CApital Punishment, Child Rape, and Unintended Consequences

mrt144

Deity
Joined
Jan 27, 2007
Messages
11,121
Location
Seattle
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2008-04-07-court_N.htm

Spoiler :
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will weigh the constitutionality of the death penalty for child rape next week, in the case of a Louisiana man convicted of raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter.

The dispute, closely followed by state officials, social workers and defendants' rights groups, marks the first time since 1977 that the justices will consider whether rape can be punished by death. The justices said no in the case three decades ago, involving a 16-year-old married woman whom the court referred to as an adult.

Several states, including Missouri, have signaled that if the court permits the death penalty for child rape in Louisiana, they may try to enact such laws. Five states already plainly allow capital punishment for raping young children. Social workers warn that if the court sanctions the penalty for child rape, it could further discourage reporting of the crime because in the majority of child sexual assaults, the attacker is a relative or friend of the victim.


The dispute the justices will hear next Wednesday arises as prosecutors nationwide are obtaining significantly fewer death sentences annually than a decade ago. A de facto moratorium on capital punishment is also in place while the Supreme Court considers a separate dispute over lethal injection.

Louisiana argues that national outrage over sex crimes against children, along with efforts by some states to make rape a death penalty offense, should lead the court to uphold a Louisiana death sentence for Patrick Kennedy.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Washington | Texas | Oklahoma | Alabama | Colorado | South Carolina | Missouri | Mississippi | Idaho | Constitution | African-American | Civil Liberties Union | Stanford University | Cruz | Jefferson Parish | Eighth Amendment | Louisiana Supreme Court | Patrick Kennedy | Coker | Jeffrey Fisher | Sexual Assault | National Association of Social Workers

The trend, asserts Juliet Clark, assistant Jefferson Parish district attorney, "strongly supports imposition of the death penalty for this exceedingly grave offense."

Kennedy's lawyer counters that there are signs that society believes death is excessive for rape, including that no one in America has been executed for any rape in more than 43 years. "Although rape is a very serious crime," attorney Jeffrey Fisher says, "no rapist should be punished more severely than the average … murderer, who by definition is not subject to capital punishment." The death penalty has traditionally been reserved for the worst of society's criminals.

The justices' view of such societal trends will matter in Kennedy v. Louisiana, because the court looks for evidence of a national consensus when deciding whether a sentence violates notions of decency embodied in the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

In recent death penalty cases, the court has noted state trends in exempting the mentally ******** and teenagers from the ultimate punishment. In 2002, the court struck down the death penalty for mentally ******** defendants, and in 2005, it invalidated capital punishment for defendants who were under 18 at the time of their crimes.

After police were called to investigate the rape of the girl on March 2, 1998, Kennedy's stepdaughter initially told them that two neighborhood boys had raped her after dragging her from her garage to a side yard. Police, however, found evidence of blood in her bedroom that Kennedy apparently had tried to clean up. The stepdaughter testified later that Kennedy had raped her and urged her to relate a false account.

A jury convicted Kennedy in 2003, under a statute that permits the death penalty for anyone found guilty of raping someone under 12. The Louisiana Supreme Court rejected Kennedy's appeal that his death sentence violated the Eighth Amendment. It emphasized the need to protect children.

In Kennedy's appeal to the Supreme Court, Fisher, a Stanford University law professor, says that since the 1977 case of Coker v. Georgia, the court has not allowed capital punishment for any crime involving "person-on-person violence" that did not lead to a death.

Clark, who will argue for Louisiana, counters in her filing that times have changed. She says several states and the U.S. government have authorized the death penalty for non-homicide offenses, such as espionage. She also points to the recent enactment of "Megan's Laws" requiring sex offenders to register in their cities as a reflection of concern about child sexual assault.

Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz, who will argue on behalf of nine other states supporting Louisiana's position, says, "The Constitution permits democratically elected legislatures to choose to allow the most serious punishment for the very worst child rapists."

The states that have signed Cruz's brief are Texas, Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Washington.

Among the groups siding with Kennedy, who is African-American, are the American Civil Liberties Union, which emphasizes the South's history of executing blacks for rape more often than whites, and the National Association of Social Workers.

