LA to execute Child Rapist

[Clove]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/15/rape.execution/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

ANGOLA, Louisiana (CNN) -- He is not a killer, but the state of Louisiana is determined to execute Patrick Kennedy for his crime.


Patrick Kennedy, 43, is on Louisiana's death row for the rape of his 8-year-old stepdaughter.

1 of 2 The New Orleans native faces that reality as he sits on death row at Louisiana's maximum security prison, the largest prison in the nation. The Louisiana State Penitentiary, or Angola Prison, is the size of Manhattan and surrounded on three sides by the Mississippi River.

Unlike the 3,300 inmates awaiting execution nationwide -- including the 94 other men at Angola -- Kennedy, 43, is a convicted rapist. The victim was his 8-year-old stepdaughter.

For the first time in 44 years, a state is preparing to execute a man for a felony other than murder. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday on whether Louisiana can use capital punishment in child rape cases.

The constitutional question before the justices is whether the death penalty for violent crimes other than homicide constitutes "cruel and unusual" punishment. The high-profile examination of the death penalty also raises anew a national debate over selective prosecution and race.

"A lot of people think there should not be the death penalty [in this case] because the child survives," said Kate Bartholomew, a sex crimes prosecutor in New Orleans. "In my opinion the rape of a child is more heinous and more hideous than a homicide."

Kennedy's appellate attorney, Billy Sothern, argues, "When we look at what it means to be cruel and unusual, this is exactly the kind of thing that raises these serious concerns of the constitutionality of Mr. Kennedy's death sentence."

Kennedy was sentenced to die in 2003 for sexually assaulting his stepdaughter in her bed. The crime occurred in a quiet neighborhood in Harvey, across the big river from New Orleans. Besides severe emotional trauma, Louisiana prosecutors said the attack caused internal injuries and bleeding to the child, requiring extensive surgery.

The former moving company driver had claimed two teenage boys committed the crime near the family's garage, a story the girl -- identified in court papers as "L.H." -- repeated for 18 months after the ordeal.

An African-American teenager was initially arrested, based on Kennedy's allegations, but later was cleared of any wrongdoing. Kennedy also is African-American.

Police in Jefferson Parish quickly turned their suspicions on him as the attacker.

The girl later accused her stepfather, after she returned home from a temporary stay in foster care. Kennedy has denied the charges, but the state supreme court upheld the conviction and punishment.

The U.S. Supreme Court, both in 1976 and a year later, banned capital punishment for rape -- and by implication any other crime except murder. But Louisiana 19 years later passed a law allowing execution for the sexual violation of a child under 12. State lawmakers contended the earlier high court cases pertained only to "adult women."

Death penalty opponents say Louisiana is the only state to actively pursue lethal injection for child rapists, and argue, among other things, that it could give attackers a reason to murder their victims.

"If they're going to face the death penalty for raping a child, why would they leave a living witness?" said Judy Benitez, executive director of the Louisiana Foundation against Sexual Assaults.

Benitez also says testifying in a death penalty case can be deeply traumatic for child. And the risk of wrongful prosecution may be higher is such cases since children might prove to be unreliable witnesses for the prosecution, because of their susceptibility to suggestive, leading questions.

No one in the United States has been executed for rape since 1964. Other state and federal crimes theoretically eligible for execution include treason, aggravated kidnapping, drug trafficking, aircraft hijacking and espionage. None of these crimes have been prosecuted as a capital offense in decades, if ever.

In the appeal filed with the high court, Sothern argues Louisiana "flouts the overwhelming national consensus that capital punishment is an inappropriate penalty for any kind of rape."

The law's supporters counter that besides murder, no crime is more deserving of the death penalty, and the punishment would be used only in the most heinous of circumstances.

For its victims, "It takes away their innocence, it takes away their childhood, it mutilates their spirit. It kills their soul. They're never the same after these things happen," said Bartholomew, an assistant district attorney in Orleans Parish.

"Louisiana has been a pro-death penalty state for a very long time," the prosecutor added. "And I think a lot of people agree with the death penalty for this type of case here in our state."

Five other states have similar laws. Four of them -- Florida, Montana, Oklahoma and South Carolina -- have had them for years but not applied them in decades. Texas enacted its version in June, but no defendant has yet been designated death-eligible for child rape in any state but Louisiana.

Skin color has also played a role in the political and legal debate over expanding capital crimes to include rape.

"When we look at the death penalty in the South we always need to be conscious of the role that race plays," said Sothern, deputy director at the Capital Appeals Project, which represents all the state's death row inmates. "And I think that the fact that Mr. Kennedy [is] a black from Jefferson Parish, a place with a troubling record of racial discrimination, I think that that speaks volumes."

Sothern cites Department of Justice statistics showing that all 14 rapists executed by Louisiana in the past 75 years were African-American. Nationwide from 1930 to 1964, nearly 90 percent of executed rapists were black, he said.

Kennedy recently was joined on Louisiana's death row by another child rapist -- Richard Davis, who is white. Davis' legal appeals have barely begun.

