What the child rapist, saved today by Supreme Court liberals, did to his 8-year-old stepdaughter
Anthony Kennedy and the leftists on the Supreme Court ruled this morning that what child rapist Patrick Kennedy did to his 8-year-old stepdaughter is a crime that should not be punishable by death.
The MSM will tiptoe around what child rapist Patrick Kennedy actually did.
I’m reprinting the full description of the crime from Kennedy’s ruling below in the interest of fully informing you all (warning – explicit). Is the death penalty “not a proportional punishment” to this crime? You decide. And the next time liberals wave the “For the children” banner, ask them about L.H.
***
From Kennedy’s majority opinion in Kennedy v. Louisiana, decided June 25, 2008:
…Petitioner’s crime was one that cannot be recounted in these pages in a way sufficient to capture in full the hurt and horror inflicted on his victim or to convey the revulsion society, and the jury that represents it, sought to express by sentencing petitioner to death. At 9:18 a.m. on March 2, 1998, petitioner called 911 to report that his stepdaughter, referred to here as L. H., had been raped.
He told the 911 operator that L. H. had been in the garage while he readied his son for school. Upon hearing loud screaming, petitioner said, he ran outside and found L. H. in the side yard. Two neighborhood boys, petitioner told the operator, had dragged L. H. from the garage to the yard, pushed her down, and raped her. Petitioner claimed he saw one of the boys riding away on a blue 10-speed bicycle.
When police arrived at petitioner’s home between 9:20 and 9:30 a.m., they found L. H. on her bed, wearing a T-shirt and wrapped in a bloody blanket. She was bleeding profusely from the vaginal area. Petitioner told police he had carried her from the yard to the bathtub and then to the bed. Consistent with this explanation, police found a thin line of blood drops in the garage on the way to the house and then up the stairs. Once in the bedroom, petitioner had used a basin of water and a cloth to wipe blood from the victim. This later prevented medical personnel from collecting a reliable DNA sample.
L. H. was transported to the Children’s Hospital. An expert in pediatric forensic medicine testified that L. H.’s injuries were the most severe he had seen from a sexual assault in his four years of practice. A laceration to the left wall of the vagina had separated her cervix from the back of her vagina, causing her rectum to protrude into the vaginal structure. Her entire perineum was torn from the posterior fourchette to the anus. The injuries required emergency surgery.
At the scene of the crime, at the hospital, and in the first weeks that followed, both L. H. and petitioner maintained in their accounts to investigators that L. H. had been raped by two neighborhood boys. One of L. H.’s doctors testified at trial that L. H. told all hospital personnel the same version of the rape, although she reportedly told one family member that petitioner raped her. L. H. was interviewed several days after the rape by a psychologist. The interview was videotaped, lasted three hours over two days, and was introduced into evidence at trial. On the tape one can see that L. H. had difficulty discussing the subject of the rape. She spoke haltingly and with long pauses and frequent movement. Early in the interview, L. H. expressed reservations about the questions being asked:
“I’m going to tell the same story. They just want me to change it. . . . They want me to say my Dad did it. . . . I don’t want to say it. . . . I tell them the same, same story.” Def. Exh. D–7, 01:29:07–:36.
She told the psychologist that she had been playing in the garage when a boy came over and asked her about Girl Scout cookies she was selling; and that the boy “pulled [her by the legs to] the backyard,” id., at 01:47:41–:52, where he placed his hand over her mouth, “pulled down [her] shorts,” Def. Exh. D–8, 00:03:11–:12, and raped her, id., at 00:14:39–:40.
Eight days after the crime, and despite L. H.’s insistence that petitioner was not the offender, petitioner was arrested for the rape. The State’s investigation had drawn the accuracy of petitioner and L. H.’s story into question. Though the defense at trial proffered alternative explanations, the case for the prosecution, credited by the jury, was based upon the following evidence: An inspection of the side yard immediately after the assault was inconsistent with a rape having occurred there, the grass having been found mostly undisturbed but for a small patch of coagulated blood. Petitioner said that one of the perpetrators fled the crime scene on a blue 10-speed bicycle but gave inconsistent descriptions of the bicycle’s features, such as its handlebars. Investigators found a bicycle matching petitioner and L. H.’s description in tall grass behind a nearby apartment, and petitioner identified it as the bicycle one of the perpetrators was riding. Yet its tires were flat, it did not have gears, and it was covered in spider webs. In addition police found blood on the underside of L. H.’s mattress. This convinced them the rape took place in her bedroom, not outside the house.
