Supreme Court Rejects Death Penalty for Child Rape

[tech2101]

Touch a nerve? Hit a little too close to home?
First thing, try to take it in context. If you can’t do that, then just take a look around.

The ACLU supports and defends NAMBLA.
Liberal judges pass sentences on convicted rapists like:
- 60 days for the rape of a 6 year old girl.
- Four months for the rape of a 10 year old girl.
- 20 months plus time served for a father who videotaped himself raping his own 4 year old daughter.
- Time served for the rape of a thirteen-year-old deaf boy because the child “probably consented.â€￾
- 6 of 9 released for the gang rape of a 10-year-old girl. Three (ages 17 to 26) are given suspended sentences and released.
- After pleading guilty to child rape, a Middlebury, Massachusetts man is released.
- etc.

Your turn:
Defend these judges (and others like them) and their continued status..
Defend the ACLU's position on NAMBLA and the rape of young boys

Your statement was all-encompassing of "liberals". I guess you define "liberals" as the ACLU?

News flash. The ACLU does not represent "all liberals". The ACLU defense of the NAMBLA case was a free-speech defense that had to do the with right to distribute pamphlets. I do not support, nor defend the ACLU in that case. The NAMBLA is a vile and disgusting purveyor of child rape and molestation and should not have been helped in any way.

As for the cases above, again, where is your source for this information? Without looking into the facts of all of these cases, instead of some talking points, I cannot reject or defend the outcome. You also state "liberal judges". Is the definition of a "liberal judge", any judge who rules in a way that does not share your opinion? Judges should rule on evidence and case law. Have you done background studies on cases "these judges (and others like them)" have heard? Do you really know all of the facts of the cases you cite?

 

[delldude]

Queen lib number one is deep with ACLU.There's a fuzzy gray area with liberals and defense of sexual proclivities,which encompasses dark,dark areas you don't discuss at the dinner table.

An opinion piece by Mark Levin of the National Review Online challenges Nancy Pelosi, D. Ca for her "connection" to NAMBLA.

"Pelosi has accepted donations from the ACLU Foundation. The ACLU has represented the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and has sought to destroy the Boy Scouts because of its commitment to traditional values. Pelosi has accepted money from the ACLU Foundation despite its connection to NAMBLA. I've not heard a single major news outlet report this. Why is there no demand that Pelosi return the contributions and denounce the ACLU?"

Judges should rule on evidence and case law.

Why then does the left do everything in their power to seat judges who legislate from the bench and trample the constitution?

 

[MMB]

Thank you More support for my argument. There is no outrage.
Double talk, avoidance, deflection, excuses…
(Deleted by moderator)
Tell me what does the constitution say about judges legislating from the bench?


MOD NOTE: This deleted sentence may have been rhetorical in nature, but gave the appearance of being from another poster

 

[Cosworth]

Jees Louise. Given the number of innocent people who have been released due to DNA tests that should the 'criminal' was innocent I find it very difficult to stomach the death penalty. I guess I could say that 'all conservatives" do not give a crap about punishment being abused and not caring if a few innocent people get murdered by the stae along the way but that would be stereo typing.

How many innocent people are you willing to sacrifice? Are you willing to sacrifice your daughter, son, father ... your self? Wold it be OK if one of them were to get wrongly convicted and executed? It is for the greater good after all is it not?

Nah, being a liberal means I must like child rapists. I can see how believing that would let you sleep better at night. You remind me of people like Nancy Reagan. She was against stem cell research until it affected her. When the research could have provided a cure or possible relief for her husbands condition all of a sudden she was an advocate for the research.

I figured someone would bring up the BS NAMBLA/ACLU tripe. What law did NAMBLA violate? As I recall, they are advocating the change of a law. I do not like the group but advocating the change of a law is not illegal. The KKK can exist. They can spew their hatred. We all know if given the opportunity they would line up every 'non-white' person here and either shoot them or deport them. They essentially say that yet until they actually do it they are not in violation of the law. The last time I checked, you cannot be arrested for something you might do in the future. NAMBLA did not break the law therefore they cannot be punished. Judges must act on the law, not what you or I think is right/wrong. If you do not like the decision the judge made, change the law. Just keep in mind that your law must be equally applied to all people, not just the ones you don't like. If you prohibit free speech for NAMBLA then free speech can be prohibited for any group and that includes yours.

