RDF:![[Valid RSS]](http://validator.w3.org/feed/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
Liberal Supreme Court Justices Side With Child Rapists (UPDATED)
Posted by: Emperor Misha I in "Law" of the Land, Useless Swine2:46 PM
…ruling that the execution of those scum is “cruel and unusual.”
Justice Kennedy, defending child rapists’ right to live, argues that they’re merely following a “changing ethos” among the population, which is a remarkably idiotic thing to assert, even for a liberal, when you’re striking down a law passed by the representatives of said population.
We guess that, according to Justice Kennedy (what is it with that family name?), the people voting to pass the law were FOR it before Kennedy and his 4 accomplices decided that they were AGAINST it.
He also argues that, whereas murderers clearly are sufficiently morally depraved to be executed, child rapists are not. Yep, that’s right. If some subhuman animal abducts and serially rapes an innocent child, then that’s bad. But according to “Justice” Kennedy, it only gets really bad if he murders the child at the end.
I’ve had it with those scum-cuddling, sub-retarded liberal activists.
Fuck ‘em all. We’ll just have to “take care” of child rapists ourselves, then. They’ll be begging for some “cruel and unusual” lethal injection juice before we’re five minutes into their punishment.
UPDATE: Via Stop the ACLU, we find that Governor Jindal is entirely unamused and unimpressed with the five short bus retard liberal “justices” and their decision, and vows to fight it tooth and nail:
“It is fundamentally improper for the Supreme Court to base an important decision like this on its ‘independent judgment’ about a perceived ‘national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape.’ The opinion reads more like an out-of-control legislative debate than a constitutional analysis.
“One thing is clear: the five members of the Court who issued the opinion do not share the same ‘standards of decency’ as the people of Louisiana. One Justice said that ‘the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child.’ That is incredibly absurd. The most repugnant crimes deserve the harshest penalties, and nothing is more repugnant than the brutal rape of an eight-year-old child.
“We will evaluate ways to amend our statute to maintain death as a penalty for this horrific crime.”
Go read the whole thing. Bobby ain’t taking any prisoners on this one. And good for him too. Nice to see that we still have executives with a pair in this country.
UPDATE the 2nd: Some of our friends are talking about impeaching the runaway, child rapist-cuddling, black robed tyrants and, whereas we’re certainly not opposed to that idea, not to mention that there certainly is a case for it here, something else comes to mind:
But that’s just who we are.
Entries (RSS)
Is it time YET?
June 25th, 2008 at 2:52 PMUsing
Castration anyone :em69:
June 25th, 2008 at 2:59 PMUsing
Pardon me? Say fucking what?
Which is exactly what they are supposed to reference in their decisions. Not some shit from some third world hellhole in the interests of world sensitivities.
Indeed. What was the name of that town? Where the populous dealt with a problem en masse, then hid all their weapons in somebodies basement and nobody saw a damn thing?
June 25th, 2008 at 3:01 PMUsing
One, or two of these morons must be coming up on retirement. Get in all the legislation from said bench while they are still able to, as it were.
More BS for the rest of us.
Let’s hope that one of these liberal assholes sides with us on the Heller case.
June 25th, 2008 at 3:05 PMUsing
Who is really surprised? After all, supporting child-rapists is a leftist sporting event:
Massachusetts Lawmaker’s Pledge to ‘Rip Apart’ Child Rape Victims at Trial Draws Fury
I guess in this case, it’s really NOT for the children for a change.
June 25th, 2008 at 3:10 PMUsing
Don’t be surprised if the Court repeals the Second Amendment on a 5-4 vote.
June 25th, 2008 at 3:12 PMUsing
Spent some time skimming the decision and the dissent at lunch.
The basis for the majority’s newly discovered consensus is mired in a three-card monte sceme that Alito very deftly points out in his analysis, and of course, our 4 still possessed of all their mental faculties also recognize that ‘evolving mores’ are a poor basis for such a ruling as well.
June 25th, 2008 at 3:12 PMUsing
[...] standards too, and mine say, well, I don’t know what Misha has in mind exactly when he says… Fuck ‘em all. We’ll just have to “take care” of child rapists ourselves, then. [...]
June 25th, 2008 at 3:26 PMUsing
Kennedy is Irish for Ignorant Fucktard.
June 25th, 2008 at 3:39 PMUsing
I would be all in favor of killing child rapists - if we could be CERTAIN. There are WAY too many cases of conviction on no evidence, or faulty evidence for my tastes.
My neighbor in Tucson was convicted based only upon the testimony of his daughter - who’s own friends, mother, and JOURNAL said that she was lying to get ‘revenge’ upon him for disciplining her for sneaking out of the house. The whole story is beyond insane - except that it keeps HAPPENING.
We had a teacher who was falsely accused of molesting one of his students - he committed suicide rather than go through the kangaroo-court trials they have for this offense. The accuser was stunned and admitted that she made up the charge in revenge.
When you’ve got someone for whom there is no doubt AT ALL of their guilt, I’m totally in favor of killing them. That goes for ANY Rape, murder, or arson. But if there’s even a SHRED of doubt - forget it. Our court system is a JOKE with a VERY high false-conviction rate. Fix that, then I’ll back capital punishment.
Orion
June 25th, 2008 at 3:40 PMUsing
The Liberal Mindset: If you’re a victim of child rape, we place a greater importance on protecting the “dignity” of your rapist, and you’re pretty much dirt. But hang in there… if you survive to adulthood without blowing your own brains out, and resultant loose bolts in your head contribute to you becoming a child rapist too - we’ll be there for you! (cue the “Friends” theme song…)
Don’t forget to add the disclaimer henceforth whenever one of these assnuggets says something is “for the children” (*excluding victims of child rape.)
June 25th, 2008 at 3:42 PMUsing
Absolutely. Which is why I, even though I privately grit my teeth over the fact from time to time, still support the exceedingly long appeals process for people on Death Row. Give them every chance available to them and, if there’s the slightest doubt that they did it, commute their sentences to life in prison. Annoying though it is to see a murderer enjoy 10 or 20 years of free lodging before he’s put to death, and it’s EXTREMELY offensive in some cases, it’s still several orders of magnitude LESS offensive than throwing the switch only to find that “oops, we fried the wrong guy.”
Now there’s a stain that ain’t gonna come off in the wash.
Anyway, that’s goes without saying as far as I and my support of the death penalty is concerned: “Alright, I support it, but you damn well better be triply-damn-bloody-well-guaranTEED sure that you got the right guy.”
June 25th, 2008 at 3:49 PMUsing
My Emperor,
I have spent the better part of the day behind enemy lines. I have staked out a position in a flamingly liberal website known as Crankyland. Here the barbarian liberal horde make comments along the lines of “Bush lied, Kids died” and some such drivel. I however have single-handedly kept these fascist fools chasing their own tails with carefully aimed bullets of logic that have perforated many a hole in their ridiculous arguments. The battle is fierce but I am confident I shall remain victorious.
I shall keep you posted from time to time of my efforts to frustrate and confound the idiots that call themselves ‘humanists’.
