Tuesday, July 1: Good riddance.
——————————————————————-
A little over a year ago, I wrote a Townhall column about a child rapist named Patrick Kennedy. He brutally raped his wife’s eight-year-old daughter. If you’re squeamish, don’t read about the physical damage he caused.
In Louisiana, the rape of a child under 12 is (or was) a capital crime. Kennedy was found guilty of aggravated rape and sentenced to death. His appeal reached the Louisiana Supreme Court, which upheld his death sentence.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that imposing the death penalty for child rape violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. (Source)
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the opinion, “The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child.”
Justice Samuel Alito wrote, “The harm that is caused to the victims and to society at large by the worst child rapists is grave. It is the judgment of the Louisiana lawmakers and those in an increasing number of other states that these harms justify the death penalty.”
Needless to say, I do not agree with the court’s ruling. I believe child rapists should be subject to the death penalty. I’ll have more to say once I track down and read the opinion.
Do you believe child rapists should get the death penalty, whether or not they’ve killed the child?
Update: Commenting on Justice Kennedy’s “proportional punishment” remark, the Independent Conservative writes on his blog (emphasis in original):
“I don’t find this talk of ‘proportional punishment’ in the Constitution and death for a child rapist is not ‘cruel’ or ‘unusual’. Proportional punishment for a rapist would be to have them raped as many times as they had raped someone else. It would have to be done in a manner that knowingly disturbed the rapist’s sensibilities, so they actually felt they were ‘raped’ as they did to their victim.”
Update II (6/26): I found the 65-page opinion (PDF). Check it out.
Previous posts:
The penalty should be proportionate to the crime. If you kill somebody intentionally, it can be argued that the death penalty is appropriate, as it is a permanent punishment for a permanent crime. (Permanent in the sense that there is no chance for the victim to be reborn.) Rape is a disgusting and abhorrent crime, but there is a chance, even a likely chance, that the victim, be it a woman, man or child, will be able to recover and continue with their lives. Utilizing the ultimate punishment for the non-ultimate crime is disproportionate.
Comment by Proportionate — 06.25.08 @ 11:26 am
I can’t think of anything more important to protect than kids. If you grew up in the United States knowing that if you ever mess with a kid your dead…well we probably would have less perverts messing with kids. I’m absolutly in favor of the death penalty for child rapists. Mess with a child and it’s bye bye time.
Comment by Sparky — 06.25.08 @ 12:03 pm
I’m worried about the slippery slope. If we start using the death penalty for crimes that aren’t intentional murder, where does it end? Drunk driving which ends up with fatalities?
Victims’ rights groups, contrary to what you might think, actually have fought AGAINST the death penalty for child rape. They believe that the death penalty will make the would-be rapist more likely to kill the child they’ve just raped (i.e., killing the only witness to the crime, thus making it harder to be convicted of anything).
Comment by Kman — 06.25.08 @ 12:07 pm
Also, victims’ rights groups are concerned about reporting of sexual crimes. Since many chid rapes are committed by family or friends of the victim, there may be some reluctance for the victim (or others) to turn the perpetrator in if they know that the result could be the death penalty.
Something to consider….
Comment by Kman — 06.25.08 @ 12:18 pm
Somebody tell me again what someone has to do to get the death penalty. There’s a guy here in Atlanta that was in jail for murder broke out killed 4 more people and they are still trying figure out what to charge him with 8-.
Comment by James Newman — 06.25.08 @ 12:18 pm
The penalty should be proportionate to the crime.
Good point. Violent sodomy with a blunt object seems “proportionate” to child rape…
Comment by Heather — 06.25.08 @ 12:24 pm
Excellent suggestion, Heather!
Comment by La Shawn — 06.25.08 @ 12:25 pm
Sorry I need to correct myself he was in for rape not murder.
Comment by James Newman — 06.25.08 @ 12:26 pm
I was shocked this wasn’t a 9-0 decision in favor of zonking the death penalty for child rape. Raping a child, or anyone, is a horrible act and crime, and deserves a stiff penalty. But, taking a life is really the ultimate crime and I think the ultimate penalty, execution, should be reserved only for that. The Court seems to disallow the death penalty based on nuances in murder cases, and I was surprised any of the justices would consider it allowable in a case where there was no murder. I think Alito is wrong to make a states-rights case out of this. Ya gotta love the Supremes….you never know what they will do!
Comment by Hunter — 06.25.08 @ 12:30 pm
So, basically, in this respect, the Supreme court has ruled on all punishments.