The justices will no doubt consider loneliness of Louisiana's aggressive position when deciding whether a national consensus now exists to allow a broader range of crimes to become subject to capital punishment. The high court has in recent years banned execution for the mentally retarded, underage killers and those receiving an inadequate defense at trial.

Angola prison officials would not make Kennedy available for comment.

The youngster at the center of the case is now in college and wants to be a lawyer. Her family says that like most underage victims, she has been scarred forever, and they believe her assailant deserves the jury's punishment.

"It's going to be justice," said Lynn Ray, the victim's cousin. "It's going to be that she can look forwards and not backwards, and not have to look over your shoulders, and one day see him. Or see him coming after her."

A ruling from the high court is expected by late June.

[NocturnalRob]

good. fuck that guy.

[fallenSaint]

If they'd release him into basic prison population they could save the state the time and money.

[SolitareConfinement]

either way, the victim being an 8 year old child. allow him to be executed, personally id prefer his execution taken out slowly and painfully. in my personal opinion you lose the right to a quick painless or otherwise non-torture death the day you take an 8 year olds innocence

[Blud]

If he's guilty of the crime, so mote it be. Maybe if they allowed the death penalty for child rape cases, it would help curtail child rape cases? I mean, I understand that the possibility is there to just go ahead and murder the victim so that there is no witness to testify against the perp, but I would have to hazard a guess and say that a person who is capable of raping a child is probably capable of anything anyway.

I say, "Bring back public executions!"

You want to see a drop in violent crimes? Public execution is the answer.

When did our civil sensibilities get in the way of taking our children to a good ole fashioned public hanging?

[Clipt]

Good fucking riddance.

[AnticorRifling]

[QUOTE=Blud;714013]...so mote it be. QUOTE]

Very masonic imo.

[SolitareConfinement]

I say, "Bring back public executions!"

You want to see a drop in violent crimes? Public execution is the answer.

When did our civil sensibilities get in the way of taking our children to a good ole fashioned public hanging?

or allowing the public to weed him out ourselves in a manner we see fit which could range from dismemberment to just plain old beat to death either way, if it were me id rather face the hang man's noose than an angry mob ready to rip me apart

[Clove]

or allowing the public to weed him out ourselves in a manner we see fit which could range from dismemberment to just plain old beat to death either way, if it were me id rather face the hang man's noose than an angry mob ready to rip me apartEspecially if you were one of those teen-aged boys originally accused.

[Blud]

[QUOTE=Blud;714013]...so mote it be. QUOTE]

Very masonic imo.

Are you a travelling man?

[Peanut Butter Jelly Time]

or allowing the public to weed him out ourselves in a manner we see fit which could range from dismemberment to just plain old beat to death either way, if it were me id rather face the hang man's noose than an angry mob ready to rip me apart

This isn't Mexico. Go home.

[Blud]

or allowing the public to weed him out ourselves in a manner we see fit which could range from dismemberment to just plain old beat to death either way, if it were me id rather face the hang man's noose than an angry mob ready to rip me apart

We do need some law and order...Let's not get carried away here...

[Fallen]

Is there anyone out there that thinks they SHOULDN'T execute this guy?

[Blud]

Hopefully not, but I will guess the Supreme Court will say, "No, it's cruel and unusual punishment, you can't kill him since he didn't kill the victim."

[AnticorRifling]

[QUOTE=AnticorRifling;714017]

Are you a travelling man?

An excellent question.

[SolitareConfinement]

ok imagination ran away with me...however, our laws obviously are not strict enough...sexual crimes involving children still happen on a regular basis so we need to obviously change something

[Clove]

Is there anyone out there that thinks they SHOULDN'T execute this guy?I do:

1) Sentence error possibility
2) Encourages child murder
3) Punishes the family of the accused
4) His fellow inmates will take care of the problem much less expensively

[SolitareConfinement]

yeah but you're also thinking like a sane person. in the sense that it doesn't really encourage child murder. if the person is going to murder a child they are going to do it no matter what...and we wont find the body for a very long time. honestly to contradict my own statements i don't think these types of crimes the punishment can be too severe, (here comes the contradiction) but i don't think any severity of punishment will ever stop or even slow it down

[Sylph]

Good... Rot in Hell, Kiddy Rapist.

[Sean]

I'm against the death penalty in general, but I'm also a single guy with no kids so take that for what you will.

[Tisket]

I have my doubts that the death penalty has ever, or ever will, deter crime even a little bit.

[Stanley Burrell]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYzJzk-fYSU

[Stanley Burrell]

^

[Tisket]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYzJzk-fYSU


lmao if only the world's violent criminals were as easily handled. Suicide ftw.

[Stanley Burrell]

OH MAH GAWD, IT'S CHRIS HANSEN!

[ViridianAsp]

Hopefully not, but I will guess the Supreme Court will say, "No, it's cruel and unusual punishment, you can't kill him since he didn't kill the victim."


Sure, he didn't kill the victim, he just traumatized her for life, but it isn't like that's any better.

I say fuck him, he deserves to die. While I don't think we should take justice into our own hands, because there can be those wrongly accused. I'm all for the death penalty, Good fucking riddance, I hope he burns in hell.