For the Empire and the Emperor,
Lord Elrond, LC :em04:
(no I haven’t lost my mind) :em93:
June 25th, 2008 at 3:51 PMUsing
I understand your reluctance, Orion, but read the facts of the case. Too many coinkidinkies pointing to Step-Daddy. And it was particularly brutal. Not for the faint of heart.
June 25th, 2008 at 3:53 PMUsing
See this is the kinda shit Im talking about. What happened to states rights when it comes to criminal matters? Im not talking about civil rights matters. Here we have a state that citizens have determined that child rape is a death penalty offense. And we have the Feds saying no…. on what basis? Changing ethos? And whose changing ethos would that be? Cause im willing to bet that if you asked the average parent should the person that RAPED thier child be subject to death, the answer would be YES. From a personal perspective, there wouldnt be a place secure enough for the perpatrator. I would purposley get my ass locked up right after the subjects capture and deliver his punishment most ricky tick. Or I would be waiting outside the prison the day the motherfucker was “paroled”.
I once saw a clip from the 80’s of two Marshalls escorting a subject who had kidnapped a juvenile down a jetway. The subject had just landed in the offense jurisdiction. Oh a pay phone in the jetway was a male with his back to the marshalls, as they passed by, the guy on the phone turned and delivered a head shot to the offender. He then dropped the gun and said “thats right I did it” it was the childs father. I thought at the time what better message to send to your child that the monster will never ever hurt him again nor anyone else. I know his son slept better at night. The father also walked on the murder charge on the basis of temporary insanity.
June 25th, 2008 at 4:01 PMUsing
“Maturing Society”
“Evolving Standards”
Remember what I said before about “Not Sweating The Small Stuff”?
This is where it leads.
How much longer before they decide that child-rape is just a “Lifestyle Decision”?
Beaker,
Want to put a couple bucks down on the ‘time limit’ for that guy?
It can’t be long before some father, knowing that his little angel is going to face that scum in court, is going to engage in some ‘proactive-protection’ , the likes of which he only wishes he’d beeen able to exact earlier…
- MuscleDaddy
June 25th, 2008 at 4:02 PMUsing
OH! I’m not arguing the specifics of any one case - merely pointing out that even our Death-Row Appeals Process results in WAY too many false-convictions. DNA testing has recently cleared - or post-mortem shown quite a few, no?
I think their logic and reasoning was a bit batty in the opinion too, but you can’t really expect the Supreme Court to come out and say “Well, our court system is a joke, so we’re gonna hold back on the death penalty”, now can we?
Orion
June 25th, 2008 at 4:03 PMUsing
MD, it is as simply as putting the guy in the general population. Even the scummiest of the scum HATE the pedophiles, and usually deliver their own brand of brutal justice.
June 25th, 2008 at 4:06 PMUsing
Yes, LC Beaker. I heard the rantings of this maniac on the radio. Equally disturbing were the reactions of that creature’s “peers.” “Ah, it were just hyperbole. Hehheh! Ol’ Fagan (Dickens must be laughing his arse off!) weren’t serious.”
I hope if there is a Hell, that the creature Fagan is repeatedly set upon by Satan’s most well-hung demons.
June 25th, 2008 at 4:12 PMUsing
[...] evolving standards too, and mine say, well, I don’t know what Misha has in mind exactly when he says… We’ll just have to “take care” of child rapists ourselves, then. They’ll be begging for [...]
June 25th, 2008 at 4:14 PMUsing
BisW,
Yah - fine for the rapist in question, but I was referring to Fagan from Beaker’s link - some little girl is going to have to face that POS in court - I’m just betting her father, having heard Fagan’s pledge, will pre-emptively remove that threat.
Followed your link and scanned through the “Opinion”…
Ah - well… he’s got a consensus — Okay then.
Anyone interested in the judicial highlights can skip right down to pg.42 - Scalia sums them up while dismisssing the asshattedness of them.
Scalia’s my hero.
- MuscleDaddy
June 25th, 2008 at 4:24 PMUsing
Absolutely right. Louisiana can get around the death penalty ban by throwing the cocksuckers into the general population. Child molesters are at the bottom of the food chain in prison. Bubba and his Fudge Packing Rednecks will make sure that those scumbuckets can shit bowling balls by the end of the week. And the Guards will most likely be inspecting their bellybuttons while it happens. Plus….the most likely place to send them in this state is Angola. You do NOT want to end up there for ANY reason. That is one nasty shit hole to be thrown in.
Child Rapist + Angola+ General Population = wishing you COULD die.
June 25th, 2008 at 4:25 PMUsing
I don’t want him executed either…
As a former criminal justice practitioner I can assure you that the treatment of this Chester will far outweigh the punishment of the death penalty.
When John Cooey, the retard who killed Jessica Lunsford, was up to be sentenced, I prayed he would get life without parole…it’s the same with these shitbags.
It will be a swift, violent death when it comes. Days will seem like years to this pedophile murderer…he’ll never know when it’s coming, only that it is.
How would you like to live in fear everyday? You don’t live in fear from the Death Penalty - it takes years to impose. But, a shank in the liver…you never know when….keep thinking about it, assclown, cause it IS coming.
June 25th, 2008 at 4:45 PMUsing
NAMBLA.
Back before Wisconsin voted to reinstate the death penalty certain people (jeffery dhamer comes to mind) were known to be going into the REAL Wisconsin justice system by being sent to general population.
June 25th, 2008 at 4:56 PMUsing
Louisiana can get around this one easily.
Alter the murder statutes.
Make killing a convicted violent child rapist a $100 misdemeanor.
June 25th, 2008 at 5:01 PMUsing
Well, if death is too “extreme”, is there any possible way to make the punishment fit the crime? Like actually sentencing the dickwad to be forcibly raped three times a day by someone twice their size? Making them live in close contact with their rapist at every moment? And like a child, having to depend on their rapist for food?
June 25th, 2008 at 5:05 PMUsing
More Dissenting-Scalia Goodness…
(I would not want to be on the receiving end if a fisking from this guy)
So essentially - “None of Kennedy’s rationalizations hold water - and the NAMBLA-loving majority made this decision because they felt-like-it.”
Sorry - I’ll stop now.
Damn, I love this stuff.
- MuscleDaddy
June 25th, 2008 at 5:07 PMUsing
…and yes, I chopped & hacked for clarity…
- MD
June 25th, 2008 at 5:09 PMUsing
I am all in favor of death for child rapists by low speed blender (feet first ala Hussein style) but there is another consideration.
The perps just may start killing their young victims in far greater numbers in order to remove the only witness to a capital offense.
Always take into consideration the Law of Unintended Consequences.
June 25th, 2008 at 5:21 PMUsing
So as Scalia so abely points out the five fucks on the SC like to play word and number games as much as thier brethren communists. My sensibility to under assault each day with shit like this and glubalworming and then MSM with thier bullshit. Tell me this shit isnt coming to a head in the near future?
June 25th, 2008 at 5:26 PMUsing
Sig94, a lot of them already do that. Seen a milk carton lately?
June 25th, 2008 at 5:27 PMUsing
It’s a valid point, logically and relatively speaking, and I had it rattling around in my brain group housing for a bit too, weighing the pros and cons. At the end of the day, though, I have to reject it, based on the following:
1) We can’t allow criminals and their potential actions to dictate the severity of punishment. That would be tantamount to allowing criminals to blackmail society and, in effect, use their victims as hostages. With a favorable outcome.