“The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child.”
I guess I could read this as a year in prison for kidnapping is completely against the constitution, because the person who did the kidnapping only held the victim for a day/week/month, so the punihment is not proportional to the crime.
What about property crimes? I guess that would mean any jail time for theft would be illegal as well, and you can just say goodbye to the laws that prevent people from using drugs, drunk driving and everything else that do no harm other than increase risks.
Way to go court!!!
Comment by allen — 06.25.08 @ 12:36 pm
Missouri just passed a law like Louisiana, but nobody ever accused my state of having intelligent state reps.
This was a foolish law. As the victims rights groups rightfully pointed out, this will end up hurting victims rather than helping them. Not to mention that it is disproportionate.
Not every child who has been raped is ruined for life. Not every child who has been raped would feel “better” or heal more if their rapists were put to death.
Not to downplay the pain, but to attempt to achieve a sense of balance.
Comment by Shelley — 06.25.08 @ 12:37 pm
I’m depressed with a heavy heart by this ruling.
I see this ruling as a pass to those that would violate children’s innocence. Raping a child falls within the most evil of all human acts.
Is there any recourse within the law? I see none.
Comment by Chevy Rose — 06.25.08 @ 12:40 pm
This is not the function of the SUPREME COURT.
The Constitution says that there can be no CRUEL and UNUSUAL punishment.
The Death Penalty has been approved as NOT CRUEL nor UNUSUAL.
The Court CLEARLY legislated from the bench.
The State of Louisiana should decide the punishment for a given crime. If the punishment has been deemed not to be CRUEL or UNUSUAL, then the COURT should butt the FUQQ out.
Comment by libocrat — 06.25.08 @ 12:47 pm
In my opinion, a child rapist basically has killed the child. The child will never, ever be whole nor able to recover in full. His or her life has largely been taken from them. Some damage cannot be repaired.
Death’s too good for scum like that.
Comment by DC — 06.25.08 @ 1:14 pm
The LA State legislature decided that death was an acceptable form of punishment for child rapists. The jury of peers aggreed that the man was guilty and deserved the death penalty. 5 unelected justices just went against the will of the people in LA. What ever happened to States’ rights?
Comment by Meredith — 06.25.08 @ 2:23 pm
This has always been a tough issue for me. I was sexually abused throughout my childhood by two relatives and a neighbor. The relative who was the primary abuser is still out there.
One day, about eight years ago, I had the opportunity to kill him. Perhaps that sounds sensational but I don’t know how else to put it. I was behind the wheel of my car and saw him crossing the parking lot. I had it all figured out: my parents at least reported what he did to me so even though the statue of limitations had passed, I could claim insanity and perhaps not go to jail.
Praise God, I didn’t do it. As I went through therapy and began to realize just how deep the wounds of sexual abuse go, and how much I’d been robbed and ripped of by what was done to me, there were times when I was so angry, I wished I *had* run him over. Rape, particularly childhood sexual abuse, is cruel and unusual punishment. It changes everything about you, right down to the neurobiological level (see: “Scars That Won’t Heal,” an article in the Scientific American.) It’s only in the past four years or so (I’m 32) that I’ve been on a path to wholeness, and finally not fearing men like I used to.
Do I believe my cousin — and other rapists like hims — should be killed (if they don’t kill their victim)? No. There was a time when I would have said, let the s.o.b. be hung from his cojones and shot. In his case, he was a deeply disturbed teenager who was probably abused himself. Not all cases are like that though and I believe some people are just evil…should they be killed? My answer is still “no.”
Does his being abused justify anything he did to me? Not at all. Do I still want justice? Hell yes, especially since he’s not behind bars right now. What does that justice look like? I don’t know. I’d like jail time…*something* as payback for what he took from me, but this is where I end, and where my faith begins. And it’s the most uncomfortable place in the world. I can only trust that God, in His infinite wisdom, is taking care it.
Comment by Name Witheld — 06.25.08 @ 2:29 pm
“In my opinion, a child rapist basically has killed the child. The child will never, ever be whole nor able to recover in full. His or her life has largely been taken from them. Some damage cannot be repaired.”
That’s a foolish thing to say. That’s condemning the child to a life of misery by assuming that with help they can’t recover or have a good life. I refuse to make any victim into a permanent victim in order to assuage some people’s need for extraordinary punitive measures. I do agree with severe penalties of child rapists, but not the death penalty.
“What ever happened to States’ rights?”