[SolitareConfinement]

the more i look at the situation the more i agree Trisket, it will never deter it, however, as a society people like these do not belong in it, and its bad enough my tax dollars pay the fat cats in Washington, and the state capital, let alone these sick bastards rotting in prison, therefore horrid crimes such as this, I'm all for execution if they are beyond a reasonable doubt guilty...guess my honky ass belongs in Mexico ROFL

[Tolwynn]

I have my doubts that the death penalty has ever, or ever will, deter crime even a little bit.

It deters it for at least one person.

[Tisket]

I've always been pretty wishy washy on the death penalty. I can't remember the exact quote but my feelings are similar, that "rather all the guilty live than one innocent die by mistake". Juries get shit wrong sometimes.

Then I go and read something that makes me wish someone dead like that child rapist. I guess I am a fence sitter on this particular issue.

[Tisket]

And although, I think the authors of this website have their own agenda, the stats are interesting about deterrence:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=168#stateswithvwithout

[longshot]

Is there anyone out there that thinks they SHOULDN'T execute this guy?

I have mixed feelings on this.

It's difficult to argue against this particular guy's execution without looking like you're completely against the death penalty, or willing to excuse reprehensible crimes against children.

I'm not against the death penalty.
I think children should be protected.

But, this is a big deal. You are starting to open up the death penalty for non-capital crimes. You might say that this is an "extreme case," but then you start down a slippery slope of what's "extreme."

I guess that's my issue with this one. I think it sets a dangerous precedent.

[Keller]

I have mixed feelings on this.

It's difficult to argue against this particular guy's execution without looking like you're completely against the death penalty, or willing to excuse reprehensible crimes against children.

I'm not against the death penalty.
I think children should be protected.

But, this is a big deal. You are starting to open up the death penalty for non-capital crimes. You might say that this is an "extreme case," but then you start down a slippery slope of what's "extreme."

I guess that's my issue with this one. I think it sets a dangerous precedent.

As a former semi-conservative, don't you see how now killing this douche sets a dangerous precedent?

[longshot]

As a former semi-conservative, don't you see how now killing this douche sets a dangerous precedent?

You have plenty of evidence to argue that point. There's no disputing that.

This particular case might seem really clear cut. A slam dunk. But at some point, you're going to get a case where the line is not so well defined.

I understand that having the state support him for the rest of his life is undesirable. But, doing so might preserve capital punishment for those who do deserve it. If you get a little loose with how its applied, you might end up calling the whole system into question.

And there are unintended consequences... I thought this part of the article was interesting:

"Death penalty opponents say Louisiana is the only state to actively pursue lethal injection for child rapists, and argue, among other things, that it could give attackers a reason to murder their victims."

"If they're going to face the death penalty for raping a child, why would they leave a living witness?" said Judy Benitez, executive director of the Louisiana Foundation against Sexual Assaults."

That sounds like a pretty strong motivator to me...

The point you make deals with what I mentioned in my post: It's hard to argue against this guy's death sentence. Especially when the crime he committed was so horrible...

As much as I hate to say it, it might be better just to keep this guy locked up for the rest of his life.

[Keller]

The point you make

The point I was actually making is that you're a "former" "semi-conservative" because you don't follow Republican policies in a lock-step fashion.

See: http://forum.gsplayers.com/search.php?searchid=1328300 for the recent history of the phrase on the PC.

But on topic: Until we find an efficient AND fair means to execute in this country, I see no argument in favor of capital punishment. There is no evidence it is a deterant. In cases in which the executed is not willing to go silently into the dark night, it is usually more expensive to go through the appeals process than to just keep them alive in a 10x6 cell. Also, there are concerns over executing innocent people. With the combination of those three -- I don't see how we can go forward with the current regime.

Does this douchebag deserve to die? Surely. But that doesn't remove the logistical obstacles.

[Clove]

But, this is a big deal. You are starting to open up the death penalty for non-capital crimes. You might say that this is an "extreme case," but then you start down a slippery slope of what's "extreme."

I guess that's my issue with this one. I think it sets a dangerous precedent.Actually I'm in favor of the death penalty for non-capital crimes. Or rather I should say, crimes against capital. Namely white-collar crimes such as insider trading, accounting fraud, etc.

[Mabus]

Actually I'm in favor of the death penalty for non-capital crimes. Or rather I should say, crimes against capital. Namely white-collar crimes such as insider trading, accounting fraud, etc.
I have often said that theft of any kind should be 1 day per $1 (plus restitution).

Steal a $2 loaf of bread, spend 2 days in jail. Steal a million dollars, spend a million days.

Never happen.

As to the original post, I am against the death penalty being imposed by the state. There is no evidence that the death penalty deters further crime, and in cases where a sentence is wrongly imposed it is nothing but state-sponsored murder.

[Daniel]

The point I was actually making is that you're a "former" "semi-conservative" because you don't follow Republican policies in a lock-step fashion.

See: http://forum.gsplayers.com/search.php?searchid=1328300 for the recent history of the phrase on the PC.

But on topic: Until we find an efficient AND fair means to execute in this country, I see no argument in favor of capital punishment. There is no evidence it is a deterant. In cases in which the executed is not willing to go silently into the dark night, it is usually more expensive to go through the appeals process than to just keep them alive in a 10x6 cell. Also, there are concerns over executing innocent people. With the combination of those three -- I don't see how we can go forward with the current regime.

