Digg

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Victims Ignored and Justice Denied--by the Supreme Court

writeidea.org — Child rapist Patrick Kennedy has now successfully avoided his death sentence. The Supreme Courts decision mocks both the nature of the Constitution and the serious suffering that young victims like the one Patrick Kennedy raped in 2003 undergo each and every day. It hammers yet another nail in the coffin of clear Constitutional interpretation.

Bury

mejaredme 105 days ago

267 diggs
digg it

xfactor72315, on 06/27/2008, -11/+20I 100% Agree
- lettruthout, on 06/27/2008, -5/+8So the government is allowed to kill but individuals are not?
  How about when the wrong person is convicted?
  - Nannybell, on 06/28/2008, -1/+5That can happen regarding any crime. It is a terrible thing. Many people in my state have been set free from death row due to recent DNA testing. It's horrible to consider they spent a huge part of their lives in jail for something they didn't do. However, society is faced with the dilemma of what to do with people who do commit the worst of crimes. Premeditated murder must be dealt with. And the rape of a child is akin to murder in my opinion. Their psyche, their emotions are murdered. Frankly, I am in favor of keeping sex offenders locked up the rest of their lives with no possibility of parole, no sex change operations, no weird women coming to prison to have sex with them, no internet access, etc. A cell with a bed, bathroom facilities, decent meals, a job to do to keep them busy most of the day 6 days a week, no extras. Yes, society does have to finance their free ride in jail. Maybe we should get serious about cleaning up our society's sick mind so that it produces fewer of these people.
pitchblack16, on 06/27/2008, -5/+17why give someone an easy way out like a death sentence keep him in jail for the rest of his life and suffer for the crimes that he has done, especially for sexually assaulting children.
- CaptainAmerica1, on 06/27/2008, -6/+14Keeping people like that in jail costs taxpayers too much of their hard-earned money to feed, clothe, house, and provide medical care (including sex-change operations, if they want them).
  
  Anyone who rapes a child deserves to die...period.
  - sacr3dc0w, on 06/27/2008, -4/+12Life imprisonment is actually cheaper because of the appeals process afforded to death row inmates. On top of the cost of imprisoning them for years it takes to exhaust all appeals and reviews, the taxpayers also pay the legal cost which will run in the millions before it's all through.
  - CaptainAmerica1, on 06/27/2008, -5/+8Answer: limit appeals.
    
    When there is overwhelming evidence, e.g. DNA, etc., why should appeals take years and years?
    
    In most cases, the appeal process is nothing but a delay game.
    
    I say kill the bastards who rape kids...period.
  - TheUnionBlood, on 06/27/2008, -4/+6Yes, but it is a lot easier to just do away with the death penalty than change the entire legal process. Life imprisonment is and always will be a worse penalty than the death penalty in my opinion.
  - Nannybell, on 06/28/2008, -0/+7It CAN be a worse penalty if we do away with all the frills given to prisoners these days.
- TYRONEBR549, on 06/29/2008, -1/+3What suffering would that be? Three hots and a cot? Peel grants? Workout rooms? Computers? Library? Better the law should uphold justice to his victims and send him to the Lord for true justice.
supermanpi, on 06/27/2008, -1/+21I don't know what I think about this one. On one hand, I would like to see him rot in jail the rest of his life, on the other I want to see him dead. Either way it won't give back the pain the eight-year-old child had to endure during the heinous act by this low life.
- KJeffV, on 06/28/2008, -0/+5I hear ya! Bill O`Reilly actually influenced my thinking when he opined "Give`em HARD labor f/the rest of their lives. Let them consider, while they break their backs, making little ones out of big ones in useless, stupid, sweaty drudgery, that they caused untold misery & plenty of it."
  
  I can get on board w/that.
Todash19, on 06/27/2008, -13/+15IMO, the death penalty is the perfect example of religion being INFUSED into government.

"And eye for eye".
"A life for a life".

Executing rapists is state sanctioned murder.
If the accused took no life, you have no right to take his.

