that because you haven't read it no one else has. There is no lawyer mumbo-jumbo in most SCOTUS decisions FYI. Perhaps that is in the briefs. I used to read most of them in the Cornell (<- corrected) SCOTUS Library Online and they are easy if not heavy reading.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

One gets the feeling some of the Justices do not view rape as a violation of an Individual's inalienable rights. Interesting that freedom from rape is not, but abortion and same-sex marriage are in some minds.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> The kicker is this:
> "there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape."
> 
> Let the states decide individually. There is a consensus in Louisiana and four other states that child rapists should be executed for their crimes. Why should other states' opinion have any bearing on any state runs itself.





Phinn said:


> Don't you get it? Decentralization of power is dangerous. It is not to be tolerated. What are you, some kind of rebel? A terrorist?


LMAO Good Answer! :aportnoy:


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> I don't know. That's not part of the oath of a federal judge so I can't answer that question.


Seems a fine line from upholding to performing one's duties under the Constitution:

28 U.S.C. § 453. Oaths of justices and judges

Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: _"I, XXX XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."_

Cordially,
Adrian Quay


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> This is certainly an emotionally-charged thing to contemplate and it seems emotions are largely overrunning any other considerations. I'm usually wary of those that loudly call for the deaths of other people.
> 
> One can read the decision and decide if the Supreme Court's logic is faulty or not (it's written in English despite the usual flood of references and citations and what anyone may think in general of legal writing):
> 
> ...


I don't know about calling loudly, but if we can't justify killing a pedophile then we should disband the armed forces and become a passivist nation; as no one is worthy of being killed if a pedophile isn't.

On your second point. Exactly, I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> The anti-federalists died out a long time ago.


Not all of them.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Kav said:


> The inherent flaw in the death penalty is we cannot make reparations should the individual be later found innocent, a rather common occurance as shown by DNA testing, jailhouse snitch testimony and improperly tried cases. So, as ghastly as prison is, until we somehow come up with a perfect trial system, or at least equitable punishment without regard to race, soical position or regional opinion the death penalty is flawed. We imprison, or execute people primarily to protect society, not punish, though punishment is an obvious elephant in the room. There are monsters with utterly no redeeming gifts aside from organ doantions we shouldn't even consider safely tucked away in prison. It would be expedient and prudent to execute the Mansons, Bundys and Dalmers . But we cannot, unless you feel a Jew lynched for the rape and murder he did not commit is justified. And besides, child molesters and murderers are the lowest of hte low in prison society. Living in that condition will be far more 'cruel and unusual.'


I pretty much agree, though I would possibly allow for the death penalty in exceptional cases where the incarcerated convict has been shown to present a mortal risk to others. This happens not only in the context of prison murders, but also in the context of gang killings ordered by imprisoned gang leaders.
That said, I agree with other posters that Kennedy's reasoning is vapid. While I would possibly support laws further limiting or even eliminating the death penalty, the question is not of constitutional moment. What is it with our modern jurists who feel so entitled to confuse their policy preferences with the law? There are lots of laws I disagree with. Some I think are downright stupid or patently unfair. But that does not render them unconstitutional. As an attorney I'm sick and tired of being lectured about the importance of the "independent judiciary" when that is transparent code for "judges must be unchecked and beyond criticism." Kennedy's opinion was fundamentally dishonest, even if I am in sympathy with his policy objectives and understanding of morality and fairness.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Kav said:


> The inherent flaw in the death penalty is we cannot make reparations should the individual be later found innocent, a rather common occurance as shown by DNA testing, jailhouse snitch testimony and improperly tried cases. So, as ghastly as prison is, until we somehow come up with a perfect trial system, or at least equitable punishment without regard to race, soical position or regional opinion the death penalty is flawed. We imprison, or execute people primarily to protect society, not punish, though punishment is an obvious elephant in the room. There are monsters with utterly no redeeming gifts aside from organ doantions we shouldn't even consider safely tucked away in prison. It would be expedient and prudent to execute the Mansons, Bundys and Dalmers . But we cannot, unless you feel a Jew lynched for the rape and murder he did not commit is justified. And besides, child molesters and murderers are the lowest of hte low in prison society. Living in that condition will be far more 'cruel and unusual.'


Kav, I agree with you on the necessities. I remember a story recently of a guy that was let out after 25 years in Texas because the DA was a racist. I think that was a murder charge. So, this is not a debate about the sureness of the verdict or the possibility of errors - on that we would agree. However, I think to say it is a flaw to execute an innocent person found guilty as a pedophile instead of put them in jail because there is no recourse misses the point. The guy that got out after 25 years said nothing he lost he could ever get back (such as his Wife and family).

Finding an innocent man guilty is the problem IMHO not the severity of the punishment.

A lot of the pedophiles aren't going into the general population they are getting "fake" treatement/therapy and then being released. The legitimate behavioral professionals agree that the therapy doesn't work and pedophiles cannot be rehabilitated or cured. It's a sad state of affairs in terms of ethics with what our system is doing to us turning these people loose.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> Seems a fine line from upholding to performing one's duties under the Constitution:
> 
> 28 U.S.C. § 453. Oaths of justices and judges
> 
> ...


I don't see how inventing words and phrases that aren't there is a fine line, but YMMV.