Does this douchebag deserve to die? Surely. But that doesn't remove the logistical obstacles.


Dead link, but I hope you were referring to the PB Spazz out where he essentially went out like a rabid badger on members of the R team.

[Keller]

Dead link, but I hope you were referring to the PB Spazz out where he essentially went out like a rabid badger on members of the R team.

Just search "former semi-conservative" under the post field and scroll to the bottom. Then read from the earliest to most recent.

[Daniel]

Lol. I remember it ;) Was just saying.

P.s. I find you sad and pathetic.

[Snapp]

If they'd release him into basic prison population they could save the state the time and money.

There's the solution. No need to debate the death penalty. Just put all child rapists in with the other prisoners. :up:

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Off with his head.

[BigWorm]

It seems like most of you want him to be executed as payback or revenge for what he did to the child. Two wrongs can never make a right. Killing him does nothing to give this person her innocence back.

[Parkbandit]

Dead link, but I hope you were referring to the PB Spazz out where he essentially went out like a rabid badger on members of the R team.


You should open up a Linen and Things store with all the fabrication you do bitch. I apologize that you and your pal are still confused with the term.. but not surprise, given you probably share a brain.

[Parkbandit]

On topic.. I think death might be a little over the top. I would say forced castration and solitary confinement for the rest of his life, without the opportunity for parole.

[Keller]

You should open up a Linen and Things store with all the fabrication you do bitch. I apologize that you and your pal are still confused with the term.. but not surprise, given you probably share a brain.
You forgot the :rofl:

[CrystalTears]

You should open up a Linen and Things store with all the fabrication you do bitch. I apologize that you and your pal are still confused with the term.. but not surprise, given you probably share a brain.
Not to really derail this, but it was aimed at me, and afterwards you backtracked to make it sound like you were talking about yourself. There would be no reason to call yourself a former anything, so to this day, I'm still amazed by the starter of that question to me. I still like you, but you're still a little coocoo in the noggin.

To stay on topic, I'm not for the death penalty for this man. Stick him with the public population, they'll take care of him. I just don't think killing him is the answer to what he did. Even if you kill him, the girl is still scarred. I don't think the death penalty is the answer.

[Clove]

You forgot the :rofl:Hey if we're gonna beat this one to death can I at least resume prefacing my replies to Daniel as "Daniel you ignorant slut"?

[Keller]

Hey if we're gonna beat this one to death can I at least resume prefacing my replies to Daniel as "Daniel you ignorant slut"?

I think it would be better if you began a new practice of prefacing your replies to anyone OTHER than Daniel with "Daniel, you ignorant slut." That would be awesome.

[Daniel]

You should open up a Linen and Things store with all the fabrication you do bitch. I apologize that you and your pal are still confused with the term.. but not surprise, given you probably share a brain.



Not to really derail this, but it was aimed at me, and afterwards you backtracked to make it sound like you were talking about yourself. There would be no reason to call yourself a former anything, so to this day, I'm still amazed by the starter of that question to me. I still like you, but you're still a little coocoo in the noggin.

To stay on topic, I'm not for the death penalty for this man. Stick him with the public population, they'll take care of him. I just don't think killing him is the answer to what he did. Even if you kill him, the girl is still scarred. I don't think the death penalty is the answer.



Pwnage.

Also,


You forgot the :rofl:

[Daniel]

Hey if we're gonna beat this one to death can I at least resume prefacing my replies to Daniel as "Daniel you ignorant slut"?

This is patently false. I am quite aware of my being a slut.

[Clove]

I think it would be better if you began a new practice of prefacing your replies to anyone OTHER than Daniel with "Daniel, you ignorant slut." That would be awesome.Daniel you ignorant slut. I'll have to take your suggestion into consideration.

[Keller]

Daniel you ignorant slut. I'll have to take your suggestion into consideration.


All is right in the world.

[Parkbandit]

Not to really derail this, but it was aimed at me, and afterwards you backtracked to make it sound like you were talking about yourself. There would be no reason to call yourself a former anything, so to this day, I'm still amazed by the starter of that question to me. I still like you, but you're still a little coocoo in the noggin.

To stay on topic, I'm not for the death penalty for this man. Stick him with the public population, they'll take care of him. I just don't think killing him is the answer to what he did. Even if you kill him, the girl is still scarred. I don't think the death penalty is the answer.

Actually.. you are still mistaken about my intention.

Let's break this term down, shall we?

"former semi-conservative"

Former, meaning previously. If you support Obama for President, you clearly have abandoned your conservative views.. since he has none. He's IS the definition of liberal. Previously, your posting style suggested that you were far more conservative than an Obama supporter... enough to be labeled a member of the "R-team". While I will admit that NONE of the 3 remaining candidates exhibit conservative ideals, Obama is the furthest from any of them.

Semi-conservative - As explained before, I don't really know any true conservatives on this message board. I'm probably the closest thing to a conservative.. and I consider myself a semi-conservative.