Police also found that petitioner made two telephone calls on the morning of the rape. Sometime before 6:15 a.m., petitioner called his employer and left a message that he was unavailable to work that day. Petitioner called back between 6:30 and 7:30 a.m. to ask a colleague how to get blood out of a white carpet because his daughter had “ ‘just become a young lady.’ ” Brief for Respondent 12.
At 7:37 a.m., petitioner called B & B Carpet Cleaning and requested urgent assistance in removing bloodstains from a carpet. Petitioner did not call 911 until about an hour and a half later.
About a month after petitioner’s arrest L. H. was removed from the custody of her mother, who had maintained until that point that petitioner was not involved in the rape. On June 22, 1998, L. H. was returned home and told her mother for the first time that petitioner had raped her. And on December 16, 1999, about 21 months after the rape, L. H. recorded her accusation in a videotaped interview with the Child Advocacy Center.
The State charged petitioner with aggravated rape of a child under La. Stat. Ann. §14:42 (West 1997 and Supp. 1998) and sought the death penalty. At all times relevant to petitioner’s case, the statute provided:
“A. Aggravated rape is a rape committed . . . where the anal or vaginal sexual intercourse is deemed to be without lawful consent of the victim because it is committed under any one or more of the following circumstances:
. . . . .
“(4) When the victim is under the age of twelve years. Lack of knowledge of the victim’s age shall not be a defense.
. . . . .
“D. Whoever commits the crime of aggravated rape shall be punished by life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.
“(1) However, if the victim was under the age of twelve years, as provided by Paragraph A(4) of this Section:
“(a) And if the district attorney seeks a capital verdict, the offender shall be punished by death or life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence, in accordance with the determination of the jury.”
(Since petitioner was convicted and sentenced, the statute has been amended to include oral intercourse within the definition of aggravated rape and to increase the age of the victim from 12 to 13. See La. Stat. Ann. §14:42 (West Supp. 2007).)
Aggravating circumstances are set forth in La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 905.4 (West 1997 Supp.). In pertinent part and at all times relevant to petitioner’s case, the provision stated:
“A. The following shall be considered aggravating circumstances:
“(1) The offender was engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of aggravated rape, forcible rape, aggravated kidnapping, second degree kidnapping, aggravated burglary, aggravated arson, aggravated escape, assault by drive-by shooting, armed robbery, first degree robbery, or simple robbery.
. . . . .
“(10) The victim was under the age of twelve years or sixty-five years of age or older.”
The trial began in August 2003. L. H. was then 13 years old. She testified that she “ ‘woke up one morning and Patrick was on top of [her].’ ” She remembered petitioner bringing her “[a] cup of orange juice and pills chopped up in it” after the rape and overhearing him on the telephone saying she had become a “young lady.” 2005–1981, pp. 12, 15, 16 (La. 5/22/07), 957 So. 2d 757, 767, 769, 770. L. H. acknowledged that she had accused two neighborhood boys but testified petitioner told her to say this and that it was untrue. Id., at 769.
The jury having found petitioner guilty of aggravated rape, the penalty phase ensued. The State presented the testimony of S. L., who is the cousin and goddaughter of petitioner’s ex-wife. S. L. testified that petitioner sexually
abused her three times when she was eight years old and that the last time involved sexual intercourse. Id., at 772. She did not tell anyone until two years later and did not pursue legal action.
The jury unanimously determined that petitioner should be sentenced to death…
***
Reax from Andrew McCarthy:
Even if you agree with their bottom line, do Justice Kennedy and the justices in Kennedy v. Louisiana have a clue about how offensive it is to write this line in rationalizing why a man who has savagely raped his eight-year-old step-daughter should not be executed by the humane process of lethal objection:
“Evolving standards of decency must embrace and express respect for the dignity of the person[.]”
And as for their “proportional” punishment argue, I think it’s silly on its face — read the almost unreadable (because it’s so excruciating) account of the rape and ask yourself whether it is really “disproportionate” to administer lethal-objection execution to a man who committed this type of barbaric a sexual assault on a child.
But let’s give him that one for argument’s sake. The Eighth Amendment talks about punishment that is cruel. First, punishment does not become cruel just because it’s disproportionate. And second, are we really striving here for proportionality? If a crime is cruel — as it clearly was in this case — wouldn’t a proportionate punishment also have to be cruel, and thus in violation of the Eighth Amendment?