It is not the role of a Justice to "uphold the Constitution." It is their duty to perform their job faithfully and impartially as specified by the Constitution; that being to administer justice equally. I do applaud you for at least finding the correct oath before offering criticism. There is a low bar around here for doing your own homework sometimes. Well done 

The Presidential and Congressional Oathes are to "uphold the Constitution" so-to-speak.



> "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, *and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution* of the United States."





> I do solemnly swear (or affirm) *that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States* against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> I don't know about calling loudly, but if we can't justify killing a pedophile then we should disband the armed forces and become a passivist nation; as no one is worthy of being killed if a pedophile isn't.
> ....


I can't parse this. Are you making a rhetorical point?

Cordially,
Adrian Quay


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> I can't parse this. Are you making a rhetorical point?
> 
> Cordially,
> Adrian Quay


What parsing do you think is required? I'm not making a rhetorical point. I'm saying to kill pedophiles before we kill people who simply have different policies than our own.

If we can't defend American children; what business do we have defending Kurds and Serbs?


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> What parsing do you think is required?


You're right in noting my incorrect word usage as I should have simply said "I can't make any sense of this." (I'm in the middle of some technical matters and "parse" came to mind.)

Basically I was wondering if you were using hyperbole for a rhetorical effect or of you indeed think due to this SCOTUS decision we should disarm and become a pacifist nation. I highly suspect the former but want to be sure.

Cordially,
Adrian Quay


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> You're right in noting my incorrect word usage as I should have simply said "I can't make any sense of this." (I'm in the middle of some technical matters and "parse" came to mind.)
> 
> Basically I was wondering if you were using hyperbole for a rhetorical effect or of you indeed think due to this SCOTUS decision we should disarm and become a pacifist nation. I highly suspect the former but want to be sure.
> 
> ...


No hyperbole. I mean every word of it.

However, if you can get all these so-called bleeding-heart types who claim it's *all about the children* to shut up, maybe we can negotiate.

Example: I have a problem with being forced to pay for SCHIP when our society refuses to confront this issue. There is no behavioral therapy, rehabilitation, or cure for pedophiles. How many innocent children must be irrevokably harmed before we "buck up" to the minimum we owe them as a society? Does providing them health insurance really make up for it? "NNBHN!"

Kav, was speaking about the lack of recourse. I respect that point and I agree that our trial system has been weakened, but I'm more concerned about the lack of recourse of the children.

On a broader note:
I wonder how many here arguing have actually been inside a prison or even a rehabilitation center working on these issues in programs? How many have worked in behavioral healthcare programs specializing in abused children? How many have met a pedophile in behavioral therapy and them watched as he was being released back into society? How many have watched that person do the exact same thing after he was "cured?" If you haven't done these things, maybe that's why you disagree.

IMHO there is simply no justice for these children barring the death penalty and the Justices voting for this decision are enablers. We don't even have to argue about State's administering justice as their citizens see fit.


----------



## etp777 (Nov 27, 2007)

Rape deserves death.

Child rape deserves a PAINFUL death.

Simple as that.


----------



## LotharoftheHillPeople (Apr 30, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Speak for yourself. I have the decision on my desktop. There are other deplorable snippets.


I don't believe you've read the decision. If you have, your writing makes me believe you lack the rudimentary legal skills to understand the underlying law, let alone the nuances of the decision.



> What is easier is pretending that because you haven't read it no one else has. There is no lawyer mumbo-jumbo in most SCOTUS decisions FYI. Perhaps that is in the briefs. I used to read most of them in the Columbia SCOTUS Library Online and they are easy if not heavy reading.


I actually read the opinion this morning.

Wow, you're the only person I've ever heard claim that Court decisions are "easy if not heavy reading." Often, the language employed by the Court is meant to be vague to allow the inferior courts and the legislatures to interpret it. I have much to learn from you. To think, I've only clerked for a Chief Judge of a U.S. District Court.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

LotharoftheHillPeople said:


> I don't believe you've read the decision. If you have, your writing makes me believe you lack the rudimentary legal skills to understand the underlying law, let alone the nuances of the decision.
> 
> I actually read the opinion this morning.
> 
> Wow, you're the only person I've ever heard claim that Court decisions are "easy if not heavy reading." Often, the language employed by the Court is meant to be vague to allow the inferior courts and the legislatures to interpret it. I have much to learn from you. To think, I've only clerked for a Chief Judge of a U.S. District Court.


Well, if your knowledge of the oath of Federal Judge is any indication; I'm a much better reader than you. 

You also seem to have missed reading A.Q.'s post.

You are welcome to believe whatever you want. If you don't have a problem with the decision; I believe you're either putting the letter of the law above justice or a sympathetic perv yourself. See how that works when you try to be insulting? Have a nice day.


----------



## LotharoftheHillPeople (Apr 30, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Well, if your knowledge of the oath of Federal Judge is any indication; I'm a much better reader than you.


Right...



> You also seem to have missed reading A.Q.'s post.


Nope, I read his posts in this thread.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Phinn said:


> Not all of them.


One can only hope that there will be a return.

I still think that if a person doesn't like the fact that their state allows for the death penalty they can always live elsewhere. Moral issues are not the judicial branch's role. That is for the legislature.

A good book is "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America."

A few years ago, in high school AP Government, we had a discussion about what we thought the most powerful branch of government is. Most people quickly chose the Executive Branch. However, I stood my ground and argued that the Judicial Branch is because it can overturn any law - it goes almost completely unchecked.

