Court rejects death penalty for raping children

advertisement

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has struck down a Louisiana law that allows the execution of people convicted of a raping a child.

In a 5-4 vote, the court says the law allowing the death penalty to be imposed in cases of child rape violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

"The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion. His four liberal colleagues joined him, while the four more conservative justices dissented.

There has not been an execution in the United States for a crime that did not also involve the death of the victim in 44 years.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday also cut the $2.5 billion punitive damages award in the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster to $500 million.

The court ruled that victims of the worst oil spill in U.S. history may collect punitive damages from Exxon Mobil Corp., but not as much as a federal appeals court determined.

Justice David Souter wrote for the court that punitive damages may not exceed what the company already paid to compensate victims for economic losses, about $500 million compensation.

Exxon asked the high court to reject the punitive damages judgment, saying it already has spent $3.4 billion in response to the accident that fouled 1,200 miles of Alaska coastline.

A jury decided Exxon should pay $5 billion in punitive damages. A federal appeals court cut that verdict in half.

  • 7 Votes
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top

Published to:

What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
56
17
8.3
{"commentId":2044974,"authorDomain":"kingmarty"}

I disagree with the Supreme Court on this one. Raping a child is the lowest of the low.

{"commentId":2044974,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"kingmarty"}
  • 3 votes
Reply#1 - Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:12 AM EDT
{"commentId":2045081,"authorDomain":"kpr37"}

when you rape a child they should feed you to dog's

{"commentId":2045081,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"kpr37"}
  • 3 votes
Reply#2 - Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:28 AM EDT
{"commentId":2045229,"authorDomain":"b-shaughnessy"}

I am of the opinion that the death penalty should be given only in those instances when life in prison isn't enough to protect people - I'm very Catholic in that sense. No amount of punishment will change the past or the damage that has been done, and I am not a fan of revenge driving our justice system.

{"commentId":2045229,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"b-shaughnessy"}
  • 4 votes
Reply#3 - Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:48 AM EDT
{"commentId":2045255,"authorDomain":"kingmarty"}

it's not revenge.

rape, and child molestation have a profound impact on the victim's life. a lot of these people end up with psychological scarring that keeps them from developing normal, healthy relationships. often times the end result is worse than if you take the person's life.

{"commentId":2045255,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"kingmarty"}
  • 3 votes
#3.1 - Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:51 AM EDT
{"commentId":2045431,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

It's not revenge...because what he did was really bad? That doesn't follow. If it's not revenge then what is it? What purpose does the execution serve?

{"commentId":2045431,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
  • 4 votes
#3.2 - Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:14 AM EDT
{"commentId":2045463,"authorDomain":"kingmarty"}

to eliminate a threat to others. child molestation isn't just a fad, or something he'll grow out of. it's a sexual orientation like being straight or gay.

{"commentId":2045463,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"kingmarty"}
  • 3 votes
#3.3 - Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:18 AM EDT
{"commentId":2045491,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

Life in prison works just as well and actually costs less overall.

{"commentId":2045491,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
  • 6 votes
#3.4 - Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:22 AM EDT
{"commentId":2045535,"authorDomain":"kingmarty"}

Only if it is Life, as in, until the moment they die. More often than not, it's twenty-five to life, with time off for good behavior.

{"commentId":2045535,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"kingmarty"}
  • 4 votes
#3.5 - Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:27 AM EDT
{"commentId":2046177,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

No, I mean life. No parole. No release. Ever.

{"commentId":2046177,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
  • 3 votes
#3.6 - Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:42 PM EDT
{"commentId":2049864,"authorDomain":"jdoyle"}
No, I mean life. No parole. No release. Ever.

That's the problem with pro death people. they want to play the game that if a person is against the death penalty they must want criminals to be let go.

{"commentId":2049864,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"jdoyle"}
  • 3 votes
#3.7 - Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:57 PM EDT
{"commentId":2052677,"authorDomain":"kingmarty"}

I'm not saying that at all. What I was saying was that more often than not, any form of sexual assualt doesn't carry a true "life in prison" sentence to it.

{"commentId":2052677,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"kingmarty"}
  • 2 votes
#3.8 - Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:02 AM EDT
{"commentId":2052916,"authorDomain":"jdoyle"}
I'm not saying that at all. What I was saying was that more often than not, any form of sexual assualt doesn't carry a true "life in prison" sentence to it.

So it should be changed to do so.

{"commentId":2052916,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"jdoyle"}
  • 3 votes
#3.9 - Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:35 AM EDT
{"commentId":2052962,"authorDomain":"kingmarty"}

Write your congressman. I'm for anything that will permanently remove them from the streets.

I think whether or not they receive the death penelty should be left to the parents of the victim. I know if someone ever sexually assualted my kids (or my wife, or anyone else close to me) they had better hope that they end up in the hands of the legal system before I find them.

{"commentId":2052962,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"kingmarty"}
  • 2 votes
#3.10 - Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:40 AM EDT
{"commentId":2052985,"authorDomain":"jdoyle"}
I think whether or not they receive the death penelty should be left to the parents of the victim.

Should the sentence for every crime be decided by the victim?

{"commentId":2052985,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"jdoyle"}
  • 3 votes
#3.11 - Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:44 AM EDT
{"commentId":2053044,"authorDomain":"kingmarty"}

Ok, I see your point. They should have some say though. If someone sexually assualted you, wouldn't you want a say in what happens to that person?

{"commentId":2053044,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"kingmarty"}
  • 2 votes
#3.12 - Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:51 AM EDT
{"commentId":2053744,"authorDomain":"jdoyle"}
They should have some say though. If someone sexually assualted you, wouldn't you want a say in what happens to that person?

They should have some input, (and they often do by their testimony),but not the final decision.