If anything give him back what he gave.
With our current system, that is EXACTLY what he would get.

They don't like child molesters in prison. Let them get ass raped for the next 20 years.

I am against the death penalty for ANY crime.
Stooping to the level of the criminal you want to kill makes you as bad as them.

But if you ARE going to execute someone for a crime, it has to be murder.
- CaptainAmerica1, on 06/27/2008, -7/+1Are you saying that the only way morality can be infused into government is via religious teachings or doctrine?
  - Simonft, on 06/27/2008, -2/+6No, he is saying that the death penalty is not moral.
  - CaptainAmerica1, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Is it moral to require taxpayers to house, clothe, feed, provide medical care to societal animals such as child rapists for the rest of their lives?
- Hetman, on 06/27/2008, -2/+9It is funny because in reality when jesus came he said turn the other cheek. He basically refuted the whole eye for an eye thing that is in the old testemant. I am not a fan of religions but you would think christians would at least have read the new testemant.
  - mikesbaker, on 06/28/2008, -0/+6just because this Todash19 thinks that this is religion being INFUSED!!!!! into gov does not make it true. its amazing how many atheists on digg have their heads completely up their asses.
  - wonderchemist, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2TV interviews show proponents of the 10 commandments can't name them. If they didn't get up to Exodus what's the chance the got to Matthew?
  - ObamaWins08, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Yes, I'm sure you're little observation will be enough to convince millions of people that they have not read the New Testamen enough...
- Simonft, on 06/27/2008, -7/+1I agree.
- galeninjapan, on 06/27/2008, -0/+5The country with the highest capital punishment rate is China, a completely secular country. It has a rate 10 times higher than America.
- mikesbaker, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2wow - how ignorant. an eye for and eye is from code of Hammurabi.
  http://www.wsu.edu/%7Edee/MESO/CODE.HTM
  see # 196
- KOSmurfy, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2That sounds pretty hypocritical to me. No death penalty, but plenty of butt raping? wtf.
  - KJeffV, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2Exactly: Let's encourage MORE crime.
    
    If I were in position to change the death penalty—and I believe it's PUNISHMENT, not revenge—to lifelong hard labor, I'd also be in position to change the way prisoners live . . . and believe me, it WOULD be punishment compared to the way things are now. [Think Maricopa Cnty, AZ, Sheriff Joe Arpaio!] There would be no cable TV, and there would be no opportunity f/interaction fr/other super-dangerous prisoners, as per SuperMax prison. Eventually, they'd embarrass themselves to death working in the heat in pink pajamas and consider getting a life, or they'd simply commit suicide. More importantly, I betcha a lot of uncaught criminals would reconsider their avocation if we advertised how miserable that kind of prison life could be.
- Nannybell, on 06/28/2008, -1/+3***Let them get ... raped for the next 20 years. ***
  