Just so that we are perfectly clear. I HATE THE KKK and any group even vaguely similar to them but I will fight to allow them to exist in the US. I'll advocate slapping their sorry asses in jail if they so much as cross a legal line but so long as they do not violate the law, they have a right to exist just like the Boy Scouts or my grand mothers knitting club. It is the price we pay for freedom.

I remember reading somewhere that the Constitution is there to protect the minority from the majority.

As for your liberal/conservative judge rant. Try citing cases so that we can see what the decision was. Do you really want to sit there trying to argue that 'all' liberal' judges are lenient and all conservative judges are what ever it is you think they are? Actually don't bother answering that. Having read your posts the answer to that is painfully obvious.

 

[Tug McGroin]

Jees Louise. Given the number of innocent people who have been released due to DNA tests that should the 'criminal' was innocent I find it very difficult to stomach the death penalty. I guess I could say that 'all conservatives" do not give a crap about punishment being abused and not caring if a few innocent people get murdered by the stae along the way but that would be stereo typing.

How many innocent people are you willing to sacrifice? Are you willing to sacrifice your daughter, son, father ... your self? Wold it be OK if one of them were to get wrongly convicted and executed? It is for the greater good after all is it not?

Nah, being a liberal means I must like child rapists. I can see how believing that would let you sleep better at night. You remind me of people like Nancy Reagan. She was against stem cell research until it affected her. When the research could have provided a cure or possible relief for her husbands condition all of a sudden she was an advocate for the research.

I figured someone would bring up the BS NAMBLA/ACLU tripe. What law did NAMBLA violate? As I recall, they are advocating the change of a law. I do not like the group but advocating the change of a law is not illegal. The KKK can exist. They can spew their hatred. We all know if given the opportunity they would line up every 'non-white' person here and either shoot them or deport them. They essentially say that yet until they actually do it they are not in violation of the law. The last time I checked, you cannot be arrested for something you might do in the future. NAMBLA did not break the law therefore they cannot be punished. Judges must act on the law, not what you or I think is right/wrong. If you do not like the decision the judge made, change the law. Just keep in mind that your law must be equally applied to all people, not just the ones you don't like. If you prohibit free speech for NAMBLA then free speech can be prohibited for any group and that includes yours.

Just so that we are perfectly clear. I HATE THE KKK and any group even vaguely similar to them but I will fight to allow them to exist in the US. I'll advocate slapping their sorry asses in jail if they so much as cross a legal line but so long as they do not violate the law, they have a right to exist just like the Boy Scouts or my grand mothers knitting club. It is the price we pay for freedom.

I remember reading somewhere that the Constitution is there to protect the minority from the majority.

As for your liberal/conservative judge rant. Try citing cases so that we can see what the decision was. Do you really want to sit there trying to argue that 'all' liberal' judges are lenient and all conservative judges are what ever it is you think they are? Actually don't bother answering that. Having read your posts the answer to that is painfully obvious.

5150

 

[Gilding the Lily]

5150

Should I be worried that you just posted the PIN to my ATM card? Kidding; what gives? Oh, I just got it... the # of people you are willing to sacrifice.

 

[Cosworth]

5150

You'll have to walk me through this one. I do not see any link between Sec. 5150 and either topic I addressed. One is death penalty and the other is a freedom of speech issue. Neither has anything to do with a psychiatric issue.

I am guessing you are referring to NAMBLA but I do not see how it could be applied their with out sweeping up various other groups in the process. The way I understand US law, is that any law must apply to all citizens. That is the reason that Terri's Law was over turned as unconstitutional. I'd be interested to see your argument.

 

[Tug McGroin]

You'll have to walk me through this one. I do not see any link between Sec. 5150 and either topic I addressed. One is death penalty and the other is a freedom of speech issue. Neither has anything to do with a psychiatric issue.

I am guessing you are referring to NAMBLA but I do not see how it could be applied their with out sweeping up various other groups in the process. The way I understand US law, is that any law must apply to all citizens. That is the reason that Terri's Law was over turned as unconstitutional. I'd be interested to see your argument.

