Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Child Rape Law

In another controversial 5-4 'split' decision, the Supreme Court yesterday held that a Louisiana law providing for the death penalty for convicted child rapists qualified as 'cruel and unusual punishment.' The case involved an African-American, Patrick Kennedy, who is accused of raping his then eight year old stepdaughter and for which he had been found guilty. Louisiana law provides that child rape is a 'capital' offense for which the District Attorney in this case sought the death penalty, and the judge and jury so held. There is one other prisoner now on death row for the same offense and who also received the death penalty. He was a white man convicted of raping a five year old.

The attorneys for Mr. Kennedy appealed this decision to the Supreme Court as 'cruel and unusual punishment' since although the child was raped, there was no death involved. Although race also became an issue in both the trial, conviction and appeal, some larger questions actually remain, and debates continue to rage over another controversial decision. Of course, the claimed 'conservative' judges held with the State of Louisiana, and the claimed 'liberal' judges Mr. Kennedy and his lawyers (although the two most liberal judges, Kennedy and Souter, were choices of Reagan and George H.W. Bush, respectively). Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority opinion stating that he believed that capital punishment should only be reserved where the taking of life is involved. Judge Alito in his dissent claimed that the "trend" now is toward being more pro-active in protecting America's children, and that the Court should also keep that in mind. Strange, how neither sought to actually consider the Constitution or the founder's intent much at all in arriving at their opinion - rather the sway of either a "bleeding heart" approach, or 'public opinion.'

Although the federal courts at one point also struck down another option for repeat offenses of sexual predators and abuse of children many years ago, that option might satisfy both the (Justices) Kennedy's and Alitos of this world. Patrick Kennedy's was afforded 'due process of law,' and was given, it appears, a fair and impartial jury of his peers (although in reading the background for this case, it didn't appear there was any other evidence except the testimony of the child. No DNA samples were taken as she initially claimed that two teenage boys had committed the crime and she was eight at the time, which also is why in matters such as these, mistakes and unlawful convictions can and have occurred). Maybe it is time to truly bring back the 'let the punishment fit the crime' and intent of the founders, and any and all first time or repeat offenders in which DNA samples clearly prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that a child has been raped by an adult male predator, then you remove his weapon.

Castration may sound "cruel" but is actually truly making the punishment fit the crime and more humane (for those bleeding hearts) than the death penalty. The perpetrator, after a good long incarceration so as to also protect the child victim until they can at least heal some of the wounds, both physical and emotional, from such a vile act, gets to keep his life but is then unable to rape another child or anyone else again. Society is then protected from these individuals who choose as their victims the most vulnerable and weakest among us, young girls under the age of 12.

Maybe Louisiana and the five other states whose death penalty statute for child rape was struck down by SCOTUS today, might just need to tweak their laws now a bit.