  They would just learn to like it. Give them live a minimal life in jail till they die, hard work, no comforts of home.
19592, on 06/27/2008, -9/+25It is too bad that unelected judges are making the laws rather than voters and the people they elect to represent them.
- mejaredme, on 06/27/2008, -4/+11Legislating from the bench is the new fad.
  - fasda, on 06/27/2008, -3/+10yep the common law tradition (founded in 1189) which our criminal justice system is based on is just a fad.
- rjwusa, on 06/27/2008, -2/+10Our elected officials are cowards in that they do not like to deal with 'third rail' issues. A third rail issue is an issue that if touched, like touching the electric third rail of a subway system, will kill the person doing the touching. Because our officials would rather window dress and make appearances as if they really were concerned about legislating for what is best for America, such as the grilling the oil execs to make it appear as if they cared about oil prices in lieu of really actually legislating smart solutions such as opening the ANWR and coastal drilling, they avoid actually dealing with 'third rail' issues. Their avoidance of 'third rail' issues is due to the fact that they are more interested in avoiding controversial issues that would cost them their next election. Notable 'third rail; issues are, Illegal Immigration, Gun Rights/Control, Fixing Social Security, Abortion, and Capital Punishment. Because our our representatives lack any balls and are more interested in re election, they have abdicated their responsibilities to the court systems, who now legislate in place of our legislature.
- beauley, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3Then WE, the people just have to make sure certain Laws are passed "By THe People".
whatsrequired, on 06/27/2008, -8/+17Dugg to expose lunacy. The state shouldn't kill people. Period.
bcuban, on 06/27/2008, -3/+7Where does your opinion of "clear constitutional interpretation come from" This is not new law. The Supreme court was re-affirming a previous decision they had handed down that barred the death penalty in rape cases. More importantly, the statistics are overwhelming that 80 percent of child molestations involve family members and close relatives. A child is abused physically by a family member then we are going to abuse that child again mentally by executing his parent or another family member? I have a huge problem with that.
- Nannybell, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Well, if the offender murdered someone, it would have the same result -- he would be executed for it. The child would suffer the loss in that case as well. I personally favor locking the sex offender up and throwing away the key though. Whether that is in jail or a mental institution (depending on the circumstance), at least he is off the streets. If a child is abused, it is important for his sense of self-worth that society act swiftly against the perpetrator. The offender brings on the situation that leads to his own punishment. That is one of the imperfections of life in the real world -- i.e., that we often suffer as a result of the actions of others, and that is a good reason for society to work toward cleaning itself up and seeking a higher moral plane so that fewer of these things occur.
sustainablogger, on 06/27/2008, -4/+9I understand the sentiment here, but agree with the court's ruling... I say that as someone who doesn't support execution in any case. And, I love the idea of scumbags like this getting many, many doses of their own medicine... child molesters aren't treated kindly in prison.

Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice...
clbattle, on 06/27/2008, -1/+10The media report that the child suffered "serious injuries." I fear to even know what that means. If we're going to have a death penalty, child rapists should be at least on the list.
- ObamaWins08, on 06/28/2008, -1/+1Basically he raped her so hard her rectum and her vagina became one.
nblsavage, on 06/27/2008, -3/+15So, first murderers, then child rapist, the standard for execution gets lower and lower. Who's next? Non-child rapists? Drug dealers?
- Simonft, on 06/27/2008, -4/+5Political dissidents?
- ObamaWins08, on 06/28/2008, -3/+1Manywould reply a child rapistis worse than a child murderes. Not only is the child effected for the rest of their life, but they may in turn molest and sexually abuse other children.
- KJeffV, on 06/28/2008, -3/+1Ellenelles!
  - KJeffV, on 06/28/2008, -3/+1See? The Left has no sense of humor!
  - KJeffV, on 06/28/2008, -3/+1And cont to show up, attempting to prove it!
  - KJeffV, on 06/28/2008, -3/+1Seewhattamean, Vern? Yes, I realize you're following me around. It just shows to go ya that you're unable to discern important issues.
Erich100, on 06/27/2008, -2/+16I heard a woman on the television news give the most understandable reason for not executing these rapists. ( If the rapists think they will be executed if caught, they will be less likely to leave the child alive).
I cannot find any other reason to not execute these pieces of garbage. They should at least never get out of prison. And they should do their time in the general population of the prison where they will spend the rest of their life in fear for their life.
taeser, on 06/27/2008, -3/+11“We conclude there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape.”