I was told I was wrong because a case must be brought before the court.

I still stand by this, because cases are brought before the court all the time. The Supreme Court turns down thousands of cases every year. And there has not been an attempt to remove a Supreme Court Justice in decades - the only attempt failed horribly. What's worse is that the decisions handed down are based on previous rulings which were wrong. We have recently gotten a handful of rulings protecting people's rights to privacy, but I challenge anyone to find the mention of privacy anywhere in the Constitution.

Pope Benedict XVI better watch out, because the Supreme Court's apparent infallibility is quickly encroaching upon his.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

LotharoftheHillPeople said:


> Right...
> 
> Nope, I read his posts in this thread.


So, you suck at reading comprehension. That's ok. You're still a good person, right?


----------



## LotharoftheHillPeople (Apr 30, 2006)

ksinc said:


> You are welcome to believe whatever you want. If you don't have a problem with the decision; I believe you're either putting the letter of the law above justice or a sympathetic perv yourself. See how that works when you try to be insulting? Have a nice day.


Your daftness amazes me. All those that believe the Court came to the right decision regarding the law either must be: 1) putting the law above justice (whatever this means); or 2) perverts?

What happens when I try to be insulting? You come back with some nonsensical logic that makes you look even less intelligent than before?! Way to go! You sure burned me on this one! Lol.


----------



## LotharoftheHillPeople (Apr 30, 2006)

ksinc said:


> So, you suck at reading comprehension. That's ok. You're still a good person, right?


What are you talking about? Your stupidity never ceases to amaze me.

You can keep coming back at me, but I quit; picking on you isn't really fair. Try to save any face you have left.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

LotharoftheHillPeople said:


> Your daftness amazes me. All those that believe the Court came to the right decision regarding the law either must be: 1) putting the law above justice (whatever this means); or 2) perverts?
> 
> What happens when I try to be insulting? You come back with some nonsensical logic that makes you look even less intelligent than before?! Way to go! You sure burned me on this one! Lol.


No, not everybody. It's just you based on your argument that I didn't understand the law. You believe what you want. I believe what I want. Others had a different basis for their opinions many of which I respect. You are the one that asked the stupid question. You got the answer you deserved. What I said about more generally was "I also believe only people who have some immorality or perversion in their own life can't find the conscience and will for the dealth penalty for pedophiles." I believe that. Maybe you don't. Who cares?

If you read the opinion then you know what Justice Alito said about the lack of basis for the decision. I guess you think he's daft too? As are the other three that agreed with him and dissented?

No, I'm not a lawyer and I don't argue the law. My point is I know what "I solemnly swear to" "administer equal justice" "so help me God" means and it ain't gonna be good for some IMHO. No one has said you aren't entitled to your opinon. If you have a legitimate issue with mine let's hear it and quit being arrogant and stupid. You aren't entitled just because you clerked for a judge. This is America; we can all read the opinions. And; we're allowed to disagree. Vehemently, even. You are the one that has a problem with it.



> The Court provides two reasons for this sweeping conclusion: First, the Courtclaims to have identified "a national consensus" that the death penalty is never acceptable for the rape of a child;second, the Court concludes, based on its "independent judgment," that imposing the death penalty for child rape is inconsistent with "'the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.'" _Ante_, at 8, 15, 16 (citation omitted). Because neither of these justifications is sound, I respectfully dissent.





> The party attacking the constitutionality of a state statute bears the "heavy burden" of establishing that the law is unconstitutional. _Gregg_, 428 U. S., at 175 (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and STEVENS, JJ.). That burden has not been discharged here, and I would therefore affirm the decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

LotharoftheHillPeople said:


> Wow, you're the only person I've ever heard claim that Court decisions are "easy if not heavy reading." Often, the language employed by the Court is meant to be vague to allow the inferior courts and the legislatures to interpret it. I have much to learn from you. To think, I've only clerked for a Chief Judge of a U.S. District Court.


I'm a senior partner in a major national law firm. In general, I agree with ksinc that Supreme Court opinions are usually pretty easy to read. There are exceptions, often involving the strangely cryptic Justice Souter, but Supreme Court justices are good writers, as are their clerks. The opinions are organized and each paragraph has a purpose. An educated person will find US Supreme Court opinions much more understandable than most lower court opinions.


----------



## LotharoftheHillPeople (Apr 30, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> I'm a senior partner in a major national law firm. In general, I agree with ksinc that Supreme Court opinions are usually pretty easy to read. There are exceptions, often involving the strangely cryptic Justice Souter, but Supreme Court justices are good writers, as are their clerks. The opinions are organized and each paragraph has a purpose. An educated person will find US Supreme Court opinions much more understandable than most lower court opinions.


Certainly, the Justices and their clerks are excellent writers. I also agree that many of its opinions are readable by an educated adult. That said, opinions like Boumediene, and many, many others, are not easily digested by someone without a legal education.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> What parsing do you think is required? I'm not making a rhetorical point. I'm saying to kill pedophiles before we kill people who simply have different policies than our own.
> 
> If we can't defend American children; what business do we have defending Kurds and Serbs?


Now that you've fleshed this out here and in a following post this point is now clear--thank you. I can certainly understand the classically conservative argument against intervention in foreign affairs when our own house is not in order.