Allahpundit sheds light on the liberal majority’s charade of Divining the National Ethos.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Macsmind
- Supreme Court Legislates Ban on Executions for Child Rapist | OpenMarket.org
- Supreme Court Legislates Ban on Executions for Child Rapist | OpenMarket.org
- Right Voices » Blog Archive » SCOTUS: The Supreme Court has struck down a Louisiana law that allows the execution of people convicted of a raping a child
- Yet Another Candidate For Pancreatic Cancer « The Urban Grind
- How does this POS not deseve the death penalty? | I'm Surrounded By Idiots
- SCOTUS: Child Rapists are Protected from the Death Penalty « Axis of Right
- Rhymes With Right
- What sort of man grows up to be a Democrat? Why this sort of man! Rep. James H. Fagan of the Massachusetts House of Representatives. Declares he will rip apart under age Rape Victims…Great News! Apocalypse just around the corner! | Pierre Legrand's
- Webloggin - Blog Archive » SCOTUS Agenda vs Deserving of Execution
- Balloon Juice
- Supreme Court: No Death Penalty for Child Rape : Stop The ACLU
- Sister Toldjah
- Martini Revolution » Only a stark raving mad lunatic or
- UrbanGrounds » Blog Archive » Open Thread for Death Penatly Comments
- Supreme Court overrules on Kennedy c. Louisiana; rules that death penalty cannot be applied for rape of a child. (See update.) « HoodaThunk?
- Pro Cynic
- Ironic Surrealism II
- Ace of Spades HQ
- Supreme Court: "Death Too Harsh for Child Rapists" | The Daily Conservative
- Ravalli County News » Blog Archive » The Supreme Court Protects Child Rapists from the Death Penalty
- It’s days like this I’m sorry I don’t believe in Hell « Buttle’s World
- Why John McCain Must Win, and the Senate Must at Least Shift Towards Republicans « One Guy’s Opinion
- links for 2008-06-26 | FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog
- Blue Crab Boulevard » Protection For Monsters
- Villainous Company
- American Elephant » Blog Archive » The Second Amendment Lives!
- Tel-Chai Nation
- Kennedy v. Louisiana: Justice Kennedy « This Modern Age
- Author of Oklahoma’s Law Giving Death Penalty to Child Rapists Reacts to « Green Country Values
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Supreme Court
Ed Driscoll
» Charges Filed In Kenneth Gladney Case
Riehl World View
» Bet: Ratings Fail - Oprah/Obama Christmas SpecialMudville Gazette
» The five-year planNewsBusters.org
» Oprah To Do Primetime Christmas Special With The ObamasNewsBusters.org
» To Kos, Taliban's Real Crime Is Being Un-PCRiehl World View
» Dowd: Dem Elites Displeased With Obama As Palin Rises
Rusty, you’d better bone up on your Bible study, my friend, because Jesus Christ did certainly advocate the death penalty for those committing offenses against children. Like or not, below are the words of Jesus himself….
Matthew 18:5-7 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
You mean the same Third Reich who followed Hitler’s “Final Solution” to eradicate the group of people who he deemed responsible for giving the world the Ten Commandments and moral law to begin with and was deeply influenced by Nietzsche and Darwin as can be evidenced by his own writings and speeches and actions? Say isnt’s so grumbles?!?
Just to be clear I mean the child rapists need to be hung. The sub-prime court just needs to be recalled, impeached, fired or whatever.
Correction
*say it isn’t so…
From your comments and your emphasis on this particular quote, it doesn’t appear that you even understand what you’re quoting, “lawyer” or not.
The law that these unelected judges overturned was the will of the people.
30, Grumbles is just like every other loser liberal who can only think to call conservatives nazis. They’re so tiresome are they not?
First of all, I was responding to a theological questioning of the morality of capital punishment.
Second, if our Creator has endowed all men with the unalienable right to life (like you quoted), then don’t we also require the Creator’s permission to revoke that right through capital punishment?
You need to finish connecting the pieces… Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, according to the laws and rights laid out by their Creator.
txvet.
I understand it perfectly.
BTW, I am taking no stance on whether or not the SC overturned the will of the people.
All I am saying is that Jefferson recognized that while our rights come from God, the structure created to protect them comes from man.
It is monarchies that believed their right to rule over people was divined from God. Thankfully our forefathers were more enlightened.
terrig,
afternoon to ya. absolutely, i’m getting bored. can we open up registration and get some new and exciting trolls? I’m kidding, just kidding folks.
Herein lies the real battle . . . to replace those liberal cowards on the supreme court.
Put him in jail and the inmates will take care of him. We won’t have to worry about the death penalty as long as what he has done becomes known.
#69:
What is needed is to get 33 State legislatures to petition Congress for an Article V Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution which would never make it past the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.
Personally I’d rather see the death penalty reserved for homicides which display “supreme indifference to human life”.
The ‘perp’ at hand will likely be spending the rest of his life in solitary confinement without any yard or library privileges.
