forgesfire
Old Hand
The masses of humanity have always had to suffer
Posts: 546
|
Post by forgesfire on May 2, 2009 6:14:51 GMT -6
As we all know, in Kennedy vs. Louisiana the Supreme Court made it unconstitutional to impose a death sentence for rape of a child. With Seuter retiring after this session, is it possible that the new justice will be for the death penalty for child rape? Missouri and Louisiana have stated that they will make sure it gets back to the Supreme Court if a new justice was added.
|
|
|
Post by ichy on May 2, 2009 10:17:22 GMT -6
Waste of time. SCOTUS won't revisit every old decision of theirs just because there's one new justice. Besides, we don't need more capital crimes in the US, we need to punish the ones we currently have with greater efficiency and consistency.
|
|
mst3k4evur
Inactive
Member of the Month - 4/09
Ameeerrrrrricaaa, F**k Yah!
Posts: 3,701
|
Post by mst3k4evur on May 2, 2009 16:34:03 GMT -6
Waste of time. SCOTUS won't revisit every old decision of theirs just because there's one new justice. Besides, we don't need more capital crimes in the US, we need to punish the ones we currently have with greater efficiency and consistency. Not necessarily, SCOTUS has revisited old issues in the past. Look at the juvenile DP, the justices upheld death sentences for 16 and 17-year-olds in Stanford v Kentucky (1989) only to overrule that court 16 years later and ban the juvenile DP.
|
|
|
Post by Potassium_Pixie on May 2, 2009 19:01:11 GMT -6
No DP for child rapists (though Casey Novak did say it was a capital offense in Louisiana on one episode of L&O: SVU). But we should just chop their genitals off. That will teach them.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on May 3, 2009 0:32:37 GMT -6
Does it change anybody's opinion if the girl in question happens to be mentally challenged?
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on May 3, 2009 6:24:45 GMT -6
Does it change anybody's opinion if the girl in question happens to be mentally challenged? I would choose the dp in that case but I know its anger speaking for me. Rape I believe should get LWOP, and not in the open prisons we seem to be fond of sending them to here.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on May 3, 2009 13:54:34 GMT -6
Child rapists won't even make it to the DP unless they are locked into a cell for 23 hours a day and monitored by COs.
Bottom of the food chain.
if they are trageted by other prisoners, I would think they would have to be looked after for 25 odd years just so the DP can do legally what other prisoners had in mind already. Unless the recieve the DP right away.
I could care less about a child rapist dying but who thinks they would last that long in prison to recieve the DP?
I say give them LWOP and see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on May 3, 2009 15:22:04 GMT -6
If the rapist knew he was going to get an automatic death sentence whether or not he killed the child, he would probably kill the child anyway to eliminate her from identifying him.
Therefore, I would vote LWOP with hard labor and let the general population beat the guy to a bloody pulp.
|
|
|
Post by Potassium_Pixie on May 3, 2009 23:31:56 GMT -6
Most child rapists are shanked in prison anyway. I hope that happens with other child rapists also.
|
|
mst3k4evur
Inactive
Member of the Month - 4/09
Ameeerrrrrricaaa, F**k Yah!
Posts: 3,701
|
Post by mst3k4evur on May 4, 2009 0:38:06 GMT -6
Most child rapists are shanked in prison anyway. I hope that happens with other child rapists also. Most survive their time actually, I think you watch too much Oz. ;D
|
|
mst3k4evur
Inactive
Member of the Month - 4/09
Ameeerrrrrricaaa, F**k Yah!
Posts: 3,701
|
Post by mst3k4evur on May 4, 2009 0:42:14 GMT -6
If the rapist knew he was going to get an automatic death sentence whether or not he killed the child, he would probably kill the child anyway to eliminate her from identifying him. Therefore, I would vote LWOP with hard labor and let the general population beat the guy to a bloody pulp. Couldn't you use that same argument to get rid of all harsh punishments for sex offenders? Wouldn't a sex offender be more likely to let his victim go if he was only facing 5 years instead of 25?
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on May 4, 2009 0:42:54 GMT -6
Most child rapists are shanked in prison anyway. I hope that happens with other child rapists also. Most survive their time actually, I think you watch too much Oz. ;D Precisely. They typically put them in protective custody and house them with others of their kind. I imagine they are generally safer than the average gang member on the mainline.
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on May 4, 2009 1:11:10 GMT -6
Here in Blighty some (note 'some' not all) prison officers are sympathetic to the robbers wanting to 'have a talk' with sex offenders. Afterall the officers are parents too. Some of them often 'forget' to lock the cell doors to child rapists thus allowing the robbers a chance to 'talk'
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on May 4, 2009 20:18:53 GMT -6
If the rapist knew he was going to get an automatic death sentence whether or not he killed the child, he would probably kill the child anyway to eliminate her from identifying him. Therefore, I would vote LWOP with hard labor and let the general population beat the guy to a bloody pulp. Couldn't you use that same argument to get rid of all harsh punishments for sex offenders? Wouldn't a sex offender be more likely to let his victim go if he was only facing 5 years instead of 25? Perhaps the person would let her go if he was only facing 5. However, this is based on the premise that the offender is thinking rationally.