It wasn't meant as an insult or anything of the sort.. and if you took it as such, then I apologize and hope that you now understand what I meant.

[Daniel]

RABID BADGER ON THE LOOSE!! MAKE WAY!! DON'T GET HIM RILED UP FOLKS!!

[CrystalTears]

Former, meaning previously. If you support Obama for President, you clearly have abandoned your conservative views.. since he has none.
And this is where you lost me again. So because I'm considering a democrat as a presidential candidate, which I have done in my past, automatically makes me a former?

If I'm truly semi-conversative, as you say you are as well, a true conservative will never completely side with my issues, nor a true liberal. So there is no reason to make me a former anything.


Previously, your posting style suggested that you were far more conservative than an Obama supporter... enough to be labeled a member of the "R-team".
And here I thought my being a registered Republican would be enough, aside from not being a constant Bush basher


I'm probably the closest thing to a conservative.. and I consider myself a semi-conservative.
It is my belief that you are a true non-religious conservative. You don't have to be religious to be so far to the right that you'll topple over.


It wasn't meant as an insult or anything of the sort.. and if you took it as such, then I apologize and hope that you now understand what I meant.
Nah, I didn't take it as an insult, just a jab from one friend to another. Had it been someone else who likes to insult me ad nauseum, I would have taken it as such. No worries, hon. :)

[Arkans]

I'll go out and say I'm a fairly liberal guy and I'm against the death penalty. I believe it be cruel and unusual punishment. In absolutely no way should the State be privvy to taking your life away from you, no matter the crime against society.

I also found this article interesting on Wikipedia. It is about Death Row Syndrome and about possible insanity that death row inmates face.

True, I understand, what about the mental anguish on those that suffered from the crime? Well, it is the reason we have life terms in prisons. Regardless, I do agree that one dead innocent is one too many.

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

- Arkans

PS: As for linking the death penalty to white collar crime? I just don't see how we can justify killing somebody over money. Reperations to the defrauded and other mandatory punishments should be used instead.

[g++]

I'll go out and say I'm a fairly liberal guy and I'm against the death penalty. I believe it be cruel and unusual punishment. In absolutely no way should the State be privvy to taking your life away from you, no matter the crime against society.

I also found this article interesting on Wikipedia. It is about Death Row Syndrome and about possible insanity that death row inmates face.

True, I understand, what about the mental anguish on those that suffered from the crime? Well, it is the reason we have life terms in prisons. Regardless, I do agree that one dead innocent is one too many.

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

- Arkans

PS: As for linking the death penalty to white collar crime? I just don't see how we can justify killing somebody over money. Reperations to the defrauded and other mandatory punishments should be used instead.

I dont mind the death penalty if its changed in a few key ways, everyone convicted of a death penalty crime is executed regardless of mitigating circumstances. Instead of 8 appeals anyone accused of a capitol crime gets a pro-bono million dollar legal team. If people are willing to play by that rule I am fine with it. Otherwise the death penalty is basically a way for Texas to execute its poor, also remember that preachers wife that got 3 months for shot gunning her husband? or the duke thing? I dont like to preface arguments on the justice system being "beyond a reasonable doubt" its "beyond your ability to trick 12 people during a crazy rigged game in a court room". Just my opinion. Oh and in this particular case....case doesnt sound all that solid to me. No physical evidence and the kid remembers 18 months later it was her father after she stays with a foster family? Im not saying hes innocent but I dont think I would want to flip the switch either.

[Clove]

On a related note....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/supremecourtopinions/2008-04-16-scotus-lethal-injection_N.htm

Court rejects lethal injection challenge

USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court by a 7-2 vote Wednesday rejected a challenge to the lethal injection method of executions. The decision in a Kentucky case is likely to end the nationwide moratorium on the death penalty that began last fall when the justices agreed to take up the claim.
The splintered rationale among the justices in the majority, however, could spur lawsuits in particular states over how their executions are carried out.

The two condemned prisoners who brought the case had said a widely used three-drug lethal injection method constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

Most of the 36 states that permit capital punishment use the same mix: sodium thiopental (an anesthetic), pancuronium bromide (a paralyzing agent) and potassium chloride (which stops the heart). The prisoners said the second drug can mask signs of distress and create a risk that inmates suffer excruciating pain before death occurs.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the leading opinion for the court, said the inmates failed to show that the method poses an unconstitutional risk of pain, "Kentucky has put in place several important safeguards to ensure that an adequate dose of sodium thiopental is delivered to the condemned prisoner," he wrote.

Overall, Roberts stressed that, "simply because an execution method may result in pain, either by accident or as an inescapable consequence of death, does not establish the sort of objectively intolerable risk of harm that qualifies as cruel and unusual."

He said the prisoners had failed to show a sufficient risk of pain from the improper administration of the lethal injection protocol or any alternatives.

Roberts detailed the history of execution methods, including firing squads, gas chambers and the electric chair. He noted that the court has never invalidated a state's chosen procedure for carrying out a death sentence.

The two Kentucky prisoners had lost their appeals in lower courts, and the justices had agreed to hear the appeal specifically to determine the standard lower court judges should use in considering whether an execution method violates the Eighth Amendment.

