He a cousin.
Posted on 07/03/2008 11:44:18 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Governor says the court overlooked precedent in banning death penalty for those convicted of raping children
Governor Bobby Jindal says the U.S. Supreme Court made a factual error when it banned the death penalty as a sentence for those convicted of raping children.
The court claimed there was no federal precedence in providing that type of sentence, but Jindal says the death penalty is authorized for child rape under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The Governor is asking Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell and Jefferson Parish District Attorney Paul Connick to consider petitioning the court for a rehearing.
The 5-4 ruling was handed down in the case of 44-year-old Patrick Kennedy of Harvey who was sentenced to death for raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter.
Jindal says the high court "got this case wrong, plain and simple."
"As both the Governor of this great state and as a parent of three children, I continue to be outraged over the Supreme Court’s absurd decision to overturn a death penalty sentence for the brutal rape of a child while citing that ‘the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child;’ and I will do everything I can to see that this decision does not stand," Jindal said.
The Governor says his administration may amend the state law to maintain death as a penalty for child rape.
Go Jindal! To his detractors.......you are not fit to clean up his dog’s droppings.
They got it wrong just by taking the case.
This is outside their jurisdiction. The state legislature makes the laws. There is nothing in the constitution one way or another on the subject. The punishment shouldn’t be cruel or unusual, fine. So it should be quick and painless. End of Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.
Good man!
H
I really hope he runs for Prez in 2012.
We can imagine the official instruments of torture being displayed to the prisoner before he is strapped down.
All very Medieval and such.
Alas, we should have expected this when we started appointing murderers and their running dog lackeys to the court. They do love their little tortures.
I’m reasonalbly certain that if BO wins, he will serve only one term or less.
I’m sure Kennedy will just fabricate another justification, like executing him would infringe on his first Amendment speech rights or something....
Damn what a man!
I hope he runs also.
I am beginning to really admire Jindal.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
I once heard Judge Bork explain that the key and often missed word in this amendment is “and”. To be prohibited, the punishment must be both cruel and unusual.
Cime on Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell and Jefferson Parish District Attorney Paul Connick—step up to the plate and act like real men!
Cime = come
Damn right.
The Louisiana Legislature just needs to pass a law that puts a $3 bounty on any child rapist that’s in prison ... problem solved.
Nice, convincing argument. /sarc
Is Paul Connick related to Harry Connick Jr.? When I lived in NOLA many years ago it seems like his Dad was DA then.
Fry him anyway. Defy the feds to enforce the Supreme Court decision. It’s outside their jurisdiction. the Supremes cannot overturn state legislation.
Whatever the merits of the proposed punishment, I think this is may not be a particularly good argument. Does the UCMJ actually establish precedent for civilian criminal codes? I don't think it does.
Not trying to convince you of anything. My post was directed at freepers like yourself.
Wow! Another reason to like this guy!
Indeed. A judge is often free to prescribe almost any "punishment for a crime, no matter how "unusual", if the criminal is willing to accept that punishment in lieu of the normal prison sentence. And cruel punishments may be handed down for heinous crimes provided that they are usual punishments prescribed by law for such crimes.
Note, btw, that while "unusual" has connotations, at least today, of "not very common", I would regard it as meaning "other than the usual". The legally prescribed punishment for a crime is the "usual" punishment, no matter how seldom the crime itself occurs.
IMHO, that should depend upon various aggravating factors. Further, I would suggest that it's probably best if the risk of execution is related to the severity of the crime (or number of crimes). A rapist who knows he will be executed if caught might be prone to kill any witnesses; one who knows he might be executed if caught, but would more likely be executed if he tries to kill the witnesses, might not be so prone.
“The incongruity between the crime of child rape and the harshness of the death penalty poses risks of over-punishment and counsels against a constitutional ruling that the death penalty can be expanded to include this offense,” Kennedy wrote.
Kennedy’s comment doesn’t make sense to me. If the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment for a child rape conviction then wouldn’t the death penalty be cruel and unusual for a mass murder conviction? How does a sense of proportion have to do with whether a a punishment is unusual or cruel? Is this unusual majority ruling an attempt to provide grounds for a future Supreme Court ruling declaring any death sentence unconstitutional?
Good for Jindal! I definitely do think the death penalty is proportional. I hope his AG finds that he can make a good case for a rehearing.
He a cousin.
He's a cousin.
I couldn't disagree more strongly. If we as a society accept that rape is a heinous crime, the severity of punishment shouldn't be determined by the frequency of committing the rape. I do place statutory rape in another category. As for the argument that rapists will simply kill their prey. It's not like the justice system will let them off for killing vs rape. If convicted, you kill them either way! Don't buy into the theory that a benevolent rapist will spare the life of his victim. You kill him!
Hardly. I have no opinion of Governor Jindal, as I do not know enough about him to form one.
It's a pity that at least one of the Governor's ardent supporters can't see their way clear to offer up something positive. From what little I know of him, he seems to be a pretty good and conservative guy. But sometimes a politician can be known by the attitude of his supporters, too, so...
There are be different degrees of consent or non-consent, as well as different degrees of how far one goes beyond what's consensual. A jury may very reasonably decide that a particular person's actions went beyond what's legally justifiable and yet not feel they went so far as to compel a death sentence. If a jury finds that the victim deliberate got the man "worked up", but that the man pushed himself on the woman beyond her consent, and if the jury finds no reason to believe that such a thing having happened more than once, it may quite reasonably decide to prescribe a lighter sentence than if it found that the man made a habit of such behavior.
I agree rapists should be killed. As a practicing Catholic, I would include priests. I would point out that it is way overblown by the media, but that is another topic.
“He a cousin.
That should be,
He’s a cousin.”
Ha haa, I thought you was speakin’ y’at.
Ya beat me to it, that “and” in there is key!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.