Supreme Court refuses to rehear death penalty case for child rape
posted at 1:55 pm on October 1, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
After ruling last year that no national consensus existed for putting child rapists to death, critics noted that the Supreme Court had missed a glaring example in the military regulations. That prompted the state of Louisiana to file for a rehearing, and given that the main argument in the 5-4 decision overturning the law was based on Anthony Kennedy’s faulty judgment, that seemed appropriate — to everyone but Anthony Kennedy and his four associates. The court rejected the appeal, but not without some sniping:
Without comment, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they would have granted the rehearing. Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., said he respected the decision to deny a rehearing, but sharply criticized the majority.
“The views of the American people on the death penalty for child rape were, to tell the truth, irrelevant to the majority’s decision in this case,” Scalia said. “The majority opinion, after an unpersuasive attempt to show that a consensus against the penalty existed, in the end came down” to its own judgment that the death penalty is too severe a punishment for a crime that does not result in death.
Scalia continued: “Of course, the Constitution contemplates no such thing; the proposed Eighth Amendment would have been laughed to scorn if it had read ‘no criminal penalty shall be imposed which the Supreme Court deems unacceptable.’ “
I oppose the death penalty anyway, but this is spectacularly dishonest reasoning by the court’s majority. Kennedy clearly invoked the supposed lack of a “national consensus” as his reasoning for rejecting the law. Congress passed the military regulation for the death penalty on child rape, showing that a national consensus indeed exists, and that the nation as a whole does not feel that the Louisiana law was extreme, cruel, or unusual.
This new ruling exposes the last as nothing more than judicial activism, applying policy preferences rather than the law. The “no national consensus” was a giveaway in the first place. Lousiana doesn’t need to obey a “national consensus” when it promulgates its laws; it only has to obey the Constitution of the United States and its own constitution, and the Supreme Court only has jurisdiction over the former. The Eighth Amendment speaks to the penalties, not their application — and either they need to declare the death penalty itself unconstitutional or leave it to the states to decide its application.
Instead, they tried making a weak argument about national consensus, got caught, and now won’t acknowledge what they explicitly stated in their original reasoning. It’s a great argument for ensuring that we elect a President who will appoint jurists that apply the law rather than manipulate it — badly — for their own policy preferences.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Great analysis here. they actually look worse by considering the rehearing, and then deciding against it.
I think this should be appealed … uh … oh crap.
darkegop on October 1, 2008 at 1:58 PM
A perfect example of WHY we need to get behind John McCain AND Republicans in Congress.
I SUPPORT the death penalty, though not for child rapists.
I do NOT support the activism that the judges showed in this case.
originalpechanga on October 1, 2008 at 2:00 PM
If I happen to drive drunk and roll off a bridge with Justice Kennedy as my passenger and he drowns, I propose I get sentenced to – nothing at all.
We’re all Kennedys now.
NoDonkey on October 1, 2008 at 2:01 PM
I just shake my head. I do not understand why they think this.
upinak on October 1, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Freakin activist judges. They were irrevocably exposed when the DC gun ban wasn’t a 9-0 slam dunk.
lodge on October 1, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Supreme Court to the Citizens of the United States:
Yeah, we made it up, deal with it. Lifetime appointment baby! Just wait till Obama gets in and we can really get to work.
Rogue on October 1, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Scalia is correct here. I approve of the death penalty, and think it could be applied in cases like this, but that would be up to the people via congress to write the law, and the supreme court to uphold the law, instead of trying to write it themselves.
Vashta.Nerada on October 1, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Just another reason we cannot trust Obama to select Supreme Court Justices. The next Supreme Court Justice selected, if by a democrat, will attack the freedom of speech and the right to bear arms until they are eliminated.
volsense on October 1, 2008 at 2:07 PM
emphasis on majority opinion – don’t forget to read carefully.
Vashta.Nerada on October 1, 2008 at 2:07 PM
I support the death penalty, including for child rapists, savages who rank right up there on my list of “Why We Need A Starship Trooper Government.”
Bishop on October 1, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Since liberals are fine with murdering children pre and post natal, why does this surprise anyone? However, should that child somehow grow up to become a vicious child abuser themselves, well, then let’s get em some of those mighty constitutional protections!
