Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThere are very few issues that should be left to the courts to decide. But how to punish the rapists of children is certainly one of them.
And the U.S. Supreme Court did so with reasonable agility when it barred states from executing individuals convicted of this particularly heinous crime.
The death penalty is state-sanctioned murder. It is always wrong.
But if we are realistic, we must recognize that we live in a country that is in a race with Saudi Arabia and Iran to see which will be the first to creep out of the Middle Ages. So debates about capital punishment must, necessarily, play out with an unsettling measure of nuance.
While it is right to oppose all executions, it is unfortunately essential to recognize that there will for some time continue to be debates not merely about the core issue of official killing but about questions of how to take lives in a "legitimate" and "proportional" manner.
The high court determined, correctly, that is neither legitimate nor proportional to kill those who harm but do not kill others. To do so, the court suggested in a 5-4 ruling, is in the language of the 8th amendment to the Constitution "cruel and unusual." Simply stated, the court determined that "As it (relates) to crimes against individuals, the death penalty should not be expanded to instances where the victim's life was not taken."
To use capital punishment in this manner is, as well, foolhardy and dangerous. Law enforcement officers point out that the threat of execution provides added encouragement for child molesters to simply kill their victims and leave no witnesses. As Justice Anthony Kennedy -- who wrote for a majority that included Justices Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg – the court hopes that by removing the possibility of execution it, as well, ``may remove a strong incentive for the rapist not to kill the victim.''
Thus, this is a decision that respects the rights and the safety of crime victims (and their families) while allowing for severe but proportional punishment of attackers – up to and including life imprisonment without parole.
Predictably, the judicial activists on the court -- Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- dissented. More concerned about using their positions to advance political agendas and exploit fears than they are bout interpreting the law in a responsible manner or respecting the counsel of the law-enforcement community – they treated abused children as pawns in their ideological chess game.
John McCain sided with them. The Republican candidate for president, indulging ignorance for political purposes, denounced the court majority for "an assault on law enforcement's efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime."
Of course, McCain suggested, he would appoint more justices in the mold of the activist minority.
In so doing, the senator from Arizona offered one of the best arguments for rejecting his presidential candidacy. McCain is willing to exploit even the children to play political games.
Democrat Barack Obama is, to be sure, a disappointing player when it comes to the death penalty debate. Though he played a part in the effort to impose a moratorium on executions in Illinois, when he served as a state senator, Obama has refused to join death-penalty abolitionists such as Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, who recognize that killing is killing – whether the blood is spilled by a cold-blooded murderer or a state employee.
It ought to come as no surprise that, while McCain rushed to exploit the Supreme Court decision for political purposes, Obama was circumspect. He recognizes that the raw emotions associated with cases of this kind do not lend themselves to reasoned debate. And, while a Feingold might recognize this as a teaching moment, Obama is a more cautious player.
On matters such as this, there is something to be said for a cautious response. It is not easy to talk about the abuse of children; and it is common for such talk to be spun and warped by critics. But Obama ought to talk about the kind of judges he would appoint, and he should say that they will be jurists rather than activists like the Constitutional wrecking crew of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito.
By all indications are that Obama recognizes that our courts must wrestle with the most difficult issues in our society. And he has, judiciously (if we may use that word here) indicated that he would appoint judges from the legal mainstream – as opposed to the activist pool polluted by the Federalist Society and other groups to which McCain would turn for nominees. That is a good thing -- a very good thing -- and Obama should talk more about it.
Someday, the United States will join the civilized world and bar capital punishment.
Someday, we will have Democratic and Republican presidential candidates who recognize that that the state ought not be in the killing business.
Until that day comes, the courts will have to do the heavy lifting when it comes to sorting out issues of crime and punishment. And when we choose a president, we will be required to ask ourselves: What sort of jurists would this man or woman appoint?
McCain has made it clear, again and again, that he intends to select activist judges who impose their political agendas – even when those agendas threaten the lives of children.
On the list of considerations that ought to disqualify the senator from Arizona from serious consideration as a presidential contender, this one ranks second only to his casual enthusiasm for unnecessary war-making.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
>>>By all indications are that Obama recognizes that these are issues for the courts to wrestle with, and that he would appoint jurists from the legal mainstream – as opposed to the activist pool polluted by the Federalist Society and other groups to which McCain would turn for nominees. And that is a good thing -- a very good thing.
On the list of considerations that ought to disqualify the senator from Arizona from serious consideration as a presidential contender, this one ranks second only to his casual enthusiasm for unnecessary war-making.<<<
You are right on the money with this one, Nichols!
Posted by Metteyya at 06/25/2008 @ 2:08pm
Executing Charles Manson would not be a wrong. He clearly did it, he is clearly incurably criminally insane.
Executing someone that is not guilty of murder is a wrong.
Executing child rapists would seem to me to be cruel and unusual, but then so is raping a child. State sponsored executions should be the absolute last step and only used when guilt is beyond question.
Quite a bit of grey area, but it looks like McCain wishes to live in the neo-con world of Black/Orange.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/25/2008 @ 2:28pm
Wow, um, the extent to which this article is just filled with strawmen and bad arguments is truly shocking. Let me go down point for point.