In this statement, they are openly stating they are acting as a legislative body instead of an interpreting one, insolently imposing an edict on the entire country. This is an absolute outrage! The supreme court has completely ignored its constitutional role and is not ashamed of it. Disgracefully, the story should read "Most Americans apathetic as Supreme Court brazenly disrespects them and Constitution"
Hetman, on 06/27/2008, -2/+7I am against the death penalty. But I believe the way the supreme court justified banning Child Rapist is wrong. If your state already has the death penalty I do not see why sentencing a child rapist to the death penalty would be considered cruel and unusual punishment. It is weird because in some states you can be sentenced to death even if you are not the one who actually murdered the man. So two people rob a store and the owner gets killed they can both be charged with murder and sentenced to death. Even though only one guy actually had the gun and shot the store owner. Either way though the death penalty is not a deterrent and there is always a chance an innocent man can be murdered so I am against it.
staxofmax, on 06/27/2008, -3/+9Justice denied? Revenge denied, certainly, but justice? How can it be just to institute capital punishment for a crime in which no one was killed?
- Hetman, on 06/27/2008, -1/+3I am against the death penalty. But how do you feel about this scenario. Two men rob a store 1 has a gun. The owner kids killed. Both men can legally be charged with murder and the death penalty. That does not seem right to me either.
  - Simonft, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2you already said this.
  - DrDreyfus, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Well, the fact that the other one was there, aware of the intent of his accomplice, and didn't stop it, is tantamount to murder.
    
    If my friend breaks into your house and steals all of your possessions, leaving you destitute, and I'm outside "keeping the coast clear" should I not be punished just as severly?
    
    Now multiply that by however much value you place on a human life.
beesaretasty, on 06/27/2008, -3/+2It's a good ruling. I'm sure everyone here has heard what happens to child rapists in jail.
- Erich100, on 06/27/2008, -1/+4They are afforded separate accommodations from the run of the mill criminals. At the taxpayers expense.
  - beesaretasty, on 06/29/2008, -0/+0Damn. My (un)witty remark has made me depressed in the end. Thanks for the extra bit of knowledge. Now I'm conflicted on this decision.
swrostmore, on 06/27/2008, -3/+8Victims ignored and justice denied - after decades of litigation in which 1/3rd of the original plaintiffs died of old age, the Supreme Court yesterday reduced Exxon's liability for the Exxon-Valdez oil spill by 90%.
n0gnuz, on 06/27/2008, -2/+8He should be making cookware in prison and sending a paycheck to the victim every month for her suffering. Better yet, take his eyesight so that he can't hurt anyone else, and let him take advantage of the ADA largess that the rest of us have been forced to subsidize...and send her a check every month for her suffering.

If I had a child and someone raped her, I would want him paying for her therapy, not giving her another reason to need therapy. Rape isn't murder, and no human being, regardless of age, should have more legal rights or protections than any other human being. I've never been raped, but I've been violently assaulted, and while the urge to kill the bastard goes away, the guilt of having done so never would.

No, I'm not a liberal.
- Conspiracy20, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4Give him to the parents. Let them decide how to do it. Might make perverts think twice. Someone with vengeance in mind.
  - DrDreyfus, on 06/28/2008, -1/+1I beleive that's exactly why we have a court system or even a government for that matter.
    
    Condeming someone to civil vengence is barbaric and medieval.
    
    Welcome to modern society.
  - Conspiracy20, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2I said let them decide what to do with him. I in no way implied violence, you assumed it. I was suggesting a harsher sentence.
- mashimka, on 06/28/2008, -2/+1Hey Challenger 20 or 43 or whatever, weren't you banned? You came back as Conspiracy20? Wow.
  - Conspiracy20, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2I don't know what you're talking about chouch, singing frog.
AlanFang, on 06/27/2008, -6/+7If you start handing out death penalties for cases not involving the death of another human being it's a very slippery slope. Before you know it you could be executing a 17 year old who had consensual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend. The death penalty just doesn't fit here.
RicardoWilliams, on 06/27/2008, -3/+1actually not surprised at all. c'est la vie as we say en francais
d1gg3r1, on 06/27/2008, -0/+9You know, he'll have it harder in prison anyway; the death penalty = solitary confinement, cable television, and 3 hots a day for years on the taxpayer dime until he finally gets put out. Without the death penalty, he'll be in population with a bunch of other lifers who have nothing to lose by kicking his ass / shanking him. Almost all the cons have one thing in common: they HATE cho-mo's....

