![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
feste_sylvainHere's another decision where, no matter what, everybody should say "Ew!".
By a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States declared that the death penalty is cruel and unusual in cases of child rape where the victim was not killed.
I'm against the death penalty in general, even tho I support the use of force majeur in self-defense. In the former case, someone is already caught, tried, and locked up; in the latter, imminent harm is about to happen. There is need in the latter case, but not the former.
Plus, of course, I don't like authorizing governments to kill people.
There is also the squidgy nature of a lot of cases where the jury may find "no reasonable doubt" to convict someone and imprison them, but not be willing to find "no reasonable doubt" to kill them. In many death penalty cases, juries have waffled on convicting at all because the particulars of the case may not be sufficiently certain for a sentence with no practical ability to appeal.
And then, in this case, there's the position of victims' rights groups:
So there are practical and principled reasons for supporting this decision, which goes against the gut-reaction of many of us.
Me included.
Sometimes, I have to overrule my own gut.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, explicitly stating that the death penalty, based on current evolving standards, should be reserved for crimes that take the life of the victim. He was joined by Senior Justice John Paul Stevens and Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Dissenting were Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, and Junior Justice Samuel Alito, whose dissent included a rant including a list of other crimes where the state would not be allowed to kill the defendant, and doesn't seem worth the paper it was written on.
By a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States declared that the death penalty is cruel and unusual in cases of child rape where the victim was not killed.
I'm against the death penalty in general, even tho I support the use of force majeur in self-defense. In the former case, someone is already caught, tried, and locked up; in the latter, imminent harm is about to happen. There is need in the latter case, but not the former.
Plus, of course, I don't like authorizing governments to kill people.
There is also the squidgy nature of a lot of cases where the jury may find "no reasonable doubt" to convict someone and imprison them, but not be willing to find "no reasonable doubt" to kill them. In many death penalty cases, juries have waffled on convicting at all because the particulars of the case may not be sufficiently certain for a sentence with no practical ability to appeal.
And then, in this case, there's the position of victims' rights groups:
"If the offenders know that they don't face any greater risk for killing the victim then they do for raping the victim, what is their incentive for letting the victim live?" said Judy Benitez, who is the executive director for the Louisiana Foundation Against Sexual Assault.
Some victims of child rape also support Kennedy. Jody Plauche, now 35, who was raped and kidnapped as a child, says that the possibility of the death penalty adds too much burden to the child.
"A child who's been raped has been through enough," he said.
He points out that the offenders are usually a trusted adult and he worries the children will feel "extra trauma" if they know that the offender might die if the child reports the crime.
So there are practical and principled reasons for supporting this decision, which goes against the gut-reaction of many of us.
Me included.
Sometimes, I have to overrule my own gut.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, explicitly stating that the death penalty, based on current evolving standards, should be reserved for crimes that take the life of the victim. He was joined by Senior Justice John Paul Stevens and Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Dissenting were Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, and Junior Justice Samuel Alito, whose dissent included a rant including a list of other crimes where the state would not be allowed to kill the defendant, and doesn't seem worth the paper it was written on.
