SCOTUS Deems Death Penalty for Child Rape Unconstiutional

[lawtonfogle]

It is absolutely mindboggling to me that what you just stated would even have to be said here. To tell you the truth, I getting a little creeped out. Before now, I'd never encountered anyone that viewed young children as sexual vamps.

I'm have no clue as to what vamps are, so for now, I'll pretend you said beings instead. In which case, I must reply that most people don't even consider that an option. Society strongly denies, the religious sector more so than others (no offense to the non-religious, but you do tend to be a bit more open minded... wait, that was a compliment wasn't it...). Anyways, I don't really have the time (in about 40 minutes I'm going to leave and be on vacation for half a week), and as such don't feel like getting into all the theories behind why (and if you think what you have seen here is mindboggling... well prepare to give your brain a heart attack before going into that sector). The end result, regardless which theory you have, has the child as being the same as any non married women was during the Victorian era before the sexual revolution, though these days children garner sexual knowledge quite quickly.

One study found that

One study found that over 80% of youths had participated
in non coital, partnered sexual activities (typically mutual
masturbation and oral-genital contact) before age 16 (Bauserman&Davis,
1996).

That is 15 and younger (also note, those who didn't participate in 'foreplay' but just had sex are not in here, so one could possibly add a percentile or two for them, and also note that this is 12 years old, so it is probably a few percentage higher due to that too). Another study, though I do not know the location of it right now, states that 50% of teenagers have had sexual encounters by the age of 14. While a few years younger do lead to at least one, if not two, standard deviations of percentages, I would not say it is all that far fetch to find 1/20 (two standard deviations) of 12 year olds having has sexual encounters. Of course, this continues downwards to find kids still in elementary school have sex, though there is probably a big jump from there to middle school as six graders are thus introduced to their sexually active 7th and 8th grade peers beyond their own age grouping. As to the study, here is more information on a paper which I quoted from (link points back to a post here on CF with this information):
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=47571185&postcount=49

Sexual interest can often be seen as early as 3 years old (please don't make me go get the quotes for this...), though at the time it is mostly a biological reaction at that time and it isn't for at least year of two later before the connection from this biological need to the social action (since it involves two people, I term in social even if most of us agree it is a private action) of sex. But often these behaviors are caught by the parents and are quickly made shameful, quiting down any naughty behavior (at least any not behind close doors with no one else around), but a few cases it is either not caught or not taught to be shameful. Sometimes, when the parents don't catch it and act negatively to any sexual questioning (what parent wants to tell their 6 year old about the birds and bees?), the child will go find it's own information, leading to the 'I'll show you mine if you show me yours' situations. I would estimate this is very rare at early ages, but quickly increases.

Also factoring in the dropping average age a child is first exposed to inappropriate content (namely though the internet), we see children becoming sexual much quicker than what it is proper to notice. For those who don't have young children these days, it is almost unheard of, as those parents who do catch such behavior hush it up, and pretty much form a 'We will never speak of this again' pact with the parents of any other child(ren) involved. With the negative view of having a sexually active child combined with the possibility for criminal charges (some would blame the parents, others would press charges on one child or another, and yes, it has been done before), what sane parent would speak of it again? Also, I dare say most of these parents hope their child(ren) (yes, such explorations can easily incestuous in nature, and may be more often than not with children who have siblings of the opposite sex and the same age) will forget about it and sooner or later it will be as if it never happened.

Now, that was just the sexual nature of children, I don't feel like (don't have the time to) get into their greedy side, their aggressive side, or about every other expression we ignore/over look when we call them 'little angles'.


My fingers are tired .

 

[Guttermouth]

Are you really kidding me? I can't believe I just read this. Children are pure sexually. Sure they may be brats and misbehave but we are talking sexual assault here..not talking about a tantrum when they don't get their toy at Wal-mart. This type of attack can scar them for life and be with them for the rest of their lives, affecting relationships down the road and family issues as well as maybe having long term psychological effects..Traumatic experiences can cause physical changes in the brain. I really can't believe you just typed what you typed. I am disgusted.