{"commentId":2053744,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"jdoyle"}
  • 2 votes
#3.13 - Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:11 AM EDT
Reply
{"commentId":2045276,"authorDomain":"zlogic"}

I'm of the opinion that they should be put do death as I would prefer not to house, cloth and feed these people for the rest of their lives. And maybe "No amount of punishment will change the past or the damage that has been done" but it can prevent it from happening again as is most likely if they do get out of prison.

{"commentId":2045276,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"zlogic"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#4 - Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:53 AM EDT
{"commentId":2047303,"authorDomain":"b-shaughnessy"}

I don't wish mindless leniency upon child rapists. Every indication is that no one is ever cured of such predatory impulses, and these people belong somewhere separate from the rest of society.

I would prefer to house, clothe, and feed these people for the rest of their lives over the alternative - having the punishment not fit the crime. Besides that, life in prison is no sweet lullaby, especially for child rapists.

{"commentId":2047303,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"b-shaughnessy"}
  • 4 votes
#4.1 - Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:20 PM EDT
Reply
{"commentId":2045279,"authorDomain":"rvalley00"}

Guess they have never had a child that was abused.
We live in a society that allows people instant gratification and has no consequences for doing whatever they please whenever they want. Life is a free-for-all and one big party, and the honest and hardworking are at the brunt of it. So it seems are innocent children.

{"commentId":2045279,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"rvalley00"}
    Reply#5 - Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:53 AM EDT
    {"commentId":2045349,"authorDomain":"rvalley00"}

    I guess they have never had a child harmed at the hands of another.
    We live in a society of instant gratification with no consequences for doing whatever you want whenever you please. The honest and hardworking, God Fearing people are at the brunt of a big free-for-all. It seems our innocent children are there also. I agree with "zlogic" put my taxes to work doing good, not supporting those who cannot be redeemed.

    {"commentId":2045349,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"rvalley00"}
      Reply#6 - Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:02 AM EDT
      {"commentId":2045446,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

      The execution ruling is pretty arbitrary. If executions are allowed at all then which crimes can they execute some for committing? They say it's not "proportional", but did they give any guidance on how to even make a comparison between a crime and a punishment?

      The Supreme Court should either end the death penalty completely or they should declare exactly which crimes call for it. This ruling doesn't help.

      {"commentId":2045446,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
      • 3 votes
      Reply#7 - Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:16 AM EDT
      {"commentId":2045455,"authorDomain":"nwynne74"}

      "cruel and unusual punishment".

      Well let's see... was what they did (do) to those child(ren) cruel and unusual punishment? Yes.

      So, someone thinks that American taxpayers (you & me) should continue to pay for them.. till... when.. they die?... are released.. (to do this again)?????? The statistics show that they (people convicted of raping a child) NEVER stop.

      They are not cured, they do not see the PERMANENT scars they leave and will continue to attack children!!

      Wake up America!!! These people have forfeited their rights (by not following the law & common sense) yet we are expected to grant them an easy time after their conviction of a crime.

      (Please note I am referring to the actual attack of a child, not the cases that some 18yr has been dating a 16yr. That should be dealt with on a different level. Yes people their is a difference even if we don't want to see it.)

      {"commentId":2045455,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"nwynne74"}
      • 1 vote
      Reply#8 - Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:17 AM EDT
      {"commentId":2045526,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

      We pay more to put them to death (due to more appeals and higher legal fees) than we do to keep him in prison for life. No one is saying let him go. They're saying keep in prison for life.

      It's also not about one cruel punishment (the rape) making another (the death penalty) legal. The government is forbidden from cruel and unusual punishment. Just because someone commits a cruel and unusual crime doesn't give the government the power to punish him in a cruel and unusual way.

      I do not want my tax money being used to kill people for any reason.

      {"commentId":2045526,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
      • 4 votes
      #8.1 - Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:26 AM EDT
      Reply
      {"commentId":2046685,"authorDomain":"axeman1974"}

      As a Survivor of Sexual Molestation I disagree 100% with the Supreme Court's decision. I wish I would have been able to testify before the Supreme Court on this issue, I could tell them of what life is like for a Survivor Of Sexual Abuse long after the abuser is out of the picture (the abuser often is never out of the picture totally as the abuser will often threaten suicide to get the abused to bond to the abuser, a kind of Helsinki Syndrome). I am a Survivor whose Abuser also abused my other two siblings, this changed our lives forever, and not for the better. At an early age I became a borderline alcoholic, I drank to drown out the abuse. After that, I would try anything to get those feelings of degradation to subside. I went into the U.S. Army thinking that the regimentation of service would preoccupy my mind, and was discharged nine months later under a Chapter 5 Section 13 discharge, Personality Disorder due stress, all service did was strengthen my already harbored hatred and focus my rage. I was advised to seek psychological help immediately after discharge. I did, and was denied the help the first time out due to having no insurance. Then, two years later came total breakdown and a lapse in reality. I drank heavily to drown out the pain I was feeling, as well as the feelings of guilt, degradation, and rage. I could not (and still cannot to this day look at myself in the mirror without feeling some rage and feelings that I was lower than others). I constantly threw myself at relationships that never worked out and befriended those who were on society's fringe. All the while feeling that I was no longer alive. I attempted suicide thinking that there was no hope for me, that the pain and suffering would only get worse (at the time I was residing with my abuser and his girlfriend, being treated like a dog). Even now, I am prescribed heavy anti-psychotics and anti-depressives, and I see a Psychotherapist at least once a month. I have been hospitalized many times and have been poisoned twice, yet the feelings remain. The man that abused me also abused my brother and sister sexually as well as emotionally, physically, and mentally. The abuser was never brought to trail either criminal or civil. He has lived a "charmed life" always having a new vehicle when he needed it, having several businesses that were profitable, success at being a Vocational School teacher for more than twenty years, and never being without anything when he wanted it. All this while the three children he abused grew up into maladjusted existences, always scraping to get by. We never even get an "I am sorry for messing you up." All we get from the abuser is, "They asked for it." He always refers to the abuse that he perpetrated as if we went to him and asked to be abused.