Cordially,
Adrian Quay


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

The argument of the liberal wing of the court is basically the same thing over and over:

"The Constitution was written to do the right thing, like 200 years ago. We're doing what we think is the right thing, today. That's the 'law of the land,' not the written text of the Constitution."

Of course they say it over 60 pages and obfuscate it as much as possible.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> I'm a senior partner in a major national law firm. In general, I agree with ksinc that Supreme Court opinions are usually pretty easy to read. There are exceptions, often involving the strangely cryptic Justice Souter, but Supreme Court justices are good writers, as are their clerks. The opinions are organized and each paragraph has a purpose. An educated person will find US Supreme Court opinions much more understandable than most lower court opinions.


Mr. Petrik,

In regards to the "educated person" you talk about here, is there a general idea about what "educated" means in this context? High school graduate? College education, etc.? I've often wondered about this when I hear it from those with a legal education and would appreciate your input especially in the context of reading today's Supreme Court decision.

Cordially,
Adrian Quay


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> Now that you've fleshed this out here and in a following post this point is now clear--thank you. I can certainly understand the classically conservative argument against intervention in foreign affairs when our own house is not in order.
> 
> Cordially,
> Adrian Quay


You're quite welcome.

I also extend that to these arguments within our own house. For example, the "right" to a college education arguments that are being made by Obama and other politicians in this cycle.

There is an argument (one I agree with) that a college education is *not* a right. However, if it were a right, college education and freedom from pedophiles are not say, on the same level in Maslow's heirarchy of needs. If and when the government proves it can perform at the most basic level of providing security *"for the children"*, maybe I'm willing to listen to how we should expand the powers and role of the Government up the pyramid for children.

_I believe the children are our future._ :icon_smile_big:


----------



## LotharoftheHillPeople (Apr 30, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> The argument of the liberal wing of the court is basically the same thing over and over:
> 
> "The Constitution was written to do the right thing, like 200 years ago. We're doing what we think is the right thing, today. That's the 'law of the land,' not the written text of the Constitution."
> 
> Of course they say it over 60 pages and obfuscate it as much as possible.


Saying nothing of today's decision, are you of the mind that Brown was improperly decided? If you do not believe it was improperly decided, then how can square that decision with your jurisprudence, which appears to be either "original intent" or "strict construction?"


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Brown is one of a handful of controversial decisions from the period I would agree with, actually. Why do you think I'm obligated to disagree with it?


----------



## LotharoftheHillPeople (Apr 30, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Brown is one of a handful of controversial decisions from the period I would agree with, actually. Why do you think I'm obligated to disagree with it?


Because the decision was not based in "the written text of the Constitution."


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

How about adding an argument to back that up? Because I find it very questionable. 

Certainly the result isn't demanded by the text of the Constitution on the face of it, at least. But no one advocates that sort of "strict construction" analysis; it's a left-wing straw man.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> ...I also extend that to these arguments within our own house. For example, the "right" to a college education arguments that are being made by Obama and other politicians in this cycle.
> 
> There is an argument (one I agree with) that a college education is *not* a right.


This is something I can't readily cotton to, either. To say a college education is something for which general opportunity should be provided by the government (financial aid, scholarships, low-interest loans, etc.,) is a very different thing from saying it's some kind of legal "right." The former is in the general interest of society and thus government can play a very legitimate part but the latter seems to me, anyway, just a politician's way to curry favor at the expense of the value of language itself. So to promote a "right" of learning they devalue the language of learning itself. 

Today is indeed Orwell's birthday. Newspeak and Doublethink are alive and well, as they apparently ever were.

I'm so unsettled by all this I'm going to have a bourbon.

Cordially,
Adrian Quay


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Justices take an oath to "administer justice" "under the Constitution"; not to simply administer or "uphold the Constitution" as someone said earlier.  

Today's decision was not justice. Brown was. It's doesn't require squaring IMHO.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> So to promote a "right" of learning they devalue the language of learning itself.
> 
> Today is indeed Orwell's birthday. Newspeak and Doublethink are alive and well, as they apparently ever were.
> 
> ...


Indeed.

As long as they don't water the Bourbon down the _Revolution_ may be further postponed. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Worked with a guy who was raped by his baby sitter when he was 8 or 10. He was one messed up kid. It even affected his youngest brother, still wearing diapers. His parents couldn't handle the damage that happened and dumped all three kids and moved to another town and started another family. Some of the problems was what he was taught about nakedness and sex, maybe no sex lessons at all. Even when I worked with him (17) he was still working out the problems in his head. It utterly destroyed that family. Him and a younger brother were put in with one family and the youngest, the diaper boy, was put in another, of which he couldn't see until he was 18 to make sure the youngest didn't pick up anymore problems. That kid was freakin out of his mind for several years. If I remember his raper was a 13 year old girl, so he was probably 8 at the time, since I think a 10 year old could have escape. I am a firm believer that some sex preditors get capital punishment. Age of the person that got raped doesn't matter. I believe in millstones.

Unusual punishment- if a judge dictates what that is and says no, then how can it ever become usual if it should. It is not his job to write law.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Quay said:


> Mr. Petrik,
> 
> In regards to the "educated person" you talk about here, is there a general idea about what "educated" means in this context? High school graduate? College education, etc.? I've often wondered about this when I hear it from those with a legal education and would appreciate your input especially in the context of reading today's Supreme Court decision.
> 
> ...