On the topic of the taxpayer fed, ~ $20 million per prisoner, 10-year waiting list for execution: Once an inmate has exhausted any possibility of appeal or pardon, take him out back and put a 39 cent bullet in his head >.<

problem solved.
- DaDrake, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1actually he wont. They don't put rapist/child-molesters/etc in the general population because..... even the murders/gang-members/drug-dealers/frauds/etc aren't that cruel.
Nekura20x6, on 06/27/2008, -0/+8Life in prison for child molesters is one of the worst things you can subject a person to. Letting them off the hook by killing them is too good for them.
0Xonox0, on 06/27/2008, -3/+3If the Supreme court keeps making rulings like this, pretty soon the US is going to be considered 'humane', we can't have that now can we?
Kent4jmj, on 06/28/2008, -0/+9This is a tough one in my opinion.

I believe the reason for the death penalty is that there needs to be a last resort of protection for society against someone that is a serious threat to it. With todays prison system and the highly unlikely chance of escape it is theoretically believed that the threat to society is made null. That being the case there is supposedly no need for a death penalty.

Unfortunately in the real world felons walk when they should not. Which argues for the implementation of a death penalty.

The other problem is that it is known that a significant number of those executed should not have been. Also minorities are an undue percentage of those sentenced.

With all the pros and cons I weigh in on the side for a death penalty at this time theoretically but believe it should rarely if ever be used.

It also can be argued that it is an undue burden on society to imprison someone for life.
chicoer2001, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2Every crime has a victim. Why does a first degree murderer get life, but a first-degree murder with special circumstances get death. Is one murder victim better than the other?
- DrDreyfus, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1That is incredibly simplistic.
  
  The point of prison or death is to nullify one's threat to society and serve as a reminder to those who would commit similar acts.
  
  The punishment should also fit the crime. If one man tortures another until death, he would be considered a lot more dangerous than someone who unintentionally killed a store owner during a robber.
anarcurt, on 06/28/2008, -3/+4It always seems to be the same kooks with the right to life that seem to be so willing to not protect that right after birth. Send em to war, send em to the chair. Honestly the guy is scum but the death penalty is excessive and inhumane.
- ObamaWins08, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Just remind me again...what did the baby do that deserves death? kooky, huh?
  
  And don't people have to enlist for the military? (well until the draft kicks back in:( )
- DaDrake, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Anarcurt, did the rapist make the decision to harm another life? The fact is, there are consequences for your actions. The religious right (which I have my own disagreements on) is against murder... not killing. There is a very important difference. Murder is an unjustified killed. On the other hand, killing is justified.
whatthefu, on 06/28/2008, -2/+3I dugg this because it's an interesting read, but I completely disagree with the notion that capital punishment should be applied to child rapists. I'm against the death penalty altogether, but who gets to decide what crimes are "so heinous" that the offender should be killed by the government? The justice system itself has so many flaws, it's a travesty. Justice is not revenge, it is righteousness. And no matter how you spin it, killing a person because you don't like what they did is not just. It solves absolutely nothing.
- DrDreyfus, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Agreed.
  
