lily
02-09-2007, 03:54 AM
I'm just using this article for an example. It raises a few points that I didn't think of. (http://www.abanet.org/journal/redesign/01nmolst.html)
A Deal with Death
More states make child molestation a capital crime-and face likely
challenges
By John Gibeaut
No one in the United States has been put to death for a crime other than
murder since 1964.
But if the state of Louisiana has its way, convicted child rapist Patrick O.
Kennedy would become the first inmate in more than four decades to be
executed for a crime in which the victim wasn't killed. The state supreme
court is expected to decide Kennedy's fate this year.
In pressing for Kennedy's execution, prosecutors also have put Louisiana on
a collision course with the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 1977 banned
executions of rapists who don't kill. That means prosecutors and politicians
in states with similar laws likely will follow Kennedy's case as it winds
its way through the system toward an all but certain date with the justices.
"They'll probably beat us to the Supremes," concedes Oklahoma state Sen. Jay
Paul Gumm, sponsor of a bill signed in June by Gov. Brad Henry that also
imposes the death penalty on some child molesters.
CONSTITUTIONALITY IN QUESTION
Kennedy was sentenced in 2003 for the rape of an 8-year-old girl. His
lawyers question the constitutionality of the death sentence and raise
another issue.
"He says that he did not do it," says New Orleans appeals lawyer Martin A.
Stern, who is handling the sentencing issue.
Louisiana and Oklahoma are among a handful of states to enact laws allowing
death sentences for molesters since the Supreme Court reinstated capital
punishment in 1976. The issue also surfaced this past fall in governor's
races in at least three states, including Minnesota, which hasn't had a
death penalty statute of any kind since 1911.
Supporters see death for child rapists as the ultimate deterrent and argue
that it would encourage more victims to come forward if parole no longer was
available to the worst offenders.
"No one is more vulnerable than a child," says Gumm, a Democrat from the
southern Oklahoma town of Durant. "We allow the death penalty for someone
who has killed a body. We shouldn't allow someone who has killed a soul to
escape."
Besides questioning the constitutionality of such laws, opponents say they
could backfire in practice. For one, they say, a child molester with nothing
to lose may just go ahead and kill the victim and eliminate the sole
eyewitness to an offense that typically occurs only in the shadows.
And because child sexual abuse often happens within families, critics say
victims may be reluctant to report it if it means a parent, sibling or other
relative could be put to death.
"Legislators who pass these kinds of laws are not doing the child any good
deed at all," says Michael Mears, director of the Georgia Public Defender
Standards Council, a state agency charged with ensuring that indigent
defendants receive adequate representation.
Though Louisiana inmate Kennedy is the only person thus far sentenced to
death under the new laws, critics see the potential for a dangerous
unraveling of a long string of Supreme Court precedents that restrict
application of the death penalty, including recent decisions banning it for
juveniles and the mentally retarded.
"If we're going to create a whole new class of death penalty defendants,
they're going to have to revisit some of the narrowing they've done in the
last several years," Mears says.
I am for the death penalty in certain cases. I used to say that anyone that harms a child, should be put to death, if there was sufficient DNA to prove the case,Â*Â*but this article raised a few points, that made me stop and think.
For one, they say, a child molester with nothing
to lose may just go ahead and kill the victim and eliminate the sole
eyewitness to an offense that typically occurs only in the shadows.
I do believe that this might save a child from being killed. On the other hand, I don't think a child molester really thinks about the consequences when he is doing the act.
And because child sexual abuse often happens within families, critics say
victims may be reluctant to report it if it means a parent, sibling or other
relative could be put to death.
This point had me thinking too.......but then most cases of incest don't get reported. So, I don't think it would be a deterrence.
"No one is more vulnerable than a child," says Gumm, a Democrat from the
southern Oklahoma town of Durant. "We allow the death penalty for someone
who has killed a body. We shouldn't allow someone who has killed a soul to
escape."
So I'm back to my original stance.
For anyone to rob a child of his innocence and to make that child forever in his mind to think of time as before and after, should be put to death.