Joining the social worker group, Judy Benitez, director of the Louisiana Foundation against Sexual Assault, said most sexual abuse is committed by victims' relatives or friends. "This can lead to ambivalence on the part of the victim and her family about reporting the abuse," Benitez said. "We believe that if the specter of the death penalty is out there, it will lead to more underreporting. The victim might think, 'I wanted the abuse to stop, but I didn't want him to die.' "


The issue at hand is in those bolded paragraphs; If the death penalty is the primary sentence for rape of a child it is possible that it could lead to less reporting and higher incidence of child rape? Considering that most forms of sexual abuse occur by a family member or friend, there might be less incentive to report the crime because of the harsh penalties.

Knowing this possibility do you think the death penalty for sex abuse of a child is a good idea?
 
Personally, I'm opposed to capital punishment anyway, but I see your point about harsh punishment creating an obsticle to reporting.
 
There is of course the whole "in for a penny, in for a pound"; if you are going to get the death penalty for raping a child, may as will kill the child afterwards and reduce the probability of getting caught.
 
There is of course the whole "in for a penny, in for a pound"; if you are going to get the death penalty for raping a child, may as will kill the child afterwards and reduce the probability of getting caught.

well that perhaps is another unintended consequence that could happen.
 
Is it just me that thinks that it is absurd and barbaric to want to death penalty for anything other than murder/homicide?
 
Is it just me that thinks that it is absurd and barbaric to want to death penalty for anything other than murder/homicide?

Some people think it is barbaric even then. Some (like me) think that high treason should qualify even if no one dies directly.

But then, we might not want to turn this into a debate on capital punishment itself. Although experience tells me that this will happen.
 
Personally, I'm opposed to capital punishment anyway, but I see your point about harsh punishment creating an obsticle to reporting.

QFT!!

Is it just me that thinks that it is absurd and barbaric to want to death penalty for anything other than murder/homicide?

You're definitely not the only one. :) I think capital punishment in general is a terrible thing, even for murder.
 
Some people think it is barbaric even then. Some (like me) think that high treason should qualify even if no one dies directly.

Well certainly both of those have high capacity to kill. You kill something that will likely kill in the future. I can understand murder/homicide and even high treason.

But then, we might not want to turn this into a debate on capital punishment itself. Although experience tells me that this will happen.

All debates will gradually get at the core issues.
 
Well certainly both of those have high capacity to kill. You kill something that will likely kill in the future. I can understand murder/homicide and even high treason.

That is actually pretty much my reasoning.

All debates will gradually get at the core issues.

Honestly, I don't like that. The core issue overshadows the more nuanced issue and everyone just repeats what they have said a hundred times before, and so I know what people think about the existence of God but not what they think evil is (to use a . . . random . . . example).
 
That is actually pretty much my reasoning.

Though since I believe in rehabilitation, I am against the death penalty. But I can understand the reasoning.

Honestly, I don't like that. The core issue overshadows the more nuanced issue and everyone just repeats what they have said a hundred times before, and so I know what people think about the existence of God but not what they think evil is (to use a . . . random . . . example).

:mischief:
 
Given that statistically most rapes occur by people the victims know and usually trust, this seems like a legendary bad move.
 
I think that sentencing child rapists to death is a bad idea, yes. Several very good reasons have been raised already.
I'd like to add a couple:
- would women also be sentenced to death?
- what is the legal definition of child rape? Can the gym teacher who patted the butt of his kids be accused of it?
- what are the legal age limits for being a "child" ? What if someone one year over the legal limit and has sex with someone one year under?

It seems to me that a lot of things have to be clearly defined here.

And a side issue: which politician will be able to oppose such a measure? I can already see the smear campaigns, "Mr. Smith is protecting paedophiles... Do you want that kind of person representing you in the Congress?"
 
And a side issue: which politician will be able to oppose such a measure? I can already see the smear campaigns, "Mr. Smith is protecting paedophiles... Do you want that kind of person representing you in the Congress?"

Yes I do! . .. .. .. .ing propaganda.
 
Here's my initial question: Would this apply to things like consensual, but statutory rape? I mean, it's ridiculous enough when we have an 18 year old kid in jail for decades for getting a . .. .. .. .. .. .. . from his 16 year old girlfriend, but the death penalty is that much worse....