So, if a child is raped, and then grows up scarred, has changes in his brain that lead him to deviancy, deviancy that leads him to rape a child as he was raped, we should kill him.

The problem with you death penalty types is you can't see the forest for th e trees.

 

[oldbetang]

Obama supports rape executions
Posted: 05:20 PM ET
CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says he disagrees with a Supreme Court decision striking down the death penalty for child rapists, telling reporters Wednesday that states should be able to execute people for “heinous” crimes.
“I think that the rape of small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime,” the Illinois senator said. “And if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that does not violate our Constitution.”

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that capital punishment can be applied only to murderers, striking down a death sentence for a Louisiana man convicted of sexually assaulting his 8-year-old stepdaughter.

 

[DeathMagus]

Obama supports rape executions

Well that's a crying shame.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Obama supports rape executions

Et tu Brute?

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

I do very much want to protect our children, but there are parameters within which to punish criminals. Taking a human life through execution is a deed of utmost gravity, and it could only be done with a 100% certain godly mandate!! If you, Jameswright3, take the step of executiing even non-murderers, then the Law tells you to put to death not only child-molesters (yes, child rape is a horrible crime indeed!) but also homosexuals, adulterers and rebellious kids. I, instead, want to steer clear of pretending like I have any kind of theocratic mandate to execute people (not least non-murderers) and I could not sleep one night in peace if I had ever given my vote to any single politician who advocated policies that intend of assuming this mandate without hesitation.

Who said anything about theocracy? Or a "godly mandate?"

In the era of grace, the role of the human magistrate is not to enforce God's law and punish sin. That's God's job. The role of the earthly magistrate to to uphold the laws of Man and to ensure the safety of society.

The fact is, anyone who could rape a child (especially a rape so brutal it does permanent damage) is, for the rest of their lives, a danger to society. There's no way such a person can be verifiably rehabilitated. That's a kind of sickness that demonstrates utter depravity. For the safety of society, such a person must be permanently removed from society.

It would be tempting to say, "well, just put them in prison for life without parole." The problem with that is there are too many custard-headed people out there who would whine that the criminal was being oppressed, his civil rights were violated, he should be given a second chance, etc. And there are too many judges and politicians who might actually listen and commute or change the sentence or laws. Or, the prisoner might escape. Admittedly, the U.S. prison system is fairly secure and the chance of escape from a maximum-security penitentiary is low. But if one prisoner escapes and rapes a child, try telling that to the child's parents.

Thanks to custard-heads and human error, the only 100% reliable way to safeguard society from these animals is to put them to death.

Note that I'm not saying the rape of a child should automatically be punishable by death. I don't like automatic sentencing. But the death penalty should be on the table for particularly heinous offenses of that nature.

 

[jamesrwright3]

]Not able to consent does not equal sexually pure. Two different beast there. As for the whole consent debate, let us not open that can of worms.


Pedophilia is another can of worms that I rather not open, though I will say that it is far more normal than what you know.

You are just sick. You are saying pedophilia is normal? Are you kidding me. No need to debate further.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

I don't think the death penalty is appropriate for any crime so I must agree. However if I had to pick at least one crime, child rape would be it.

Also, attraction to children over the age of 14 isn't paedophilia. A teenager who is fully developed can appear as an adult and so it's a normal attraction. You can really only classify someone as a paedophile if they're attracted to very young children.

 

[SallyNow]

Well good riddance to sick people who don't want to protect our children.

There is already a pathetically low prosecution rate (and even lower conviction rate) of rapists. This is due to many factors, including the fear and shame associated with rape, the easily-lost evidence, and the fact that it can often turn into a he/she (or she/she, she/he, he/he) said case.

Making child sexual abuse a capital crime will increase the time it takes to put such cases through the courts, increase the length of the appeals process, and generally make it much harder for those who commit the crimes to be removed from society.