      {"commentId":2046685,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"axeman1974"}
      • 1 vote
      Reply#9 - Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:28 PM EDT
      {"commentId":2049711,"authorDomain":"cd-blather"}

      I feel for you. I really do. My mother worked for the state of MI and CA and saw some horrid things. Bring charges against this abuser now. Make him pay. It probably was not just you and your siblings that were abused.

      {"commentId":2049711,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"cd-blather"}
      • 1 vote
      #9.1 - Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:33 PM EDT
      Reply
      {"commentId":2046940,"authorDomain":"nwynne74"}

      Wow Adam you must feel really good about yourself. I don't want my money used....." That's great next time a child tells me of their real life woes. I'll tell her that your money doesn't want to know about it. That's BS about spending more money to put them to death.

      We the people...
      Ever seen it or heard it? Americans are no longer running their country. Read your constitution and know what your rights are.

      We the people have a right to make the laws and how their are enforced and implemented. We need to start acting like this is our country again and stop letting politicians run it how they see fit.

      POWER to the PEOPLE!
      Protect our children!!!!!!

      {"commentId":2046940,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"nwynne74"}
      • 1 vote
      Reply#10 - Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:49 PM EDT
      {"commentId":2048058,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

      First, you're trying to make this an emotional argument. I'm not unsympathetic to the victims of these horrible crimes. I can't possibly understand how that feels without experiencing it first-hand, and I hope I never do (and I wish that no one else knew either).

      However, that doesn't prevent me from saying that I do not think anyone should be murdered for any reason. What you want is revenge, and what I'm saying is that our government does not exist for the purpose of revenge. It exists to protect our rights.

      That's BS about spending more money to put them to death.

      No, it's true. It does cost more to put them to death. It costs more to try them when the prosecution is seeking the death penalty and it costs more in appeals. The legal fees end up outweighing the cost of life in prison.

      Read your constitution and know what your rights are.

      The Constitution forbids the government from cruel and unusual punishments. "We the people" cannot vote to kill someone or torture someone without first changing the Constitution.

      {"commentId":2048058,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
      • 1 vote
      #10.1 - Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:31 PM EDT
      {"commentId":2057225,"authorDomain":"axeman1974"}

      I am a survivor of Sexual Molestation and I know what it is like to have my childhood obliterated like it was. I also know what it feels like to be afraid to change my children's diapers for fear that I was doing something wrong to them. My life became so much a wreck that I attempted suicide and survived two separate poisoning attempts on my life. I know what it is like to be ashamed and confused and ultimately driven into mental meltdown. There is no easy way back from Sexual Molestation! That part of survivors is never fully healed. Maybe instead of imprisonment and eventual execution, the offender should serve some time in prison, just to satisfy the state, then be forced to work to give back to the survivor of his abuse something (money does not heal anything, but, it sure helps) for the rest of his natural life. If he ,or she, ever violates anyone (child or adult) again, then impose the ultimate sentence!

      {"commentId":2057225,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"axeman1974"}
      • 1 vote
      #10.2 - Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:50 PM EDT
      Reply
      {"commentId":2046978,"authorDomain":"katlin"}

      The LIBERALS did it again. We do not need any more of these judges. Even other prisoners do not think much of these low lifes because they are often killed in prison anyway. Life in prison these days often means after 10- 15 yrs they are set free to rape again. There should be no such thing as a second chance for these people -they are not redeemable.

      {"commentId":2046978,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"katlin"}
      • 1 vote
      Reply#11 - Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:53 PM EDT
      {"commentId":2048086,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

      Once again, this is not a dichotomy between execution and letting them go. There is such a thing as life in prison without parole.

      {"commentId":2048086,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
      • 2 votes
      #11.1 - Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:33 PM EDT
      {"commentId":2049877,"authorDomain":"jdoyle"}

      And when an innocent person is convicted?

      {"commentId":2049877,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"jdoyle"}
      • 2 votes
      #11.2 - Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:58 PM EDT
      Reply
      {"commentId":2049441,"authorDomain":"axeman1974"}

      What does one do when the prisons are absolutely full (as many are today) and you have to either release a child molester and a murderer? What happens when prisons are filled up? Life in prison is generally a twenty-five year stretch, not to be confused with "Natural Life" which is the rest of one's life in prison. So, Adam, who would you release as a member of a parole board, the child molester or the murderer? Even with the system of alerting for five miles around where a molester decides to reside after his "Life Sentence" is commuted to mere years or months before he or she is paroled? I think that Sexual Offender ex-Cons should be set up in a facility out of the normal prison system upon release, out in a desolate area that is so far off the beaten path that they are never seen again. This place should have sensors on the parimeter that emit to the ex-con a shock of low volts to detur their escape from this area, and that is where they should spend their lives, away from society.

      {"commentId":2049441,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"axeman1974"}
      • 2 votes
      Reply#12 - Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:58 PM EDT
      {"commentId":2049696,"authorDomain":"katlin"}

      I agree with you- they should be taken out of humanity period, since they are below human anymore !!

      {"commentId":2049696,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"katlin"}
      • 1 vote
      #12.1 - Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:31 PM EDT
      {"commentId":2050910,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
      What does one do when the prisons are absolutely full (as many are today) and you have to either release a child molester and a murderer?

      I reject the premise of the question. The prisons would not be full if we didn't put people in prison for non-violent drug offenses. Not to mention that even now we don't execute enough people for "full prisons" to really be an argument for execution.

      If our prisons were completely full of child molesters, rapists, and murderers then we would have some pretty serious problems. Still, in that extremely unlikely scenario I would build more prisons.