No clear test emerged from Wednesday's decision. However a majority of the justices endorsed a tough test that could staunch challenges to executions in most of the states.

Roberts said that prisoners challenging a method as unconstitutionally cruel would have to show that the method presented a "substantial" or "objectively intolerable" risk of harm to the prisoner. Any alternative offered would have to clearly and significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain. Roberts' opinion was joined in full only by Justices Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia wrote separately to say they believe a method of execution would violate the Eighth Amendment only if it were deliberately designed to inflict pain.

Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer concurred in the bottom-line judgment against the two Kentucky murderers. Stevens disagreed with the Roberts' rationale and cautioned that "the question whether a similar three-drug protocol may be used in other states remains open, and may well be answered differently in a future case on the basis of a more complete record.

"Instead of ending the controversy," Stevens continued, "I am now convinced that this case will generate debate not only about the constitutionality of the three-drug protocol, and specifically about the justification for the use of the paralytic agent, pancuronium bromide, but also about the justification for the death penalty itself."

Dissenting were Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter. They said: "Kentucky's protocol lacks basic safeguards used by other states to confirm that an inmate is unconscious before injection of the second and third drugs."

[TheEschaton]

Yeah, I saw that. Have to read the case to see what grounds they rejected it on. I read the petitioner's brief and thought they made a relatively sound argument that the procedure causes "unnecessary" pain and only insures that the witnesses do not see that pain expressed on a person's face.

[Arkans]

Even the million dollar legal team being pro bono has it's issues. A jury of 12 are influenced by the type of crime, how likeable the defendant is, how he presents himself, ect.

It's dangerous to allow a guilty conviction based on these factors wander into the neighborhood of, "DEEZAM! DIS STATE GONNA FRAG DAT NIGGA!"

No way.

- Arkans

[TheEschaton]

It's ironic - our whole legal system is based on jurors judging the credibility and truthfulness of people on the stand. Studies have shown that non-expert jurors are no more likely to find a lie versus not find it - IE, they have random chance to pick correctly.

-TheE-

[Lyonis]

And there are unintended consequences... I thought this part of the article was interesting:

"Death penalty opponents say Louisiana is the only state to actively pursue lethal injection for child rapists, and argue, among other things, that it could give attackers a reason to murder their victims."

"If they're going to face the death penalty for raping a child, why would they leave a living witness?" said Judy Benitez, executive director of the Louisiana Foundation against Sexual Assaults."

That sounds like a pretty strong motivator to me....

I immediately thought of the movie Heat when the guy they hired just for the job shoots the armored car guard and they instantly shoot the rest of them because if you're going to go down for Murder 1 you might as well leave no witnesses. I agree, sounds like a strong motivator to me. Those that are so morally bankrupt that they would rape a child wouldn't hesitate to take that child's life if it was beneficial to them.




The point you make deals with what I mentioned in my post: It's hard to argue against this guy's death sentence. Especially when the crime he committed was so horrible...

As much as I hate to say it, it might be better just to keep this guy locked up for the rest of his life.


Again, agreed. If this guy did what he is accused of, in my mind, there is no question he deserves death and it would be along the lines of "cruel and unusual" if justice was to be truly met.

Then again, a wise man once told me, "There's the way things should be, then again there's the way things are". The fact is people do get convicted of crimes they didn't commit. While the standard of reasonable doubt, debatable of course, is enough to send someone away for life, I think a higher standard needs to be in place to take a man's life, for which there is no possibility of redemption.

The evidence seems flimsy so far so count me in the group that doesn't want to see this guy executed. It's not that he doesn't deserve death, which he probably does, it's that our system isn't capable of executing people without error. So once again agreed, life in prison.

[ClydeR]

Then again, a wise man once told me, "There's the way things should be, then again there's the way things are". The fact is people do get convicted of crimes they didn't commit. While the standard of reasonable doubt, debatable of course, is enough to send someone away for life, I think a higher standard needs to be in place to take a man's life, for which there is no possibility of redemption.

If lawyers were honest, that would not be a problem. Let me tell you a true story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080412/ap_on_re_us/the26_year_silence).

Twenty-six years ago, two lawyers represented Wilson who was convicted of killing two people. What the police didn't know was that Wilson has also killed a third person. But Wilson's lawyers knew.

The police thought Logan killed the third man, and Logan was convicted. Wilson's lawyers knew Logan was innocent, but they didn't tell anybody. They let Logan sit in jail for 26 years.

Now that Wilson is dead, his two lawyers have come forward and are going to turn over proof, which they've been hiding for 26 years, that Wilson committed the crime for which Logan was convicted.

[g++]

Yah those two lawyers are evil.

[TheEschaton]

Unfortunately, the number one ethical rule is that you have to be a zealous advocate for your client, which means you can do nothing to hurt his cause.

I zealously disagree, and think the truth and justice should hold priority, but this is a result of the adversarial system, which is, of course, a competitive system based on the self-interested theories of capitalism. It's the same system which allows guilty-as-sin corporations to get off scot-free because in the American courtroom, the truth isn't the issue - who can convince the jury of their version of the truth is the issue. Competition theories say that by virtue of it winning, it's the best possible truth. Fucked up, innit? ;)

See what I did there? ;)

[Gan]

Is there anyone out there that thinks they SHOULDN'T execute this guy?
Based on what I've read and heard thus far. I dont think they should seek the death penalty in this case.