So, even from a practical legal level, making it a capital offence does not make sense.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

There is already a pathetically low prosecution rate (and even lower conviction rate) of rapists. This is due to many factors, including the fear and shame associated with rape, the easily-lost evidence, and the fact that it can often turn into a he/she (or she/she, she/he, he/he) said case.

Making child sexual abuse a capital crime will increase the time it takes to put such cases through the courts, increase the length of the appeals process, and generally make it much harder for those who commit the crimes to be removed from society.

So, even from a practical legal level, making it a capital offence does not make sense.

On top of that, once you've made it a capital offense, whatever gloves there are right now come off.

The cross-examination of the victim in such a case is going to be brutal, and the court will be limited as to what it can do simply because the defendant's life is at stake.

 

[Suomipoika]

Thanks to custard-heads and human error, the only 100% reliable way to safeguard society from these animals is to put them to death.

Never. It is simply utmost sickness to take a human life through execution from someone who has not even murdered. There are parameters in punishing criminals. The whole idea of executing a non-murderer is simply sick beyond description.

a) Child rape is a monstrous deed.

b) Executing a non-killer is a monstrous deed.

= any individual or society that practices either a) or b) is a monstrous individual or a monstrous society.

 

[LonesomeTexan]

I dunno if this has been posted or not, but Jindal just signed into law chemical castration for child rapists in Louisiana.

Also, I'm against the death penalty for first time offenders, but there should be a 20 minimum sentence w/o parole in a federal pound me in the anus prison. I hear guys on the inside look at child rapists with the upmost comtempt. I have no problem putting down repeat offenders. Any sick bastard that would repeat such a heinous act needs an express ticket to the wrath of his maker.

This was a BS decision by the supreme court. Judicial activism on display. Blatent disregard of federalism and state's rights. If the death penalty is appropriate a crime like murder, certainly it's okay for something as cruel as the raping of a child.

I see some vigilante justice coming in the next few years. [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ed off dad's taking action into their own hands since they know the death penalty is off the table.

 

[SallyNow]

Who said anything about theocracy? Or a "godly mandate?"

In the era of grace, the role of the human magistrate is not to enforce God's law and punish sin. That's God's job. The role of the earthly magistrate to to uphold the laws of Man and to ensure the safety of society.

The fact is, anyone who could rape a child (especially a rape so brutal it does permanent damage) is, for the rest of their lives, a danger to society. There's no way such a person can be verifiably rehabilitated. That's a kind of sickness that demonstrates utter depravity. For the safety of society, such a person must be permanently removed from society.

It would be tempting to say, "well, just put them in prison for life without parole." The problem with that is there are too many custard-headed people out there who would whine that the criminal was being oppressed, his civil rights were violated, he should be given a second chance, etc. And there are too many judges and politicians who might actually listen and commute or change the sentence or laws. Or, the prisoner might escape. Admittedly, the U.S. prison system is fairly secure and the chance of escape from a maximum-security penitentiary is low. But if one prisoner escapes and rapes a child, try telling that to the child's parents.

Thanks to custard-heads and human error, the only 100% reliable way to safeguard society from these animals is to put them to death.

Note that I'm not saying the rape of a child should automatically be punishable by death. I don't like automatic sentencing. But the death penalty should be on the table for particularly heinous offenses of that nature.

Here's the problem.

Court systems around the world, even in North American countries, are woefully illequipped to deal with rape. The rate of case actually making it to court is very low, and the rate of conviction is even lower. The very nature of rape makes it hard to prosecute.

So, while it's all wonderful to think of how easy it would be to have the dealth penalty available for rape cases, it actually result in fewer perps off the streets. Why?

First off, rape victims, especially children, are often scared of reporting a rape. The legal system just isn't set up to handle such as sensitive crime.

Next, having the death penalty as potential punishment would lead to years of appeals.

Then, there is the guilt some victims would have over the fact that their reporting a crime resulted in a death.

SCOTUS made the informed decision, the correct decision, the decision based on reality and facts.