Fair question. It is difficult to apply a simple objective standard, especially since it is pretty well-established that many high school and college graduates are only marginally literate. Indeed, "scholars" with advanced degrees regularly produce works that are objectively incoherent. It is tempting to resort to the standard of "a college educated person 50 years ago," but that is too facile. In some respects the word "learned" might be superior to "educated" for this purpose. In any event, by "educated person" I meant one who has the vocabulary and reasoning skills that a college educated person should have, while acknowledging that many don't.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

For my two cents, I find that child rapists are beneath contempt.

I just don't trust our justice system enough to allow it to kill people. Prosecutors and Defense Lawyers are attorneys who frequently allow motives other than justice to guide their actions. Too many wrong people are being convicted for me to support the death penalty.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> For my two cents, I find that child rapists are beneath contempt.
> 
> I just don't trust our justice system enough to allow it to kill people. Prosecutors and Defense Lawyers are attorneys who frequently allow motives other than justice to guide their actions. Too many wrong people are being convicted for me to support the death penalty.


Kav made a similar point and I just can't see that solution making sense. I am a rather black-and-white systems analyst however.

My thinking is: if we can't trust verdicts in this country then what we do after that is moot. Assuming a person found guilty is guilty; then hang them. If the problem is with the confidence in the verdicts, because of the lawyers, the system, whatever; then fix that. I don't dispute that many prosecutors display huge conflicts of interest and often little moral restraint. For example, take that Spitzer guy. He is exactly what I was speaking about earlier: a person with some immorality or perversion in his own life. How a guy like that prosecutes others for his own crime and can shave without slicing his own throat out of contempt is something I cannot understand. Perhaps his downfall and the Duke lacrosse case will have some positive effect on young prosecutors' decisions regarding conscience maintenance. I think we have no faith in our citizens serving in the courts and on the juries because we know what they are doing to dissolve their consciences: cheating on their wives, looking at porn, etc., etc.!

At my last CPA section, I had my wallet gone through in a locker they make you put your personal stuff in. I thought it was odd, but they made a big deal about *their* security at Prometric. The guy tried to buy a surf board on my Corporate Executive AMEX and signed up for _asiansexposed.com_ on my MasterCard which I only use to buy clothes and golf stuff. Of course, both things tripped security at my credit card companies because I have never made similar purchases and they called me immediately and we cancelled the purchases and filed a fraud report with the Police. The people running the CPA (NASBA) didn't even care about how Prometric is implementing the testing for them in such an improper/insecure way. It bothers me that people in a profession that stresses integrity and accountability can't see how their reputation is under attack post-Enron just as a lot of lawyers have been laughed at for years. If a bunch of CPAs can't handle basic honesty then it's no wonder most people feel their audits are a complete farce too.

I also believe that the secular movement in this country has diminished the fear of God in the broader population that should be guiding these people in their sworn duties. What I find is they are usually the first people to spout "but the Bible says don't judge" when a person of faith condemns a sin of some kind. If only that was what it actually said and meant.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> For my two cents, I find that child rapists are beneath contempt.
> 
> I just don't trust our justice system enough to allow it to kill people. Prosecutors and Defense Lawyers are attorneys who frequently allow motives other than justice to guide their actions. Too many wrong people are being convicted for me to support the death penalty.


I agree completely, which is one reason I generally* oppose the death penalty. That said I still find Justice Kennedy's reasoning to be specious. There are many laws I oppose. Few if any are unconstitutional. I expect lay people (i.e., non-lawyers) to flirt with the temptation to assume any law they think is foolish or unjust to be unconstitutional, but it is disturbing and scandalous when judges do so.

* As I mentioned in an earlier post I can hypothesize unusual circumstances where life imprisonment would not allow for sufficient protection of others. Both prison murders and gang murders ordered from prison suggest such circumstances might exist.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I think we implement the death penalty only if the system is fixed. I do not think we execute people the way the system is now. 

There are probably some people who deserve to die for their actions. However, our system does such a poor job of identifying them that no punishment as final as death is justified. (Especially when you consider the blatant dishonesty from too many prosecutors who are trying to build up political points.) 

Death can't be reversed when a prosecutor is discovered to have railroaded the wrong man. To me, unless your system is essentially foolproof, you have no business executing anyone. Mike Nifong, the Duke Prosecutor, is despicable, but at least he publicized a huge flaw in our legal system. I'm honestly not sure how to fix it.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I think we implement the death penalty only if the system is fixed. I do not think we execute people the way the system is now.
> 
> There are probably some people who deserve to die for their actions. However, our system does such a poor job of identifying them that no punishment as final as death is justified. (Especially when you consider the blatant dishonesty from too many prosecutors who are trying to build up political points.)
> 
> Death can't be reversed when a prosecutor is discovered to have railroaded the wrong man. To me, unless your system is essentially foolproof, you have no business executing anyone. Mike Nifong, the Duke Prosecutor, is despicable, but at least he publicized a huge flaw in our legal system. I'm honestly not sure how to fix it.


We also can't give someone back 25 years of their life. You can let them out, but you can't reverse it. IMHO we have no business punishing people at all if we can't trust the justice system.