Meredith, you may want to take some time to educate yourself on the role of the Supreme Court before writing statements such as this.
Comment by Shelley — 06.25.08 @ 3:40 pm
Part of what must be understood here is that the Court was not, and COULD not place a blanket ruling on all convicted child rapists were they to rule the opposite way. The point of the case was whether the death penalty to should ALLOWED as a POSSIBLE punishment - or, in other words, should it be on the table during sentencing. So, the disturbed teen one commenter mentioned could conceivably receive some manner of clemency by the judge because of that and therefore not be subject to death. While someone that kidnaps and holds boys as sex slaves over the course of several years could easily be sentenced to death.
Another thing that must be understood is that the standard for sentences isn’t a simple equation. Like another commenter said, a kidnapper doesn’t get incarcerated for the same amount of time they held the victim. Court sentences are meant to force the repayment of a debt to the victim (the primary duty of CIVIL courts) and to the government (the primary duty of CRIMINAL courts) as the representative of society.
Lawmakers provide the sentencing guidelines for disobeying the laws they create according to the social mores of their constituents - all, of course, within the framework of the Constitution and the “cruel and unusual punishments” clause. In this way, a state can determine that the theft of a horse is punishable by a fine of X dollars more than another state, but NOT declare it is punishable by death.
Anyway, because of the way the system works, you can often tell the value a society has on certain things based on the penalty it imposes on those that injure it. Because we universally value life, the highest penalties are reserved for murderers. However, some states have decided that the undefiled innocence of a child that is stolen, the unlimited potential so grievously injured when a child is raped is a loss of the highest order.
I do not think it is such a cruel or unusual punishment. If and when someone is convicted and sentenced to that fate, it may be found during the appeals process that it is unjustified. But at the very least, it should be ALLOWED to be on the table.
Comment by Gabe — 06.25.08 @ 4:51 pm
The death penalty should be available depending on the circumstances. “Child rape” can vary in degree from penetration that causes no or very little lasting physical damage to, in this case, rape so violent and sadistic that this little girl would have DIED WITHOUT EMERGENCY SURGERY. The man literally ripped her insides apart. So even though he could have killed her with the act, he did not specifically intend to kill her and she did not ultimately die. Also, after doing this heinous crime, he showed no remorse, only concern that there were bloodstains on the carpet. But since his intent wasn’t to kill, he’s not guilty of murder or attempted murder.
If you draw the distinction between “murder” (or attempt) on one hand and “rape” as the division between what is death-penalty eligible or not, then you are saying that sexual penetration causing massive life-threatening internal injuries should have the punishment vary based only on your intent - if you’re doing it just to kill, death, but if you achieve sexual gratification while doing so, then you just get life in prison.
If you believe that “child rape” should never result in the death penalty, keep in mind that you’re not limiting that just to sex without consent. Under the new law, a rapist can perform any kind of violent, sadistic, torture that causes severe injury, disfigurement, or lasting disability onto a child, but still not get death so long as the child doesn’t die.
If someone rapes a baby girl and in doing so, rips out her womb and is never able to bear children, no death penalty.
If someone rapes a little boy and he has to defecate into a colostomy bag for the rest of his life, no death penalty.
If someone does this over and over, to tiny little kids, victim after victim, no death penalty.
Thank you Anthony Kennedy. May you reap what you have sown.
Comment by D-Day — 06.25.08 @ 5:03 pm
Yes, I believe death is a reasonable penalty for child rape. Furthermore, I believe that citizens in states have the right under the constitution to establish such a penalty. Some states will and some states will not. Perhaps, then, child molesters will leave the death-penalty states for those where they feel “safer.” Such is the outcome anticipated when our constitutional republic was created.
The same principle should be applied to many questions, including abortion, maybe same-sex marriage. Let those who desire to be liberal be liberal. Let me choose a conservative, law & order state to live in.
Once again, the court has overstepped its own constitutional limitations and has acted as a legislature.
Comment by ManlyDad — 06.25.08 @ 5:13 pm
A number of the commenters here have to remember that we live in a constitutional democracy, so the politically popular whims of the Louisiana legislature do not rule the day. The United States Congress, with the support of all 300 million Americans could pass a law, but if it is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court can strike it down. If the people are unhappy with that result, they need to marshall enough support to amend the Constitution in order to allow whatever act that was ruled unconstitutional to become constitutional.