2) As Troy pointed out, they already do “do away with the witnesses” in a large number of cases concerning a huge variety of crimes. However, that still doesn’t negate your proposition that they might do it more, obviously.
3) At what point is a punishment severe enough that we must stop and think about whether killing the witnesses has become an attractive, for the criminal, option? Should we then reduce sentences for all crimes to that level?
4) In the extreme of the above, shouldn’t we do away with punishment entirely, for fear that the perpetrator might decide that offing the witnesses to his crime is a good idea?
5) The incentive given to the criminal by child rape being made a capital offense isn’t just one of “you’d better kill the kid afterwards”, it should even more so be one of “how about not raping kids in the first place?”
June 25th, 2008 at 5:35 PMUsing
so the death penalty is “too harsh” for them… alright, instead of spending the rest of their lives on death row - basically in isolation - give them life without parole, IN the general population instead of protective custody like they get now..
let the inmates have their way with ‘em I say.
June 25th, 2008 at 5:53 PMUsing
In my opinion if they kill the kid afterwards, they should just be handed over to the parents of the kid or closest relative for punishment.
June 25th, 2008 at 6:20 PMUsing
Damn straight! Those five asswipes in black robes might share “standards of decency” with the f*cked up morons of San Franfudgeville, but that ain’t how we do things here in Louisiana.
GEAUX Bobby! :em04:
June 25th, 2008 at 6:26 PMUsing
Members of NAMBLA, on the other hand…
June 25th, 2008 at 6:29 PMUsing
[...] Disgusting. And of course “being like Europe” is the excuse. [...]
June 25th, 2008 at 6:46 PMUsing
Think we can get Governor Jindal to run for POTUS next time around?
(Assuming that B’HO hasn’t declared martial law and gotten himself declared “El Jefe For Life”, like his little bestest butt-buddy down south, of course!)
June 25th, 2008 at 7:00 PMUsing
[...] Update: The Rottweiller lets loose on this one! [...]
June 25th, 2008 at 7:07 PMUsing
Depends on how healthy the state is by then Guido. If we’re doing well….he might. If the Demfarts start dicking around again….he’ll shoot for a second term here.
We’ll just have to wait and see. Hell he’s only 36. A few more years in Baton Rouge will only add to his already impressive resume’.
June 25th, 2008 at 7:09 PMUsing
Justice _is_ a punishment that fits the crime. Life in prison for a child rapist is justice. Child molesters are on the bottom of the totem pole there and they will be ‘owned’ by the bull queers. They will spend much of thier time bent over with a look of surprise on thier faces. That look will come in useful later when they are not bent over.
June 25th, 2008 at 7:19 PMUsing
I like everything I hear about him, Madame M.
A friend at work has been talking to me about him quite a bit. (Dave has a number of relatives in Louisiana, mostly in NOLA.)
I’ve been impressed with everything I have heard, I have, I have!
June 25th, 2008 at 7:22 PMUsing
He’s the Libtards worst nightmare. He’s intelligent (Rhodes Scholar by the time he was 22-23, has served both in State AND Federal positions, including four years in the House of Reps. He bitch slapped the Medicare System here in Louisiana and turned a deficit into a surplus etc.), he’s young, attractive, staunchly conservative…..
AND HE’S NOT WHITE. :em01: :em69: :em04:
Not to mention his wife is gorgeous, as smart as he is…and they have three young children, the youngest of which he delivered himself at home when she suddenly went into labor.
He’s got himself some Olympic Sized Balls our Bobby does. :em95:
June 25th, 2008 at 7:37 PMUsing
Just found this tidbit on the Governor’s site that goes along with this subject.
Those balls just keep getting bigger. :em01:
June 25th, 2008 at 7:46 PMUsing
Chemical castration for child rapists? :em69:
June 25th, 2008 at 8:16 PMUsing
VERY big ones, Mrs. M. BTW, what chemical are they using? Might I suggest HF?
Slightly OT, I heard on the radio today that the Obamessiah said he deplored the decision. I guess that puts paid to the idea that he might be a closet Muslim.
Slightly more OT, has anyone heard from DJ? How’s he doing?
June 25th, 2008 at 8:29 PMUsing
Child rapists deserve to live… (UPDATED and BUMPED)…
… or at least, that’s what our Supreme Court decided today, in what must be one of the most disgusting rulings ever to come out of that chamber….
June 25th, 2008 at 8:52 PMUsing Unknown browser
I dunno…I find myself in basic agreement with Orion and Mindy. I personally don’t believe that rape should be a capital crime warranting death. Someone here mentioned arson, as well…so you burn down a building, and you forfeit your life???
To me, the dp should be reserved only for those who have taken a life.
We are starting to sound like Singapore now, where you can get caned simply for chewing gum.
June 25th, 2008 at 8:53 PMUsing
[...] Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler parses the illogic: Justice Kennedy, defending child rapists’ right to live, argues that they’re merely following [...]
June 25th, 2008 at 9:06 PMUsing
Taqyiah, anyone??
It seems to be the whole foundation for his campaign, tell whatever group of idiots he happens to be in front of whatever they want to hear. And if he reverses his position 180 degrees at the next stop, as long as the infidel sheeple buy it, it’s all good….
June 25th, 2008 at 9:07 PMUsing
SkyeChild, I disagree…rape should be a capital crime. As for arson, if a death occurs as a result of the arson, the arsonist should be burned at the stake so he (or she) experiences the same agony that their victim experienced. For that matter, I am all in favor of a three strikes and you’re DEAD law. If some low grade moron (or Rhodes Scholar, for that matter) just can’t abide by the rules of civilized people, get rid of them.
June 25th, 2008 at 9:21 PMThe prohibition of “cruel and unusual” punishment, if you read the writings of the founding fathers was to prohibit such things as hanging or burning at the stake of someone who stole, say a loaf of bread. The founding fathers pretty much believed that the punishment should fit the crime, and that is all the “cruel and unusual” clause meant. Unfortunately, it has been twisted into what we have today, where any punishment is considered cruel and unusual.
Using
I’ve noticed that a couple of people have said that putting this guy in with the general population in prison is worse than the death penalty, and I completely agree except with one point. We don’t put the sons of bitches in general population, we put them in solitary to “protect” them from that very thing. Sad but true. This SOB deserves to be castrated and given free reign within general population.
June 25th, 2008 at 9:24 PMUsing
Ogrre,
I don’t know if you were the one who mentioned arson, but if someone dies, then of course, there should be consequences. But…the death penalty just for arson itself? That’s a bit harsh in my book.
What’s next? Hanging someone because they steal your bicycle? I thought we got away from that in the old west, when they hanged cattle rustlers and horse thieves. Where do you draw the line? What is the criteria for a “capital” offense?
Sorry, but I still feel that the ONLY crime that warrants the death penalty is murder.
June 25th, 2008 at 9:32 PMUsing
And a caveat: I’m in agreement with Orion…the death penalty is PERMANENT. If a mistake is made (and they happen more than we’d like to admit), there is NO turning back.
