Rape A Child, Pay With Your LIFE

[Athena]

They're coming around!

Rape a child, pay with your life, Louisiana argues
Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday
By Bill Mears
CNN Supreme Court Producer

ANGOLA, Louisiana (CNN) -- He is not a killer, but the state of Louisiana is determined to execute Patrick Kennedy for his crime.



Patrick Kennedy, 43, is on Louisiana's death row for the rape of his 8-year-old stepdaughter.

The New Orleans native faces that reality as he sits on death row at Louisiana's maximum security prison, the largest prison in the nation. The Louisiana State Penitentiary, or Angola Prison, is the size of Manhattan and surrounded on three sides by the Mississippi River.

Unlike the 3,300 inmates awaiting execution nationwide -- including the 94 other men at Angola -- Kennedy, 43, is a convicted rapist. The victim was his 8-year-old stepdaughter.

For the first time in 44 years, a state is preparing to execute a man for a felony other than murder. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday on whether Louisiana can use capital punishment in child rape cases.

The constitutional question before the justices is whether the death penalty for violent crimes other than homicide constitutes "cruel and unusual" punishment. The high-profile examination of the death penalty also raises anew a national debate over selective prosecution and race.

"A lot of people think there should not be the death penalty [in this case] because the child survives," said Kate Bartholomew, a sex crimes prosecutor in New Orleans. "In my opinion the rape of a child is more heinous and more hideous than a homicide."

Kennedy's appellate attorney, Billy Sothern, argues, "When we look at what it means to be cruel and unusual, this is exactly the kind of thing that raises these serious concerns of the constitutionality of Mr. Kennedy's death sentence."

Kennedy was sentenced to die in 2003 for sexually assaulting his stepdaughter in her bed. The crime occurred in a quiet neighborhood in Harvey, across the big river from New Orleans. Besides severe emotional trauma, Louisiana prosecutors said the attack caused internal injuries and bleeding to the child, requiring extensive surgery.

Full article (worth the read)

____________

A couple of interesting questions:

1.) The last execution for a non-murder offense in LA was in 1964 and, although five other states have laws similar to LAs in this respect, there may be a compelling constitutional argument against killing those who haven't killed. Where do you stand?

2.) If child rapists now know that their crime may earn them the death penalty, they may be less inclined to leave their victim alive. If this is true, is the trade worth it? An increase in child murders for the ability to kill child rapists?

[Nell]

Athena you raised a very valid point in #2 that I had not thought of. When I first read this article I was all for the idea of the death penalty for rape pf a child. But then again you may sadly be right. If the rapist already knows they will get the death penalty either way what is the advantage to leaving a witness alive? It is indeed a very scary and sad catch-22.

[Countess Olenska]

One the other hand it may be a deterrent to someone who is considers a minor a sexual play thing. I have seen convicted drug offenders sentenced harsher than child rapists. You honestly think that 15-29 years for pot makes any sense at all? I can't even begin to tell you how many cases I have seen where the scumbag rapist gets 3-5 years with time served. How can that possibly be justice to a child who will suffer their whole life?

Obviously I am pro death penalty especially in cases where the victim is child. A CHILD!

Our prisons are overloaded as it is. General pop the child predators. Death penalty the new load of twisted fucks and let's call it a day.

[ThreeOnAMeathook]

____________

A couple of interesting questions:

1.) The last execution for a non-murder offense in LA was in 1964 and, although five other states have laws similar to LAs in this respect, there may be a compelling constitutional argument against killing those who haven't killed. Where do you stand?

2.) If child rapists now know that their crime may earn them the death penalty, they may be less inclined to leave their victim alive. If this is true, is the trade worth it? An increase in child murders for the ability to kill child rapists?

:D I feel like I have a homework assignment!

1.) I believe in an eye for an eye (Hammurabi). Its an almost mathematical punishment. 1 = 1. However, he did something so heinous that its looked down upon to the same degree (almost more so) as murder. I've heard of cases of justified murder...but I've never heard of justified rape, not to mention of a child. I'm for his execution.

I see nothing but good coming from his execution. There is something to be said of human life, regardless of the human's actions, but the positives that would come of executing him outweigh the positives to be squeezed from letting him rot in a cell for his whole life.

2.) This is very tough. Its a shame, in some respects, that humans are so primal because in a perfect world, child rape would decrease (or be non-existent)...but since people have this impossibly-deep seated need to fuck, I think it would increase the child rape-murders.

If America wasn't such a pussy, we could enlist the aid of something more fearsome than life in prison and less numbing than the knowledge of inevitable death by execution...[insert worse-than-death scenario here]...but we're so hung up on human rights even when someone carries out an inhuman act.

When someone is sentenced, an aspect of the ruling should be its "humanity factor." If the act is deemed "inhuman," certain human rights should be taken...then comes the big semantic battle though...

Tough situation.

[Athena]

2.) This is very tough. Its a shame, in some respects, that humans are so primal because in a perfect world, child rape would decrease (or be non-existent)...*but since people have this impossibly-deep seated need to fuck, I think it would increase the child rape-murders.

If America wasn't such a pussy, we could enlist the aid of something more fearsome than life in prison and less numbing than the knowledge of inevitable death by execution...[insert worse-than-death scenario here]...but we're so hung up on human rights even when someone carries out an inhuman act.

When someone is sentenced, an aspect of the ruling should be its "humanity factor." If the act is deemed "inhuman," certain human rights should be taken...then comes the big semantic battle though...

Tough situation.

Well, I don't know that it's really about weakness on the part of American policy. There are some good reasons to avoid cruel and unusual punishments. Specifically, in my opinion, because it lends itself to tyranny. If we disregard the Constitution in order to, essentially, torture criminals, what kind of precedence does that set? It's no coincidence that the countries that engage in policy similar to what you're talking about are also countries we'd rather not live in. I'm completely comfortable with the government executing criminals, as it is practical (in theory). But if our government was in the business of openly torturing criminals, I'm not sure how well that would sit with me.

Also, there's really no evidence that torture would deter crime more than death would. For that matter, there's really no evidence that death deters crime more than life in jail. Realistically, the vast majority of criminals commit crime under the belief that they won't get caught, which is why consequences don't tend to be a serious consideration. If consequence is of little consideration, even the most severe consequence will not deter.



*Hot. ;)

[Aena]

The death penalty is unconstitutional as a punishment for the rape of a child, a sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday. The 5-to-4 decision overturned death penalty laws in Louisiana and five other states. The only two men in the country who have been sentenced to death for the crime of child rape, both in Louisiana, will receive new sentences of life without parole.

The court went beyond the question in the case to rule out the death penalty for any individual crime — as opposed to “offenses against the state,” such as treason or espionage — “where the victim’s life was not taken.”

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said there was “a distinction between intentional first-degree murder on the one hand and non-homicide crimes against individual persons,” even such “devastating” crimes as the rape of a child, on the other.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/wa...pagewanted=all