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on May 6, 2009 7:43:55 GMT -6
No DP for child rapists (though Casey Novak did say it was a capital offense in Louisiana on one episode of L&O: SVU). But we should just chop their genitals off. That will teach them. OT: But Casey Novak rocks.
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on May 6, 2009 7:53:32 GMT -6
No DP for child rapists (though Casey Novak did say it was a capital offense in Louisiana on one episode of L&O: SVU). But we should just chop their genitals off. That will teach them. OT: But Casey Novak rocks. Who is she?
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on May 6, 2009 10:42:01 GMT -6
OT: But Casey Novak rocks. Who is she? Was the Law and Order SVU lawyer (tv series).
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on May 6, 2009 10:55:20 GMT -6
Was the Law and Order SVU lawyer (tv series). I see. Thanks Lauren
|
|
|
Post by RED on May 6, 2009 11:44:34 GMT -6
The arrival of a new Justice will have no impact whatsoever on this issue. First, Justice Souter has been a consistently reliable vote on the liberal block of the court. He was frequently voting in favor of death row inmates and against death sentences. President Obama’s replacement will most likely follow suit. That means a vote against the death penalty for child rape. The decisive vote will be Justice Kennedy. I really see no way that he will vote for allowing the death penalty for rape either. Love, RED. As we all know, in Kennedy vs. Louisiana the Supreme Court made it unconstitutional to impose a death sentence for rape of a child. With Seuter retiring after this session, is it possible that the new justice will be for the death penalty for child rape? Missouri and Louisiana have stated that they will make sure it gets back to the Supreme Court if a new justice was added.
|
|
forgesfire
Old Hand
The masses of humanity have always had to suffer
Posts: 546
|
Post by forgesfire on May 6, 2009 14:56:54 GMT -6
Wow, your stupid. Even Obama stated he disagreed with the Kennedy vs. Louisiana decision. Maybe his replacement will too. Kennedy already voted against the DP for rape, so he will definitely not be a factor. The replacement could very well agree with the Louisiana law.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on May 6, 2009 20:53:16 GMT -6
Wow, your stupid. Even Obama stated he disagreed with the Kennedy vs. Louisiana decision. Maybe his replacement will too. Kennedy already voted against the DP for rape, so he will definitely not be a factor. The replacement could very well agree with the Louisiana law. you really don't know Red, do you?? he's pretty bankable, I wouldn't call him stupid
|
|
mst3k4evur
Inactive
Member of the Month - 4/09
Ameeerrrrrricaaa, F**k Yah!
Posts: 3,701
|
Post by mst3k4evur on May 7, 2009 20:58:25 GMT -6
Couldn't you use that same argument to get rid of all harsh punishments for sex offenders? Wouldn't a sex offender be more likely to let his victim go if he was only facing 5 years instead of 25? Perhaps the person would let her go if he was only facing 5. However, this is based on the premise that the offender is thinking rationally. Exactly why the argument that the DP for child rape will cause child murder doesn't hold water.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on May 7, 2009 21:02:24 GMT -6
Perhaps the person would let her go if he was only facing 5. However, this is based on the premise that the offender is thinking rationally. Exactly why the argument that the DP for child rape will cause child murder doesn't hold water. Well, if he was going to get an automatic death sentence either way, what incentive would he have to release somebody who just may identify him?
|
|
|
Post by RED on May 8, 2009 12:45:31 GMT -6
Let me begin by being succinct: YOU'RE/ARE a moron. First, I should correct your grammar by pointing out that your opening sentence, "your stupid", is, well, stupid. I'm assuming you meant to say "you are or you're stupid". Anyway, if you actually believe that ANY nominee of Barack Obama is going to allow the death penalty for the rape of a child, then YOU'RE A MORON. Oh, wait, I already established that at the beginning. Get real kid. Love, RED Wow, your stupid. Even Obama stated he disagreed with the Kennedy vs. Louisiana decision. Maybe his replacement will too. Kennedy already voted against the DP for rape, so he will definitely not be a factor. The replacement could very well agree with the Louisiana law.
|
|
forgesfire
Old Hand
The masses of humanity have always had to suffer
Posts: 546
|
Post by forgesfire on May 8, 2009 12:56:16 GMT -6
Are you kidding me? This isn't english class. I didn't write it that way because I'm stupid I understand basic grammar. Your being daft in stating decisively that Obama's pick may not agree with the law of the state of Louisiana which allows the DP for child rape. That's all. You need to get real, especially using the same insult twice, even though you have no basis for your condemnation.