Were I in this miserable excuse for a man’s shoes, I think I’d prefer death to life in prison as a kiddie “skinner”. Even if he survives to the end of the year, it won’t be pleasant. It will be cruel, very cruel, but not all that unusual.
“Sucks to be him”, as they say.
As for the SCOTUS, I find judicial activism to be troubling, to say the least. We need to be extremely conservative in the interpretation of our Constitution, or we will risk an accumulation of unworkable decisions based on the fashion of the time in which they were given. Our kids may not hate us for it, but our grandkids probably will.
I think some people may have misunderstood Grumbles comment. I agree with him. Nazi Germany seized authority to judge immorally by setting themselves up as the alternate religion. When the Nazis replaced crosses with swastikas on church altars… well, lets just say the symbolism is overwhelming!
So let me see if I follow this.
A jury of his peers said he should die
A judge agreed.
An appeals court agreed.
Several appeals courts agreed.
Yet 5 judges contend this process is ‘cruel and unusual?’
Cruel and usual is that this 18 year old young woman now must know that the man who devistated her childhood, if not the rest of her life, is being denied justice because 4 men and a woman feel it’s cruel to put this animal to death.
Rusty, this is the same 5 who decided to ignore the precident of the german spies in WW II to take the animals in Guantanamo and treat them like American citizens.
This is the same 5 who ignored the precident of the first ammendment for McCain Feingold.
Don’t make it seem like you’re cheering on precident. Unless you want to support the precident of Geneva in Guantanamo, and kill them all.
How do we the people start impeachment?
# 57 I refer you to #66′ comment to my post…
and did I say RINO?!!!!
If my favorite; President Reagan- was unwilling to stand strong against the libs in Congress (ie. Kennedy appointment)>>>>how much more “unwilling” will the “AISLE REACHER” be to stand strong for honorable appointees?
T
I’ve stumbled on a cure for pedophiles.
http://www.cafepress.com/freeshots
“Evolving standards of decency must embrace and express respect for the dignity of the person[.]”
Ok…What about the dignity of the little girl who was raped? Where is the court’s concern over that?
The data above does not seem to bear out the urban legend that rapists are “getting taken care of in prison.” ie. killed
It seems to indicate that the rate of murders inside prisons are dropping.
This snapshot came from the DOJ website.
The amendment says “cruel AND Unusual”, not and/or. (I tell this to people loosing weight- it’s diet AND exercise…) There isn’t the option to be cruel or unusual. It’s cruel AND, as in “in addition to” unusual punishment.
First, the death penalty, in the manner it is administered today is not cruel. I mean, they STERILIZE the needle, for crying out loud.
Second, the penalty of death for such a crime is not unusual. It was statute. If it were unusual, my guess would be that this doesn’t happen often enough to call it usual (thank God).
Therefore, I fail to even grasp where the SCOTUS is coming from.
However, if we want to talk about a punishment that is proportionate to the crime, I’m all for that. I would love this guy to be raped and tortured to the point of needing emergency surgery- and we can all make light of it and say that he became a young lady.
But that would be cruel and unusual. (But he deserves it.)
So here we have an example of them legislating from the bench.
Which leads me to wonder- of all the republicans to pick the nominee for the courts- when will they pick a CONSERVATIVE for the courts?
This was the same set of “Robed” nitwits that came up with the GITMO Habeas decision??
What is really sad is that even if one of these geriatric idiots were to die there is no way that Bush would be allowed a new Justice.
Our forefathers were enlightened enough to worry about being ruled by an oligarchy of unelected judges.
Therefore the continuing struggle to keep some of the more power hungry and unscrupulous of those men, otherwise known as socialists, Marxists, liberals, or progressives from distorting the Constitution to reinstitute a non-representative ruling class.
What raised my eyebrow about the decision, was the nearsighted-ness. The court has set a precedent, that if a majority of the states have a law, then that law is sound enough for all of the states. Not that precedent matters to this court, as we’ve just recently seen, but still. For future courts, if certain past decisions were to be overturned and the the legislation given back to the state houses, things could get very interesting.
30,
Good afternoon to you too! I know what you mean.
Christian Soldier
Reagan tried to get a real Constitutionalist on the bench, and when it became clear the Dem Senate would not approve one, he did the best he could. He knew Kennedy wasn’t a strict constructionist, but he hoped he would rule correctly at least some of the time.
I don’t think one can blame Reagan for getting the best he could.
#19 Rusty Coker precedent is really not a correct one for Kennedy to have used. Coker raped an adult woman. Even in dissent Alito explains this you idiot!
What states should do is NOT make it a crime to murder a convicted child rapist.
Bad decision, but we can (if we even care to) imagine that this man is already someone’s “wife” in prison. Problem is that this sick you-know-what enjoys violence.