Judge Kennedy and the rest of the libtards calling yourselves “justices” – you will rot in your own juices. True citizens spit on you.
Western_Civ on October 1, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Hey Bishop…back to Kos, please. Here’s what YOUR candidate, Barack Obama, had to say about capital punishment. Perhaps you should troll on HIS site:
“(crimes)so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment.”
hippie_chucker on October 1, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Death penalty imho is barbaric and old fashioned. Makes us as bad as the Iranians.
philnewkirk on October 1, 2008 at 2:22 PM
McCain may be better than the alternative but let’s not be as dishonest as the SCOTUS here. McCain has already stated that he’s a go along to get along kind of politician when it comes to judicial nominations. The four dissenters: Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas are all men who would never ever be nominated by a President McCain facing a Democrat Senate. The best one can hope for is McCain still has enough traces of conservatism to give us a Souter instead of a Ginsberg and that is highly highly questionable given McCain’s track record.
highhopes on October 1, 2008 at 2:23 PM
hippie_chucker on October 1, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Heh, you’re new here, aren’t you?
Bishop on October 1, 2008 at 2:25 PM
…the Iranians, who cut off peoples hands for stealing?
We also have things like jails in common with the Iranians…does that equate us with them, too?
Comparing capital punishment to the way a terror state treats its “citizenry” is a stretch.
hippie_chucker on October 1, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Because the law is not about mob justice?
Grow Fins on October 1, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Fascist governments, like the one presented in “Starship Troopers,” are run like the judicial activism of the Supreme court. Don’t overlook that just because the fascists in the US are immoral passivists.
Count to 10 on October 1, 2008 at 2:28 PM
I read this case from beginning to end. I had to take 2 Dramamine afterwards because I was so sick from reading it. I am not joking. This case if any case strongly deserved the death penalty. For one thing it is proven that these children are forever changed and their lives are so damaged by this that most of them have severe depression issues, become child molesters themselves, or commit suicide. And this child almost died from this brutal rape. If ever there was a case where someone should have been put to death, this man certainly should have been executed. I thought they had a good case.
The offenders in most cases are repeat offenders and most of the time by the time they are caught have raped vast numbers of children. I hope at the very least all states reform their laws and have child rapist put in jail for life and no possibility for parole.
I think this case points out another issue at hand that is very disturbing, and that is the over sexualization of our youth. I remember when our kids were 13 and we went shopping for Easter dresses. My husband, who is a very calm and laid back sort of person, abruptly said, “We are leaving this store, NOW!” He was so upset about the clothes for sale in the store, and how they were more like hooker outfits that he did not even want us in the store. It was Dillards teen department. Kids no longer look like kids. For Confirmation we received a notice that spaghetti straps, or strap less dresses were not permitted. I was like, “DUH!”, who in the world would buy a dress that looked like that for these young GIRLS to wear in church? Well some of them showed up wearing just that. In the movie and music industry these young GIRLS wear the same thing some 26 year old would wear. This is not to say the offenders have an excuse because some GIRL was dressed like a hooker, but I do seriously believe we have cheapened the value of our children by their appearances. “Just Say No” should apply to clothing as well as drugs!
freeus on October 1, 2008 at 2:29 PM
One thing about the death penalty for child
raper’s,its 100%,absolutely a guarantee,that
these sick monsters will never,ever be a
repeat offender!!!!!!!!
canopfor on October 1, 2008 at 2:31 PM
You might also say that the Islamic tyranny of Iran is an expression of judicial activism, with the mulas as the judges of law according to the Koran.
Count to 10 on October 1, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Courts by there nature and function are not set up to be political bodies, that’s the legislature that is suppose to act in accordance with the will of the people, not the court.
It’s the court’s job to rule in accordance with the law and the Constitution and if the court is functioning properly, public opinion will not enter into it, so Scalia is exactly correct in that respect.
I say this not in regard to this particular ruling but just as a general reminder that the courts are not suppose to be swayed by public opinion. If the court is swayed by public opinion in opposition to the law or the Constitution, then the court is in error.
Maxx on October 1, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Makes us as bad as the Iranians.
philnewkirk on October 1, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Or those barbaric Japanese.
