Protection For Monsters

Despite the ruling by the Supreme Court yesterday banning the death penalty for child rapists, state politicians are vowing to fight on. It is unlikely they will succeed.

"Anybody in the country who cares about children should be outraged that we have a Supreme Court that would issue a decision like this," said Alabama Attorney General Troy King, a Republican. The justices, he said, are "creating a situation where the country is a less safe place to grow up."

The court's 5-4 decision Wednesday derailed the efforts of nearly a dozen states supporting the right to kill those convicted of raping a child — and said execution was confined to attacks that take a life and to other crimes including treason and espionage.

At issue before the high court was a Louisiana case involving Patrick Kennedy, sentenced to die for raping his 8-year-old daughter in her bed, an assault so severe she required surgery.

Michelle Malkin has the description of the damage done to the victim during the rape in question. It is not for the weak of stomach. The Supreme Court has effectively given protection to monsters.

Consider what the makeup of the Supreme Court will be like if a leftist appoints the justices. Remember this in November, folks.

This entry was posted in Legal. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Protection For Monsters

  1. Pingback: US Supreme Court Should be Ashamed … 5-4 Vote Child Rapists Can’t be Executed | Scared Monkeys

  2. Bob says:

    Just put these monsters in the general prison population and let nature take its course.

  3. Bill Franklin says:

    Should we kill drug dealers who sell drugs to kids? What about a pharmaceutical company that sells a drug that kills children and it turns out executives deliberately hid the data. Kill those executives?

    Doesn’t it strike you as odd that most other civilized countries have banned the death penalty? The US is ranked in the top 5 countries that execute its citizens, right along with: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. Iraq almost made it – They’re #6. That’s interesting company.

    Looking forward to your article on Bush taking North Korea off the terror watchlist. It’s so hard to spin the administration’s line when they keep changing it! Or maybe that Obamaesque *diplomacy* actually produced results.

  4. Foxfier says:

    Bill– We should kill drug dealers who hold down children and inject them with heroin.

  5. Andy says:

    Personally, I am opposed to the death penalty.  I would lock them all up in tiny little cells for 23 or so hours a day.  Give them one hour to leave their cell to stand around outside (maybe longer in the rain and snow) and then back in again.  Meals and showers in the cell.  You mess up your cell in a fit of pique, you can learn to sleep on the floor. No human contact, no tv,  no gym.  I would let them read whatever they wanted though to pass the time.  Perhaps even put a big picture of thier victim(s) on their wall so that they remember exactly why they are there. Even their families would forget about them, no more commencement speeches for you Mumia.
    That said, the biggest problem with the jurisprudence on the death penalty are the so-called ‘evolving standards of decency’.  The ruling would be undermined if every state put on its books the death penalty for child rapists.  It would then seem that the evolving standard was not one in the US.  Also, since every state had it, the standard of cruel and unusual would not be met, since the penalty would no longer be unusual.  Since it is OUR Constitution not Europe’s, what would Kennedy do then?  I am not sure how the case would come back before the Supreme Court again, but there would have to be a way.

  6. martian says:

    Bill, please allow me to address your questions:
     
    1. Should we kill drug dealers who sell drugs to kids? No, not if the sale is the only crime involved. The simple sale does not, necessarily, lead to death or permanent physical or mental harm to the buyer. Nor is the seller forcing the buyer to do anything. In this case, both are committing a crime and there is no innocent victim.
     
    2. What about a pharmaceutical company that sells a drug that kills children and it turns out executives deliberately hid the data. Kill those executives? Yes, absolutely. If it can be proved that the executives knew that some portion of the children taking the drug would die and deliberately hid the data, they should be executed for a couple of reasons. First, the act of marketing a drug that they know will cause deaths is an act of  depraved indifference for human life. Second, the fact that they know there will be multiple deaths makes them mass murderers whether they had any actual physical contact with the victims or not – just as much so as the person who laced Tylenol with poison a few years ago, not knowing who the victims would be. Third, if there is more than one (as implied by your use of the plural) you now have a criminal conspiracy to commit mass murder – another separate and serious charge in itself. Fourth, the murders would be committed during the commission of other multiple felonies – the conspiracy, the act of concealing the data from the FDA, etc. Such a heinous collection of multiple crimes surely deserves the death penalty if anything does.
    3. Doesn’t it strike you as odd that most other civilized countries have banned the death penalty?  No, it doesn’t. Not when you take into account that the countries to which you are referring are run by liberals like you, or were when they banned capital punishment.  Nor does your list of other countries that have capital punishment take into account the severity and nature for which that penalty is imposed in those countries. In the other top four listed, there are many crimes for which the death penalty can be imposed, some which are relatively minor – blasphemy, a third offense of theft, adultery, etc. Whereas in the US the death penalty is only imposed for the most severe crimes and then oly with aggravating circumstances – aggravated murder or murder of a Police Officer or Corrections Officer, or (as we saw in this decision before the SCOTUS gave their stupid ruling) aggravated rape of a child under 13 or an adult over the age of 65. I’m surprised a liberal like you doesn’t recognize the "nuances" involved here!

  7. martian says:

    Oh, Bill, how thoughtless of me, I forgot to respond to the following:
     
    Looking forward to your article on Bush taking North Korea off the terror watchlist. It’s so hard to spin the administration’s line when they keep changing it! Or maybe that Obamaesque *diplomacy* actually produced results.
    I love it when you liberals try to re-write history. The stance of the Bush Administration on Korea doesn’t need any "spin". The simple fact is that the position of the President has always been that the solution to the North Korean problem would be diplomatic and there would be no change until the North Koreans gave up their nuclear weapons program. Guess what? They have! Or at least they are moving in that direction. Just today the North Koreans blew up  the cooling tower at their main nuclear reactor. In case you don’t know much about nuclear reactors, you cannot run one without the physical ability to cool the reactor, at least not if you want to live. Further, you can’t produce weapons grade plutonium without the reactor. There is a lot more to do in setting up verification procedures and addressing their uranium enrichment process but the president has reacted to the North Koreans’ gesture with a gesture of our own – probationally they are being removed from the terror watchlist, they can go right back if they don’t keep their word. That’s how diplomacy works. There is not the least little thing that’s "Obamaesque" about this diplomacy. In fact, the Obamessiah has never in his entire career been involved in any diplomatic matter in any way. That’s one of the problems with him – he has no experience and no training whatsoever in diplomacy or foriegn affairs and he apparently thinks he knows it all – that’s just plain scary.

  8. crosspatch says:

    Well, if you can’t execute them, how about "life in a chemically induced coma".  Knock them out, plug in an IV, add a respirator, chill their body temperature down, and hope the power doesn’t go out.  The descriptions of some of those rapes of children are absolutely horrible.  If the state can’t execute them, then I suppose it won’t be long before the community starts doing it themselves.

Comments are closed.