There is no justice on earth for this little girl, be this animal dead or alive.
Thank God that, through Christ, all things are made new again.
When is at least one politician going to grow a set and petition for impeachment proceedings against the 5 traitors on the court? These bastards are left of the 9th circuit in San Fransicko.
So…here’s the liberal mindset:
It’s OK to kill an innocent, unborn life conceived by rape (or other means). It’s not OK to kill a convicted child rapist.
Spare the person who’s had an opportunity to do great things for humanity, and instead committed atrocities against humanity; and kill the innocent life who’s had no opportunity to do great things for humanity.
Got it.
Lee Hazel
Yup, the Senate would not act before November, on the chance that Obama might win.
Bush got two good justices onto the court (after one bad call on Miers was stopped) when he had a Republican Senate.
Going back to Bork and Bader-Ginsburg, a Dem Senate will set an ideological litmus test, a Republican Senate, even after Bork, seems intent on following the tradition of the Senate, and show great deference to the President.
It sounds good in principle, but since the Democrats aren’t playing by the same rules, it turns into a screw job.
Ok. Enough with the cost of executing someone.
Why is it there is no talk of how much the friggin’ welfare state costs us? How much do the more than 1 million abortions cost?
Oh that’s right–the government will tell us what to do with our money. We can’t decide we’d like to pool it together & buy some potassium chloride.
The 5 activists should be impeached, really, it is the only check left on an out of control judiciary.
Of course, a Dem Congress will never vote articles of impeachment, and if Bill Clinton wasn’t convicted in the Senate after lying to a grand jury and asking subordinates to perjure themselves, and Congressman Jefferson hasn’t been removed, well, no liberal ever need fear impeachment again.
I googled him. You should see the size of this monster.
#9:
Why? He proudly supported at least two of the majority.
What needs to happen is legislation needs to be changed by congress to include children under 12 of these types crimes under death penalty legislation. But, considering that Kennedy chose to ignore MCA 2006 new legislation on this issue would probably be ignored.
As we all know these people that commit such heinous acts can’t be rehabilitated the stats are low that are. They usually re-offend and if they didn’t kill the 1st time they do when they are let loose so the 2nd time there are no witnesses.
Hopefully justice will be done in prison when they let him back in gen pop they hate child predators!
#6:
Thankfully, our Constitution is the law of the land and not the bible.
Just after finishing reading this post, I looked at the recent headlines on foxnews.com and saw this… “Dr. Ahmad al-Mu’bi is a respected Saudi marriage official who says that Islamic law has no problem with child brides — even as young as 1.”
Sick
Souter and Kennedy?
Not to make your argument for you, but I’d guess with, IIRC, 94 Senate votes for Ginsberg, he probably voted for the ACLU abortion lawyer as well.
#136:
No. Bader-Ginsberg is one and I can’t remember the other one. Souter perhaps. He was boasting about it the other day.
Put Patrick Kennedy in with the General Population. Give him a mean cellmate named “Bubba” with a big (anatomical feature), tattoo some breasts on Patrick’s back and let Bubba do to Patrick something close to what Patrick did to LH – tear his rectum from his colon.
How’s that for “proportional” punushment, Justice Kennedy?? Personally, it suits me just fine!!
(sorry if i was too graphic!! Can you tell this infuriates me?)
96 votes for Ginsburg
Including McCain.
But Souter is/was a closet case. Nobody, especially GWB, knew he was what he was.
And Kennedy was a third choice, a known moderate, sent up after the Senate and the DWI Killer made it clear they would never confirm a real constitutionalist.
#127 TomB…Thank you from all of us -pro-lifers—great post!!!!!
CS-Lutherans For Life
– Michelle Malkin
If by proportional you mean a life for a life, then no. This girl still has her life, although she’ll have a terrible burden to carry through the rest of it.
I’d suggest that instead of the death penalty, individuals like this be put in general population. That would save our great nation the cost of going through the endless appeals process. It would also allow the other inmates to perform a service to society.
From everything I’ve heard, they don’t put them in general population. We pay extra so they can have private facilities.
The Supreme Court over ruled a State law. They hadn’t the right to do that. They stretched the 8th ammendment to do so.This is getting to be a habit with these five (justices?).
Our States have the right to make their laws, according to the constitution.But these justices want to take that away from them, and judge according to their views. they seem to want to make laws from the bench, like the 9th circuit in California. Don’t follew the constitution, just make it up as you go along.
Or as they said (these five) we should go according to what they are doing in Europe.
We better be on guard.
Yashmak you read my mind. Inmates hate child rapists.