I would say sending an innocent man to prison for 25 years and having him stand for parole every year after 15 years and force him to decide whether to maintain his innocence and stay in prison or admit guilt for something he didn't do and be released as a convict is more cruel than a humane death. YMMV, but personally I would prefer the hanging if I was wrongly convicted. Maybe the perceived increased *g*ravity of the consequences would cause people to think twice before they convict someone since it appears a large percentage may feel being sent to prison is something we can just "reverse" when we find out we were wrong.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

ksinc said:


> We also can't give someone back 25 years of their life. You can let them out, but you can't reverse it. IMHO we have no business punishing people at all if we can't trust the justice system.


If you gentlemen (including, forsbergacct2000) are looking for perfection in a legal system, prepare for a long search. Every system of justice, no matter how ordered, is dependent on fallible human beings. While this fact should by no means deter efforts to improve our system, any theory that a perfect or even near perfect system is possible is grounded in a very naive understanding of human nature and human limitations.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> If you gentlemen (including, forsbergacct2000) are looking for perfection in a legal system, prepare for a long search. Every system of justice, no matter how ordered, is dependent on fallible human beings. While this fact should by no means deter efforts to improve our system, any theory that a perfect or even near perfect system is possible is grounded in a very naive understanding of human nature and human limitations.


Let me clarify that I am certainly not looking for perfect results. I'm looking for individuals to strive for perfection in a way they could defend before God.

I trust an honest best effort and I have no problem executing people or living under that possibility. I view this as a compromise - part of our collective bargain as a civil society. We are all exposed to the same risk.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Our system is nowhere near that right now. How many hundred wrongly convicted people are on death row now?? I agree that once convicted, a pedophile should probably be watched very carefully, or possibly be locked up forever.

We may have to agree to disagree. Right now, too many prosecutors don't care if they convict the wrong person as long as they convict someone. If someone you cared about was unfortunate enough to be put to death by that system when they were innocent, you would care a lot more. However, your friends are probably (I don't know for sure) able to pay for representation that will keep that from happening to them.

I am totally against the death penalty until our current legal system is substantially cleaned up. Obviously, some here disagree. Crime is upsetting, but having politically motivated prosecutors (and some clever defense attorneys) manipulating the system as shamelessly as they do make our legal system, for all practical purposes, a game show where luck and your ability to influence the system matter a lot more an individual's guilt or innocence.

While I am not liberal on many issues, I find it shocking that people are arguing that we should execute people who may not be guilty after it has been so often demonstrated that our system frequently convicts the wrong person.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Right now, I see a lot of very cynical, selfish people operating our system. While I realize perfection is not possible, it seems that there should be some way to lift it up from its present corrupted situation.

Again, I will not support a death penalty until this is cleaned up substantially. Right now, it is a joke.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> While I am not liberal on many issues, I find it shocking that people are arguing that we should execute people who may not be guilty after it has been so often demonstrated that our system frequently convicts the wrong person.





forsbergacct2000 said:


> Right now, I see a lot of very cynical, selfish people operating our system. While I realize perfection is not possible, it seems that there should be some way to lift it up from its present corrupted situation.
> 
> Again, I will not support a death penalty until this is cleaned up substantially. Right now, it is a joke.


I'm clearly arguing that if your position is that our system has been demonstrated to be convicting the wrong person so frequently, then you shouldn't be imprisoning people based on its verdicts either. I think you need to decide whether you can accept the verdicts or not. IMHO people are failing to confront the question by saying, well let's just put them in prison because that's reversable.

I don't think you are a liberal just because you have legitimate misgivings. As MikePetrik pointed out - we are always going to have to compromise on perfection because people are involved in the process. Perhaps where we have failed is in catching and punishing the perpetrators just as harshly when there are actual malfeasances.

We may indeed have to disagree. No harm in that. Cheers!


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Fair question. It is difficult to apply a simple objective standard, especially since it is pretty well-established that many high school and college graduates are only marginally literate. Indeed, "scholars" with advanced degrees regularly produce works that are objectively incoherent. It is tempting to resort to the standard of "a college educated person 50 years ago," but that is too facile. In some respects the word "learned" might be superior to "educated" for this purpose. In any event, by "educated person" I meant one who has the vocabulary and reasoning skills that a college educated person should have, while acknowledging that many don't.


Thank you for the reply. This seems to be the same idea that's held in other areas besides law. It's sort of sad to note that it has gone from what was to what should be but often is not. I think "learned" might indeed be a good change from "educated" as it implies something achieved rather than just a degree awarded, the value of the latter somewhat more suspect these days.

Cordially,
Adrian Quay


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> I'm clearly arguing that if your position is that our system has been demonstrated to be convicting the wrong person so frequently, then you shouldn't be imprisoning people based on its verdicts either. I think you need to decide whether you can accept the verdicts or not. IMHO people are failing to confront the question by saying, well let's just put them in prison because that's reversable....


I'd have to side with forsbergacct2000 on this one as I can't support a death penalty when the current process for it is so critically flawed. But it's not that either/or, though, as you are indicating. A verdict of guilty on charges of a man building his backyard fence 1 foot too high in violation of building codes is quite a different thing from a death sentence for murder! It's not just the prospect of reversal but the entire set of consequences that goes with each that is very different. The process of the death penalty, while certainly a part of the larger legal system, can rightly be considered its own reserved area of that system, alike but quite different from the rest of it. And it certainly needs reform as it is currently a sick, expensive and shameful joke.