  Although some crimes do warrant the death penalty.
hinchb, on 06/28/2008, -1/+3Wait, people are still for the death penalty? I guess vengeance makes people feel better and they turn a blind eye to how unfairly the death penalty is applied in practice. Not surprised I guess.
these3remain, on 06/28/2008, -1/+5This particular article raises two issues, both of which are fraught with controversy. The first issue is that of supreme court justices legislating from the bench, a very sensitive issue, particularly with those of us who believe that the supreme court continues to hack away at various freedoms - especially those that pertain to states rights. It's particularly egregious when one learns that they based their decision on what they consider to be a "national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape" - in other words, the ruling was based upon whether or not it would be well-received - not judicial precedent. Then there is the issue of whether or not a child rapist should receive the death penalty - another touchy subject since there are those who think that no criminal should receive the death penalty. I think capital punishment is appropriate in some instances. It is not "murder" because the person has been convicted by a jury of their peers and been found guilty, hence they are not "innocent" - as in the case, for example, of aborted babies. And that is the definition of "murder" - the taking of an innocent life. Furthermore, God instituted capital punishment and did so long before the Mosaic laws or Code of Hammurabi. It was instituted way back in Gen. 9:6 "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man." which was before the Mosaic law was given. Once the Mosaic law was given , there were actually 21 different offenses that called for the death penalty , only 3 of which were actual or potential capital offenses by contemporary standards. Nor did Jesus in any way negate capital punishment in the New Testament, despite His teachings on forgiveness and love. He never challenged the authorities about the death penalty, even in the case of the woman caught in adultery. She was not "condemned" , therefore she was told to go and sin no more, although had she been "condemned" , her offense was punishable by death (one of those 18 other reasons in the Mosaic law for capital punishment). Jesus asked God to forgive, not Caesar because He realized and acknowledged that governing authorities are ordained by God and that those authorities may practice capital punishment ~ he never abrogated the law. I think what needs to be considered is the lex talionis - does the punishment fit the crime? Because that is what justice is about - meting out punishment for crimes that have been committed and doing so in a just way. Justice is the goal of punishment - not reforming. Did the child rapist "murder"? Not in the physical sense, the child is still alive. But did he take an innocent life? In some ways, definitely. I guess, if pressed, I'd opt for castration and life imprisonment among the general prison population. That, I think , would carry out justice.
- DrDreyfus, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2In the report I heard, the death penalty for child rape was deemed unconstitutional.
  
  I can't immagine the court actually making a judgement based on popularity.
DaDrake, on 06/28/2008, -1/+4Honestly, there are some cases I find worst than murder. Murder can be a simple act of killing someone without them ever knowing; in contrast, rape can become a long torturing event that permanently dehumanizes and scars the victim for life. Instead of killing someone for money, which by itself is pathetic.... they are killing a person's soul for entertainment and sexual gratification. This ruling, sadly, lessons the significance of rape crimes.

Generally, I am against the death sentence unless one can argue it will save more lives (a hypothetical rarity). But, I am also disturbed at this notion that someone must kill others to receive the highest level of justice.

Most of all, I fear the US may become more like EU nations (Germany, Italy, etc). I used to live in the Germany.... and was sicken that a violent rapist would likely get only 3-5 years. To Europeans, rape is just another assault. In fact, Italy Supreme Court recently overturned a rape sentence (which was less than three years) on the fact women and jeans can not be raped (no joke). When I realized the USA treated rape equal with 2nd degree murder and sometimes as equal with murder... I was happy to see there was still justice in the world.
2h3px, on 06/28/2008, -1/+3I mean they did uphold the constitution, that's usually a good thing.
ChAnG3tH3wOrLd, on 06/28/2008, -2/+2Well I think that this is just another example how our government lets us down...This is just another reason why we as a nation need to put all things aside and fight to make our country stand on the "conservative" based constitution that this nation was built upon!
annjay, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Dugg this because I like the article its really intresting
infinitydl, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1I am not sure how I feel about the death penalty yet, other then for treason of course, when it should be applied swiftly, take that Sacco, Vanzetti and the Rosenberg's. However since it is legal, it should be applied swiftly, one appeal and the onus on the government to provide higher evidentiary standard. Once imposed however, do it quick. I don;t want to waste my tax money keeping them alive any longer then I have to. That's my problem with life in prison in lieu of death. So my tax dollars have to pay for three squares a day, free health care and an exercise yard for a child rapist. Just kill them quick and be done with it.
DerangedPenguin, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1What is up with the U.S. Supreme Court. Are the Justices bi-polar? We get forfeiture of land owner ship rights in Connecticut so some developer can build a multi-unit condo and the state can get more tax money. Bad decision. Then we get an affirmation of the right to self defense and gun ownership by law abiding citizens. Then we get this crazy ruling. I am against the death penalty for 99% of the cases, ther is alway the possibility that someone lied under oath, or that DNA test results were wrong, over turning a conviction. However this guy is an animal or less than an animal. We as a society need to protect our future and our future is our children.
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Victims Ignored and Justice Denied--by the Supreme Court

Login or register to add a comment