http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070523/ap_on_...FuYAhhKzhTMWM0F


In this particular case, Louisiana convicted a man of raping an 8 year old girl as she was selling girl scout cookies. I don't know the facts of the case other than that the man was found guilty. If the man does get executed for the crime, he will be the first person in America in about 5 decades to get executed for a non-homicide crime. If I was on the Jury, I most likely would have recommended that the man do hard time in prison or get castrated.

So the question for debate is
Is executing someone for a non-homicide crime consitutional?

First for this particular case I wish I had more info. However with what I have to work with... I'd say kill this animal.

However Makes for a difficult decision.

As for the question at hand, no it is not un Constitutional. You may have for gotten skeeterses an American can be executed for several non-homicide crimes including Treason, Mutiny, Sedition...

Is executing someone for a non-homicide crime constitutional?

Being as the death penalty itself goes against one of the inalienable rights upon which this country is founded and the moral code not to murder each other, my answer is of course no.

There's a strong emotional principle at work here, to protect the children. The children can be protected without resorting to murder, for example not letting kids go door-to-door alone to sell cookies. Make a law that requires at least one adult, perhaps with a concealed-carry permit, to go along. This is so obvious that I'm surprised the eight-year-old was not accompanied by an adult. Good parents don't let their kids go trick-or-treating alone, except mine did, but that was a very long time ago, and besides, we were pretty darn tough kids. Nobody messed with us. We were from the south side. Our parents worked for a living.

Anyway, this situation is wrong at two levels. There may be more, can't think of them right now but there's something else nagging at the noggin.

Oh yeah, lynchings! That's it. The slippery slope. So rape is bad, raping a kid is worse, and the death penalty is wrong. It's the emotions again. If people believe somebody is evil for, say, the color of skin, what's to stop the death penalty here? I mean, people did stone witches to death in this country and burned them alive in Europe due to emotions. The lynchings of the South were pretty much emotional, I'm sure.

Yeah, well, its a fallacious argument. But that's what the other thought was [shudder].

There is a pretty simple answer to this one: Many countries used to have the death penalty for such crimes as Kidnapping, rape and other non-homocidal crimes, and these were all gotten rid of based on two very simple principles. The first is the moral argument at the time that the ultimate punishment should be reserved for the ultimate crime.

The second and far more compelling argument is that if you have the death penalty for Rape or kidnapping, then it is in the BEST interest of the criminal to murder his rape victim or kidnappee. After all, it eliminates a witness, and there is no effect on his sentence if caught. Having the death penalty for non-homocidal crimes actually reduces the victim's chance of survival.



Lastly, this is a sadly visceral reaction which is not supported by law. Yes rape is a horrible crime, and any crime against children is doubly horrible. But the victim will live, though they may bear psychological scars for their life, they live on. There can be no justification for taking a life based on a crime where no life was taken, this is a horrific imbalance. There was a 1977 Supreme Court case (don't have time to look it up right now) which declared that the death penalty was grossly disproportionate punishment for rape, so I think that pretty much answers the question.

Well, I know that 2 Americans did get executed for selling the nuclear bomb to the Soviets during the Cold War but that is an extreme case where 2 traitors put the entire nation in peril. Now as far as what the Constitution says about Treason, getting a Treason conviction requires 2 witnesses to the treacherous deed and even then, the death penalty can only be implemented if the Treasonous act resulted in the death of anyone.

The only reason I have ever been against the death penalty- ESPECIALLY in pretty corrupt states like Texas and Lousiana- is that the guv'mt often gets the wrong guy.

IT is the error factor that bothers me, NOT the punishment.

I believe in the death penalty, I believe it should be used in non-homicide crimes- ESPECIALLY for CEOs that commit fraud that have over 100 victims and of over 1 million dollars. That is one area I don't think has ANY error for getting the wrong guy- as they can so easily afford 6 or so lawyers, and have more resources to defend themselves than a prosecutor's office has resources to convict them.

Alaska doesn't have a death penalty, but we do have very, very long prison terms - and I have seen public defenders meet with a defendent for less than an hour, total face time, before a capital murder trial.

And I don't think you see too many rich folks on death row- even for the most hienous of crimes (Menedez bros, Andrea Yates)- rich white men don't get the death penalty, and pretty white women don't even go to jail!

The andrea yates lady in Texas that murdered her children- you think that if that were a black male, or even a white poor male, in Texas, that they would have been shown the same verdict and overturn on appeal as the middle class white girl?

IT is the basic unfairness of the application of judgement in this country that makes the death penalty wrong in this country.

I would LOVE to fry the dude that raped the little girl myself-= I have no problem taking the life of a scumbag like that- as long as there is no doubt whatsoever he did it- but therein lies the rub- can we trust our goverment, whom we complain about all the time NOT being trustworthy- with such a decision?

How can a person say on one hand "we need to privatize this or that, because the goverment is so sloppy", and then turn around and trust them with the most important decision that a society can make- the ending of another life?

Ummm... she was raped by a relative in her own garage. This guy took advantage of a familial relationship and violated her.

I think the guy should never be free again - especially since he was so cavalier about the whole thing, bragging about it. But, I don't think the death penalty should be used in this case.

Let me help out here. You are talking about Julius and Ethyl Rosenberg who were electrocuted in 1953. I was probably in the 6th grade then and remember hearing about, but, of course, I don't remember much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg

I think the death penalty is a waste of financial resources and has little value as a deterrent.

Then there is the Innocence Project which to date has exonerated 201 inmates based on DNA evidence



http://www.innocenceproject.org/about/Mission-Statement.php

It seems as if judicial mistakes might be easier to correct if the accused isn't dead.