      They tried the whole "put prisoners in some remote place inaccessible to everyone else" idea before. That's what the British used Australia for for a long time.

      {"commentId":2050910,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
      • 1 vote
      #12.2 - Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:52 PM EDT
      Reply
      {"commentId":2049462,"authorDomain":"leftytaylor21"}
      john doe-342849Deleted
      {"commentId":2049811,"authorDomain":"axeman1974"}

      No, you cannot reform a habitual molester. I wonder if Adam really knows anything about child molestation....It seems that he is nieve when he says that this is not an emotional issue, when it is! The molested pay for it emotionally for the rest of their lives, in the fact that most molestation survivors have stunted emotional growth! I also wonder if Adam really knows anything about how much it costs the tax payers to house these miscreants for the rest of their lives in prison, the figures are astronomical! It also costs the tax payer for these deviants to be monitored after they are paroled (think about the price it takes to have a house arrest bracelet tagged on them and police monitoring them for the rest of their parole. I can assure you that it is not "chump change". Mostly, the offender will never, and I mean ever, recover fully from the actions of the molester. There is no dollar amount of reparations that can ever be repaid to persons such as myself to recover their lives.
      Adam, I riddle you this, "What would you rather if someone molested your child? Have him tried and put to death so that he or she may never do such things to any other children in the future, or, have him or her placed in prison for "Life" (remember, "Life" is only approximately 25 years and often less) and get out to do it again to someone else's child? Adam, you should not speak on things that you have never experienced.

      {"commentId":2049811,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"axeman1974"}
      • 1 vote
      Reply#14 - Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:49 PM EDT
      {"commentId":2050558,"authorDomain":"geejay"}

      Justice is not about emotion or revenge, which is why we don't have victims or their families decide punishments.

      axeman, have you experienced life in prison? Maybe you shouldn't speak on what you haven't experienced.

      {"commentId":2050558,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"geejay"}
      • 2 votes
      #14.1 - Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:53 PM EDT
      {"commentId":2050975,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

      I never said we should rehabilitate them. Don't put words in my mouth. Read what I write. We should lock these people away for life. I also never said it wasn't an emotional issue. I said you're making an emotional argument. Arguments based on nothing but emotion are usually bad arguments, and that's definitely the case here. What you want is revenge, and revenge is not a proper role for our government to play.

      I also wonder if Adam really knows anything about how much it costs the tax payers to house these miscreants for the rest of their lives in prison, the figures are astronomical!

      Do you think I'm making this up? There have been many studies into this issue, and every one I've seen comes to the same conclusion: death penalty cases end up costing more overall than life in prison. You can read more here.

      It also costs the tax payer for these deviants to be monitored after they are paroled...

      Once again, who said anything about parole?

      What would you rather if someone molested your child? Have him tried and put to death so that he or she may never do such things to any other children in the future, or, have him or her placed in prison for "Life" (remember, "Life" is only approximately 25 years and often less) and get out to do it again to someone else's child?

      First, I should point out that as far as I know there is no such thing as death penalty or life in prison for child molesters. Second, once again, you use a false dichotomy between death and release. If my child were raped or murdered I would probably want revenge like anyone else, but (again) the government does not exist to seek revenge.

      The government exists to protect people. It should do whatever is necessary to protect the rights of its citizens and no more. It should not be used to seek vengeance. Once you have decided that it's acceptable for the government to kill people then you have basically decided that the government no longer has to protect citizens. It can arbitrarily decide that any crime can be punishable by death. Drug use, pornography, homosexuality, etc. There are many states that are like this, and I can tell you without a doubt that neither of us would want to live in those places.

      {"commentId":2050975,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
      • 2 votes
      #14.2 - Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:05 PM EDT
      Reply
      {"commentId":2054697,"authorDomain":"nwynne74"}

      Wow again, Adam, I think you miss the point. If I wanted revenge (IE being the mother or part of an angry mob.. I shoot the SOB) but you are saying that the act of rape of a child is not cruel & unusual? "Cruel and unusual punishment" is not lethal injection. I did not say torture..Don't put words in my mouth! I can think that, but what I expect from MY government is they protect it's citizens and since I think the fact that these people have broken (the lowest of the low) law that they have CHOSEN to not be represented my the term citizen. hey have knowingly broken the law! Not being put to death when you have destroyed a child's life is cruel & unusual for the victim.

      You really think that OUR forefathers thought that rape of a child was OK?? Or that they wouldn't put them to death???? WRONG!

      This is a VERY emotional issue!

      I think .35 for a bullet in my gun is the way to go, but hey that's revenge!

      {"commentId":2054697,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"nwynne74"}
      • 1 vote
      Reply#15 - Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:41 PM EDT
      {"commentId":2056056,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
      you are saying that the act of rape of a child is not cruel & unusual

      No. Where did you get that idea? I never said anything close to this.

      You really think that OUR forefathers thought that rape of a child was OK??

      No. Seriously, what the hell? Why are you acting like I think it's acceptable to rape children?

      Not being put to death when you have destroyed a child's life is cruel & unusual for the victim.

      No, it's not. It may not make you happy, but killing the rapist will not make things better. Killing the rapist will not undo what he did. The job of the government is to prevent it from happening again, not to kill the person who did it in a blind attempt to satisfy the victims or the victims' families.