June 25th, 2008 at 9:36 PMUsing
That is not the issue. Historically, there are well defined capital offenses so the punishment is not the issue. The issue is modifying the behavior of a class of offenders or potential offenders. in my line of work, we have seen criminals adapt to different enforcement strategies and must use various indicators to anticipate what those changes are. The death penalty is just another enforcement strategy. Since the death penalty is a new wrinkle to an old crime, you must anticipate what that wrinkle will produce. In my profession we don’t impose the penalities, but we must anticipate the outcomes no matter how unpleasant.
Sorry, but that is just madness.
Absolutely, but unfortunately it doesn’t always work that way. The pervs are motivated by an unholy passion and they don’t think of the consequences or think they will get away with it. I am not saying that child molesters should not be executed. I think they should; and I would extend the death penalty to more offenses rather than fewer. All I am saying is this - in the rush for judgement be advised that unintended consequences often follow.
Examples:
Morphine addiction led to the introduction of heroin.
Prohibition was the primary motivator behind the development of large scale organized crime.
June 25th, 2008 at 9:51 PMUsing
My God, are you serious? What sorts of offenses? Adultery? Theft? Battery? B&E? Assault? Kidnapping?
Shades of Islam! Might as well give in to Shari’a law.
June 25th, 2008 at 9:56 PMUsing
Absolutely, Sigster, which is why I said “in the extreme”
I wasn’t suggesting that you were in favor of it. Just taking it to its logical extreme, that’s all.
I agree with your analysis and yes, we should anticipate changes in behavior among the perps. It’d be silly to suggest otherwise. [post-edit addition: Even if I hadn't agreed with you before, which I did, I would now since you know a heck of a lot more about it than I do]
My bottom line is, and yours is too, obviously, that it shouldn’t keep us from executing them. And yes, it will have consequences.
June 25th, 2008 at 9:59 PMUsing
Skye Yes absolutly … extend the death penalty. Kidnapping yep! When a stranger kidnaps someone for extortion or some other heinous purpose.
Did you know that in many states if an Officer or Civilian see’s a Arsonist in progress of commiting the crime to an occupied building, if the subject refuses to desist upon command deadly force is an legitimate option?
Rape… of the elderly, mentally infirm, and children…… SMOKE EM!
Murder…. SMOKE EM!
Severe Child Abuse…… SMOKE EM!
You dont let evil live…. You dont warehouse evil. You eliminate evil. and Im actually considering amending my position on rape to includes all manner of rapists.
June 25th, 2008 at 10:17 PMUsing
Burglary is already a capital offense. If it happens in my house, anyways…
Joking aside, I see where you’re coming from, Skye, but I disagree when you narrow down possible capital offenses to only those where a life has been taken. Not to mention that that definition has never been the reasoning behind applying the death penalty in any society that has implemented it. It just so happens that murder is right up there on the top ten of the worst crimes imaginable, so it has always been sort of a gimme that murder would be on the list of capital offenses.
Treason, for instance, doesn’t necessarily involve loss of life, yet I have absolutely no problem with executing traitors. Nor spies. In the first case there’s a violation of trust on a level that is so fundamental that the individual simply cannot be allowed to continue as part of the society that he has betrayed. In the latter because it’s an act of war, and that carries a death penalty for sure. Sometimes to an entire nation.
Child rapists? Absolutely. They may not take a life, but they sure as Hell have destroyed one. I can’t honestly say which is worse. Being dead or being forced to live a life of neverending misery, fear, self-loathing, nightmares and, in some cases, insanity.
There are more, but I can’t think of them all now. The common thread is that each crime has to be evaluated in terms of depravity, maliciousness, extent and consequences for the victims.
That’s why we used to hang horse thieves back in the day, by the way. Obviously, today we wouldn’t do so, nor should we, but back THEN losing your horse out in the great wide open middle-of-nowhere could very well end up being a death sentence for the victim. Which is why we hanged the thieves, and I have no problem with it. I’d have a problem with it if somebody suggested that we do the same today and start hanging car thieves, because in the vast majority of cases the consequences today aren’t anywhere near that extreme.
And, to go back to my first quip: If I’m around when you try to steal my car, it’s a capital offense anyway. Only you won’t have to wait 15 years for the sentence to be carried out.
June 25th, 2008 at 10:18 PMUsing
I believe I’m the one who mentioned Arson - and here’s why I believe it should be a capital crime (along with drunk driving) - again, ONLY IN CASES WHERE THERE IS Z E R O doubt.
Arson starts out as being specific to a building - and it can spread very, very quickly. They are putting firefighters, neighbors, the entire city at risk when they set that fire. Just as a drunk driver is randomly assaulting everyone they come near, the arsonist is attacking an entire city. We are just used to firefighters who are able to stop that assault at one or two buildings.
They are demonstrating a level of threat to and a lack of concern for our entire community that neccessitates removing them from the population permanently.
Orion
June 25th, 2008 at 10:23 PMUsing
I thought we were more civilized than the Muslim world, which you all decry. Apparently not. I guess Shari’a won’t be such a bad thing then, eh?
How about we hack off hands for thieves? Feet for jaywalkers? How about if we stone a woman for cheating on her husband? They are mocking Christians or JOOOOS? To the stake with them!
June 25th, 2008 at 10:26 PMUsing
Orion,
If putting someone at risk is cause for the death penalty, then we must put to death everyone who has tuberculosis or some other contagious or deadly disease, for he/she could infect a large number of people. Typhoid Mary? Kill her!
June 25th, 2008 at 10:28 PMUsing
Sky, I am surprized at your lack of suport for the death penalty for rape being a lady. The destruction of a person’s soul/spirit by the act of rape has been refered to as the “living death.” So, yes, some one really dies in the act of rape, and capital punishment should be applied.
TVFOH
June 25th, 2008 at 10:35 PMThe View From Out Here
Using
Interesting.
And how many here who are advocating such punishment will still advocate for a woman’s “right” to kill her unborn child?
June 25th, 2008 at 10:38 PMUsing
Sky,
A unborn child is innocent of any crime. An adult knows the rules and chooses to break them. They are guilty and are deserving of the punishment.
TVFOH
June 25th, 2008 at 10:42 PMThe View From Out Here
Using
You missed my point, TVFOH…
There are those here who want to kill rapists, arsonists, etc, yet look the other way when a woman kills her unborn child simply because she has the “right” to do so.
June 25th, 2008 at 10:45 PMUsing
Sig94,
There is no such thing as a “victimless” crime. It affects someone, even if they are in denile about it.
TVFOH
June 25th, 2008 at 10:46 PMThe View From Out Here
Using
Skye dear, you really need to calm down. You’re starting to sound like a certain caterwauler that shall remain nameless at this time.
When a person has sunk to the depths of depravity as to rape a child, there really isn’t much farther they can fall. That child must then live the rest of their lives with that horror. Unless you’ve been molested as a child you could never know how that will affect you the rest of your days. How many registered sex offenders that have been turned loose that have repeated their crimes, in many instances added murder to their resume’? Once they are that sick and twisted, there is a very urgent need to chlorinate the gene pool.
June 25th, 2008 at 10:58 PMUsing
Troy,
You mention evil. Who defines evil? If you steal my car, to me you are “evil.” But I wouldn’t want you killed for stealing it.