<<The death penalty is state-sanctioned murder. It is always wrong. >>
There are two problems with this. The first is that it's a giant assertion; contrary to the author's claims, there is very legitimate ongoing debate as to whether the death penalty is a legitimate means of punishment. Simply asserting that it's not is far from sufficient. Second, and more interestingly, I've increasingly come to realize that the phrase "state-sanctioned murder" means far less than its advocates would like. Imprisonment, for instance, can be described as "state-sanctioned kidnapping," taxes as "state-sanctioned theft," etc. Conflating the death penalty with murder ignores the fact that this same description can be applied to all other punishments just as easily, and unless he's prepared to contend that ALL punishments are illegitimate, he's on very shaky ground here.
<<Law enforcement officers point out that the threat of execution provides added encouragement for child molesters to simply kill their victims and leave no witnesses. As Justice Anthony Kennedy -- who wrote for a majority that included Justices Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg – the court hopes that by removing the possibility of execution it, as well, ``may remove a strong incentive for the rapist not to kill the victim.''>>
Now, this is very much a legitimate argument. The problem is that it's a very legitimate POLICY argument. The Court, on the other hand, is there to confront constitutional questions and not policy ones. The reason articulated by the justices above, therefore, has no bearing on whether the statute is unconstitutional, only on whether it is bad policy. Now, this could be an argument instead to show that there is not in fact a compelling state interest in play, but it provides no positive reason to strike down the law.
<<Predictably, the judicial activists on the court -- Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- dissented. More concerned about using their positions to advance political agendas and exploit fears than they are bout interpreting the law in a responsible manner or respecting the counsel of the law-enforcement community – they treated abused children as pawns in their ideological chess game. >>
Seriously?? Is this supposed to be a meaningful substitute for actual argument? Literally, Nichols just makes a giant assertion about the motives of the justices, and NEVER makes the effort to back it up. I...wow.
But it gets better...
<<McCain is willing to exploit even the children to play political games. >>
This is the perfect setup for an ad...."raaaahr McCain hates children." Oy.
Quiet honestly, I have almost never been more disappointed with a Nation article than I am today. Blind character assassination and rampant strawmen are no substitute for meaningful discourse.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/25/2008 @ 2:35pm
Blind character assassination and rampant strawmen are no substitute for meaningful discourse.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/25/2008 @ 2:35pm
Let us have a meaningful discourse then despite the author. Where do you fall on the subject of capital punishment? I for one am against it. My reason being that like many hypothetical arguments that I have received for multiple things most recently warrant-less wire tapping this is not proven to help in anyway. Statistics do not back up the argument FOR capital punishment. Pro-CP advocates like to say that it deters people from committing crimes but there no actual example of this. In fact The US being one of the biggest users of capital punishment still has one of the highest crime violent crime rates of any civilize country. So it apparently isn't working very well.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 3:06pm
<i>Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 3:06pm </i>
Certainly. On the level of constitutional theory, I don't think that the death penalty is in principle cruel and unusual, though like Zero, I have some serious problems with a lot of the implementation in the status quo.
I'm not sure that's quite what you wanted, though. Quite honestly, I've gone back and forth on it a lot. On the one hand, I've found the deterrence arguments fairly persuasive, not only because the statistics meant to disprove this seem to ignore many important variables, but also because death, intuitively, is something that people are strongly motivated to avoid. Empirical experience vindicates this on a number of levels, and in the absence of compelling statistics to indicate otherwise, I'm inclined to buy that claim. I'm similarly inclined to buy the proportionality argument, especially the idea that society needs the ability to highlight some offenses as so wrong, so destructive to a society that death is the only proportional response.
On the other hand, though, like I said, I'm very concerned about a lot of the problems of implementation in the status quo, especially the disturbingly high rates of poor and black individuals sentenced to death. Additionally, though this isn't a defeater for me, I am uncomfortable about the state's ability to take a life. I tend to think that in order to take someone's life, the state should have to meet a pretty high burden, whether we're talking about war abroad or punishment at home. I don't think that burden is impossible to meet, but I'm not sure how many current implementations of the death penalty have really met it.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/25/2008 @ 3:57pm
I consider myself very liberal, but I am 100% in favor of the death penalty for murderers AND rapists. Rape victims have to live with the memory of that rape everyday for the rest of their lives, and in effect their life as they knew it before is over. With that in mind I believe that rapists being put to death is a punnishment that fits the crime somewhat appropriately.
Posted by marcl at 06/25/2008 @ 4:36pm
Quite honestly, I've gone back and forth on it a lot.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/25/2008 @ 3:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Thrawn, this is one of the reasons I like you you so much and you to be an absolute shining beacon to those on the 'other side' of the fence.
The notion of capital punishment, even under the emotional circumstances that obviously surrond the murder of children. is NOT something to be taken lightly or with minimal thought or on purely emotional grounds. That you've gone 'back and forth' on the issue is the truest indication that you have applied critical thought to an incredibly difficult and complex question.
Thank you.
Posted by Lillian at 06/25/2008 @ 4:55pm
The men who wrote "cruel and unusual punishment" fully intended for homosexual activity to be a capital crime.
Posted by marybretbrad at 06/25/2008 @ 4:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
What the heck?!?!!?!?
Darren, somtimes you say things that arw absolutely...
...bizzarre.
Posted by Lillian at 06/25/2008 @ 4:58pm
Well, first...
"The men who wrote "cruel and unusual punishment" fully intended for homosexual activity to be a capital crime."----Posted by marybretbrad at 06/25/2008 @ 4:10pm
Darin, could you cite any scholarship to back that up?