As any honest lawyer will say, justice can sometimes be the byproduct of the legal trial system but it is not the primary goal. Achieving conviction or acquittal is the primary goal and all else is subservient to that. This leaves a lot of room, as forsbergacct2000 notes, for selfish and political interests to dominate and frankly make a mess of things. But as has already been noted, it seems to be an area where disagreement is something to be accepted and noted prior to ordering another round. :icon_smile:

Oddly enough, the argument for accepting no verdict on anything if the system is flawed is made quite well by Al Pacino's character John Milton in the film _The Devil's Advocate. _It is fun to see you and the devil agreeing on something. :devil: :icon_smile_wink:

Cordially,
Adrian Quay


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Quay said:


> I'd have to side with forsbergacct2000 on this one as I can't support a death penalty when the current process for it is so critically flawed. But it's not that either/or, though, as you are indicating. A verdict of guilty on charges of a man building his backyard fence 1 foot too high in violation of building codes is quite a different thing from a death sentence for murder! It's not just the prospect of reversal but the entire set of consequences that goes with each that is very different. The process of the death penalty, while certainly a part of the larger legal system, can rightly be considered its own reserved area of that system, alike but quite different from the rest of it. And it certainly needs reform as it is currently a sick, expensive and shameful joke.
> 
> As any honest lawyer will say, justice can sometimes be the byproduct of the legal trial system but it is not the primary goal. Achieving conviction or acquittal is the primary goal and all else is subservient to that. This leaves a lot of room, as forsbergacct2000 notes, for selfish and political interests to dominate and frankly make a mess of things. But as has already been noted, it seems to be an area where disagreement is something to be accepted and noted prior to ordering another round. :icon_smile:
> 
> ...


+1 to you and forsber on this one.

The gravity of an irrevocable decision like the death penalty is not in the same category as giving someone 25-to-life, as terrible as that outcome would be for someone who is innocent. The choice is not to stop punishing all offenders because our justice system is flawed, but to find ways to avoid the worst outcomes (like killing an innocent person) while continuously working to improve the system.


----------



## jazzy1 (May 2, 2006)

There are no do-over’s when it comes to the death penalty. If you get it wrong, that is it. It is alarming how many people were sitting on death row waiting for their turn to be injected, electrocuted or whichever other method is chosen, when “new evidence” or some DNA testing cleared them of the charges.

Of the people who escaped the death penalty in those cases, how many people were actually executed that did not do what they were accused. How do you fix that?

On the other side of the coin, the irreparable damage done to an individual who has gone through being raped as a child makes it easy to see why some would advocate for the death penalty.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

In Washington south of Seattle on a country road that a boy was riding his bike he was grab and raped stabbed about 45 times with a knife and half his penis was bit off. A day and a half some jogger heard somebody moaning in the ditch. He live and pointed out to the police who did it. There were several other boys that had been found dead priviously who had simiular horrible treatment and died. 

Why do you guys who oppose all capital punnishment oppose capital punnishment when it is clear who done it? I agree there are far to many cases when they are just guessing, which is deplorable. But actual evidence that where no guessing is involved should get the max. When they are guessing, then why are they thowing these people in jail and ruining their name. Honesty is the most important word of justice. Guessing = dishonesty, which does not belong in any court room.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I've had to digest this a bit before replying. I am truly disheartened to think sincere and thoughtful people might consider convicting an innocent man and sending him to prison for 25 years "terrible", but not necessarily "grave[ity]", "irreparable", or "irrevocable." Being familiar with most of you, I'm confident that your views are considered.

As some of you are lawyers, I wonder if "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" has become simply a tactical result in your mind? Do you think you might be desensitized to the moral weight of passing judgment on fellow citizens? Have you ever been in a prison beyond a secure visitation room?

I think the five or so of you have expressed your opinions well and thoughtfully (I'm only excluding Lothar). I respect that, but I also hope if I'm ever on trial any attorneys, judges, or jury members that share your view have the decency to recuse themselves. Not to condemn you; perhaps yours is indeed the correct view, but simply that I have a right to a jury of my peers. I think we would all agree that whatever the basis our views are highly incompatible and we do not see eye-to-eye on the issue. Again, no real harm in that. I would return the favor, of course. Cheers!


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I think I can say with some certainty that many, many more innocent people have been killed in car accidents on their way to and from the literally hundreds of thousands of legal proceedings the courts have insisted on to impede the execution of the death penalty, than innocent men have been executed after being wrongfully convicted. Certainly, more innocent people have been murdered by murderers who were wrongfully acquitted, or got off on appeal.

I am willing to accept that a few men may be executed for crimes they did not commit.

And of course many of these "innocent" men are hardly innocent. I'm reminded of a recent "exoneration" from this state-- a guy who had left a small child alone for something like 16 hours while on a crack binge was released after they found the guy who... stole the kid out of its crib while the "innocent man" was passed out, and raped and murdered it.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

jazzy1 said:


> It is alarming how many people were sitting on death row waiting for their turn to be injected, electrocuted or whichever other method is chosen, when "new evidence" or some DNA testing cleared them of the charges.


I agree it is hard to imagine being put to death for a crime for which one is innocent.

How many on death row have been cleared of their charges?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Relayer said:


> I agree it is hard to imagine being put to death for a crime for which one is innocent.
> 
> How many on death row have been cleared of their charges?