IMO, this death penalty thing becomes a slippery slope when applied to things other than murder. As Bill Clinton said, it depends on what “is” is.
June 25th, 2008 at 10:58 PMUsing
SkyeChild,
It has been my experiance that very few people are for both capital punishment and abortion. I have ran across some that are against both abortion and capital punishment. They state any killing is bad. But most are for one or the other, but not both.
Is there anyone here that suports both capital punishment and abortion?
TVFOH
June 25th, 2008 at 11:00 PMThe View From Out Here
Using
Not a whole lot, I don’t think. I know that I don’t.
Thing is: Abortion is, currently, LEGAL. It’s still WRONG if you ask me, but it’s legal, and you can’t punish anybody for doing something that, according to the laws of the land, is perfectly legit. That’d be anarchy.
If it were illegal, I certainly believe that transgressions should be tried as homicide, because that’s what it would be under those circumstances and, it being illegal, you would have a case of somebody knowing full well that something was illegal and punishable by law, yet choosing to “just do it anyway.”
But that’s not the case. Abortion is legal and, therefore, in a LEGAL sense, my personal opinions about it don’t matter one little bit, nor should they.
June 25th, 2008 at 11:01 PMUsing
Mrs. M.
Then put the guy in with the gen pop of a prison, and let nature take its course. Don’t release him…ever.
June 25th, 2008 at 11:01 PMUsing
TVFOH,
And what happens if it’s a case of mistaken identity? Or if I have made an error? Or if the jury makes an error? Juries do. I sat on one recently where the guy really SHOULD have been acquitted because of a trial error, but he wasn’t.
The death penalty is irrevocable once it’s carried out.
June 25th, 2008 at 11:09 PMUsing
Not surprisingly, I suppose, I was the only one on the jury fighting like crazy for the rest of them to understand why I thought there was reasonable doubt.
The rest of them were ready to hang him (figuratively) as soon as the trial ended.
June 25th, 2008 at 11:17 PMUsing
Hmm, I was doing this on the assumtion that the perp was guilty. Appeal times are there for a reason.
June 25th, 2008 at 11:23 PMOk let’s put this in a case with irrefutable evedence. We have his DNA from a rape kit, and when they executed the search warrent they found the video of him raping the victim and when he was in the interrogation room, when he was told about all this evedence he confessed. Is it OK now?
Using
Skye
Now thats interesting, you’re advocating placing the perpetrator forever in an environment where they will be raped, beaten, and possibly murdered in a most heinous fashion (either beaten to death or stabbed to death). But you dont want to kill them yourself. Im sure you grasp the contradiction in your position.
With that said the difference between us and the Islamic shitholes that practice Sharia is that we actually use “evidence”, forensic science, and we have the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. Are you aware that most cases reveresed on appeal are for procedural error?
That you would compare our system, and those that are advocating the inclusion / addidtion of death penalty crimes as being like Islamics approaches the line of being downright insulting. Especially given the conditions of my first paragraph. Whats more barbaric ? Putting them in “gen pop” or sending them on to the next plane of existence?
June 25th, 2008 at 11:31 PMUsing
Suppose it was actually his identical twin who committed the crime? Hey…it’s possible. Actually, I think Law & Order did one of these….
I don’t mean to be facetious, but there are just so many variables…
Bottom line…again, I stand firm that the death penalty should be reserved for murders, as opposed to for other offenses. I’m not sure about how I feel about traitors and spies.
June 25th, 2008 at 11:31 PMUsing
Yes, I would make a lousy defense lawyer. I would explain attourny client privlege and say did you do it. If they said yes then I would tell them that their best defence would be to plead out. Because attacking the victim in court when I know my client is guilty, would be against my ethics.
TVFOH
June 25th, 2008 at 11:34 PMUsing
Skye-
That’s the EXACT point the Supreme Whores™ used in justifying their ruling. An “evolving standard of decency”. Sounds to me very much like your slippery slope. As a matter of history and law, in the past there were many more capital offenses. Once the SCOTUS started stirring up this ephemeral “evolving standard” then the states were much more loath to apply capital punishment as the ultimate penalty. The slippery slope you refer to, led us downhill, with the legal standards to impose (and carry out) the death penalty considerably harder. Many prosecutions will out of hand dismiss capital punishment for this very reason, as it’s easier to plea bargain the perp into a life sentence, rather than risk losing a case entirely in the complexity the ‘evolving standards’ doctrine established by the courts and appeals process. The national statistics the majority opinion in this Certiorari did NOT reflect the ‘national mood or tolerance’ for the death penalty so much as the realistic (and court set) standards imposed to get a conviction, leading to states’ sometimes reluctance to go for the death penalty. IOW-The average American supports the death penalty as prescribed by established state legislation.
It’s a straw-man argument to state that Sharia law is the next step. Under Sharia law the victim would be executed for the crime of rape. The founders anticipated and expected that the states would determine certain crimes to be so heinous in nature that society would protect itself by enacting the death penalty. They built-in restrictions within the Bill of Rights regarding the trial process, yet chose wisely to include the 8th Amendment’s ‘Cruel and Unusual Punishment’ clause from history such as the burning of witches and decidedly hideous forms of execution being proscribed from what otherwise is a state matter. Wilkerson v. Utah in 1878 put some more bounds on it, while ruling the (then) current method of execution, i.e. firing-squad was not in violation of the 8th amendment. Brennan and Marshall, along with a specious argument based on race by Potter Stewart, created a mythical determining factor in application of ‘who’ got the death penalty, essentially outlawed the death penalty for all states in Furman v. Georgiain 1972. Coincidentally, an increase in violent crimes during the period this Cert held increased dramatically. Gregg v. Georgia in 1976 brought sanity back to the legal system, after the state’s wishing to maintain the death penalty enacted the current multi-step process to render the death penalty that we have today.
This current ruling is another contraction of the states and implicitly, ‘We The People’ as represented by the state government to determine as a society the application of crime and punishment.
That’s a far, FAR cry from an alleged holy book written by a pedophile and interpreted strictly by an elite class, being used to determine crime and punishment.
No TVOH, I don’t support abortion, unfortunately it’s the law of the land at present, but I wholeheartedly support capital punishment. I’ve witnessed true evil, up close and personal and society cannot afford to let monsters of any stripe to exist within our civilized society. I’m confident in our legal system to ensure a fair trial for the accused, an appeal process and following that “‘Speed-Lane” gurney rides such as Texas and Florida use.
June 25th, 2008 at 11:36 PMUsing
Children come into the world trusting us to protect them, so that is where this is such a rough issue. Justice Kennedy is on a libtard roll (giving Constitutional rights to terrorists/prisoners of war and now this!). I personally, would kill an man or woman who did this to any child in my family, but the death penalty isn’t even used for Traitors of the United States… instead of facing a firing squad, they get to make workout videos and bad movies and get “Woman of the Year” eventually! I do agree, if a pedophile is put in prison, the prisoners will usually “deal with him severely!!! Just look at what happened to Dahlmer!!! It is times like this I take comfort in my faith, since at the judgement, Justice Kennedy will be answering for his failure to protect the children in this country, and God won’t have much interest in reading his “opinions”. Scalia seems to be the only voice of true reason and is unafraid to voice it.