Heather’s advocating for the raping of any convicted felon with a blunt object is simply disgusting. You heap deserved blame on the felon, you incarcerate the felon, you punish the felon, but you can’t be a civilized person if you believe raping him is an appropriate action. We are not in the times of Hammurabi.
If you honestly believed that the death penalty has a deterrent effect on criminals (which it empirically doesn’t, but some pro-death penalty people take solace in this myth) you should be happy with this result. Criminal George wants to rape his daughter. He does so. He now faces the death penalty for the rape, so figuring he has a better shot of getting away with it if there are no witnesses, so he murders her.
How in the world does that help the child? Same punishment for raping a girl that you get for murdering her? People flee the police in high speed chases for less.
Comment by Proportionate — 06.25.08 @ 5:50 pm
Regardless of anyone’s personal feelings on the penalty for rape, what section of the constitution did the Supremes cite for their decision? None. They are putting their own beliefs and conclusions over those of the elected legislators and the people. For legislators who defy the peoples’ will there is the option of no reelection to office. There is no such recourse for judges. Ergo, the justices have now become our supreme legislators.
Comment by ManlyDad — 06.25.08 @ 8:10 pm
Can someone point to where Jesus would advocate or support the death penalty—in any case.
Thanks.
Comment by Summer — 06.25.08 @ 10:17 pm
Can someone point to where Jesus would advocate or support the death penalty—in any case.
Probably in the same place that Jesus opposed the Iraq War and tax cuts while supporting Social Security, affirmative action, gay/lesbian marriage and comprehensive immigration reform.
Have not found it yet, but if I do I’ll let you know.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 06.26.08 @ 12:14 am
“Can someone point to where Jesus would advocate or support the death penalty—in any case.”
Actually, Jesus “supports” the death penalty to everyone who does not accept him as the Christ, and that’s a whole lot of people. Please try another argument.
Comment by Shecodes — 06.26.08 @ 1:14 am
Summer, the New Testament gives the secular authorities the right to punish as they see fit, up to and including the death penalty.
Romans 13:3, 4
For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
Acts 15:10, 11
Paul answered: “I am now standing before Caesar’s court, where I ought to be tried. I have not done any wrong to the Jews, as you yourself know very well. If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die. But if the charges brought against me by these Jews are not true, no one has the right to hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar!”
Comment by Amy K. — 06.26.08 @ 5:21 am
I think we’re getting too tied up over the punishment being proportionate to the crime. That starts to stray into the “eye for an eye” mentality, which isn’t necessarily where we want to go with these sorts of sick and twisted crimes. Nobody in their right mind can propose that somebody convicted of murdering somebody and then eating them should themselves be eaten. The death penalty is not, and should not, be used as a means to torture somebody on their way into the afterlife. It is to remove somebody who should no longer be allowed to live. This is why methods of execution have generally all caused a speedy death - hanging, firing squad, electric chair, etc.
This case is simply an extension of the argument of whether or not the death penalty should exist. Once you accept the fact that if you commit certain atrocities, you should no longer be allowed to live, it is logical to include the brutal rape of a child - stealing their innocence forever - as one of those atrocities.
Comment by Patriot Xeno — 06.26.08 @ 6:07 am
I’m pretty sure the talk about raping the rapist was both hyperbole and a verbal jab at the idea of “proportional” punishment. As others have said, we don’t want to get into “eye for an eye” judgments based on some extreme view of proportionality.
All personal feelings about the death penalty aside, the main issue is whether the Constitution places an impediment to the Legislature disallowing the death penalty for child rapists. More succinctly, is the death penalty “cruel and unusual” punishment for raping a child? THAT is the only standard by which the law can and should be judged. The problem arises, however, that the bench has for decades been applying a sliding scale related to this issue such that what is considered “cruel and unusual” has continued to expand and expand until there is no actual punishment left.
As for those that have argued that adding the death penalty increases the risk to the victim, that is just as specious a conclusion as asserting some sort of deterrent effect. Neither argument can reliably be applied because it ascribes a certain level of rationality to child rapists that has rarely, if ever, been shown.
I reiterate, the point of court-ordered sentences is to exact a price that the people, through the government, have placed on that which the criminal has damaged or destroyed. The Constitutional requirement was only intended to add ensure some measure of reasonable limitations. I think it unreasonable to disallow the government to put someone to death for raping a child.
Comment by Gabe — 06.26.08 @ 8:19 am
I’ve no problem with death penalty for this kind of heinous crime. When libs say “it’s for the children,” don’t believe it.
