Court rejects death penalty for raping children

[Pandora]

I think that the Supreme Court fell short on this one. To me child rape is more heinous than murder and deserves the maximum punishment when proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Did you catch the text on page 6 of the decision where it states "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." If that was true then he was a statistical abnormality and if not dealt with would probably do it again. And, if true, death was what this vermin deserved.

Interesting and I have read several articles and discussions on this and nobody ever mentioned it. The link I posted was posted at exactly the same time I came across it. Due to numerous interruptions, I'm only up to page 4.

You know, I am surprised they actually allow that in as evidence, because without a conviction, wouldn't it be sort of heresay?

 

[Ken King]

Interesting and I have read several articles and discussions on this and nobody ever mentioned it. The link I posted was posted at exactly the same time I came across it. Due to numerous interruptions, I'm only up to page 4.

You know, I am surprised they actually allow that in as evidence, because without a conviction, wouldn't it be sort of heresay?

It's not heresay when it is an alledged victim testifying, heresay would be if her mother or a friend would have told the story.

 

[Pandora]

It's not heresay when it is an alledged victim testifying, heresay would be if her mother or a friend would have told the story.

Got it, and obviously his next crime to follow was with much more force and caused such injuries that required extensive medical attention. His crime escalated, and that is scary.

 

[godsbutterfly]

Got it, and obviously his next crime to follow was with much more force and caused such injuries that required extensive medical attention. His crime escalated, and that is scary.

What he did to the next victim was barbaric and inhuman. These are the times I wish the offender got the same punishment they dealt out. When I think about that poor little child I feel sick.

 

[RadioPatrol]

or is a case where a grown man abducted a 9 year old girl and had her?

Muhammad ... founder of Islam anyone;

The thought of an old man becoming aroused by a child is one of the most disturbing thoughts that makes us cringe as it reminds us of pedophilia and the most despicable people. It is difficult to accept that the Holy Prophet married Aisha when she was 6-years-old and consummated his marriage with her when she was 9. He was then, 54 years old.

Muhammad, Aisha, Islam, and Child Brides
TheReligionofPeace - Islam: Muhammad's Sex Life

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

McCain, Obama disagree with child rape ruling - Decision '08 - MSNBC.com

Damn. Pretty bad when two Presidential candidates of differing parties oppose your decision.

Nice going Supreme Court.

 

[Pandora]

What he did to the next victim was barbaric and inhuman. These are the times I wish the offender got the same punishment they dealt out. When I think about that poor little child I feel sick.

I agree, but what is equally barbaric and inhuman is that the first victim's mother didn't report the crime which kept him from ever being convicted. And I cannot help but wonder, if that crime had been documented, would the Supreme Court have ruled differently here because the offender would have been considered a two time convicted sex offender?

I know what I have said isn't popular, but had he been a 2nd time convicted sex offender, I would have felt the death penalty was an appropriate sentence. What I am clearly not happy about here is that the Supreme Court has taken the rights of each state to issue a death penalty sentence in a child sex rape ever again and if they are not a first time offender, it is a sentence that is appropriate.

 

[sommpd]

I agree with the decision. You cannot possibly impose a blanket decision allowable under all cases, in which, a person is charged with child rape because in each case, the circumstances vary. Say for instance…

- A person can be charged with child rape, years after the fact, where the victim recalls some but not all details of the said offense and there is no rape kit evidence.

Like any death penalty case, the facts would either be there to convict or not. But taking the opportunity away just because the crime happened a long time ago is silly.

-A male 19 or 20 years of age can be charged with child rape when the victim willing had sex with them and/or was dishonest about their age, and it was later learned they were only 13-14 years old.

At most that would be second degree rape, just like second degree murder is not punishable by death neither would this crime be. However, first degree rape, that which force or the threat of force is used imo should be punishable by death. The crime carries a life sentence for the victim!

 

[sommpd]

Anyone in America (with a few exceptions) who is charged with murder can be given the Death Penalty but most don't the death penalty

You are very wrong on this! In this state, in order to be eligable for the death penalty there has to be special circumstances to go along with the crime of murder.

 

[Pandora]

somd,

Typically, your post don't bug me, but for some reason today, you are bugging me, everywhere I look, you come along to add really nothing of substance to a subject other than to say, you are wrong.

First, some states have removed the word FORCE from a 1st degree rape conviction and a person can be convicted of rape in the 1st degree under the example I gave, Rhode Island being one state off the top of my head and I beleive it was in 1998 that decision was made. Another factor to consider is the scared young girl who claims she didn't consent (when she may have) due to fear (fear consisting of a magnitude or reasons).

Secondly, I disagree with my second example being deemed "silly." If a person gets up in front of a jury and states they were raped years earlier, who is the jury going to believe? The male? Or the female, crying, sobbing, victim? If you deny that there isn't an issue here, than it is you who is silly.

I have a huge problem saying a death penalty is a plausible sentence when there isn't any physical evidence that the actual crime occurred, and I have a huge problem saying a death penalty is a plausible sentence for a 1st time sex offender and that is my unpopular decision.

If I had to say there was one thing that the Supreme Court leaned on when making this decision, I would have to guess and say that it was a combination of two reasons. First, the presumption that if a death penalty is considered a plausible sentence, the said offender may just kill them and hide the body instead of holding out, keeping their fingers crossed and hoping their manipulation tactics keep the victim in silence and second, the associated guilt of the victim knowing that they reported a crime that resulted in the person's death. (There were a couple of interviews with victims on the news today that said they would NOT have wanted the person who assaulted them dead).

 

[sommpd]

somd,

Secondly, I disagree with my second example being deemed "silly." If a person gets up in front of a jury and states they were raped years earlier, who is the jury going to believe? The male? Or the female, crying, sobbing, victim? If you deny that there isn't an issue here, than it is you who is silly.

Without going into all of the investigative techniques which go into a case like this prior to it getting into court, the scenario you have provided doesn't make sense. A case of this magnatude wouldn't get into court without additional strong coorobative evidence in the State of Maryland. I don't know of any state which would remove the word "force" from their first degree rape charge, but that is SILLY!

I

have a huge problem saying a death penalty is a plausible sentence when there isn't any physical evidence that the actual crime occurred, and I have a huge problem saying a death penalty is a plausible sentence for a 1st time sex offender and that is my unpopular decision.

Who said anything about that? I agree. But that isn't what we are talking about! We are talking about a person being convicted of 1st degree rape and being sentenced to death. There would be strong physical evidence in the State of Maryland or the case would never go!

If I had to say there was one thing that the Supreme Court leaned on when making this decision, I would have to guess and say that it was a combination of two reasons. First, the presumption that if a death penalty is considered a plausible sentence, the said offender may just kill them and hide the body instead of holding out, keeping their fingers crossed and hoping their manipulation tactics keep the victim in silence and second, the associated guilt of the victim knowing that they reported a crime that resulted in the person's death. (There were a couple of interviews with victims on the news today that said they would NOT have wanted the person who assaulted them dead).

And no prosecutor in Maryland would prosecute a death penalty case without the victim's consent because of victim's rights laws. I'm sorry if I annoyed you, but I think I know what I speak of.

Every victim is different and every victim carries the scars differently!