1. Absolutely NO physical evidence tying the rape to the father (no DNA even). There was plenty of physical damage to the girl, but no DNA tying that to the father.

2. Initially the little girl's testimony was that two boys drug her beside her house and raped her.

3. 2 years later, in a subsequent interview she changed her story after announcing that the police want her to say her father raped her. This was in response to CPS threatening to deem the mother unfit to raise her and send her to a foster home if she did not implicate the father and send him to jail.

My litmus test for the death penalty is absolute undeniable physical evidence linking the charged with the crime. This being because man is fallable, evidence is fallable, witness accounts are fallable, and efforts of prosecution can become personal (see Duke Lacrosse DA example) instead of objective and fact based. Its really difficult to exhonorate someone who's already been put to death. And it does little good to try and bring him back from the grave.

On the other hand, if the evidence is overwhelmingly convincing that the person comitted said crime then by all means - lets remove that person from society's burden.

With regards to child rape or child sexual abuse, I have no tolerance for that in any form (age notwithstanding). Crimes of this nature, in my opinion, are not rehabitable, period. This is a mental disorder that has roots deep in instinctual behaviors of sex. There is no cure except death. I'd even argue that castration does not remove all impulses from people with this kind of sickness. And the cost of what it does to its victims goes way beyond any benefit of not removing said parasite from society.

[Gan]

Unfortunately, the number one ethical rule is that you have to be a zealous advocate for your client, which means you can do nothing to hurt his cause.

I zealously disagree, and think the truth and justice should hold priority, but this is a result of the adversarial system, which is, of course, a competitive system based on the self-interested theories of capitalism. It's the same system which allows guilty-as-sin corporations to get off scot-free because in the American courtroom, the truth isn't the issue - who can convince the jury of their version of the truth is the issue. Competition theories say that by virtue of it winning, it's the best possible truth. Fucked up, innit? ;)

See what I did there? ;)

Nice leap there evel knievel.

http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/11/30/evel.jpg

[TheEschaton]

I liked it, novel, innit?

The adversarial system is very competitive though, and unlike the systems in Europe. My problem with the adversarial system is that it isn't concerned with the truth - it's concerned with "winning your argument", which then becomes the truth. With unscrupulous people on both sides, you then have the case that the "winning truth" is just something sold to the jury, and not the actual truth.

Not to mention that the winning part is directly correlated to how much money you can spend, how many experts you can hire to say whatever you want, and so on, and so forth.

-TheE-

[Daniel]

You do realize that the basis for our legal system predates capitalism right?

[TheEschaton]

Of course, I was more comparing the rise of lack of concern with actual truth in the adversarial system with the rise of lack of concern with ethics in the capitalist system.

[Keller]

Of course, I was more comparing the rise of lack of concern with actual truth in the adversarial system with the rise of lack of concern with ethics in the capitalist system.

The rise in lack of concern? What the fuck are you talking about? The adversarial system developed when people got rights and had to protect them. If anything, it's the rise in concern for ANY truth, not "actual" truth.

I understand your comparison was cute. But it was a joke. It shouldn't have the legs to make it this far in the thread. Please stop defending it else you should look more foolish.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Let me tell you a true story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080412/ap_on_re_us/the26_year_silence).


Not that ClydeR is the bastion of truth, but if that's a true story -- since you all wanna be lawyers -- isn't there a law or something like Doctor's have that states that client/attorney privilege can be broken if it endangers another person? Just seems to me that the two lawyers in the story thought their career was more important than the supposedly falsely accused person in jail.

This is just on the surface and based on the article, no idea what else they had on the guy in jail.

[TheEschaton]

Only if it endangers another person's life. If they guy had been given the death penalty, they would have been obligated to tell. But apparently life in prison is okay.

I agree with you on this one, SHM, it's a crappy thing to do. The weird thing is they could have been disbarred had they told when they first found out. They did everything they could (ethically) do. Which is why I think the Rules of Ethics are way off base.

Edit: a clarification. The Rules of Ethics are all written in certain dichotomies: may/can versus must/should. You must zealously advocate for your client, but you may make an exception in the interest of "serving justice." However, the exception language is so weak, and lawyers so generally risk-adverse, that rarely do people make that exception. If they were simply given more equal weight (and lawyers weren't generally such pussies) more situations like this could get resolved. However, as soon as you give them more equal weight, and say "you should/must make an exception in the interest of justice," you rarely zealously advocate for your client since there is seemingly always some injustice which you sweep under the rug. Then it becomes more like an inquisitorial system (which I favor), where the client's interests aren't paramount, but justice's interests are.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

You all know what I think of lawyers, but in all seriousness I know there is a reason we have them and I know they do much that makes everyone's life better. That said, it (being a lawyer) should be about doing what's right, not winning.

[g++]

Only if it endangers another person's life. If they guy had been given the death penalty, they would have been obligated to tell. But apparently life in prison is okay.