Comment by Michele — 06.26.08 @ 3:46 pm
Although I would classify myself as a “liberal”, I am stunned by the court’s ruling. If there is ever a situation that justifies the death penalty, child rape is it. In fact, I support the death penalty for any type of aggravated child molestation. (I would want there to be added safeguards - maybe a heightened evidentiary standard, for example (i.e. something even stronger than beyond a reasonable doubt…) - or maybe required DNA evidence - but these animals MUST be killed.) We MUST rid our society of this evil. They cannot be cured and even if they are not taking the child’s life in a literal sense, they are most certainly taking it in every other sense. A child who is raped, or even molested, has her soul murdered. This child will most likely never recover. How can we allow the perpetrators of such crimes to continue breathing our air? I hope these animals are at least killed in prison by other inmates.
Comment by Deborah M. — 06.26.08 @ 4:00 pm
May I point out something here? The so-called “eye-for-an-eye mentality” was actually a mandate for MERCY. Not death or torture, or both, for an eye, but an equal measure.
Comment by Trish — 06.26.08 @ 8:53 pm
I can’t understand how there are any people posting threads in support of the supreme court. This is an embarassment to the United States. This shouldn’t even be a question. I can swear this before God…I have a 7 month old daughter at home, and if anyone ever lays a hand on her, I’d set that pervert on fire and hang his ass from a tree. All of this talk about the punishment needing to fit the crime is disgusting. There is no crime worse than harming an innocent child. I long for the next news story where I get the priviledge of hearing about a child predator being beaten to death when he lands in prison. If we can’t count on the courts to protect our children, I guess that means we need to hope and pray that the murderers and gang members in prison will take care of the execution of perverts for us…..
Comment by Dave — 06.26.08 @ 11:29 pm
Some people say executing child rapists would be a slippery slope… Well that is one slope I would glady push a child rapist down with ease.
Comment by Chris G — 06.27.08 @ 3:11 am
I am outraged. If you want to read the Louisiana Supreme Court Opinion it is here: http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2007/05KA1981.opn.pdf
Comment by arabellafigg — 06.27.08 @ 10:18 am
Deborah M.
You state: “A child who is raped, or even molested, has her soul murdered. ”
Her soul…are you saying male children aren’t raped?
In general *ANY* child who is raped, molested or murdered deserves to have that avenged. I do agree that the Death Penalty is the fitting punishment to the crime.
Don’t, however, assume that male children are immune to the same heinous acts that female children are.
Comment by Dan — 06.27.08 @ 10:49 am
Trish, you make a very important point. The Biblical idea being put forth in the “eye-for-an-eye” passage is very much a call to restraint and, as you said, mercy. “Proportional” punishment is a slippery concept in that on the one hand, it is a call to fairness, and on the other, it is coupled with the “evolving standard of decency” to create situations like the decision in question. While we castigate the latter usage, we should be careful not to forget the important lesson of the former.
Comment by Gabe — 06.27.08 @ 11:36 am
As one poster stated, the rapist should themselves be raped. But in a manner that was defiling to that individual. Sometimes I ride the fence with the death penalty, I would want life in prison, but with a very strict stay (23hrs in cell). But how often does that happen. I disagree with this judgment, it’s like the victims never get justice and the criminals have so many rights.
Comment by Tish — 06.30.08 @ 8:47 am
Dan:
I was saying no such thing. In the Supreme Court case at hand, the child was a girl. I just wrote “her”; I could have easily written “his”. There is no question that both boys and girls are victimized by these foul predators.
Comment by Deborah M. — 06.30.08 @ 4:11 pm
Of course the death penalty is a proportional response to child rape. By 150% at my calculation (yours may differ). I don’t think a proportional punishment become cruel and unusual until the proportion is 20 to 1.
tehag
Comment by tehag — 06.30.08 @ 5:19 pm
In one sense you can’t ever find an appropriate punishment for a crime committed against a child, because the perpetrator can never experience suffering in the same way a child does.
What we really need to be able to do is to figure out the way we can best protect ourselves against these atrocities.
Comment by Trish — 06.30.08 @ 9:54 pm
This begs the question ..
What do Al Gore and raped children have in common ?
Answer
Comment by Neo — 07.02.08 @ 8:10 am
I think that men who rape women or children should be put a away for life. Research has proven that men who rape once, rape again and often murder. We as a country need to put these people away. I do not think there is any hope for someone who has already made a conscious decision to rape a women or child once will not do it again. A stronger penalty is needed.
Comment by Andrea — 07.03.08 @ 1:48 am