Second, I've changed on CP over the years. The problems outweigh the "justice" created.
Now, there have yet to be any proven cases of an innocent executed (if there have, then the anti-CP advocates have done a VERY POOR job of noting it...as it would be a clear element against it).
(Yes, plenty of "guys on death row freed"...none of an actual "innocent executed" that I have seen).
I think execution is the easy way out for the truly guilty. Frankly, endless years and years in prison, rather than 5-10 years and a nice easy PAINLESS injection....is too comfortable an ending.
So, I'm against.
Posted by Mask at 06/25/2008 @ 5:00pm
Well, it looks as though Obama didn't choose the purportedly wise and principled route of circumspection on this issue, as so fervently apologized for by the article's author (who is now free to be disappointed in Obama all over again).
Posted by man00ver at 06/25/2008 @ 5:09pm
I have no problem with the death penalty for any crime that harms a child.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/25/2008 @ 5:42pm
but wouldn't executing someone's dad hurt a child?
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/25/2008 @ 6:02pm
"Where do you fall on the subject of capital punishment? I for one am against it."
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 3:06pm
I'm for it. One of my brothers was killed by paroled felons. He left behind a wife and 3 daughters.
I'm all for putting one round in the back of the head, instead of housing, feeding, and clothing those monsters on my dime. I get so sick and tired of all the liberal pie-in-the-sky dreams of civil justice for all criminals, and yet, in the same breathe, they never thing about justice for the victims and their families.
Posted by ACook at 06/25/2008 @ 6:04pm
I've read about this decision on some blogs today, and it raises emotions like nothing else. Child abuse is horrible and it is tempting to go for the most severe penalty. I always thought Mike Dukakis' answer to THE question should have been that he would want to kill the perp himself, but that that is why we need laws.
About the death penalty, I have many thoughts. I was in favor of granting it to those who request it. I also have at times felt that life in a maximum security prison is cruel and unusual punishment and more so for child abusers.
But in the long run, I come back to the confusion that I also feel about war, that in some cases it may be necessary but I don't want to be the one to decide.
Posted by ramara at 06/25/2008 @ 6:52pm
Posted by frankgrits at 06/25/2008 @ 5:40pm
Leave it to a HRC cultist like FRANK to turn a thread on something serious like the death penalty into....
something so UN-serious as Hillary's "character assassination".
Geez, man...is your whole life wrapped up in that woman? And isn't Mrs. GRITS getting a little jealous at this point?
Posted by Mask at 06/25/2008 @ 6:58pm
I'm all for putting one round in the back of the head, instead of housing, feeding, and clothing those monsters on my dime. I get so sick and tired of all the liberal pie-in-the-sky dreams of civil justice for all criminals, and yet, in the same breathe, they never thing about justice for the victims and their families.
Posted by ACook at 06/25/2008 @ 6:04pm
I understand your perspective but I have a different one for you. I had an uncle who was sentenced to death. After he was killed by the state new evidence came to light that proved him to be innocent. Don't be so quick to be willing to dole out punishment because not everyone is actually guilty.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 7:05pm
On the other hand, though, like I said, I'm very concerned about a lot of the problems of implementation in the status quo, especially the disturbingly high rates of poor and black individuals sentenced to death. Additionally, though this isn't a defeater for me, I am uncomfortable about the state's ability to take a life. I tend to think that in order to take someone's life, the state should have to meet a pretty high burden, whether we're talking about war abroad or punishment at home. I don't think that burden is impossible to meet, but I'm not sure how many current implementations of the death penalty have really met it.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/25/2008 @ 3:57pm
I would like to broaden my knowledge of the subject. If you could send me the statistics you read I would appreciate it.
In response. Why is it that nations who have a zero capital punishment rate also have lower crime rates than us? If it is true that capital punishment lowers crime rates shouldn't we have a lower violent crime rate than they do?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 7:07pm
Let me check my Progressive Rulebook... Yep, there it is on Page 42 -- the death penalty as applied in the U.S. is arbitrary and capricious (and therefore unconstitutional), and is applied in a racist manner (McClesky v. Kemp and all that) and therefore unconstitutional on equal protection grounds. Amnesty International isn't keen on it, either.
Oh, but Obama says a litte bit of official death is okay, so I guess it's pragmatism time at The Nation....
Posted by RLawrence at 06/25/2008 @ 7:38pm
Nichols you are an idiot. You think it is ok to spare the life of a child rapist. And it's also ok to rip out a human from the womb. Hmmm. At least your consistent about your logic, as long as a kid suffers it is OK.
The courts are out of touch and Kennedy unfortunately nominated by the great Ronald Reagan has turned on his principles only to have his ass kissed by guys like you. I wish I was as enlightened as you.
Lets not forget to mention states rights and laws to govern themselves in all of this.
Posted by apoorspic at 06/25/2008 @ 7:48pm
Abortion is state sanctioned murder too.
Posted by apoorspic at 06/25/2008 @ 7:49pm
Posted by ACook at 06/25/2008 @ 6:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person
So how exactly does "putting one in the back of the head" equate to "justice for the victims and their families"?
While you are at it, explain how this form of 'justice' differs from the suicide bombing and 'revenge' killing so prevelant between Shiite and Sunni, Sunni and Kurd, Kurd and Turk, etc...