OK.

My position is very clear. Convicted child rapist should qualify for the death penalty. How you could conclude that this position classifies me as a person not concerned that innocent people have been executed is beyond me and without merit.

Your bitter diatribe seems to be based on the ill conceived notion that the majority of us justify the execution of innocent people. I assure you that is not the case. We all understand and share your concern.

The use of DNA science has become, and will remain, the standard to vindicate or convict those accused of sex related and other various crimes. If the DNA of the accused is found in or on a child rape victim, can there be any doubt of their guilt?

Because you accept, beyond a reasonable doubt, DNA evidence as proof positive of one’s innocence, it stands within reason that you hold the same assurance when DNA evidence is used as proof positive of someone’s guilt. That being said, I take from your post that there isn’t a crime, no matter how heinous, where you would sentence someone to death.

If you are against the death penalty, just say so!

Death penalty opponents like to argue that life in prison is actually worse. If you want a murderer to suffer, why give him an easy way out with a hot dose? Just put them in a dirty jail cell for 50 years and let him waste away. If that’s so, how does it square with Anthony Kennedy’s claim that murder is uniquely terrible?

If some forms of existence are so physically or psychologically painful that death is actually more humane, then why is the guy who murders a child unthinkingly presumed to have done more harm than one who beats, rapes, or otherwise abuses him until he’s a basket case condemned to a life of misery?

If we are to take Anthony Kennedy and those death penalty opponents seriously, does their assertion that child rapists haven’t done as much harm as murderers mean that rapists should be executed because, after all, execution’s supposedly a lesser punishment?

“How many innocent people are you willing to sacrifice? Are you willing to sacrifice your daughter, son, father ... your self? Wold it be OK if one of them were to get wrongly convicted and executed? It is for the greater good after all is it not?

None! No and no!

Children who survive a brutal rape often experience a lifetime of physical, mental and emotional hardship. Emotional despair often leads to depression and suicidal tendencies. They lack self-esteem and isolate themselves from society. They suffer academically and often drop out of school. In some cases, the physical damage to their body leaves them sterile. They often have a lifelong fear that they will once again fall victim to the same predator that has long since been freed from prison.

My question to you; how many innocent children are you willing to sacrifice before you are willing to take a zero tolerance stand and put these brutal child rapist to death?

Why the 5150 reference?

At no point, in your rambling, ranting, incoherent post was there anything that could be considered remotely relevant to the topic of “Supreme Court Rejects Death Penalty for Child Rapeâ€￾.

 

[Tug McGroin]

Should I be worried that you just posted the PIN to my ATM card? Kidding; what gives? Oh, I just got it... the # of people you are willing to sacrifice.

Oh, you just got it . . . wrong.

Zero is the number of innocent people I’m willing to sacrifice. Zero also happens to be the number of innocent children I’m willing to sacrifice to brutal child rapist. Make it perfectly clear to anyone who is considering raping a child that they will be put to death if convicted.

Now, fork over the ATM card!!

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Oh, you just got it . . . wrong.

Zero is the number of innocent people I’m willing to sacrifice. Zero also happens to be the number of innocent children I’m willing to sacrifice to brutal child rapist. Make it perfectly clear to anyone who is considering raping a child that they will be put to death if convicted.

Now, fork over the ATM card!!

I was just joking... don't worry, my humor is lost on many -- many times it is lost on myself.

I very much appreciated your previous post; thank you.

 

[Cosworth]

OK.

My position is very clear. Convicted child rapist should qualify for the death penalty. How you could conclude that this position classifies me as a person not concerned that innocent people have been executed is beyond me and without merit.

Your bitter diatribe seems to be based on the ill conceived notion that the majority of us justify the execution of innocent people. I assure you that is not the case. We all understand and share your concern.

The use of DNA science has become, and will remain, the standard to vindicate or convict those accused of sex related and other various crimes. If the DNA of the accused is found in or on a child rape victim, can there be any doubt of their guilt?