      {"commentId":2056056,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
      • 2 votes
      #15.1 - Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:25 PM EDT
      Reply
      {"commentId":2056288,"authorDomain":"axeman1974"}

      According to recent studies, and these aired on Discovery Channel not more than five months ago and was hosted by Hugh Downs, our prisons are full and about to crack. From the day a new "fish" enters into prison he is introduced to the ways of the prison, and is documented on gang affiliations by the officers. Within the context of "Non-Violent Drug Offenders", these men are more often than not affiliated with gangs that do cause violence and have the propensity for violence. What you call "Non-Violent Drug Offenders" have made many lives miserable and victimized many people by plaguing this country with drugs and gangs, so would you call it "Non-Violent" when so many of these offenders are violent in the fact that they either deal or manufacture these poisons in our society.
      Despite the warnings, two states - South Carolina and Oklahoma - this summer enacted laws that allow repeat child sex offenders to be put to death. They join Louisiana, Florida, and Montana, which already have similar laws on their books.One inmate in Louisiana, however, currently sits on death row for raping a child.But if the state of Louisiana has its way, convicted child rapist Patrick O. Kennedy would become the first inmate in more than four decades to be executed for a crime in which the victim wasn't killed. The state supreme court is expected to decide Kennedy's fate this year.
      The Following Web Page Is The Actual LA Laws on Child Molestation, keep in mind that Louisiana has the strongest Child Molestation Laws In The United States. Here is some advice go to law.justia.com
      There you can do a search for the exact statutes on child molestation, sexual battery, aggravated sexual battery, forcible rape, ect.

      LA RS 14:81.2
      Whoever commits the crime of molestation of a juvenile shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not less than one nor more than ten years, or both, provided that the defendant shall not be eligible to have his conviction set aside or his prosecution dismissed in accordance with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure Article 893.

      Whoever commits the crime of molestation of a juvenile when the offender has control or supervision over the juvenile shall be fined not more than ten thousand dollars or imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not less than one nor more than twenty years, or both, provided that the defendant shall not be eligible to have his conviction set aside or his prosecution dismissed in accordance with Code of Criminal Procedure Article 893.

      (1) Whoever commits the crime of molestation of a juvenile when the incidents of molestation recur during a period of more than one year shall, on first conviction, be fined not more than ten thousand dollars or imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not less than five nor more than forty years, or both. At least five years of the sentence imposed shall be without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. After five years of the sentence have been served, the offender, who is otherwise eligible, may be eligible for parole if a licensed psychologist or a licensed clinical social worker or a board-certified psychiatrist, after psychological examination, including testing, approves.

      (2) Conditions of parole shall include treatment in a qualified sex offender program for a minimum of five years, or until expiration of sentence, whichever comes first. The state shall be responsible for the cost of testing but the offender shall be responsible for the cost of the treatment program. It shall also be a condition of parole that the offender be prohibited from being alone with a child without the supervision of another adult.

      (3) For purposes of this Subsection, a "qualified sex offender program" means one which includes both group and individual therapy and arousal reconditioning. Group therapy shall be conducted by two therapists, one male and one female, at least one of whom is licensed as a psychologist or is board certified as a psychiatrist or clinical social worker.

      (4) Repealed by Acts 2006, No. 36, §2.

      E.(1) Whoever commits the crime of molestation of a juvenile when the victim is under the age of thirteen years shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than twenty-five years nor more than life imprisonment. At least twenty-five years of the sentence imposed shall be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.

      (2) Upon completion of the term of imprisonment imposed in accordance with Paragraph (1) of this Subsection, the offender shall be monitored by the Department of Public Safety and Corrections through the use of electronic monitoring equipment for the remainder of his natural life.

      (3) Unless it is determined by the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, pursuant to rules adopted in accordance with the provisions of this Subsection, that a sexual offender is unable to pay all or any portion of such costs, each sexual offender to be electronically monitored shall pay the cost of such monitoring.

      (4) The costs attributable to the electronic monitoring of an offender who has been determined unable to pay shall be borne by the department if, and only to, the degree that sufficient funds are made available for such purpose whether by appropriation of state funds or from any other source.

      (5) The Department of Public Safety and Corrections shall develop, adopt, and promulgate rules in the manner provided in the Administrative Procedure Act that provide for the payment of such costs. Such rules shall contain specific guidelines which shall be used to determine the ability of the offender to pay the required costs and shall establish the reasonable costs to be charged. Such rules may provide for a sliding scale of payment so that an offender who is able to pay a portion, but not all, of such costs may be required to pay such portion.

      Acts 1984, No. 220, §1; Acts 1990, No. 590, §1; Acts 1991, No. 925, §1; Acts 1999, No. 1309, §2, eff. Jan. 1, 2000; Acts 2006, No. 36, §§1, 2; Acts 2006, No. 103, §1; Acts 2006, No. 325, §2.

      This is just the law on Child Molestation. As one can see there are steep penalties for such offenders. The new Govenor of Louisiana, Bobby Jendal is pushing to make these laws even stricter. The legislature is on the verge of approving a bill that would allow for Chemical Castration of sex offenders in the State Of Louisiana.

      {"commentId":2056288,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"axeman1974"}
      • 2 votes
      Reply#16 - Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:42 PM EDT
      {"commentId":2056399,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

      People should be arrested for committing crimes, not for having the potential to commit crimes. If someone is arrested just for drug possession or drug use then that is not something he should go to jail for. If he's arrested for robbery or assault or any other violent crime then he should go to jail for that. You can't just assume that all drug users are also dangerous and throw them all in jail. That's why our jails are full. Too many people are thrown in jail for minor offenses.

      {"commentId":2056399,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
      • 3 votes
      #16.1 - Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:49 PM EDT
      Reply
      {"commentId":2056809,"authorDomain":"nwynne74"}

      Actually, Adam, I asked you a question???? that's want this ? symbol means.

      Again I was asked you a question about your understanding of history. Albeit a outraged question but still a question.