June 25th, 2008 at 11:36 PMUsing
Troy,
If someone is truly guilty, I have no problem with someone doing to a convicted rapist what he did to someone else. Nor do I have a problem with having a murderer killed in the same way he killed someone else.
What concerns me is invoking the death penalty for other crimes. Where does it end? Again, who defines evil?
June 25th, 2008 at 11:36 PMUsing
Who defines evil? WE THE PEOPLE! We the reasonable. We the lucid. We the knowing evil when we see it. Do you not agree that the person that rapes a child is not evil? Do you not agree that the person who sets fire to an apartment building, knowing there are innocent men, women, and children is not evil? Do you not agree that the person that breaks into the elderly neighbors home and beats them to an inch of thier life is not evil?
I dont know about you….. but I know evil when I see it.
How do you define evil?
Oh and and you know those Enron fuckers that took all those peoples retirement money… they should get smoked too.
June 25th, 2008 at 11:45 PMUsing
Skye-
We The People, through our representative form of government and duly enacted legislation.
NO ONE is proposing a theologically based justice system.
June 25th, 2008 at 11:46 PM[Dangit Troy- You're faster than I am on the KB. 20 minutes time-out for beating the old guy...LOL.-JB]
Using
The problem as I see it, Jackboot, lies in defining “evil.” Some is obvious, some not so much. For example, one poster mentioned the death penalty for abusing animals.
Several years ago, my dog was dying. We were trying to get him to eat…even bought high quality dog food. He didn’t eat. As a result, he got very thin before I finally took him in. An outsider looking at my dog would probably have called the Humane Society because my dog looked like he was starving. And, I suppose, technically, he was. His body was shutting down in death. He was not abused in any way except that we probably should have taken him in sooner.
Suppose I had come before an overzealous judge, and I couldn’t convince him that I was truly trying to help my dog? Should I have been put to death for that?
June 25th, 2008 at 11:51 PMUsing
Cmon already…… look no one is proposing the death penalty for theft, animal abuse, running nakid through the street, etc. We are discussing heinous, violent crime, that results in PROFOUND damage to the victim, within a system that is generally consdered to be one of the most fair in the world.
As I said earlier, you lost me when you were willing to commit the subject to “gen pop” knowing that the subject would be physically abused on a ongoing basis. Essentially saying, let the others torture the subject for his crimes for the rest of his life….. least Im not killing him.
June 25th, 2008 at 11:57 PMUsing
I said, Troy, I have no problems with a convicted rapist being subjected to rape..if he’s truly guilty. He deserves punishment, and to me, that would be far worse than killing him.
I’m not saying there should be NO punishment, whatsover.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:03 AMUsing
And suppose, at some point, “WE THE PEOPLE” decide to?
That’s why, for me, the death penalty should be used ONLY when someone deliberately takes the life of someone else.
We will disagree till the cows come home on this one, I’m sure.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:07 AMUsing
I should add, except in self-defense, or defense of another…
June 26th, 2008 at 12:09 AMUsing
Skye-
That’s why this great nation has the legal system it does, in SPITE of it’s inherent ability to misinterpret the law in some circumstances, such as this one. That ‘overzealous judge’ you refer to would likely be an Imam and NOT an American justice.
Think real, REAL hard now. Do you honestly think that even Judge Roy Bean would go to that extreme?
Remember, our judges are still bound by legislative principles and law. The judicial mischief lies in said judges ‘finding’ rights for the most part, for the guilty parties, to be ‘excused’ for their breaking of society’s laws. Our legal system is hardly moving towards harsher penalties by any reasonable standard.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:12 AMUsing
Actually, as much as it pains me to admit it, I don’t really know much (if anything) about Judge Roy Bean. :em12:
Guess I’ll be doing some Googling in the next day or so. :em93:
June 26th, 2008 at 12:15 AMUsing
Oh for heavens sake Skye. You have been here long enough to know that people will vent. I suppose you believe that we’ve started our own “religion”, Hardclimber is really going to strafe Berkeley and that Misha really lives on the Death Star, and that the picture of the gallows that Misha posted means we’re going to storm the Supreme Court to hang some judges?
(Ok, so the Death Star is gonna strafe Berkeley, just trying to make a point here)
Get a grip will ya? You’re getting hysterical over comments of people that are just pissed all to hell and want to get it off their chests. I would have expected more level headedness from you.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:17 AMUsing
Im thinking she’s playing devils advocate, which is ok .. I like to explore stuff. I cant honestly believe that a good christian women like Skye would seriously consider sending a one time rapist to be serial raped over and over for the rest of thier life vs. being killed outright. I know she believes in punishment, not torture.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:23 AMUsing
Meaning, of course, that had the judges ruled differently, you’d all be celebrating and high-fiving each other, and I would be disagreeing with their decision, and I would be venting, then.
Let’s just agree to disagree, okay?
June 26th, 2008 at 12:24 AMUsing
I’m going to bed. It’s after midnight, and I’m too tired to address this any more.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:29 AMUsing
ephemeral? try ethereal.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:00 AMUsing
Skye,
I’d be fine with that if the infected persons were knowingly exposing other people to their disease. TB I could probably be talked out of since it’s nominally treatable…
Again, it comes down to knowingly putting large numbers of people at risk for death. If I open up at a football game with an M240B, I’m doing the same thing…
Orion
June 26th, 2008 at 2:12 AMUsing
[...] Misha, over at the Rott rips into the court with the viciousness they deserve. [...]
June 26th, 2008 at 3:41 AMUsing
I’m quite tired as well, but there is a comment to be made at THIS time. Child rape is murder of a soul. Anyone who would perform that act is too depraved to be allowed to live. Anyone who would do it ONCE, will do it AGAIN. Anyone that would willingly commit a crime so heinous, any of the crimes which ANY reasonable person should know have an extremely high probability of death or severe permanent traumatic effect (such as rape) will by necessity require removal from the gene pool. If they didn’t know that this was so horrible, if their soul could not see this total destruction of another humans life, they should not be allowed to live. There should not be a “mental deficiency” defense. These are an affront to reason. In fact, if the penalty is “life with no chance of parole”, death.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:21 AMUsing
Damn! I agree with many others that there needs to be an edit button. I will most humbly add this caveat to the statement I just made, as has also been said by others above. There must be no doubt. None. It must be proven that this person did this heinous crime. Not circumstantial, not heresay, but iron-clad, absolute physical PROOF that this is the committer of this crime against humanity. But I will maintain that there should be no clemency given for “mental deficiency” or mental illness. Certain things are justifiable. Like the one Troy pointed out at #15. That was not, IMO, “temporary insanity”, THAT was justifiable vengeance. No decent human being would think otherwise.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:48 AMUsing
Supremes: Raping Child’s Okay…
The case: A man rapes his eight year old step-daughter. He goes to trial. He has a lawyer. They have the trial. The people decided he was guilty. The jury decided he deserved the death penalty for this case. He has his appeals. For 10 years this goes…..
June 26th, 2008 at 6:24 AMUsing Unknown browser
Skye, the ONLY reason a defendant should be acquited is if the prosecution cannot prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the defendant is guilty of the crime he/she is accused of, they should definitely be convicted, no matter how many trial errors are committed. Trial error does not mean that the person did not commit the crime. If a trial error occurred, then remove the judge from office for incompetence, but don’t acquit the guilty party just because an “i” wasn’t dotted or a “t” crossed.