OOps typo Should read follow not follew.
McCain did vote for confirming Bork.
The six RINOs who voted against Bork, and there are no surprises
And for clarification, I’m not opposed to the death penalty. I never knew until today that it could be applied in cases where the victim of the crime wasn’t killed.
On an emotional level, I’d be quicker to applaud the execution of someone like this, than your run of the mill murderer. But that’s an emotional response. If we’re really interested in talking proportional response. . .well this guy didn’t take anyone’s life. As a result, I’m a bit conflicted.
This Kennedy POS is a murder/rapist…kill the bastard, slowly.
Every rapists kills apart of the victim.
#142 child molesters are usually put in with gen pop. He will be taken out of death row and most likely put back in with gen pop unless he is committed to a hospital.
Mabury V. Madison was one of the worst things that ever happened to this republic. Kennedy’s tortured logic in the majority’s ruling on this case boils down to, “Because we said so.”
I’m well past anger with a judiciary in this country which sets themselves above the Constitution and the people.
Of course they had a right to do so. The ruling is in line with past precedent set in Coker which stated that one must take a life to lose a life. Just because children are more easily victimized doesn’t change that.
If anything, the Coker case would have been a lot more persuasive considering the perp had escaped from a life sentence to rape a woman and commit armed robbery.
The problem is this POS won’t be in genpop for his own “protection”. Hopefully someone or someones find a way to take this guy out.
And then you have this idiot from Rusty’s home state of Massachusetts – a Democrat – who said:
“”I’m gonna rip them apart,” Fagan said of young victims during his testimony on the bill. “I’m going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined, that when they’re 8 years old, they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep; when they’re 19 years old, they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody.””
That’s right, this POS is talking about children who are victims of rape.
Up until the liberals took over the court under Roosevelt and thereafter, the death penalty applied to a much wider range of crimes – treason and rape among others. Prior to WWII nobody in the whole country would have had any qualms about hanging this guy.
# 143 Tanya– you are right on!..
John Jay – the first Chief Justice of the SCOTUS – left that position because it was the least powerful of the three branches-he wanted to do more for his state and chose to run for Congress…
The SCOTUS became more and more powerful because the other two branches -wanting to keep their “jobs” by giving our $$$ to buy votes and maintaining their “life-time job security”- ALLOWED the SCOTUS to take the heat for difficult decisions.. (SCOTUS is not elected by the people so they’re safe!)…
I’ve had ENOUGH of “Waffling Weanies”…
My thoughts are along the same lines as TanyaB. Isn’t it up to the states to decide what they think is reasonable? Even the SCOTUS decision that most of us despise, Roe v Wade, says that abortion is a state decision. Why can’t the severity of sentences also be a state issue? The states are currently left to decide on gay marriage as well as a host of other issues. States can decide their own age of consent. Why can’t they be left alone to decide to off some piece of human waste like a child rapist?
#151 Rusty why do you keep using Coker it is the WRONG decision to use in this case. Read Alito’s dissent. Did you read the 64 page document?
And did I see someone wrote you were an attorney? What cracker jacks box did you graduate from?
I’m continually disappointed by the Left’s inability to handle context in some of the discussions on this site:
#61 rusty said:
In fairness to MM, don’t you think her book, “Unhinged” would be twice as voluminous if she was forced to include leftist comments as innocuous, “Get a rope,” or “Get 5 ropes?”
If diaphanous #1 or PAUL TROMMER #3 showed a history of exhibiting a dangerous animus toward those they oppose (that exceeded anything you can regularly hear at Fenway Park or Yankee Stadium) then I might agree with you. But to equate these two generic battle cries with, say, this from Huffington Post:
…is a bit unfair.
Our political sensibilities may differ on some subjects than others, but context matters when accusing someone of playing “dirty pool.”
#23 chap said:
I can’t speak for “some other conservative,” but it would be a disservice to Ann Coulter if you failed to explain that the majority of her “over the top” humor is based upon leftist precedent. Example: her “We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens’ creme brulee,” comment was a satirical hat tip (tweek) to liberal columnist Julianne Malveaux’s “I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early, like many black men do, of heart disease. Well, that’s how I feel. He is an absolutely reprehensible person,” comment regarding Justice Clarence Thomas nearly ten years prior.
Again, in the arena of moral relativism, context matters.
“..there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape. ”
What? This was actually said by a US Supreme Court Justice? Can he explain what his precious NATIONAL consensus has to do with the rights of ONE state?
This man’s a lunatic.
– txvet2
You’re right of course. I was referring to law in the last 30 or 40 years; a more relevant time frame. After all, it’s not prior to WWII anymore. In this case, I’m not sure it’d be better if it were.