Bishop on October 1, 2008 at 2:36 PM
The rape of a child is just sick. Children look to adults for protection, not as sexual items.
The death penalty is there as the most barbaric crimes. Crimes against humanity …. so not putting to death those who use children as a sexual items instead of our future is not concidered for humanities future?
I would like for you to explain.
upinak on October 1, 2008 at 2:36 PM
IIRC, in the book, the government in Starship Troopers was a republic with the franchise restricted to those who had served in the military, which is obviously not a fascist system.
If you mean the movie…then yes Verhoeven did decide to make the Terran government and society a fascist one.
18-1 on October 1, 2008 at 2:37 PM
I think there is a case for treating treating someone as if they had been killed if it is only through the miracles of modern medicine that it is possible for them to survive.
That is a really awkward sentence.
Count to 10 on October 1, 2008 at 2:37 PM
If the crime in question could have been lawfully prevented by the victim, or able other, using deadly force, then the death penalty should always be an option.
Yes, that means all rapists.
All executions should be publicly available online.
LimeyGeek on October 1, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Count to 10 on October 1, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Perhaps I should have been more clear: I like the idea of only veterans having franchise to vote.
I will end it there before the thread becomes a hijacked day-long debate/discussion/argument about the concept.
Bishop on October 1, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Maxx, I understand this. But for those whom use the Constitution as a bar from those who hurt our future (sexually exploiting) of our children make me sick.
There are some items in which should be voted on via a mass majority of people. This I would concider one of them since so many have a opinion on it. It would put in perspective what should be done and how it can be handled.
upinak on October 1, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Fashion? WTF? This isn’t a fucking matching purse & shoe debate.
Yeah. Equivocate away. Go to Iran and shag your boyfriend. Tell us all how ‘alike’ we are.
Cretin.
LimeyGeek on October 1, 2008 at 2:40 PM
lol
You’ll be trying to unfart a fart next.
LimeyGeek on October 1, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Well, in the book they didn’t seem quite as fascist. Actually, I don’t remember a whole lot of description of the form of government, other than the idea that the vote had to be earned by the individual through military service.
I guess I was jumping to conclusions by assuming the movie, though.
Count to 10 on October 1, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Because the law is not about mob justice?
Grow Fins on Oct 1,2008 at 2:28PM.
Grow Fins: No,mob justice should not be required,
just a single executioner that is treating
the raper in the same manner as the monster
treated the child!!
I cannot,for the life of me,understand how
the rights of a monster trumps the victim!!
canopfor on October 1, 2008 at 2:42 PM
I find myself in agreement.
Count to 10 on October 1, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Bishop,
Yeah, you should have been more clear. Your Starship Troopers comment came across as promoting that capital punishment is solely a fascist idea.
Sorry I mischaracterized you, though.
hippie_chucker on October 1, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Among the most sensible words ever keyed into a blog comment.
innominatus on October 1, 2008 at 2:44 PM
No problem, it’s easy to offload on people these days, I’m guilty of it too.
Bishop on October 1, 2008 at 2:45 PM
You’ll be trying to unfart a fart next.
LimeyGeek on October 1, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Not at all, as I do when I release an Obama into the air, I can choose whether or not to walk away.
Bishop on October 1, 2008 at 2:47 PM
I’d like to put that one up for a vote. Even many of those who oppose the death penalty on principle make exceptions for these monsters. Personally, I think the death penalty is ineffective since the criminal is as likely to die of old age given the appeals process but it is a punishment that should not be stricken from the law for just these kinds of cases where incarceration just isn’t enough.
highhopes on October 1, 2008 at 2:47 PM
I believe in the Death Penalty and Capital Punishment.
Go ahead and blast away. But if something ever happened to a loved one of yours, you would feel the same as I.
upinak on October 1, 2008 at 2:48 PM
True. They can rot away in jail, with TV, Internet, University rights, etc on my dime while DNA facts are there for the taking.