...that you 'Republicans-can-do-no-wrong' types usually claim as stark evidence that 'they' don't value life the way 'we' do.
Posted by Lillian at 06/25/2008 @ 9:24pm
This is such a sweet victory for us liberals. How dare we execute someone for raping a child! All you can say is this is a big win for the child rapists!
Posted by hepstein at 06/25/2008 @ 10:18pm
At least your consistent about your logic, as long as a kid suffers it is OK.
Posted by apoorspic at 06/25/2008 @ 7:48pm
The problem with your logic is here that the legal period for an abortion is before the child can actually feel. So the child is in fact not suffering.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/26/2008 @ 02:43am
Nichols you are an idiot. You think it is ok to spare the life of a child rapist. And it's also ok to rip out a human from the womb. Hmmm. At least your consistent about your logic, as long as a kid suffers it is OK.
Lets not forget to mention states rights and laws to govern themselves in all of this.
Posted by apoorspic at 06/25/2008 @ 7:48pm
Yes it would appear you have little understanding of this. This doesn't fall to states. This is for the SCOTUS to decide. Why? It is covered in the 8th Amendment as cruel an unusual punishment. THAT is the debate over capita punishment. Whether it is to be considered cruel and unusual. So this is not left to states rights because it is addressed in the Constitution and therefore must be handled as a Federal matter.
On top of tha. It is funny that you will fight for the life of a non-sentient being but you will then let innocent men and women die because they were found guilty of crimes they did not commit. Look up how many people have been released recently due to DNA evidence. Now if that many innocent people made it onto death row and then were proven innocent later, I wonder how many were killed that were actually innocent. Yes you respect life a lot.
This is supposed to be in place to protect innocent people. Therefore in my eyes if the system kills ONE innocent person then the system has failed and needs to be scrapped. It HAS killed more than one innocent person so the system has failed to protect the innocent.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/26/2008 @ 02:48am
Abortion is state sanctioned murder too.
Posted by apoorspic at 06/25/2008 @ 7:49pm
I question asked frequently, but rarely answered fully; as an opponent of abortion how many unwanted children are you willing to accept into your home, or how much extra in tax are you willing to pay to cover these childrens care till adulthood?
I am willing to cover the cost of incarceration of felons with my tax dollars. It is actually more expensive to carry out an execution, due to the appeals process that in any decent society must be allowed to progress.
Once again I am amazed that the cons are so quick to assume guilt, even though the evidence has become overwhelming that too many innocent people have been executed. They do not want their tax dollars "wasted" on incarceration, but will waste it on vengeance.
[ A new report released by the Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury recommended changes to the state's costly death penalty and called into question its effectiveness in preventing crime. The Office of Research noted that it lacked sufficient data to accurately account for the total cost of capital trials, stating that because cost and time records were not maintained, the Office of Research was unable to determine the total, comprehensive cost of the death penalty in Tennessee." Although noting that, "no reliable data exists concerning the cost of prosecution or defense of first-degree murder cases in Tennessee," the report concluded that capital murder trials are longer and more expensive at every step compared to other murder trials. In fact, the available data indicated that in capital trials, taxpayers pay half again as much as murder cases in which prosecutors seek prison terms rather than the death penalty. Findings in the report include the following:
Death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment.
Tennessee District Attorneys General are not consistent in their pursuit of the death penalty.
Surveys and interviews of district attorneys indicate that some prosecutors "use the death penalty as a 'bargaining chip' to secure plea bargains for lesser sentences."
Previous research provides no clear indication whether the death penalty acts as a method of crime prevention.
The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals reversed 29 percent of capital cases on direct appeal.
Although any traumatic trial may cause stress and pain for jurors, the victims' family, and the defendant's family, the pressure may be at its peak during death penalty trials. (July 2004)
*****
The most comprehensive death penalty study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million more per execution than the a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of life imprisonment (. On a national basis, these figures translate to an extra cost of over $1 billion spent since 1976 on the death penalty. ("The Costs of Processing Murder Cases in North Carolina" Duke University, May 1993)
*****
According to state and federal records obtained by The Los Angeles Times, maintaining the California death penalty system costs taxpayers more than $114 million a year beyond the cost of simply keeping the convicts locked up for life. This figure does not count the millions more spent on court costs to prosecute capital cases. The Times concluded that Californians and federal taxpayers have paid more than a quarter of a billion dollars for each of the state's 11 executions, and that it costs $90,000 more a year to house one inmate on death row, where each person has a private cell and extra guards, than in general prison population. This additional cost per prisoner adds up to $57.5 million in annual spending. ("Death Row Often Means a Long Life," Los Angeles Times, March 6, 2005).
]
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108
Posted by crabwalk at 06/26/2008 @ 03:45am
As we all know, in 2000 Illinois stopped the death penalty. More people were released from death row than were executed from 1977-2000, 13 released, 12 executed. Several people were found to be not-guilty of the crimes they were charged with NOT through the criminal justice system, but through the diligence of of college students.
To me that is clear evidence that the system is not functional. If one is against murder, and thinks the death penalty is the answer to murder, what do we do with a "society" that murders someone by mistake? What if a child lies about being raped, or points out the wrong person? This happens in real life.
