Subscribe to this story's comments
Bad decision. Not only child rapists but recidivists should face the ax. People with multiple felony convictions are a waste and drain upon society and should be treated as such.
How cruel is it to the child? What permanent harm comes to the child? Is this cruel and unusual punishment for violating a child and literally destroying that child's life? Had this person been caught in the act by the father of this child would this person have received the death penalty from the father?
Without looking at who voted for the majority decision, I can tell you that it must be the usual suspects and a reason that more balanced judges need to be appointed without a leaning. They should only lean to enforce the Constitution not change it.
http://brokengovernment.wordpress.com
My post may be misleading. I was referring to any child and any father, not this slug. The death penalty for a child rapist is not akin to the death penalty for raping an adult.
http://brokengovernment.wordpress.com
When the men started getting raped, then the law will change. As long as it is women and children, it will be ignored.
Rape a child, kill an unborn baby,OK no big deal, but light up a cigarete....oh boy!
I'm surprised the libs on the court didn't decide to award the rapist the medal of honor!
One issue that should be considered -- if the death penalty is applied regardless of whether or not the child is killed, then there would be no deterrence against killing the child after raping her. This way, at least, perhaps the child will be left alive. There is no right answer to this issue, all answers are unsatisfactory, but at least this result has a rational basis. Leave the emotion out of it and reason through what is best for the child and her parents in a bad situation.
Ginsburg says the court was engaging in "lawmaking". Ha.
I don't recall her being concerned about that in previous decisions.
Post a comment
There are comments on this article, submit your opinion!