Appeals are nothing more then tax payer dollars down the drain anymore.
upinak on October 1, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Wasn’t Dukakis’ failure to endorse the death penalty if someone killed his wife one of the reasons he lost the debate, and the election?
hippie_chucker on October 1, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Makes us as bad as the Iranians…
philnewkirk on Oct 1,2008 at 2:22PM.
philnewkirk: Here we go,if I hear one more blank,
thats out on a fantasy cloud about America
being the same or worse than Iran!!!
I say to myself,you know canopfor,this
person cannot believe the spiel they just
said about the moral equivalence to Lady
Liberty!!!!!
I suppose its the tooth fairy,and sandman
thats being supplying and putting the bombs
on the side of the roads in Iraq!!
canopfor on October 1, 2008 at 2:52 PM
I humbly appreciate your compliment.
I also happen to think that there is no constitutional mandate for a federal death penalty. All death penalty provisions should be made by the several states, per the 10th Amendment. This way, “fashionably” cretinous states that ‘abhor’ the death penalty can live with the consequences of their stupidity.
LimeyGeek on October 1, 2008 at 2:53 PM
No, Ed, that’s not a great argument. Three of the five justices in the majority here were Republican appointees. One of the three — the author of the opinion, no less — was a Reagan appointee.
A Democrat-controlled Senate is not going to confirm another Scalia or Thomas or Alito, even assuming that McCain names one. As George Will observed:
paul006 on October 1, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Can what ever happened to that guy who went beserk and started eating that guy on that bus? What is the Canadaian Government doing with him?
upinak on October 1, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Touche :)
LimeyGeek on October 1, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Mrs Limey is lucky to have you!
upinak on October 1, 2008 at 2:56 PM
There are times when I really think the people who decided that we cannot fire these clowns should be drug out into the street and shot.
Le sigh.
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on October 1, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Damn straight. Here-here, every word!
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on October 1, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Can..
upinak on Oct 1,2008 at 2:54PM.
upinak: To be honest I’ve haven’t kept track of the behead
ing on the Greyhound bus!
But,I hear there was another stabbing,again on
another grey hound bus!
I’m trying to multi-task this election,day in and
day out for a year!
Nice to hear from you,are you ready for tomorrow
night,It’ll probably be an all-nighter!haha:):):)
canopfor on October 1, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Barbary cannot be corrected with barbary. Killing child rapists does not address the root causes.
philnewkirk on October 1, 2008 at 3:02 PM
I’m an imported mail-order husband.
Apparently, the South was running short of real men ;)
LimeyGeek on October 1, 2008 at 3:02 PM
It offends their delicate liberal sensibilities to put someone to death who did not cause a death? That dude caused a death alright. The death of that child’s soul, innocence and peace of mind. I didn’t read the case. I cannot read such things and look at my children w/out pain.
All child rapists should have the death penalty as an option. It should be available for any offender that has raped a child under that age of twelve.
Grow Fins and Phil Newkirk how would you feel if someone nearly raped you to death? Would the death penalty be applicable then? Neither Iran or a mob have anything to do w/it. This is about justice for people who are predators and have a nearly 100% recidivism rate.
JAM on October 1, 2008 at 3:03 PM
The root cause of child rape is the existence of child rapists. Killing them all will certainly, and terminally, address the problem.
Awfully sorry it’s icky and unfashionable.
LimeyGeek on October 1, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Youhaven’t explained why you think this way? Bible and Christian Beliefs? Personal Opinion? You just have the most astringent Morals on the earth?
You don’t think that if someone raped and maybe mutilated a child of yours or a close friend, that you would feel the same?
My opinion is that you have never been in that prediciment, so you really have no clue as to how you would react.
upinak on October 1, 2008 at 3:08 PM
address the problem
LimeyGeek on Oct 1,2008 at 3:05PM.
LimeyGreek: I’m with you,that will fix the root problem
done good!!!
Gawd,who and the h#ll is worried about the
root problem,execute first,find the root
problem later!!!!!!!:)
canopfor on October 1, 2008 at 3:11 PM
This is where I don’t get the “strict constructionist” judicial philosophy. Scalia is absolutely right about the basis for the majority opinion, but on what strictly constitutional basis can the death penalty be rejected for any crime? It seems all the court has to work with is the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause. That’s it. How does the court parse that phrase without appealing to mere conscience and public opinion?