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

First off, rape victims, especially children, are often scared of reporting a rape. The legal system just isn't set up to handle such as sensitive crime.

Next, having the death penalty as potential punishment would lead to years of appeals.

Then, there is the guilt some victims would have over the fact that their reporting a crime resulted in a death.

SCOTUS made the informed decision, the correct decision, the decision based on reality and facts.

Perhaps.

But I don't have to like it. And I don't.

 

[Corey]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/25/scotus.child.rape/index.html

This makes me sick. There is no basis for this ruling, and I think this crime is more egregious than murder in most instances. I think crimes against children are the only instances where the DP is justified because people that do these types of crime are inherently evil and are dangerous to society..We also need to make a statement that crimes against the most innocent part of our society will not be tolerated. I could careless if two ganbangers or drug dealers shoot each other..just don't hurt our children.

Did you even read the ruling? Or..as I suspect...are you simply going off out of your gut on a wild hair?

If the former, I would like to see youe counter-arguments addressing Kennedy's point about a rational-acting child rapist (note: rational in the economic sense).

...and no I won't explain what his point was because if you don't know then you haven't read it.

 

[Corey]

...federal pound me in the anus prison...

*derail*

Where's my red swingline stapler?!

Hehe...I love that movie.

 

[jgarden]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/25/scotus.child.rape/index.html

This makes me sick. There is no basis for this ruling, and I think this crime is more egregious than murder in most instances. I think crimes against children are the only instances where the DP is justified because people that do these types of crime are inherently evil and are dangerous to society..We also need to make a statement that crimes against the most innocent part of our society will not be tolerated. I could careless if two ganbangers or drug dealers shoot each other..just don't hurt our children.

***************************************************************************************************

The final results of the survey ranked the Top Ten Conservative Issues as follows:

1. Illegal immigration -- 86%
2. War on terrorism -- 80%
3. Federal spending – 65%
4. Supreme Court and other judicial appointments -- 64%
5. Flat tax/tax cuts -- 61%
6. Size of government -- 61%
7. Iraq -- 55%
8. Social Security -- 45%
9. Entitlement programs -- 38%
10. Abortion -- 36%

[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20700#continueA[/quote]
***************************************************************************************************
Executing pedophiles and child molesters might appear to be a "quick fix" for conservatives but it masks the real problem - why have they not made the general health and welfare of the nation's children a national priority?

 

[Wyzaard]

This makes me sick. There is no basis for this ruling, and I think this crime is more egregious than murder in most instances. I think crimes against children are the only instances where the DP is justified because people that do these types of crime are inherently evil and are dangerous to society.

What about the rape of adults?

 

[Nathan Poe]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/25/scotus.child.rape/index.html

This makes me sick. There is no basis for this ruling, and I think this crime is more egregious than murder in most instances. I think crimes against children are the only instances where the DP is justified because people that do these types of crime are inherently evil and are dangerous to society..We also need to make a statement that crimes against the most innocent part of our society will not be tolerated. I could careless if two ganbangers or drug dealers shoot each other..just don't hurt our children.

Here's the flaw in your legal argument -- such as it is: SCOTUS does not care what you think. They've decided that you have to actually kill somebody before the state has the legal right to kill you.

Which does make sense, in an 8th Amendment way.

 

[lawtonfogle]

You are just sick. You are saying pedophilia is normal? Are you kidding me. No need to debate further.

(Just got back from vacation)...

Anyways, you definitely took that the wrong way. By being "more normal" I am trying to say that more people than what the average American thinks suffers from pedophilia symptoms (does not mean they are a pedophiles though...), also, though many count this as irrelevant, and for the most point I agree with it, it should be mentioned for the sake of understanding, in societies hundreds of years ago, a child was considered capable of consent between the ages of 7 and 12 (this is for different states in the early days of the US). Also, many 'great' civilizations either tolerated or out right allowed pedophilia practices.

So, am I saying that pedophilia is normal? No, since I really don't understand what you mean by normal? Are you appealing to some universal normal? Or are you appealing to the current day normal?