      ADAM— "No, it's not. It may not make you happy, but killing the rapist will not make things better. Killing the rapist will not undo what he did. The job of the government is to prevent it from happening again, not to kill the person who did it in a blind attempt to satisfy the victims or the victims families. "

      No I don't like it. I think that's fairly obvious, but it is the taking of a life. You may not see that point of view (and unfortunately I can see your point), but it is the taking of that child's LIFE!!

      I think maybe I didn't write things how they sounded in my head, but I see that many people on this "thread" understand my feelings and are expressing them just fine. Maybe my arguments sounded too emotional for some of you, but we do have a legal standpoint for this point of view, just as you do yours. I won't ever agree with you, as you will probably never agree with me, but I still hope that AMERICANS take back their government and country. We, ALL of us, are losing.

      {"commentId":2056809,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"nwynne74"}
      • 1 vote
      Reply#17 - Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:22 PM EDT
      {"commentId":2057115,"authorDomain":"axeman1974"}

      That is what I have been attempting to say to Adam. I am a survivor of Sexual Molestation and I know what it is like to have my childhood obliterated like it was. I also know what it feels like to be afraid to change my children's diapers for fear that I was doing something wrong to them. My life became so much a wreck that I attempted suicide and survived two separate poisoning attempts on my life. I know what it is like to be ashamed and confused and ultimately driven into mental meltdown. There is no easy way back from Sexual Molestation! That part of survivors is never fully healed. Maybe instead of imprisonment and eventual execution, the offender should serve some time in prison, just to satisfy the state, then be forced to work to give back to the survivor of his abuse something (money does not heal anything, but, it sure helps) for the rest of his natural life. If he ,or she, ever violates anyone (child or adult) again, then impose the ultimate sentence!

      {"commentId":2057115,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"axeman1974"}
      • 1 vote
      #17.1 - Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:43 PM EDT
      {"commentId":2057487,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

      I don't answer questions which faulty premises. I don't believe that child rapists should be let out of prison, so why would you ask me if I think the founding fathers thought that? It's offensive to me that you would suggest that I believe this.

      {"commentId":2057487,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
      • 1 vote
      #17.2 - Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:06 PM EDT
      {"commentId":2057873,"authorDomain":"nwynne74"}

      Case in point. You, ADAM, are not listening.

      You will not hear the arguments for "the other side". You, yourself are just repeating "the same claims"

      Let it be understood that one persons pursuit of happiness, should not "damage" another's life. That is what our founding fathers meant. Once a person goes this far they are not of our "civilized society".

      A government for the people, by the people.
      even when we don't personally agree, we do have the right to talk it all out...... :-)

      {"commentId":2057873,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"nwynne74"}
        #17.3 - Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:32 PM EDT
        {"commentId":2058099,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

        At what point did we decide that killing someone is civilized? Again, this isn't about whether what that person did was civilized or whether they should be punished. The question is whether killing them is justified and whether that is a power that our government should have. I don't like the fact that so many people believe our government should have the power to take lives.

        {"commentId":2058099,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
        • 1 vote
        #17.4 - Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:47 PM EDT
        Reply
        {"commentId":2056905,"authorDomain":"axeman1974"}

        "Non-Violent Drug Offender" is a myth. One must think of how much violence was incurred getting the drugs to the suppliers in the United States, how many people get harmed when the dealer (or the organization to which said dealer belongs) gets the product to the person on the street. Then calculate how many users will use violence on Officers Of The Law to protect their use. Meth, crack, cocaine, heroine, prescription drugs, weed, you call all of this "Non-Violent" when most of these drugs are the root cause of so much blood being spilt on American Streets. Adam, your point on the appeals process is moot as Every Prisoner, no matter how little or much time he or she is imprisoned for is granted three appeals by the constitution. So, we cannot ride on that point due to the fact that it is Constitutional. Prisoners whom have a "Public Defender" (payed for by tax dollars) most often get attorneys that won't get anything accomplished as most "Public Defenders" are "yes men" to the court. Most prisoners whom are "Long-Timers" often either research the laws to file appeals themselves, or find "jail house attorneys" which have studied the law and help the prisoner file the proper appeals that "Public Defenders" do not have the time to file.
        So, throw those dollars in with what the tax payer pay to feed, house, and clothe the prisoners and your idea of building more prisons is also moot. Now, back to the topic at hand, Child Molesters and the Death Penalty. There is a study out that state (and I am paraphrasing) "roughly 75% of all sexual predators cannot be rehabilitated, they tend to be repeat offenders". So, just like Drug Offenders (note that I left the non-violent part out here), sexual offenders are almost incurable. Even if Chemical Castration is used, the offender may offend utilizing objects such as: sex toys, fruits and vegetables, and other parts of their anatomy to offend again. So, you propose that we put the offender in prison for life, this is ineffectual as it will cost more in the long run for food, housing, counseling, clothing, showering, hiring more guards, and the building of more prisons to ease the overpopulation problem that most prisons in the United States suffer from already. As a matter of fact there are most often five prisoners to a two man cell, and the larger prisons have to use other spaces as blocks for as many as fifty or more men. With that type of dynamic, the violence that is in prisons already has more than tripled. Gangs are more prevalent, and more violent, on the inside than on the outside and a "fish" must know how to swim or die trying. Besides all of that, are you suggesting Adam that we build prisons that will eventually end up on the very edge of our metropolitan areas? Or do you propose we start building prisons more vertical, possibly sky-scraper prisons? Or into our beautiful mountains, underground prisons? What is your suggestion Adam? The normal prison structure is ineffectual at keeping violence from your "non-violent offender" buddies. Most of these "non-violent" drug offenders use prison like an academy, the go in with a Bachelors Degree in one drug, and come out with a Masters Degree in another. More often than not they go in "non-violent" and come out knowing how to pull off acts of violence that makes Adolf Hitler appear like an angel by comparison.