RightOFLeft on October 1, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Ditto, Ed, on both points.
Although I oppose the death penalty (I think our country is strong enough to address our broken judicial and prison systems before resorting to the ultimate penalty), this was a bad decision.
Contrary to some suggestions, I find no parallel between how we apply the death penalty in the U.S. and how it is applied in Iran. That’s just silly.
Y-not on October 1, 2008 at 3:18 PM
I’m not sorry.
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on October 1, 2008 at 3:20 PM
It does not prevent further child rape by other perpetrators. Life imprisonment is just as effective for what you are trying to do.
philnewkirk on October 1, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Why do you oppose the death penalty Ed? Does it make you feel superior to oppose it or is it for some daft interpretation of the bible?
SKYFOX on October 1, 2008 at 3:41 PM
It does not prevent further child rape by other perpetrators. Life imprisonment is just as effective for what you are trying to do.
philnewkirk
Well, it certainly does when we catch them and stretch their necks as well. Somebody help me here. There is a recent study that finds that the death penalty really does have a positive effect on potential offenders. Anyone?
SKYFOX on October 1, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Agreed with all who believe in the death penalty for child rapists. Monsters who are sick enough to do that to a child have no business roaming this planet, or rotting in jail on my dime. I’ve read enough to know that these “people” are never one time offenders either. Jail time and therapy will not stop them. If it were my kid, I’d make sure they got the death penalty.
4shoes on October 1, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Nope. Think about it, if a priest is willing to risk eternal damnation for molesting a child, what’s to stop the average perp.? I’ve read also that some get off on the challenge of fooling everyone.
4shoes on October 1, 2008 at 3:48 PM
It prevents further child rape by the individual rapist, and delivers a measure of justice for the individual victim(s). Killing the others, as and when we find them, will prevent further crimes on their part.
If it has any deterrent effect, all the better, but this is a secondary, or even tertiary, issue, not a primary one.
The very concept of using a legal system to manage aggregate levels of crime across a population is disgusting, and betrays a sociopathic pathology. We are uniquely valuable individuals, and deserve justice with this in mind, not to be treated as livestock in your sick little game.
It’s about justice, not social engineering.
LimeyGeek on October 1, 2008 at 3:50 PM
In the case in question a guy raped his 8 yr old step daughter so viciously that he ruptured her vaginal wall and she required surgery. If that doesn’t forfiet the right to breathe, nothing does.
Akzed on October 1, 2008 at 3:55 PM
If Hussein wins, the paleolibs on the SCOTUS who die off will only be replaced in kind. None of the conservatives are old enough to be in danger of retiring and being replaced by Bill Ayers or Cynthia McKinney.
Akzed on October 1, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Such contempt for life should earn only one thing – a bullet.
LimeyGeek on October 1, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Such contempt for life should earn only one thing – a bullet.
LimeyGeek on October 1, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Agreed. Such narcissism and vile disregard for the child, making her/him into an object for sexual gratification is sociopathic. They DON’T CARE. Therefore, I don’t care about them. They should be destroyed. One of my in-laws works for the feds, he has seen too many of these people. They cannot be “cured.”
Phil Newkirk, you know nothing about pedophiles, when you say that the death penalty does not address the root of the problem. There is nothing to address. They must be eliminated for the sake of all children everywhere.
I don’t need to “understand” them. Like terrorists, there is nothing to understand. As Bernie Goldberg says, “when white men were lynching blacks in the south, did anyone try to ‘understand’ their hatred. NO. You don’t need to understand bigotry to know it exists.” The same thing here. There is nothing to understand. Once a pedophile. Always a pedophile.
Sorry so long. Pedophilia is unforgiveable and evil. It MUST be destroyed.
JAM on October 1, 2008 at 4:12 PM
I agree that child rape murders their souls and it’s right up there with the worse crimes humans commit, but I don’t think that the death penalty will deter these crazy people from committing them. I happen to be more barbaric in my ideas on punishments for pedophiles and the like: death would be too easy. And, I’m not talking water-boarding, I’m talking creative solutions provided by their cell mates or the prison population.
BTW, there should be some method these maggots can earn their keep while they’re waiting for their day of reckoning.