Finally, add the philosophical component for opposition. There is no reason for me to do this since ArthurMusician has already done that quite well.



I oppose capital punishment period.

Yes, but with DNA evidence, the process is so much more precise than it ever was before. I don't think that should stop you from supporting the death penalty, especially in cases where the evidence is overwhelming.




I guess it pays to be rich, white and good looking. Who knew! ....Welcome to the real world! Life isn't fair.



I'm not at all sure that it was because she's a white female. I think it was because she was a mother and people believe she must have been truly insane to have done such a thing. I don't know how she can live with herself. My guess is that she was and is so doped up on psychiatric drugs that she's hasn't been living in the real world for some time.

True, but pigheaded prosecutors, like Mike Nifong, sometimes don't want to let go even in the absence of DNA evidence.

Although charges were eventually dropped, despite the prosecutors desire and efforts to proceed...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/11/duke.lacrosse/index.html

Nifong persisted even though no DNA from the Duke lacrosse players was found in the alleged victim.

Real quick:


Can you get me the names of innocent people executed in Texas and Louisiana, for that fact I will take anybody in the U.S.. Thanks.


As for the debate question: Is executing someone for a non-homicide crime constitutional?

I don't think so at all. Especially the act of raping a young child or acts of treason that result in the loss of many lives.
Hell, you have goofballs out there that think 25 years mandatory jail terms are too much for raping a child 12 or under.

Truth be told, I believe in revenge. Most consider that a fault, but I consider it one of my assets. I could care less about attempting to rehabilitating some body who rapes a young child, they are a useless waste of flesh and should not consume our tax dollars.

Is executing someone for a non-homicide crime constitutional?
In an idealized world I would support the death penalty for rape. I would really like to see the death penalty used not just in child sexual abuse cases, but adult rape and sodomy cases too. However, there is no idealized world and the punishment would be meted out disproportionately and capriciously:


Coker v. Georgia (1977) explicitly forbade the death penalty for rape cases, but the decision dealt with a convict who escaped prison and raped an adult woman. This is going to be a tight decision in the Supreme Court.

I've always said that while I agree with the death penalty, its "deterrent" affect is a myth. As it stands, states that use the death penalty restrict its applicability to cases dealing with premeditated murder with aggravating circumstances. People convicted of second degree murder in conjunction with other felonies are not eligible for the death penalty. If rape (usually a crime of opportunity) is eligible for the death penalty it throws a wrench in the deterrent argument that even death penalty proponents can't ignore. Lowering the bar for child molesters could encourage states to apply the death penalty for other felonies.

Generally I feel that that executions are unconstitutional because they violate equal protection under the law for the reasons listed in several of the posts above. So by extension I feel this execution would be unconstitutional.
However, for instances of unquestionable guilt (I'm not sure if this case qualifies or not without more info) I think castration would be a wonderful idea. It's a punishment that certainly fits the cime and would probably have more value as a deterrant than what we have now.

So the question for debate is
Is executing someone for a non-homicide crime consitutional?

Yes. As the death penalty is explicitly permitted for treason, clearly it is constitutional. Whether or not it is the best punishment is another question entirely.

Incidentally, "cruel and unusual punishment" has been utterly bastardized by the courts over the last half century. Historically, there is nothing "cruel and unusual" (in the original context) about the death penalty itself, although different execution methods may fall under that rubric.

Yes, it is constitutional, but whether or not it's a rational penalty is a horse of a different color.

In California, wrecking a train is a capital offense. You'll ride the lightning in Florida for capital drug trafficking. Don't commit treason in Georgia and Colorado or you're a dead man walking. And in Louisiana, commit the offense of "aggravated rape of victim under age 12" and they will kill you. link 1

I highly recommend this site for more information about the death penalty: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/index.php

The problem with applying the death penalty is in how haphazardly it is applied. Should a child rapist be executed while the life of a serial killer be spared?

In a plea agreement reached with Washington state prosecutors, Gary Ridgway, a Seattle-area man who admitted to 48 murders since 1982, will serve a sentence of life in prison without parole. Prosecutors spared Ridgway from execution in exchange for his cooperation in leading police to the remains of still-missing victims. (Associated Press, Nov. 5, 2003).

Commit one rape and you're toast. Commit 48 murders and you get three hots and a cot? Where's the justice?

I understand the emotional revulsion toward pedophiles, molesters and child-killers. But the ultimate penalty should be reserved for the worst of the worst offenses. Rape, when the victim is still living, does not rise to that standard.

Surely. LINK

He isn't alone, Google "innocent man executed" and let the fun begin.
Perhaps, as Nighttimer said, there's Constitutional and then there's reasonable. I don't really distinguish between a child rapist who has scarred a child for life from a murderer who has ended a life. I see them as equally reprehensible and Hell-bound individuals. I think both of them should be locked in jail for the rest of their lives with no possibility for parole. I'm against the death penalty in any case because the harm of killing innocent people vastly outweighs the "good" in killing those who were guilty. There is no excuse for a First World government to be killing innocent people, sadly in our country it happens all too frequently.

CP

So the question for debate is
Is executing someone for a non-homicide crime consitutional?


IMO this is a states rights issue and up to the states to make the decision. I don’t believe the SC would try to prevent states from using execution as they see fit as long as it does not violate other provisions of the Constitution. For example the SC would have an issue with the death penalty for anything falling under the “free speech” provision.

That said I would be in favor of life without parole for this dirt bag and men like him that prey on little girls – but if LWP is not available and there is the slightest chance this man would be freed some day I say – burn him.