Don't make me out to be a mamby pamby lite-on-murderers. I think anybody that commits a heinous act deserves severe punishment, but the fact remains that our judicial system is not fool-proof. 2 wrongs do not make a right, nor does it bring back dead people or wash away memories.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/26/2008 @ 03:55am
Semi-off topic
If Kallid Sheik Muhammad wants to be executed so that he becomes a martyr, who thinks we should grant his wish? Personally I think life in solitary confinement would be a far better punishment for someone that thinks martyrdom is the ultimate gift.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/26/2008 @ 03:59am
Posted by marybretbrad at 06/26/2008 @ 08:47am
I hate to agree with Darin on this, but he's right, CCC.
If your uncle had been PROVEN definitively innocent after his execution....he'd be on every placard and poster, and mentioned on every round-table or forum at every rally or discussion of capital punishment.
If true, and the anti-CP folks have not LOUDLY proclaimed his case, it's both a tragedy AND a GIGANTIC oversight for promoting the agenda.
I can think of nothing that would take the wind out of the sails, even kidney punch (to overuse metaphors) the pro-death penalty camp...than a solid, confirmed example of an innocent man put to death.
I'm opposed to CP....but I've never seen a case like that proclaimed by those who are and out there in the public arena.
Posted by Mask at 06/26/2008 @ 08:58am
Capital punishment for crimes that do not involve the taking of someone's life is completely absurd...This was a complete waste of the courts time...I think next on the courts agenda is chopping off hands for theft...I swear, this country is going backwards instead of forward...Everyone hop on the not so straight talk express...next stop...the middle ages!
Posted by danconstan at 06/26/2008 @ 09:01am
I'm not a big believer in the death penalty but they are certain situations where I'm willing to make an exception and raping a child is one of them sorry. My only problem with this argument that raping a child should impose the death penalty is that I fear it might make it likely that the perpetrator would kill the child. Since he is going to be excuted he might as well not leave the victim alive.
There need to be standards as a society when it comes to adults hurting children thats the epitome of barbarianism to me so those people should be treated as such.
I'm sure most parent of a child would feel this way. As a a society we REEK when it comes to protecting our children. To me thats the measure of which I would consider a society to be advance can it protect the young.
Carol
Posted by harriscrl3 at 06/26/2008 @ 09:18am
Re children's welfare ...
I've lived in 5 EU countries & Canada, but mainly in my own land, the US.
Most US children have it far worse than children in the other 6 countries I know. No question. US kids get a raw deal, right from birth.
Wanna hear a good one? Even Al Gore didn't know this when he was told recently (by a Swedish doctor from Karolinska Hospital) ...
Guess what country has a rather higher infant mortality rate than Vietnam?
Yep, our good ol' USA.
And that rate is a fundamental indicator of public health.
Absolutely fundamental.
Posted by sloper at 06/26/2008 @ 09:36am
Nichols: "It ought to come as no surprise that, while McCain rushed to exploit the Supreme Court decision for political purposes, Obama was circumspect."
Huh? What on earth are you talking about? McCain and Obama BOTH opposed the Supreme Court's decision banning the use of the death penalty for rape cases. Undoubtedly, since they are both trying to get elected President, they were both trying to exploit (their opposition to) the Supreme Court decision for political purposes. What circumspection on Obama's part are you referring to? This part of your column makes absolutely no sense.
Posted by jmelton at 06/26/2008 @ 09:38am
Executing Charles Manson would not be a wrong. He clearly did it, he is clearly incurably criminally insane.
we, and most other civilized nations do not execute the insane, as they cannot be held responsible for their crimes.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/26/2008 @ 10:27am
Darren, somtimes you say things that arw absolutely...
...bizzarre.
Posted by Lillian
creepy, nazi like, inhuman, and ignored.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/26/2008 @ 10:31am
I have no problem with the death penalty for any crime that harms a child.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/25/2008 @ 5:42pm
what has this blog become? I am disgusted.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/26/2008 @ 10:33am
death penalty for jaywalking.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/26/2008 @ 10:38am
if only Goebbels could have seen this. he would have been so pleased.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/26/2008 @ 10:42am
most child abuse happens en famille, including the case that the supremes ruled on.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/26/2008 @ 10:45am
Thanks to John Nichols.
Where Obama and his position are concerned, we are about to have a meeting in our home on Saturday for the UNITE FOR CHANGE campaign. I remain today as an Obama supporter.
But I am greatly distressed about his statement yesterday, and losing confidence on the matter of whom HE would want to appoint to the Supreme Court. I am also reminded why I stopped reading one of his books, when he wrote of how he believed that capital punishment was sometimes justified.
Aside from the constant dream to have a better country, a better world, it is difficult to consider supporting a person who keeps adding to the impression that he is first of all a clever politician. Not good.
--Martin Fass Rochester, NY
Posted by martinfass at 06/26/2008 @ 11:17am
Lets not forget to mention states rights and laws to govern themselves in all of this.
Posted by apoorspic at 06/25/2008 @ 7:48pm
And so how do you feel about the Supreme Court's decision today on the DC gun ban?
hmmmmm . . . somehow I supsect you won't be talking too much about state's rights and laws to govern themselves.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/26/2008 @ 11:26am
Maybe judges should be elected 'by the people' instead of being appointed by the president. The election could be in uneven years and their tenure would be limited to 'X'. They should not be allowed to stay in office until they die.
Posted by lvdragonlady at 06/26/2008 @ 11:59am
Mainly, the reason I doubt you uncle's case is because I've never heard of it. For decades, death penalty opponents have searched for the definitive case of the innocent man put to death. If your proof really was definitive, your uncle would join Socrates as the most famous men to be put to death.