Because you accept, beyond a reasonable doubt, DNA evidence as proof positive of one’s innocence, it stands within reason that you hold the same assurance when DNA evidence is used as proof positive of someone’s guilt. That being said, I take from your post that there isn’t a crime, no matter how heinous, where you would sentence someone to death.

If you are against the death penalty, just say so!

Death penalty opponents like to argue that life in prison is actually worse. If you want a murderer to suffer, why give him an easy way out with a hot dose? Just put them in a dirty jail cell for 50 years and let him waste away. If that’s so, how does it square with Anthony Kennedy’s claim that murder is uniquely terrible?

If some forms of existence are so physically or psychologically painful that death is actually more humane, then why is the guy who murders a child unthinkingly presumed to have done more harm than one who beats, rapes, or otherwise abuses him until he’s a basket case condemned to a life of misery?

If we are to take Anthony Kennedy and those death penalty opponents seriously, does their assertion that child rapists haven’t done as much harm as murderers mean that rapists should be executed because, after all, execution’s supposedly a lesser punishment?

“How many innocent people are you willing to sacrifice? Are you willing to sacrifice your daughter, son, father ... your self? Wold it be OK if one of them were to get wrongly convicted and executed? It is for the greater good after all is it not?

None! No and no!

Children who survive a brutal rape often experience a lifetime of physical, mental and emotional hardship. Emotional despair often leads to depression and suicidal tendencies. They lack self-esteem and isolate themselves from society. They suffer academically and often drop out of school. In some cases, the physical damage to their body leaves them sterile. They often have a lifelong fear that they will once again fall victim to the same predator that has long since been freed from prison.

My question to you; how many innocent children are you willing to sacrifice before you are willing to take a zero tolerance stand and put these brutal child rapist to death?

Why the 5150 reference?

At no point, in your rambling, ranting, incoherent post was there anything that could be considered remotely relevant to the topic of “Supreme Court Rejects Death Penalty for Child Rapeâ€.

I'm against the death penalty. Happy now? Given the number of heinous crimes committed I cannot help but wonder how much of a deterrent life in prison or the death penalty really is. Someone willing to commit such a crime is not playing with a full deck in the fist place so I doubt deterrents are given the same value that 'normal' folks use. I am of the belief that the death penalty is not a deterrent. I do not believe in state sanctioned murder for the sake of revenge.

Perhaps that is because the post I was responding too did not pertain to the death penalty or rape.

Perhaps in the future you can try responding with out insults ... or not.

Love you too sweety.

 

[MMB]

As I said; avoidance, deflection, excuses…

Cosworth, Thank you. At least you are honest enough to state that your total opposition. I do wonder, however, how steadfast your position would be if one of those monsters got hold of one of your own.

My question [is] how many innocent children are you willing to sacrifice before you are willing to take a zero tolerance stand and put these brutal child rapist to death?

In the case of capital punishment opponents the answer is clearly, all of them.
Even though the death penalty provision of the law was reserved for a narrow category of repeat offenders.

And there is no such thing as no chance of release.
I know this isn’t about child offenders, though some of this guy’s victims were children, and you did ask for specific cases. I suppose you’ll say it doesn’t count without docket numbers. (avoidance, deflection, excuses…)
I had a land lady whose son was convicted of drunk driving and vehicular homicide three times in the state of Washington. Washing state has a ‘three strikes’ law, but I met him after he was released the third time because of a clerical error on the paperwork transferring him from the county to the state prison. That third conviction was for driving his car through an enclosed bus stop, killing 6 people.

 

[tech2101]

No longer a valid post

 

[Kev3188]

I had a land lady whose son was convicted of drunk driving and vehicular homicide three times in the state of Washington. Washing state has a ‘three strikes’ law, but I met him after he was released the third time because of a clerical error on the paperwork transferring him from the county to the state prison. That third conviction was for driving his car through an enclosed bus stop, killing 6 people.

Where in Washington did this last one happen?

Sadly, my state has the dubious distinction of having one of the highest drunk driving rates in the nation... Not a day goes by without the paper reporting a conviction for a 4th, 5th, 6th or even 7th offense.

 

[KCFlyer]

In the case of capital punishment opponents the answer is clearly, all of them.

Why not call them what they are...pro-lifers.