Supreme Court Says No Death Penalty for Child Rape

On June 25, 2008 the supreme court rejected the death penalty for child rape. The NY Times reported that the court was sharply divided on the case and it marked a trend toward narrowing the application of the death penalty.

The Times article also reported that Justice Kennedy suggested that the flow of death penalty cases for child rape could overwhelm the country's criminal justice system. He noted that in 2005 there were 5,702 reported rapes of children under the age of 12.

So let us not respond to a crime because it has reached overwhelming proportions? Why not apply that to something else, say elder abuse or crimes in general against the elderly and really get the courts moving again. Even though elder abuse is on the rise we can surely avoid the pursuit of the perpetrators of that crime to save court resources. Considering the relative age of our supreme court though you'll never see justice lagging in the processing of those types of offenders.

If the death penalty is not a deterrent for crime like this then why is Patrick Kennedy, the monster that raped his 8 year old stepdaughter with such violence she needed emergency surgery, appealing his death sentence? Many death penalty opponents claim that life in prison is worse punishment for the offender. Apparently not for Mr. Kennedy who's case Kennedy v. Louisiana brought this decision by the supreme court.

You can fathom the mindset of the readers on the NY Times web site who approve of this decision by some of their comments.

One comment read:
"Let's hope the Court surprises everyone and strikes a blow to guns rights advocates next."

That's what we need in this country, to go after people who advocate for rights.

Another comment read:
"Capital punishment cannot be justified under any circumstances. It is incompatible with the values of a civilized society. "

That might apply here, if we were a civilized society. The murder of unborn children by the process of thousands of convenience abortions each year suggests otherwise. This decision is consistent with that abuse of humanity. The powerful abusing the weak and helpless. You were here first, you've taken the genetic ability even unborn children have for speech and developed and coordinated that ability for the purpose of demanding a right to kill the unborn when you see fit and then the right to protect the lives of those who would grievously harm them if they do make it to childhood? That's civilized? A person that had a truly liberal philosophy would recognize their duty to protect the weak and innocent from those who would exploit or harm them. True liberalism appears to be dead in this country and like it or not the left seems to have killed it.

States often need to be protected from Justices Ginsburg, Kennedy and the liberal side of the court as in the eminent domain case Kelo V. New London where the court ruled that private property could be taken for private, not just public use and development. Some states including New Hampshire had to pass their own laws or amend their constitution to protect their resident property owners from this further example of liberalism gone bad where the little guy is victimized again by a supposedly progressive and liberal court. With the child rape ruling, states can't even move to protect their children by punishing offenders with a full measure of justice.

This decision regarding child rape was the third in the last six years to place a categorical limitation on capital punishment. Compare that to Sandra Day O'Connor's position regarding the courts ruling on partial birth abortion where she expressed a reluctance to put a trimester limitation on abortions.

So where the individual has made a conscious decision to commit a heinous crime, the court feels the need to place limitations on their punishment in keeping pace with "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." But where an another individual makes a conscious decision to end the life of an unborn child for nothing more than say, convenience, the court does not feel the need to place limitations on that act. Why? For "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."??? Decency seems to be an ephemeral concept as applied by the contemporary supreme court.