Probably about the same amount that have been cleared that had 20 or 25-life sentences. A bunch. It's a shame. 60 Minutes did a story on a prosecutor in Texas that was basically a raving bigot and they think he put a lot of innocent people away. They elected a black DA and he is having some law students review all the cases. It's just one example, but he can't be the only one. It was the guy I mentioned earlier that got out after 25 years. It's just one more instance of the Baby Boomers and their parents screwing us all over after the great sacrifice. I'm thankful for some things that generation did, but others make my skin crawl.


----------



## jazzy1 (May 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Probably about the same amount that have been cleared that had 20 or 25-life sentences. A bunch. It's a shame. 60 Minutes did a story on a prosecutor in Texas that was basically a raving bigot and they think he put a lot of innocent people away.


I guess in the face of the things you mentioned it was no wonder that Illinois Governor George Ryan, a death penalty supporter, put a hold on executions in the state after 13 inmates on death row had their convictions overturned.

One of the most emotionally charged cases was that of Rolando Cruz who was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape, and murder of a 10-year-old girl in Chicago.

Some who oppose the death penalty found it hard not to want this guy to die for the crime. Unfortunately, he was not the person who committed this heinous crime. After 10 years he was freed based on DNA evidence.

These are the things that scare me to death.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I've had to digest this a bit before replying. I am truly disheartened to think sincere and thoughtful people might consider convicting an innocent man and sending him to prison for 25 years "terrible", but not necessarily "grave[ity]", "irreparable", or "irrevocable." Being familiar with most of you, I'm confident that your views are considered.
> 
> As some of you are lawyers, I wonder if "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" has become simply a tactical result in your mind? Do you think you might be desensitized to the moral weight of passing judgment on fellow citizens? Have you ever been in a prison beyond a secure visitation room?
> 
> I think the five or so of you have expressed your opinions well and thoughtfully (I'm only excluding Lothar). I respect that, but I also hope if I'm ever on trial any attorneys, judges, or jury members that share your view have the decency to recuse themselves. Not to condemn you; perhaps yours is indeed the correct view, but simply that I have a right to a jury of my peers. I think we would all agree that whatever the basis our views are highly incompatible and we do not see eye-to-eye on the issue. Again, no real harm in that. I would return the favor, of course. Cheers!


I guess the first part of your response is directed at something I wrote, but your response is confusing.

I'm not saying that it's a good thing, or a thing to be taken lightly, that some innocent people may be sentenced to long stretches in prison. That's a tragic thing, as I indicated. But it seems to me that this miscarriage of justice pales in comparison to the one you seem willing to embrace--that is, the death penalty exacted within the imperfect context of our judicial system.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

BertieW said:


> I guess the first part of your response is directed at something I wrote, but your response is confusing.
> 
> I'm not saying that it's a good thing, or a thing to be taken lightly, that some innocent people may be sentenced to long stretches in prison. That's a tragic thing, as I indicated. But it seems to me that this miscarriage of justice pales in comparison to the one you seem willing to embrace--that is, the death penalty exacted within the imperfect context of our judicial system.


Yes, I was referring to and synthesizing various comments you, Fors, Jazzy, AQ, and MikePetrik I think (you all seemed to agree IIRC.)

We clearly disagree whether there are one or more than one acceptable levels of injustice. So, we would not be evaluating guilt or innocence by the same values as peers. I see absolutely no difference between finding an innocent man guilty whether the sentence is 25 years to life or death.

All I'm saying is that by my own determination anyone that thinks there is a do-over safety net in non-death penalty cases is not capable of giving *me* a fair trial IMHO. Nor; am I capable of giving them one in return. We are both entitled to that consideration. Do you not agree?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jazzy1 said:


> These are the things that scare me to death.


I agree. All injustices that I would be party to under oath scare me to death. I realize that the weight I give to an oath is largely a personal and religious faith issue and not shared by all. I'm also saddened when people cheat on their Wife, for instance.


----------



## jazzy1 (May 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Yes, I was referring to and synthesizing various comments you, Fors, Jazzy, AQ, and MikePetrik I think (you all seemed to agree IIRC.)
> 
> All I'm saying is that by my own determination anyone that thinks there is a do-over safety net in non-death penalty cases is not capable of giving *me* a fair trial IMHO. Nor; am I capable of giving them one in return. We are both entitled to that consideration. Do you not agree?


I totally agree with you. Some feel that there is no perfect solution to this problem. If you were to get 93% correct on an exam, that would be considered pretty good. But it cannot be acceptable when it comes to capital punishment.

Imperfect human beings cannot create a perfect system of capital punishment. The moral stakes are simply too high both for the innocent people wasting away on death row and for the society that put them there.

Maybe I am a bit naïve to think that people are inherently good and decent and the thought of executing just one innocent person should turn their stomachs, but unfortunately some will accept that those "unfortunate few" are the price we pay for keeping us safe from the worst of the worst.

Although there has not been one study to my knowledge that shows that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jazzy1 said:


> I totally agree with you. Some feel that there is no perfect solution to this problem. If you were to get 93% correct on an exam, that would be considered pretty good. But it cannot be acceptable when it comes to capital punishment.
> 
> Imperfect human beings cannot create a perfect system of capital punishment. The moral stakes are simply too high both for the innocent people wasting away on death row and for the society that put them there.
> 
> ...


I don't know if there is or not, but there is certainly a correlation between the increase in crime post-1960s and the decline in the use of capital punishment and no correlation in the reduction of crime with gun bans. Perhaps both sides of the political aisle are afraid to find out the truth?


----------