Posted by marybretbrad at 06/26/2008 @ 08:47am
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3472872.html
http://cedpaustin.blogspot.com/2006/06/texas-killed-innocent-man.html
Two cases I found with a google search. One had witnesses come forward after the case that testified that another man committed the crime. The other had an arson investigator DURING the appeals process absolve him of setting the fire that killed his three children yet a Texas Court rejected hi hearing and executed him anyway.
I am sorry but people put way too much faith in the courts to get it right. OJ proves that that courts don't always get it right. Of course a court will never accept that their killing of an innocent man was a mistake. So your point that that you are doubtful because evidence can't absolve them of a crime in court is faulty. You are are assuming that because the court will not change it's decision that that invariably means that the man was guilty. However I have seen multiple cases of men proven guilty who end up walking free and men who were innocent who are incarcerated, like those 13 men released from the Illinois death row and then later were proven innocent by a group of college students, NOT by the courts.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/26/2008 @ 12:09pm
we, and most other civilized nations do not execute the insane, as they cannot be held responsible for their crimes.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/26/2008 @ 10:27am
Excellent point, Emile.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/26/2008 @ 12:21pm
DC ruling;
5-4 again. Not good that we have almost a generation of laws set by multiple 5-4 rulings.
I am still going to stick to my opinion, as a gun owner, that the key words in the 2nd Amendment are "-well regulated militia". It just seem like this phrase is always over looked.
As mentioned above, what about States Rights?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/26/2008 @ 12:29pm
I am still going to stick to my opinion, as a gun owner, that the key words in the 2nd Amendment are "-well regulated militia". It just seem like this phrase is always over looked.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/26/2008 @ 12:29pm
What is your opinion? As you have been to Camp Perry Nationals, you undoubtably own a match grade M1-A.
Posted by Benchrest at 06/26/2008 @ 12:34pm
FrankGrits-Why are Hillary supporters so ignorant as to base their votes on anonymous posts on boards?Why are Hillary supporters the only ones who are that immature?Millions of Americans did not get their nominee of choice,but Hillary supporters are the only ones whining and having tantrums which tells everyone that is good that she lost since she attracts such childish people.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/26/2008 @ 12:38pm
Probably John posted his article before Obama's press conference last night in Chicaco.
Here's a link to a Wall Street Journal piece gleefully reporting that Obama criticized the Supreme Court decision.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/25/obama-condemns-supreme-court-de cision-in-child-rape-case/?mod=googlenews_wsj.
No circumspection at all there. The man says he sides with Scalia et.al. and the WSJ praises him for that!!
Obama has shown in the past few days that he is a fraud, and I am very sorry to say this.
Posted by Onca at 06/26/2008 @ 12:44pm
'cuz Larry didn't git his fries cooked right
Posted by crabwalk at 06/26/2008 @ 2:15pm
Okay, that was a good one. I will admit I wiped a tear away.
However, you are not part of the great unwashed, who believe that a Glock is a decent pistol. You are a past competitor at the toughest highpower matches there are, and have to be knowledgeable in the finer aspects of shooting.
Posted by Benchrest at 06/26/2008 @ 12:53pm
<<Maybe judges should be elected 'by the people' instead of being appointed by the president. The election could be in uneven years and their tenure would be limited to 'X'. They should not be allowed to stay in office until they die.
Posted by lvdragonlady at 06/26/2008 @ 11:59am >>
Actually...no. Though this would be the only system under which a form of judicial activism (defined as a judge ruling on their conception of what the law ought to be rather than what it was originally understood to mean) could be justified, it's also a system that would undermine the meaningfulness of the judicial branch. Why? Because most of the judicial branch's contribution to a democratic society comes from its independence, its ability to make rulings without having motives such as re-election or popularity in mind. However, with that independence comes the responsibility to faithfully interpret laws based on the meaning they were originally understood to have (i.e. the only meaning that was ever voted on) and not impose upon those laws the meaning that the justice would want them to have.
<i>Posted by crabwalk at 06/26/2008 @ 12:29pm </i>
I completely agree with you on the 5-4 aspect, because I think there is an inherently divisive quality to that tendency. I'm less sure, though on the 2nd amendment issue. On the one hand, there is some intuitive sense in which thise is an individual right; it's surrounded in the Bill of Rights by other clearly individual rights, and the "well-regulated militia" part seems more like a GOAL than a limitation of the right. On the other hand, the phrase "the people" is a little tricky. Later in the Bill of Rights, it says that other rights/powers not mentioned are left to the states and "the people," I completely buy that this is a delegation of power/right to institutions and not to individuals (i.e. this isn't a justification for the right to privacy). The catch is...if "the people" doesn't mean individuals here, why would it mean individuals in the Second Amendment? I don't know.
<i>Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 7:07pm </i>
A lot of the statistics I've seen come from a book called The Color of Justice, and they're really fascinating and disturbing. Later today, I'll see if I can dig up some of the international stuff I referenced.
One interesting question that I think should be raised: if there really is a bias in the system, why would it only represent an argument against the death penalty? In other words, how could it be used to justify life without parole rather than death? I understand the the death penalty truly is final, but why wouldn't other punishments (say, life without parole) also be called into question by the same logic that leads people to call the death penalty into question based on this evidence?