I agree with you on this one, SHM, it's a crappy thing to do. The weird thing is they could have been disbarred had they told when they first found out. They did everything they could (ethically) do. Which is why I think the Rules of Ethics are way off base.

Yah poor guys would have been disbarred, and the only consolation would be knowing they saved an innocent man from spending 20 years in prison. If I was the guy who spent the years in prison I would have been back in my cell as soon as I found those two.

[Clove]

If I was the guy who spent the years in prison I would have been back in my cell as soon as I found those two.Soooo true. And if I were judge, I'd give you 20 years time served against your sentence. :D

[g++]

You all know what I think of lawyers, but in all seriousness I know there is a reason we have them and I know they do much that makes everyone's life better. That said, it (being a lawyer) should be about doing what's right, not winning.

The problem with that line of thought is we could have every lawyer in the country argue till time stops what is the right and wrong course of action for a single case. A competitive system is better than leaving things up to the perception of a single entity. Neither is perfect, but I feel the former is better than the latter.

Also think about this, a judge takes an oath saying he will apply his morality to the law..well how many of us here would last 10 seconds standing before a re-born christian judge with no one advocating for us and how many of those judges would there be along the bible belt.

The idea of right and wrong is so open-ended if you allow decisions to be based on it it basically just gives the judicial system license to do whatever the hell it wants.

[Gan]

I liked it, novel, innit?

The adversarial system is very competitive though, and unlike the systems in Europe. My problem with the adversarial system is that it isn't concerned with the truth - it's concerned with "winning your argument", which then becomes the truth. With unscrupulous people on both sides, you then have the case that the "winning truth" is just something sold to the jury, and not the actual truth.

Not to mention that the winning part is directly correlated to how much money you can spend, how many experts you can hire to say whatever you want, and so on, and so forth.

-TheE-

Of course, I was more comparing the rise of lack of concern with actual truth in the adversarial system with the rise of lack of concern with ethics in the capitalist system.

It absolutely amazes me that you expect to work as a prosecuting attorney in a DA's office. It will be even more amazing that they dont run you out of there within 6 months if you go into the job with the fantastical ideals you present here.

That being said, I have just one word for you to consider when you graduate.

ACLU

[TheEschaton]

The ACLU of Massachusetts and NY already love me, and are eager to have an ally inside the DA's office. ;) The Director in MA is a friend of mine who I've met since I came here.

Oh, and I get away with it in real life because in real life, I'm very likeable, which goes a long way. ;) Alas, most of you shall never know the likeable side of me, just the radical one.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

The ACLU of Massachusetts and NY already love me, and are eager to have an ally inside the DA's office. ;) The Director in MA is a friend of mine who I've met since I came here.

Oh, and I get away with it in real life because in real life, I'm very likeable, which goes a long way. ;) Alas, most of you shall never know the likeable side of me, just the radical one.

-TheE-


I have no doubt you are probably very likable outside of politics.. I do however, doubt you are as important as you think you are.

[TheEschaton]

LOL, when did I say I was important? I say my friend happens to be the Director of ACLU MA. He's important. I'm nobody.

[Gan]

The ACLU of Massachusetts and NY already love me, and are eager to have an ally inside the DA's office. ;) The Director in MA is a friend of mine who I've met since I came here.
So you can be the token radical ACLU attorney in the DA's office. I dont know if thats a good thing or a bad thing with regards to career longevity within the DA's office.



Oh, and I get away with it in real life because in real life, I'm very likeable, which goes a long way. ;) Alas, most of you shall never know the likeable side of me, just the radical one.

-TheE-
Read: You dont have the balls to come across in real life as you do posting here. Check.

[g++]

So you can be the token radical ACLU attorney in the DA's office.

The DA doesn't have to keep someone on staff to get the ACLU's perspective. The ACLU keeps enough people on their own staff to shove their perspective down everyone elses throat already.

[Keller]

Not that ClydeR is the bastion of truth, but if that's a true story -- since you all wanna be lawyers -- isn't there a law or something like Doctor's have that states that client/attorney privilege can be broken if it endangers another person? Just seems to me that the two lawyers in the story thought their career was more important than the supposedly falsely accused person in jail.

This is just on the surface and based on the article, no idea what else they had on the guy in jail.

Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6(b)(1): A lawyer may reveal information to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to: (1) prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm.

What's most troubling is that it's only a may. Without more, lawyers are often very conservative when making use of the exception to confidentiality because doing otherwise would be detrimental to their book of business. No one wants a lawyer who is ethical (ie - one who does less than is permissible under the standards of "zealous advocacy").

[Keller]

The DA doesn't have to keep someone on staff to get the ACLU's perspective. The ACLU keeps enough people on their own staff to shove their perspective down everyone elses throat already.


I know I've said this before, but I just want to make the point again. The ACLU gets a very bad rap because of their "location" within the adversarial system. They have a duty to litigate any marginally applicable case to assure that citizens have the full protection of the constitution.

Do they bring retarded cases? Do they make themselves well known for bringing said cases (both because of the number of cases and the volume with which they litigate them)? Sure. But I, for one, am very happy there is an organization that does nothing other than fight for me.