        {"commentId":2056905,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"axeman1974"}
        • 1 vote
        Reply#18 - Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:28 PM EDT
        {"commentId":2057557,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
        "Non-Violent Drug Offender" is a myth.

        Bull@!$%#. If drugs were legal then there would be no violence necessary to get drugs. The "drug war" is ridiculous. It is destroying people's lives for no reason.

        Adam, your point on the appeals process is moot as Every Prisoner, no matter how little or much time he or she is imprisoned for is granted three appeals by the constitution.

        That doesn't change the fact that the actual trials for death penalty cases cost more, tend to get appealed every time, and most of them don't actually end with the death penalty anyway. That means that we're wasting all this money just to try to put someone to death and only actually succeeding some of the time. Just having the option of the death penalty costs us as taxpayers more money overall.

        So, throw those dollars in with what the tax payer pay to feed, house, and clothe the prisoners and your idea of building more prisons is also moot

        They're already included. Like I said, numerous studies have actually verified that the cost of holding someone and feeding them for life is less than the cost of executing them. You're not listening to the argument. You're just repeating the same claim which has already been shown to be false.

        {"commentId":2057557,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
        • 2 votes
        #18.1 - Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:11 PM EDT
        {"commentId":2059299,"authorDomain":"axeman1974"}

        Adam, as my favorite living comic once stated, "Don't go killing someone in my home state of Texas. While other states are debating the Death Penalty, we are putting in an Express Lane. You kill somebody in Texas and we are going to kill you back." If all states would do as Texas we could save millions of taxpayer dollars every year that could be going to something better than housing murderers and other dangerous, non-rehabilitateable convicts, and that is where I classify Child Molesters (Non-Rehabilitatable, dangerous to general society). With that said Adam, what would you propose?

        {"commentId":2059299,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"axeman1974"}
        • 1 vote
        #18.2 - Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:02 PM EDT
        {"commentId":2059516,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
        If all states would do as Texas we could save millions of taxpayer dollars every year that could be going to something better than housing murderers and other dangerous, non-rehabilitateable convicts...

        Once again, this is not true. Several studies have shown that more money is spent when you try to put someone to death than is spent keeping them in prison for life. Why do people keep repeating this same myth? The death penalty does not save money. It costs more.

        {"commentId":2059516,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
          #18.3 - Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:19 PM EDT
          Reply
          {"commentId":2057401,"authorDomain":"axeman1974"}

          Adam, look at the Louisiana penalties for child molestation carefully and understand that one, or more, parts of the statutes apply to most sex offenders. Then add the sentences up and you will find that, in most cases,
          after the sentences are added the offender is serving LIFE...

          Whoever commits the crime of molestation of a juvenile when the offender has control or supervision over the juvenile shall be fined not more than ten thousand dollars or imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not less than one nor more than twenty years, or both, provided that the defendant shall not be eligible to have his conviction set aside or his prosecution dismissed in accordance with Code of Criminal Procedure Article 893.

          (1) Whoever commits the crime of molestation of a juvenile when the incidents of molestation recur during a period of more than one year shall, on first conviction, be fined not more than ten thousand dollars or imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not less than five nor more than forty years, or both. At least five years of the sentence imposed shall be without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. After five years of the sentence have been served, the offender, who is otherwise eligible, may be eligible for parole if a licensed psychologist or a licensed clinical social worker or a board-certified psychiatrist, after psychological examination, including testing, approves.

          .(1) Whoever commits the crime of molestation of a juvenile when the victim is under the age of thirteen years shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than twenty-five years nor more than life imprisonment. At least twenty-five years of the sentence imposed shall be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.

          {"commentId":2057401,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"axeman1974"}
          • 2 votes
          Reply#19 - Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:01 PM EDT
          {"commentId":2057569,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

          I don't see what your point is...

          {"commentId":2057569,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
            #19.1 - Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:12 PM EDT
            {"commentId":2059440,"authorDomain":"axeman1974"}

            My point is, that at least in the State Of Louisiana, any person whom molests a child that is in the control of that person and care of that person will serve no less than 1 and no more than 20 years with or without hard labor and if the abuser commits the abuse for a period of more than one year we tack on an additional 5 to 40 years, with five years of that sentence being without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. If the victim is under the age of 13 the State Of Louisiana the offender shall be imprisoned for not less than 25 years and no more than LIFE with at least 25 years of that sentence to be served without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

            Read the last line, this is in response to you stating that you knew of "no state that imposes a LIFE SENTENCE for Molestation Of A Juvenile".

            {"commentId":2059440,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"axeman1974"}
            • 1 vote
            #19.2 - Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:13 PM EDT
            {"commentId":2059546,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

            It can be up to life, but it's not a mandatory life sentence. The intent of my statement was that molesting a child is not an automatic life sentence, and I don't think it's ever a death penalty case (though I could be wrong). Regardless, I don't think the death penalty is justified for any crime.

            {"commentId":2059546,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
              #19.3 - Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:22 PM EDT
              {"commentId":2060212,"authorDomain":"axeman1974"}

              The Death Penalty is reserved for heinous acts such as murder, treason, and espionage. It is my belief that Habitual Child Molesters are the "cream of the crap" and that the death penalty would be fitting. However, I am also of the mind that killing the offender serves no purpose. So, I find myself at an impasse, however I have already posted a solution to the problems of what to do with the molesters in our society. Serve some time to placate the state, upon release the molester would be Chemically Castrated, made to wear a tracking bracelet for the rest of his life, they would be housed in special housing which they would have to pay for as they would any other apartment (half of these monies would go to the survivors of their abuse for life), in this environment they would also have mandatory
              readjustment counselling for Sexual Offenders, everyone for 50 miles of the complex would be notified by mail of new releases, and sex Offenders would be registered wherever they decide to reside post release for life.