Posted by Thrawn at 06/26/2008 @ 1:04pm
Posted by Thrawn at 06/26/2008 @ 1:04pm
I think it is because the death penalty puts an end to the case. If the person is alive and the evidence comes to light then they are released. Once the death penalty is carried out a case won't be opened again even if new evidence is submitted.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/26/2008 @ 1:12pm
Obama has shown in the past few days that he is a fraud, and I am very sorry to say this. Posted by Onca at 06/26/2008 @ 12:44pm
HEAR, HEAR.
Bleak, isn't it?
Posted by sloper at 06/26/2008 @ 1:16pm
Posted by Thrawn at 06/26/2008 @ 1:04pm
Re: the 2nd Amendment issue -
Another tricky aspect to Scalia's interpretation that a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a PURPOSE or GOAL is that there is not a single other instance (by my read) in the other nine Amendments where the Framers found it necessary to state a purpose or goal.
A few other state constitutions at the time stated explicitly that the right was an individual right. The drafters of the 2nd Amendment could have done so if that was what was intended. They did not. Scalia's reasoning is a big stretch.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/26/2008 @ 1:18pm
"So how exactly does "putting one in the back of the head" equate to "justice for the victims and their families"?
"While you are at it, explain how this form of 'justice' differs from the suicide bombing and 'revenge' killing so prevelant between Shiite and Sunni, Sunni and Kurd, Kurd and Turk, etc..."
Posted by Lillian at 06/25/2008 @ 9:24pm
For me and my family it would have. The state of MI paroled a murderer and allowed him to kill again. To me, that is an injustice.
Their people die for something and ours die for nothing.
There are days I think their laws are more civilized than ours.
Posted by ACook at 06/26/2008 @ 1:36pm
Posted by marybretbrad at 06/26/2008 @ 08:47am
You really need to Google the "Innocence Project" and educate yourself on how our criminal justice system gets it wrong a lot of the time, particularly when the victim is white and the alleged perpetrator is black.
There is often a sense in the prosecutor's office to "get someone" and little attention is paid to the actual truth. Most prosecutors are more concerned about whether they can get a conviction rather than the truth because they are rewarded based on their conviction rate.
This must change along with the practice of ONLY appointing former prosecutors as judges. Getting "smart on crime" requires a renewed focus on the truth. Too often our criminal justice system degenerates into a vengeance machine with a short-sighted victim focus.
How many victims are created by prosecuting the wrong man and allowing the real perpetrator to remain free? How many victims are created when you fail to re-rehabilitate an offender and he re-commits another crime?
Vengeance is a lazy man's way of pursuing justice, but the smart and diligent prefer a laser-like focus on the truth.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/26/2008 @ 1:39pm
obama is a politician. Get over it.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/26/2008 @ 12:20pm
so is hillary, and you don't seem to be able to "get over it"!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 06/26/2008 @ 1:55pm
What is your opinion? As you have been to Camp Perry Nationals, you undoubtably own a match grade M1-A.
Posted by Benchrest at 06/26/2008 @ 12:34pm
tournament ready Abrams. .
Posted by crabwalk at 06/26/2008 @ 1:59pm
'The court's 5-4 decision Wednesday derailed the efforts of nearly a dozen states supporting the right to kill those convicted of raping a child -- and said execution was confined to attacks that take a life and to other crimes including treason and espionage.... Barack Obama said there should be no blanket prohibition of the death penalty for the rape of children if states want to apply it in those cases. Forty-four states prohibit the death penalty for any kind of rape, and at least four states besides Louisiana permit it for child rape -- Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas. There's disagreement over the status of a Georgia law permitting execution for child rape, although Justice Kennedy said in his ruling that it was still in effect.' -- CNN.com -- 26 June, 2008
Posted by HonestLiberal at 06/26/2008 @ 2:04pm
My opinion is:
The gub-ment has a right to regulate firearms and other deadly instruments. If they want to know if I have a hnadgun, and want me to be proficient in it's use before they allow me to have one, I am fine with that. If it can be shown that handguns account for a large proportion of homicides within a community, then I think they have a right to control them. We all know that I am not allowed to own a fully automatic Uzi without a very special permit. there is a reason we accept this regulation.
The problem with the DC law is that it did creep into the home. That is where I thought the problem would be with the Supremes. I can think of no other basic right than the right to defend onself in ones home. but, I also know that too many kids shoot themselves or each other with improperly stored pistols. I am also under the impression that most murderers know their victim, it is not random break-ins that result in murders, although it does happen. Many domestic abuse cases reach terminal status after a handgun is broken out 'cuz Larry didn't git his fries cooked right.
As I read the 2nd, it seems pretty clear to me that the idea was that the feds wanted to be able to call up a militia to defend against invasion, or the states wanted to defend against federal over-reach. At the time of the writing of the Owners Manual individual firearm ownership was minimal, guns were expensive! In this day, I don't see the Michigan Militia (led by "Mark from Michigan", a local jail-bird) taking on Blackwater when they are sent in by the feds to "restore order", let alone some Kin-tuk-ee boys taking on the 1st Airborne or a convoy of tanks sent to enforce de-segregation.
gotta go to a productive ( yea, right!) meeting, to be continued....