June 26th, 2008 at 9:01 AMUsing
Ogrrre,
Here’s what happened: Guy is at a bar…never been to this town before, so unfamiliar with area. He turns left from a right-turn lane (i’ve done that before). Our job was to decide whether he was under the influence AT THE TIME HE WAS PULLED OVER.
Cop pulls him over around midnight. This is where the fun begins:
1. Guy was not weaving or giving any other indication of being drunk.
2. Eyes were watery
3. Speech was blurred
4. He smelled of alcohol
5. Said he had a drink at ten.
6. Was taken to central booking where he blew over the limit over an hour later
Cop calls for a field sobriety test which allegedly was administered some 15-20 minutes later, which cannot be if the cops came from where they supposedly came from. (Error number one)
Field sobriety test not entered into evidence because cop who administered it was deployed to Iraq. (Error number two).
No witnesses for either side. (Error number three).
My eyes get would get watery in a smoke-filled bar because I’m allergic to cigarettes. One of the jury members had slurred speech. The smell of alcohol could have been from the bar, or maybe defendent had a drink right before he left.
As soon as we were dismissed, the rest of the jury, save me and one other guy, says yep, he’s guilty. Let’s go. Not so fast. MANY variables come into play. He may not have been drunk. We don’t have the results of the FST, eating causes alcohol to be absorbed differently, as do certain medications. *I* know that. They couldn’t be bothered. He was guilty. Period. I took us to the second day because I wasn’t willing to convict the guy. After awhile, to my eternal shame, I capitulated. I should have forced a mistrial.
His attorney offered NO defense. The prosecutor wasted the whole trial on the breathalyzer results from the test at central booking. That was never challenged by the defense attorney.
It wasn’t so much that the prosecutor “won,” but that the defense threw it away.
Kid “probably” was guilty, but “probably” should be enough to get you convicted.
June 26th, 2008 at 9:18 AMUsing
Sorry…probably should NOT be enough to get you convicted.
And I would have done the same for everyone here, if I had doubt.
June 26th, 2008 at 9:21 AMUsing
Heller is in.
“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
Kennedy averts (or at least delays) a revolution.
June 26th, 2008 at 9:30 AMUsing
Skye
So guy is in a bar. Then he leaves, makes a bad judgement by cutting across (how many lanes of traffic?) from right to left. This is a traffic infraction that provides probable cause.
Cops couldnt have possibly administered the field sobriety test due to distance traveled. This is easily determined from dispatch tapes where Officer marks “enroute” to “arrival”. The FST wasnt introduced because the Officer wasnt there to testify. FST provided enough probable cause to arrest and take to booking, where over an hour later he still blew over the limit. That sounds like a good catch of a drunk driver to me. Food effects asorbtion rates by slowing it down and spreading it out, not by stopping it and concentrating it once the food is absorbed.
I pride myself on using the “reasonable man” standard. Seems to me this particular case was fairly easily determined.
June 26th, 2008 at 9:45 AMUsing
Troy, area it occurred in is not well travelled at night. He was pulling off of a side road (two lanes—a right turn lane and a left turn lane at a stop light). He was turning onto a two lane road. No traffic. He turned on a green…he just turned from the wrong lane.
According to the police, the fst WAS administered because it had to be by a supervisor and a rookie. Prosecution claimed they were 15 minutes away, but unless they came with sirens, it’s a good 30-minute drive.
Maybe so, but they were asking me to convict a guy based on something I have no knowledge of…I can’t necessarily DO that.
Some medications can cause symptoms resembling those I described. And the question wasn’t whether he was drunk at central booking…that was not in doubt. The question was whether he was at the time he was pulled over…there was enough doubt for me.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:00 AMUsing
Yes, so it enters the bloodstream more slowly, thus making it take longer to absorb. I didn’t say it stops it altogether.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:03 AMUsing
As did the group I was with. Never mind the parts that didn’t fit. He was guilty, by God, and that’s that. They even chewed me out for wasting their time.
I reminded them that, had THEY been in the defendent’s chair, I would have done the same for them.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:10 AMUsing
Skye,
Okay, but since the matter at hand is that of the brutal (see case details) rape of an 8-year-old girl, by the very person who should have been her protector…
Whaddaya think - does that make the cut?
Personally, I’ve seen enough Real Evil to recognize it - and I’m all for going after the “Obvious” kind.
Oh - by the way…
Now you know that, on any given day, I will be the first one to step-up for you…
But this stuff is just silly, unnecessarily clouds the issue (death-penalty-forchild-rape = “Sharia”?…Really?) and is beneath you - please stop.
- MuscleDaddy
June 26th, 2008 at 11:15 AMUsing
Skye Ok so an hour later he was still over the legal limit right? But not sure he was when he was stopped for his traffic infraction (time of day, lack of other traffic, yada, yada,) does not have a bearing on whether he committed a infraction. If I was to place those factors into an equation I could reasonbly be running red lights at 3 am in a small town because the odds are traffic would be non-existant. And my defense wuuld be “Well your honor there just isnt THAT MUCH TRAFFIC at 3 am, so I thought it was a reasonable risk.
If he wasnt intoxicated at the scene, when did he get intoxicated? Was he drinking from an open container while waiting for the FST Officer to arrive? Was he drinking in the back of the squad car? Food slows down the asborbtion rate slightly and spreads it out (think flat line) so the arguement that he wasnt intoxicated at the scene is kinda unreasonable. If anything he just maintained his level of intoxication from time of the traffic stop until the time he was breathalyzed. And as a juror, if you didnt feel you had enough info, you should have asked. Did the defense bring up the issue of food? Or is that a issue you chose to throw into the equation? A defense attorney that doesnt even bring up a rudimentary defense, normally tries to plea bargain, when this fails they dont waste the courts time unless its to ask for leniency.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:48 AMUsing
Oh and Skye Im not bustin your chops, Im just “bantering” with you. I want to be clear that I respect your position, and am not trying to be mean or derogatory in any way.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:51 AMUsing
Troy,
Maybe part of the problem is that I am not a drinker. Never have been. My son can put away a few beers before he gets intoxicated. As I said, he probably was guilty, but I was bothered by the fact that all the focus was on the breathalyzer machine, and that the defense attorney didn’t even TRY to defend his client.
Is it possible (just for speculation) that the defendent had a drink or two right before he left the bar, but it didn’t “kick in” until an hour later? If so, then he wasn’t necessarily intoxicated when they stopped him.
And it seems to me that if the stuff about the lights and turning and traffic weren’t important, the prosecutor wouldn’t have brought them up.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:01 PMUsing
Well the prosecutor brought up the infratction to demonstrate probable cause for the stop, and to show poor judgment on behalf of the defendant. Is it possible he had a “couple” of drinks before he left the bar. Yes. But when you detect the odor of alcohol, and you have a probable failure of the FST (warranting the arrest) it is reasonable to believe the subject is intoxicated, warranting a trip to the breathalyzer for confirmation. The standard reply that all drunks give when asked how much they have had to drink is normally ‘a couple of beers.”