No matter what your stance on the death penalty.......what do you think of it being used for child molesters?
A Deal with Death
More states make child molestation a capital crime-and face likely
challenges
By John Gibeaut
No one in the United States has been put to death for a crime other than
murder since 1964.
But if the state of Louisiana has its way, convicted child rapist Patrick O.
Kennedy would become the first inmate in more than four decades to be
executed for a crime in which the victim wasn't killed. The state supreme
court is expected to decide Kennedy's fate this year.
In pressing for Kennedy's execution, prosecutors also have put Louisiana on
a collision course with the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 1977 banned
executions of rapists who don't kill. That means prosecutors and politicians
in states with similar laws likely will follow Kennedy's case as it winds
its way through the system toward an all but certain date with the justices.
"They'll probably beat us to the Supremes," concedes Oklahoma state Sen. Jay
Paul Gumm, sponsor of a bill signed in June by Gov. Brad Henry that also
imposes the death penalty on some child molesters.
CONSTITUTIONALITY IN QUESTION
Kennedy was sentenced in 2003 for the rape of an 8-year-old girl. His
lawyers question the constitutionality of the death sentence and raise
another issue.
"He says that he did not do it," says New Orleans appeals lawyer Martin A.
Stern, who is handling the sentencing issue.
Louisiana and Oklahoma are among a handful of states to enact laws allowing
death sentences for molesters since the Supreme Court reinstated capital
punishment in 1976. The issue also surfaced this past fall in governor's
races in at least three states, including Minnesota, which hasn't had a
death penalty statute of any kind since 1911.
Supporters see death for child rapists as the ultimate deterrent and argue
that it would encourage more victims to come forward if parole no longer was
available to the worst offenders.
"No one is more vulnerable than a child," says Gumm, a Democrat from the
southern Oklahoma town of Durant. "We allow the death penalty for someone
who has killed a body. We shouldn't allow someone who has killed a soul to
escape."
Besides questioning the constitutionality of such laws, opponents say they
could backfire in practice. For one, they say, a child molester with nothing
to lose may just go ahead and kill the victim and eliminate the sole
eyewitness to an offense that typically occurs only in the shadows.
And because child sexual abuse often happens within families, critics say
victims may be reluctant to report it if it means a parent, sibling or other
relative could be put to death.
"Legislators who pass these kinds of laws are not doing the child any good
deed at all," says Michael Mears, director of the Georgia Public Defender
Standards Council, a state agency charged with ensuring that indigent
defendants receive adequate representation.
Though Louisiana inmate Kennedy is the only person thus far sentenced to
death under the new laws, critics see the potential for a dangerous
unraveling of a long string of Supreme Court precedents that restrict
application of the death penalty, including recent decisions banning it for
juveniles and the mentally retarded.
"If we're going to create a whole new class of death penalty defendants,
they're going to have to revisit some of the narrowing they've done in the
last several years," Mears says.
I am for the death penalty in certain cases. I used to say that anyone that harms a child, should be put to death, if there was sufficient DNA to prove the case,Â*Â*but this article raised a few points, that made me stop and think.
For one, they say, a child molester with nothing
to lose may just go ahead and kill the victim and eliminate the sole
eyewitness to an offense that typically occurs only in the shadows.
I do believe that this might save a child from being killed. On the other hand, I don't think a child molester really thinks about the consequences when he is doing the act.
And because child sexual abuse often happens within families, critics say
victims may be reluctant to report it if it means a parent, sibling or other
relative could be put to death.
This point had me thinking too.......but then most cases of incest don't get reported. So, I don't think it would be a deterrence.
"No one is more vulnerable than a child," says Gumm, a Democrat from the
southern Oklahoma town of Durant. "We allow the death penalty for someone
who has killed a body. We shouldn't allow someone who has killed a soul to
escape."
So I'm back to my original stance.
For anyone to rob a child of his innocence and to make that child forever in his mind to think of time as before and after, should be put to death.
No matter what your stance on the death penalty.......what do you think of it being used for child molesters?