If they limited this to young children - say, 12 and under - I don't think I'd have a problem with it.
 
I think that sentencing child rapists to death is a bad idea, yes. Several very good reasons have been raised already.
I'd like to add a couple:
- would women also be sentenced to death?
- what is the legal definition of child rape? Can the gym teacher who patted the butt of his kids be accused of it?
- what are the legal age limits for being a "child" ? What if someone one year over the legal limit and has sex with someone one year under?

It seems to me that a lot of things have to be clearly defined here.

And a side issue: which politician will be able to oppose such a measure? I can already see the smear campaigns, "Mr. Smith is protecting paedophiles... Do you want that kind of person representing you in the Congress?"

this is a very important part of the entire problem with these kinds of laws. they based almost completely on an appeal to emotion by people who don't think through the implications of laws they want.

I think another huge one you also mentioned is whether statuatory rape qualifies. or like that 17 year old kid in georgia who was sentenced to ~10 years for consensual oral sex with a 15 year old girl.
 
Here's my initial question: Would this apply to things like consensual, but statutory rape? I mean, it's ridiculous enough when we have an 18 year old kid in jail for decades for getting a . .. .. .. .. .. .. . from his 16 year old girlfriend, but the death penalty is that much worse....

If they limited this to young children - say, 12 and under - I don't think I'd have a problem with it.

even knowing that this might lead to a rise in the amount of rape/murders and/or less reporting of rape by victims?
 
even knowing that this might lead to a rise in the amount of rape/murders and/or less reporting of rape by victims?
Let's take these things separately.

Would this cause an increase in the number of raped children that would be murdered afterwards? Probably, but I doubt that it would be significant. Look at it this way: as things stand, raping a child is pretty much the most heinous crime most people can imagine. When convicted of that, you go away for years and are pretty much viewed as the scum of society for the rest of your life. (And probably get the crap beaten out of you in prison - but that's a topic for another day) I honestly find it rather hard to believe that a great many people would be willing to risk that to fulfill their perverted urges, while they wouldn't be willing to risk the possibility of a death sentence years down the line. (And remember: lots of people sentenced to death die of old age first, or spend years appealing everything beforehand)

Also, as things are, the reason child rapes aren't prosecuted is mostly because no one knows about them. How can you, if the child doesn't say anything? But it's kind of hard to ignore a dead child. That brings attention, and almost always an investigation - which could quite possibly show evidence of abuse. It would probably make them more likely to be caught and convicted, not less, assuming the average pedophile isn't some brilliant criminal mastermind. So the idea that this is going to spark some large scale wave of murders to cover up rapes seems rather ridiculous to me.

On the less reporting: somehow, I doubt it. How many children, especially small children, are well versed in the law? Many children don't report abuse because they don't know that what's being done to them is a horrible crime - and you expect them to know that it's a crime punishable by death? I dunno, that seems unlikely. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic or applying to much logic to an intensely emotional experience, but I really don't think many children who know that they're being abused and hate it and want to get help are going to avoid doing so because they happen to know that the death penalty might apply. I just don't see it being a big problem. Isolated cases, maybe - but on the whole, not so much.
 
Elrohir,

You make a good point regarding deterrence. To what extent are the pedophiles who rape kids further deterrable by harsher sanctions? As you pointed out, the prospect of a life potentially worse than death (and frequent murder in prison) didn't work.

Cleo
 
Elrohir,

You make a good point regarding deterrence. To what extent are the pedophiles who rape kids further deterrable by harsher sanctions? As you pointed out, the prospect of a life potentially worse than death (and frequent murder in prison) didn't work.

Cleo
Honestly, I'm not sure any amount of deterrence will change some people. This will probably affect some, but certainly not all. What it will do is make repeat offenses impossible, and in theory at least, lower the overall number of attacks. I know that sounds cold blooded, but I find it likelier that with these laws, we'd prevent more attacks by doing away with the attackers than by deterring them from committing these crimes.

I think we both want ultimately the same ends, but I think we're both focused on alternate means of getting there. I think deterrence is great, but often won't work - perhaps I'm being overly pessimistic, but I don't think so. I'm sure you'll tell me if I am.
 
Back
Top Bottom