Posted by crabwalk at 06/26/2008 @ 2:15pm
I appreciate John Nichols for identifying his feelings about the death penalty before attempting make a strong argument about the comments of Barack Obama and John McCain. I was once an avid death penalty opponent, myself. How could the state claim that killing was wrong and then turn around and kill someone in an attempt to make things right? But then I had personal experience with some death penalty cases that made me realize that some people don't deserve to share the planet with the rest of us.
Whether or not you believe that a child rapist fits into that category is an entirely different argument but to just categorically say that capital punishment has no place in modern life is too narrow of an argument for me to accept.
Posted by lamonte at 06/26/2008 @ 2:27pm
Time warp testing.
Posted by Benchrest at 06/26/2008 @ 2:40pm
Posted by frankgrits at 06/26/2008 @ 2:00pm
It goes a little deeper than that, FRANK.
At the time of drafting, there was a widepread fear that a standing National army posed a threat to the sovereignty of the States. So Article I created a compromise (acknowledging that militias alone might not be sufficient to provide adequate defense of the entire nation): Congress could raise a national Army and Navy and call forth state militias when needed; and the States retained the right to keep and train their own militias.
However, even after this compromise, there was still a fear that there was nothing in the Constitution that prohibited Congress from disarming the state militias. Hence, the 2nd Amendment.
A cursory overview, but the rationale behind the 2nd Amendment is laid out quite thoroughly in Justice Steven's dissent. Justice Scalia largely ignores the legislative history (curious given his claim to stress the intent of the Founders) and instead focuses on English Law, legal analysts and other commentary strecthing out to hundereds of years after the adoption of the Bill of Rights.
An illogical decision.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/26/2008 @ 2:41pm
hmmmmm . . . somehow I supsect you won't be talking too much about state's rights and laws to govern themselves.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/26/2008 @ 11:26am
DC is not a state. So this does not apply.
Posted by apoorspic at 06/26/2008 @ 3:40pm
Posted by frankgrits at 06/26/2008 @ 2:04pm
FRANK, I've posted several times on this thread....did you hit the Ignore button "by accident"?
BTW, question still stands...
Given your respect, admiration, and VOTE for Senator McCain this year....if he wins, will you vote for his re-election in 2012? If not, why not????
Posted by Mask at 06/26/2008 @ 3:52pm
DC is not a state. So this does not apply.
Posted by apoorspic at 06/26/2008 @ 3:40pm
Very cute.
But the decision will apply to any state that tries to enact a similar ban.
So, tell me how you feel about that?
Posted by Hman23 at 06/26/2008 @ 3:58pm
'cuz Larry didn't git his fries cooked right
Posted by crabwalk at 06/26/2008 @ 2:15pm
Okay, that was a good one. I will admit I wiped a tear away.
However, you are not part of the great unwashed, who believe that a Glock is a decent pistol. You are a past competitor at the toughest highpower matches there are, and have to be knowledgeable in the finer aspects of shooting.
Posted by Benchrest at 06/26/2008 @ 4:18pm
<i>Posted by Hman23 at 06/26/2008 @ 2:41pm </i>
Like I said, I've been waffling a lot, but reading Scalia's analysis just convinced me. Personally, the 9th and 10th Amendment implications were the only thing bothering me, and he dealt nicely with those.
A huge problem that you never address, though, is what "the people" is supposed to mean. In no other context in the Bill of Rights does it refer to a specific group of individuals like a militia; that was never the meaning ascribed to it, and I don't see any reason to believe that was the meaning ascribed here either.
Moreover, your "they could have said X if they meant it" turns against you. The amendment doesn't say "The right of a state to keep a militia shall not be infringed." The fact that maintaining militias was a PURPOSE does NOT mean that the right was LIMITED to that purpose.
So...that means that you have no clear positive reasons to support your interpretation (since your reason could just as clearly support the "individual right" interpretation), AND your interpretation flies in the face of what the phrase "the people" consistently means.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/26/2008 @ 6:28pm
Sorry, my response to Hman was time-warped all the way up to the top. Here it is again:
<<<i>Posted by Hman23 at 06/26/2008 @ 2:41pm </i>
Like I said, I've been waffling a lot, but reading Scalia's analysis just convinced me. Personally, the 9th and 10th Amendment implications were the only thing bothering me, and he dealt nicely with those.
A huge problem that you never address, though, is what "the people" is supposed to mean. In no other context in the Bill of Rights does it refer to a specific group of individuals like a militia; that was never the meaning ascribed to it, and I don't see any reason to believe that was the meaning ascribed here either.
Moreover, your "they could have said X if they meant it" turns against you. The amendment doesn't say "The right of a state to keep a militia shall not be infringed." The fact that maintaining militias was a PURPOSE does NOT mean that the right was LIMITED to that purpose.
So...that means that you have no clear positive reasons to support your interpretation (since your reason could just as clearly support the "individual right" interpretation), AND your interpretation flies in the face of what the phrase "the people" consistently means.>>
Posted by Thrawn at 06/26/2008 @ 9:26pm
Aaargh, I give up. Nation writers, can you PLEASE fix the time-warp problem???
Posted by Thrawn at 06/26/2008 @ 9:27pm
Very cute.
But the decision will apply to any state that tries to enact a similar ban.
So, tell me how you feel about that?
Posted by Hman23 at 06/26/2008 @ 3:58pm
A State can make as many hindering and annoying anti-gun laws they want without banning guns. Simple. But it wont stop me from toting a six shooter in my boot.
Posted by apoorspic at 06/27/2008 @ 1:45pm