And more to the point, what does that have to do with constitutionality?
And yet another damn 5/4 decision.
Not necessarily, not today. And we have “Eight is Too Late” Ruth Bader Ginsburg who could use an altered drink or two. To a large degree these are people who think child rape is no big thing; the trauma only comes from hysterical reactions by the parents.
Pass the rat poison.
Thank God for prison justice.
Yashmak- I see your point- only because I’m not liberal and try to think logically!
However, these guys talked about cruel and unusual, not necessarily proportionate. And I don’t think it’s fair for them to use that arguement…you have people spending MANY years in prison for growing pot, then people can get out of prison in less than five for rape and torture. So our system is far from proportionate. I think they shouldn’t even be allowed that.
Furthermore, their job is to interpret the constitution, not determine a punishment should be proportionate to a crime. That is the job of a legislator, not a judge.
If they used the proportion arguement, I wonder what they would deem as proportionate? (I don’t really want to know) But the fact of the matter is the constitutional amendment says cruel AND unusual and the death penalty for this kind of crime is not cruel AND unusual.
The society that hasn’t the ability to judge and hold itself accountable for its actions dooms itself to imploding under its own immorality. Our own citizens drive/walk by fellow citizens who’ve been hit by cars and small children whose own parents are kicking/stomping their life out of them. And now when we bring a child rapist to trial, we cannot punish in a manner for which a jury of his peers has deemed appropriate?
So, I guess this is the “evolution of society,” yes? So, we are to remove all societal and moral bounds, any hint of the traditions of old for the sake of a more “open” and “less hurtful” society? Is this “Enlightenment?” Is this what we call “returning to our State of Nature?” Please, some liberal, any liberal, answer these questions for me.
The Constitution hasn’t changed since then, just the Supreme Court. The law, despite what Chapoutier claims, is (or is intended to be) essentially based on precedent, unless changed by a legislature. If it isn’t, it becomes arbitrary spur of the moment judgements based on the fashion of the moment and therefore no more law than a vigilante lynch mob. IMHO, of course.
OT
I suppose Rush Limbaugh has enough audience that stations can carry him and an equal time anti-Limbaugh with no ratings and stay profitable, but when Obama becomes President, say goodbye to Savage, Levin, Ingraham and Hewitt.
Pelosi says Dem caucus is interested in restoring the ‘Fairness Doctrine’.
Um, that’s the precedent for deciding if something is in fact unusual. There was no national consensus, partially (as Alito pointed out) because most states knew that the law would be overturned because of Coker.
It’s disgusting & absolutely heartbreaking.
My heart goes out to victims of these crimes.
There is not enough done to the perpetrators who hurt kids like this.
Heartbreaking…. it’s just not right
Rusty you’re an idiot!
That has got to be the most disgusting thing I have ever read.
I hope the day he arrives in prison the guards let the biggest baddest inmate know who he is!
First trip to the shower and some blunt force trauma to the head should fix this mess!
Why? That’s exactly what Kennedy’s majority opinion and Alito’s dissent say. National consensus is the predecent to determine unusual punishment. Alito and Kennedy disagreed, but that was still the crux of the argument.
What’s your problem, man?
Speaking of child rape, check out this moron from my home state. Let’s hope he gets impeached.
Oh, now that’s sure to advance the debate.
The overall purpose of this Supreme Court decision is to gradually move the US toward the European model of justice. Imagine for a moment that there is no death penalty and that even the most vile of mass murderers or serial killers must be released after a 15 year prison sentence. This is the direction the liberals would take us. A direction in which the innocent victims are further victimized by an unjust justice system. Elect Obama and this type of disgrace will be perpetuated.
Rusty you haven’t a clue!
National Consensus rationale is shaky in this country it is an International Law Precedent used by these 5 justices that by the way use to often in our courts!
Sandra Day O’Connor was a big international Law decider and we see the mess she made!
Oh and using National Consensus leaves it open to be challenged.
The liberal SCOTUS majority is in rebellion against the United States, ignores its constitution and issues rules for the people by judicial fiat. They are lawless and consult only their own all-knowing and all-feeling hearts.
The Joint Chiefs and other senior military officers need to be quietly polled to determine where they stand. I do not propose that they initiate a rebellion; I propose that they block one by the black-robe conspirators.
When the nature of this crime hits the general prison population, then street justice will be enacted and nobody will care. The Supreme Court is so detached from reality that they do not understand that this decision actually undermines rather than supports the rule of law.