Keep in mind, there are plenty enough criminals to go around. and that most Police Officers dont need to “make” cases. Nor do prosecutors need tie up the courts time with anything other than “good” cases.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:30 PMUsing
I kept watching the paper to see what sort of sentence he got, but I suspect it wasn’t much. I just REALLY hope I don’t ever have to sit on a jury again.
It’s easy for people to armchair quarterback based on watching Law & Order…it’s entirely different actually being there.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:27 PMUsing
I do not buy the assertion that our false conviction rate is astronomically high. I would submit that our false-acquittal rate is through the roof. “Reasonable doubt” does not equal “No doubt whatsoever.” OJ was acquitted even though his blood was clearly identified at the crime scene. Only 4 other people on earth have a matching DNA sequence, and I suspect the odds that one of the four knew the victims and had a motive to kill them are trillions to one. But, because it is STILL statistically possible, does THAT constitute a reasonable doubt?
All that being said, I, too, have mixed feelings about the death penalty for child rape, but ONLY because it is the one crime where the
accusedguilty tends to be considered guilty until proven guilty. In their zealousness to hammer child abusers, which is a damn reasonable goal, prosecutors ignore evidence of innocence that injects real, reasonable doubt into the equation in order to get a “successful” prosecution. The number of fathers falsely accused of child molestation has been estimated at 90%, mostly due to vindictive exes with agendas and/or widdle spoiled turds who didn’t get their ass tanned enough. Many cases hinge on coerced testimony from so-called mental health professionals who use questionable interviewing techniques to produce the desired result.You got a fairly convicted child-raping piece of sub-human, pigshit-eating nutsucker, I’ll PERSONALLY, and quite gladly, throw the switch on him. If the conviction is the result of a kangaroo court, forget it.
In any case, the liberal asswipes on the SCrotUS have got it all wrong on many, many levels, but then, that is the very essence of Liberal, alternate reality based thinking. Hang ‘em all.
June 26th, 2008 at 2:30 PMUsing
[...] Conservatives Bemoan Supreme Court Decision on Death Penalty for Child Rape [...]
June 26th, 2008 at 2:39 PMUsing
Bob Jindal for president. :em96:
June 26th, 2008 at 3:30 PMUsing
tvfoh-
That was the source quote, not my opinion.
Since all crimes are established by the state as prohibited actions, the state can indeed make a law whereby an act/deed/condition is sanctioned and there is no victim.
Germany did this whereby it became impossible for a jew to be a German citizen— the Nuremberg Laws of 1935.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:42 PMUsing
And if Obama is elected it may become a crime to be a conservative.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:01 PMUsing
tvfoh at #71
I finally got a chance to look at my computer without actually having to perform paid work for someone else on it, and I saw this post.
I know a person who is both pro-capital punishment and pro-abortion. I know them REAL WELL, if you get my drift. When this person was a teenager she was forcibly raped after a party, and of course, since the fun never really stops, became pregnant with the rapist’s baby. Deciding that hell, no, she wasn’t going to walk around her last year of high school pregnant explaining to all and yon exactly what had happened, thereby reliving that disaster over and over and over again, she had an abortion with the full approval of her immediate family.
She hated men for a while. She hated men for a very long time, actually. But she got over it, met a fine man, got married and had a houseful of children. Twenty five years later, she is both pro-capital punishment and pro-abortion, thanking her very stars she had the options she had.
And believe me, she DEEPLY approves of child rapists being executed for their crime. Pro-capital punishment and pro-abortion are not mutually exclusive personal opinions. Why would they be?
June 26th, 2008 at 5:37 PMUsing
Let the Charlie Daniels Band have the last word.
Simple Man
June 26th, 2008 at 8:21 PMUsing
If there’s anyone still paying attention, I just wanted to give credit where it’s due…
I followed the pingback up @ 117 and commented on his blog, using Scalia’s examples to demonstrate why it was a bad call for the SCOTUS to stick their Moral Superiority in Louisiana’s business.
The owner of the blog both posted a reply and emailed his reply to me directly.
He was even and respectful - if still wrong - and never once went for the frothing ad hominem attacks I’ve come to expect from that side of the idelogical aisle.
I’ve commended him, responded in kind and look forward to further reasoned exchanges.
Like I said - Credit Where It’s Due.
- MuscleDaddy
June 27th, 2008 at 11:19 AMUsing
cmblake6, I believe the town in question was Skidmore, MO where Ken Rex McElroy was gunned down “in broad daylight” and no one saw a thing because everyone was hiding under the same pool table at the town’s bar. There was a movie made starring Brian Denehey (sp?) called “In Broad Daylight” that more or less tells the story.
How many people can say they are envious of Louisiana because of their Governor? Until last year I wouldn’t have thought it was possible, but I guess once you clean out the liberal cesspool that was NOLA anything was possible. Hopefully we will all get a chance to enjoy him as Chief Executive in another 4 or 8 years, he has certainly been impressive for the short time he’s been in the office.
Skyechild, as Emperor Misha has already pointed out, in the West a man stealing your horse was in effect sentencing you to death. That’s why horsethieving was a capitol offense. As far as child rapists, if the charge is proven beyond all doubt I have no problem with the death penalty, and if it can’t then general pop would suffice to achieve the same ends.
With that being said, I also have a problem with the stigma attached to child abuse crimes, especially where the accused is a male. I have seen way too many instances of “guilty till proven innocent”, and even then the cases are usually dropped due to “insufficient evidence” and the black mark remains forever. I believe that the accused at that point has an obligation to completely and utterly destroy his accuser (yes, even if his accuser is an 8 year old child, because there are always adults egging them on), for the simple fact that if he does not he will always have the cloud over his head. Likewise, if the destruction is not complete and thorough, other pissed-off mothers will have no problems using their children as weapons in a bad divorce.
If you have a problem with that, let me just point out that other authorities consider it a crime to “bear false witness” as well, so I feel pretty well justified in my stance.
As far as abortion, I have no problems with it for cases of rape or incest. Repeat: I have NO PROBLEMS with abortion IN THE CASES OF RAPE OR INCEST. In other cases, where the pregnancy occurs outside of wedlock (in wedlock pregnancy can reasonably considered to be an expected and desired outcome) and through no criminal action, my problem with it is twofold; first it removes the penalty for irresponsibility, and second that penalty is not fairly distributed. To wit: if a female becomes pregnant as a result of irresponsible behavior, she has an “escape hatch” where the male does not.
Why then, in this age of varied and effective birth control methods, should the male be forced (through mandatory child support) to be a father where the female faces no such penalty? In fact, it is ENTIRELY THE FEMALE’S CHOICE if the male becomes a father or not, REGARDLESS of the male’s desires.
To make it fair, the male should have the opportunity to “opt out” of parenthood by choosing not to become financially responsible for a child that is created out of wedlock, through no criminal action (and subsequently giving up any and all parental rights in the meantime). Make this the law of the land, and my opposition to abortion disappears.
Spare me your “should have thought of that earlier” or “kept it in his pants” diatribes, they apply equally to both parties and are covered under “irresponsible behavior” as previously stated. Likewise spare me the “punish the victim” speeches, for the same reasons.
I apologize for the hijacked bandwidth.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:13 PMUsing