|
|
|
Post by RED on May 8, 2009 13:08:43 GMT -6
Let me try to respond to your unintelligible post. "Are you kidding me?"No, I'm not. " This isn't english class. I didn't write it that way because I'm stupid I understand basic grammar." Sorry. Writing without proper punctuation, like you just did above, it's hard to take seriously the statement that you understand "basic grammar". "Your being daft in stating decisively that Obama's pick may not agree with the law of the state of Louisiana which allows the DP for child rape."I'm sorry, did you say that you didn't write the original sentence the way you did because you're stupid? Hmm. Then why did you repeat the fiasco? Being that you again fail to comprehend the basics, i.e., your statement above again suffers from a lack of basic grammar, my original hypothesis about you is hereby confirmed. "That's all. You need to get real, especially using the same insult twice, even though you have no basis for your condemnation."Yes, that is all. I actually have used the same insult 4 times and everyone and their sister can see the basis you gave me, as you gave it again. As for the original point, if you believe that Obama's pick will vote to uphold capital punishment for rape, I cannot come to any conclusions other than you're either 15 years old, you live in Mars, or you're indeed a moron. Take your pick sweetie. Love, RED Are you kidding me? This isn't english class. I didn't write it that way because I'm stupid I understand basic grammar. Your being daft in stating decisively that Obama's pick may not agree with the law of the state of Louisiana which allows the DP for child rape. That's all. You need to get real, especially using the same insult twice, even though you have no basis for your condemnation.
|
|
|
Post by beej76 on May 8, 2009 16:11:15 GMT -6
Let me begin by being succinct: YOU'RE/ARE a moron. First, I should correct your grammar by pointing out that your opening sentence, "your stupid", is, well, stupid. I'm assuming you meant to say "you are or you're stupid". Anyway, if you actually believe that ANY nominee of Barack Obama is going to allow the death penalty for the rape of a child, then YOU'RE A MORON. Oh, wait, I already established that at the beginning. Get real kid. Love, RED Wow, your stupid. Even Obama stated he disagreed with the Kennedy vs. Louisiana decision. Maybe his replacement will too. Kennedy already voted against the DP for rape, so he will definitely not be a factor. The replacement could very well agree with the Louisiana law. Red - From the board rules: "No spelling flames - nothing is more juvenile than criticizing another person's spelling!" I believe the punishment for breaking any of the rules is an execution. Since we must both uphold the sovereign nation of the PRO DP Website, while also working to avoid falling into the trap of punishing only a few (the trap the real DP has fallen into), I'm sorry to say that you will have to be electrocuted. Don't blame me - I didn't make the rules. By the way, both of you are wrong - the odds that Obama or anyone else are even halfway considering the DP stance of a justice, well, it's believing that people give a rat's behind about this cause. I bet it's about the 30th thing on the list.
|
|
|
Post by RED on May 9, 2009 5:26:39 GMT -6
But what if I wasn't flaming but just stating a fact? As for your final observation, it is you who are wrong. First, this thread is based on the subject of how a new Justice will handle the issue of the death penalty for child rape. I commented on that. Second, if you actually believe that the ACLU, NAACP, and other more "progressive" groups will not consider the DP while lobbying Obama on his court pick, then you need to pay a bit more attention. I know you believe that the death penalty does not exist in the U.S., or something weird like that, but the reality is that controversial social issues like abortion, affirmative action, and yes, the death penalty are ALWAYS matters considered by presidents in the their court nomination process. Love, RED Let me begin by being succinct: YOU'RE/ARE a moron. First, I should correct your grammar by pointing out that your opening sentence, "your stupid", is, well, stupid. I'm assuming you meant to say "you are or you're stupid". Anyway, if you actually believe that ANY nominee of Barack Obama is going to allow the death penalty for the rape of a child, then YOU'RE A MORON. Oh, wait, I already established that at the beginning. Get real kid. Love, RED Red - From the board rules: "No spelling flames - nothing is more juvenile than criticizing another person's spelling!" I believe the punishment for breaking any of the rules is an execution. Since we must both uphold the sovereign nation of the PRO DP Website, while also working to avoid falling into the trap of punishing only a few (the trap the real DP has fallen into), I'm sorry to say that you will have to be electrocuted. Don't blame me - I didn't make the rules. By the way, both of you are wrong - the odds that Obama or anyone else are even halfway considering the DP stance of a justice, well, it's believing that people give a rat's behind about this cause. I bet it's about the 30th thing on the list.
|
|
|
Post by Potassium_Pixie on May 10, 2009 14:25:59 GMT -6
Then put them in with the other prisoners and see how long they laughs.
Casey may rock, by Alex Cabot is the best.
|
|
mst3k4evur
Inactive
Member of the Month - 4/09
Ameeerrrrrricaaa, F**k Yah!
Posts: 3,701
|
Post by mst3k4evur on May 11, 2009 8:47:51 GMT -6
Exactly why the argument that the DP for child rape will cause child murder doesn't hold water. Well, if he was going to get an automatic death sentence either way, what incentive would he have to release somebody who just may identify him? Because he/she is more likely to get caught for murder. Murder cases are, for obvious reasons, taken more seriously.
|
|