              {"commentId":2060212,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"axeman1974"}
              • 1 vote
              #19.4 - Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:13 PM EDT
              {"commentId":2060400,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

              Castration is a cruel and unusual punishment.

              {"commentId":2060400,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
                #19.5 - Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:29 PM EDT
                Reply
                {"commentId":2058292,"authorDomain":"nwynne74"}

                Adam writes-"At what point did we decide that killing someone is civilized? Again, this isn't about whether what that person did was civilized or whether they should be punished. The question is whether killing them is justified and whether that is a power that our government should have. I don't like the fact that so many people believe our government should have the power to take lives. "

                I'm fairly sure that our constitution has given the states the right to put a person to death. That's a simple fact. What is on topic here is when is that "appropriate".

                Now, I say that child rape is an appropriate crime to use the death penalty. You, Adam, disagree. This is the part where we debate it and then take those stances before a judge. That judge makes a ruling, then another....until it made it to the highest court in the land.

                The Supreme Court has made a ruling that agrees with you (5-4). I and many like me are here now stating that the Supreme Court has not really "seen" the issue. We are here explaining to you and the Supreme Court (we know they are not reading this) that they are not interpreting the Constitution in a way that we agree with.

                We will continue to fight for this, our children, and many other causes:
                1) We have that right.
                2) Change can be made.
                3) We are, you and me, the reason that this country was founded.

                A government for the people, by the people. Can only survive if the people, all of them, stand up.
                Thanks Adam for standing up for you cause, I don't agree but that is why we vote!

                {"commentId":2058292,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"nwynne74"}
                  Reply#20 - Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:00 PM EDT
                  {"commentId":2058872,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

                  Where in the Constitution do you think that the government gets the power to execute its citizens?

                  {"commentId":2058872,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
                  • 2 votes
                  #20.1 - Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:35 PM EDT
                  Reply
                  {"commentId":2059985,"authorDomain":"axeman1974"}

                  Nowhere in the Constitution does it state implicitly that the states or the Federal Government have the right to execute anyone for any crime, not even treason. This is a highly debatable subject. Again, NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IMPLICITLY GIVES EITHER THE STATES OR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THE RIGHT TO EXECUTE IT"S CITIZENS. However, once someone enters into a penal facility, he is stripped of everything, even his name! He is given a number, and, he is provided clothes and bedding. One would argue that people in penal facilities are no longer citizens as they are stripped of the rights that the Constitution Provides save for a few.

                  {"commentId":2059985,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"axeman1974"}
                    Reply#21 - Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:55 PM EDT
                    {"commentId":2064363,"authorDomain":"nwynne74"}

                    OK once a again I tell you that we the people are the government! YOU ARE NOT LISTENING! We may not be the government now but it was founded BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE!!!!

                    We can make the decisions to put an person who has chosen to remain outside the laws of our country to DEATH. YOU MAY NOT LIKE IT BUT WE DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THOSE LAWS.

                    A sentence to death was not cruel & unusual in the time that the Constitution was written, they did it by hanging, but you people don't see that!

                    They know the laws that we AS A CIVILIZED SOCIETY have given each person to live by!!! THEY broke those laws and we can use anything that WE agree on as a punishment!

                    AS I STATED BEFORE! YOU ARE NOT LISTENING! YOU MAY NOT SEE THAT AS AN ACCEPTABLE PUNISHMENT, BUT MANY OF US DO!!! WE CONSIDER THE RAPE OF A CHILD TO BE SO FAR UN-CIVILIZED THAT, THAT PERSON COULD/SHOULD BE PUT TO DEATH.

                    I think if you have read this and previous posts that you will see that you are not listening and will not agree with this argument, just as I will not be agreeing wit yours. BUT we have that right to make those laws... the right to enforce them... and that is why we VOTE!

                    Only now is the time that we think of voting as for a candidate as our only means of getting what we what. The citizens made the laws, guided by some very great men (who were just regular citizens that took up the cry for freedom). But now we are wallowing in what has been left to us, buy the YEARS of professional politicians.

                    I thank you for the debate, but I am done discussing this with you. I will not change my mind, but I do hear your point. You it seems will not even listen.

                    Don't forget to vote!

                    {"commentId":2064363,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"nwynne74"}
                      Reply#22 - Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:30 AM EDT
                      {"commentId":2064381,"authorDomain":"geejay"}
                      YOU MAY NOT LIKE IT BUT WE DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THOSE LAWS.

                      And the Justices have a right to call those laws unconstitutional and disallow them. It's what the courts do. And I think they know more about constitutionality than the average Joe.

                      {"commentId":2064381,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"geejay"}
                      • 1 vote
                      #22.1 - Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:33 AM EDT
                      {"commentId":2066399,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

                      Please don't write in all caps. It's rude.

                      Our government was explicitly set up to have limited power over the people. Because of the way our government was set up, a simple majority cannot just make a law which takes away rights of minorities, allows torture, strips rights, etc. Every single part of our government is limited by one document which takes precedence over everything else: the Constitution. If people want our government to do something that the Constitution says it cannot do then the only way to do that is to change the Constitution (which is deliberately very difficult to do). All of that is (again) on purpose. The goal was to limit the power of the government, even when a majority of the people want it to have more power.

                      What you are arguing now is that breaking the law makes you not a citizen, and therefore criminals have no rights. That's not true. Our Constitution guarantees that even criminals have rights. This is a further check on the government to prevent it from just declaring certain people criminals and stripping their rights. Giving the government that much power is dangerous.

                      {"commentId":2066399,"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
                        #22.2 - Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:49 PM EDT
                        Reply
                        {"canLink":false,"threadId":"298543","isPrivate":false}
                        Leave a Comment:
                        You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                        As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                        {"threadId":"298543","contentId":"1608659"}
                        Start TrackingStart Tracking
                        Stop TrackingStop Tracking