Unfortunately, our appeals process is not exactly good for finding the things we need to know to morally execute someone. Our appeals process is almost always procedural, not substantive. Appeals cases reviewing actual facts (i.e. did the perp actually do the crime) are extremely rare. What we need is a more European-style appeal for death penalty cases, where they are oriented towards truth-seeking, where they make sure the perp did the dirty deed instead of making sure the lawyers and judges followed the rules.
As a related note, the “expense” of appealing cases should not be an issue: we spend trillions on immoral, unconstiutional stuff (welfare, medicare, SS) and let the judicial system (a basic responsability of a government) go underfunded and under staffed. Docket times are measured in years for many cases, and months for criminal trials; that’s ridiculous. We need more judges and more courthouses.
As for the “proportionality” arguement, that’s a complete crock and total double-think. If we truly valued proportionality, we’d tie up this sick creep and let a … well, you get the idea, the same thing that he did would happen to him. However, what we are *ACTUALLY* trying to achieve is to punish the severity of the crime. The only way that Kennedy et al can say that death is not proportional for child rape is to say that it isn’t really that bad. Uh huh. Such a judgement demonstrates a moral depravity and philosophical deficit on J. Kennedy’s part so large as to make him unfit for any sort of leadership position in a just society.
#162 Arizona said:
Indeed it was. Coulter revels in throwing the nastiness of the left (in this example, Julianne Malveaux) right back at them, and then watching them cry foul.
Who was she channeling when she made her “Impeach or assassinate” reference to Bill Clinton?
Against 12% of the US that passed this law despite the warnings of Coker. Let’s not treat this case like more than it is. The death penalty laws were expected to be overturned based on past precedent.
Funny, even inmates believe in the death penalty – let’s hope they exercise in this situation.
#159:
We should somehow organize a large group to stage a mock funeral for the 10th amendment in front of the Supreme Court.
#182 Rusty why do you continue to use Ckoer v Georgia it was the WRONG precedent to use in this decision.
Please read the 64 pg decision actually just read the dissent.
It doesn’t speak to the constitutionality of the 8th when regarding a child!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rusty,
No matter how you dress it up, you are just another anti-democratic liberal who supports having your own policy preferences creatively discovered in the constitution. You too, are an arrogant, all-knowing enemy of the people and of democracy.
rusty said:
That’s unreal. Unless other State’s aren’t receiving their due scrutiny, it seems to me that MA and VT, in particular, have some real political speed bumps in the way of enacting protection against child predators.
Could we get someone to backhand Kennedy please !!!!!
sclawstudent, Thank You!
“not a proportional punishment”
L. H. was transported to the Children’s Hospital. An expert in pediatric forensic medicine testified that L. H.’s injuries were the most severe he had seen from a sexual assault in his four years of practice. A laceration to the left wall of the vagina had separated her cervix from the back of her vagina, causing her rectum to protrude into the vaginal structure. Her entire perineum was torn from the posterior fourchette to the anus. The injuries required emergency surgery.
OK then…I can imagine a proportional punishment…
I’m quite sure that “Justice” Kennedy would find it proportional but perhaps every bit as cruel as the treatment that the girl recieved at the tender mercies of the petitioner but fully proportional.
“Justice” Kennedy does not have to bear the memories of that brutal act for the rest of his life, that poor young lady will.
Proportionality is BS pure and simple.
For all of You Sympathisers of the Petitioners Rights, I am an Old Testament guy and have no such sympathy for the Baby Raper.
Just for the record, this is a Republic
with elected representation.
Read the US Constitution please, as written, not as interpreted. It is in English, not Latin, Spanish, Russian, German, Ebonics or Chinese.
#181 chap said:
I’m not familiar with that one, but I’m sure a little research will find the answer. In the same regard, I was never positive on the precedent for her “blowing up the NY Times building” comment, but I am sure that it was in relation to some on the left who thought that “blowing up the Pentagon” would ultimately save more lives in the late 1960s.
My larger point is, Coulter loves to re-wrap existing commentary and behavior by the left into current context, and then she really loves to laugh when the same left cries foul at the same commentary and behavior, only wrapped in different clothing.
Like President Bush, she rarely defends her strategy, thus leaving herself open to ridicule…but I have a feeling that this is her larger strategy of “controversy” that ultimately leads to more books sold.
I won’t be surprised if Ann Coulter’s final epitaph reads, “If the shoe fits…”
-txvet2
Perhaps, but I think (also IMHO) that more than just the Supreme Court has changed. Our society has changed tremendously since then. You may argue that it’s for the better, or for the worse (I think it’s some of both). . .
As I said before, I’m conflicted on this particular incident/ruling. . .but if it’s a question of ‘proportional punishment’ as Michelle puts it, then this was a good ruling. The little girl still has her life to live.