Christine on October 1, 2008 at 4:47 PM
I couldn’t find the study to which you referred, but I found this 2001 report from the Ohio of Rehabilitation and Corrections on a 10-year study of sex offenders recidivism which some might find of interest.
From the executive summary:
Although the general recidivism rate over 10 years was high, I was surprised that the recidivism rate for sex crimes was not higher. My father worked with sex offenders, murderers, and other really horrible criminals for a number of years in a state prison program designed to try to rehabilitate these guys and I know it is very hard to do. Many of them barely retain even a shred of humanity, they are so desensitized to the pain of others.
I believe that all human life has value and that all people are capable of redemption. In the case of people who have perpetrated such horrid acts, much of the remaining value in their life is its impact on society, not in that person’s goodness. In trying to rehabilitate them, our society learns important lessons and demonstrates its commitment to human life.
Personally, I have no compassion for people on death row, but I still think that our society would be better if we did not kill them. I know this is not a popular opinion amongst conservatives (my husband and I disagree on this issue, in fact) but my beliefs arise out of a sincere belief in upholding the value of human life.
Y-not on October 1, 2008 at 4:49 PM
Your error in reasoning is rooted here : you presume that the law primarily exists to prevent crime.
LimeyGeek on October 1, 2008 at 5:28 PM
Judge Anthony Kennedy has been a Constitutional disaster. One has to wonder why this idiot is allowed to sit on the SCOTUS, and why he hasn’t been impeached yet?
The myth of judicial independence is exactly that, language that can’t be found anywhere in the Constitution, but impeachment is there. Judicial independence is a court manufactured term, by the court, for the court, for the sole purpose, to put them above the law.
byteshredder on October 1, 2008 at 5:33 PM
Though I do not have you feeling concerning those on Death Row, I do agree on your comment concerning Sexual Offenders.
My Best Friend was a P.O. here in Alaska (whom has the largest population for Sexual offenders in the Country). I would pop by so she and I could go for lunch occationally. I never spoke to the people she had on her case load, nor did I bother trying. But for some reason a particular person had an eye out ofr me. He would NOT leave me alone. I never asked my Best Friend what her case load intailed as it was confidential, but this guy was really starting to get wierd to the point that he say me walking in the building, and began masterbating in a hallway so I could see him, but far enough away that it wasn’t totally on camera, but was still caught since my Best Friend was standing at the door.
Yes he went back to jail that day. I didn’t have to testify due to the nature of what he was doing. But after my Best Friend left that job.. I asked how many people were S.O.’s on her case load, and she said “all of them”. I didn’t ask what they did but I did ask if they could be rehabilitated, after that incident with the masterbating hallway man… she looked me square in the eys and said, “No, and those whom say they can are fooling themselves and the community.”
No sexual offender will ever be able to be normal, such as us. No DepoPrevera, No Castrating, not even the threat of Death will change these people. They are wired in the brain to be this way. It may deter them from doing something if the KNOW they may die… but most wouldn’t care… as they never care about their victims.
This isn’t my first time dealing with a sex offender, especially up here… it won’t be my last unfortunatly.
upinak on October 1, 2008 at 5:38 PM
I do not doubt your sincerity.
Human life does not have ‘value’ in and of itself. If the human race blinked out of existence tomorrow, nothing would weep for us. Discussion of ‘value’ at this level is the stuff of philosophical abstraction.
Human life only has real ‘value’ to others. Our American civilization is built upon the shared appreciation of such value.
Of what ‘value’ is a life that holds others’ lives in contempt? How abusive is it to insist that these wretches are to be housed, clothed and fed by decent people for the rest of their lives? I want nothing to do with these people, they are of no value to me. They are of no value to our civilization. Their choices and actions have determined their fate. They have defined themselves as valueless.
Perhaps expelling certain types of offenders to an “Escape from New York” colony would be useful, but this still begs the question of what are we seeking in justice?
Why should an individual be given a chance at continued life when they have extinguished that right in others? If their victim could have lawfully put a bullet in their head, why should the state not deliver the same justice by proxy? We are asking the state to do nothing that we cannot lawfully do ourselves.
LimeyGeek on October 1, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Comment pages: