"The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child"

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

you didn't qualify anything Tex. I don't have Cali's energy to call you out for all your crap. So I won't.

It is a waste of time, but it is an amusing waste of time. And invariably it ends with Tex saying he doesn't have the time to respond (which is also entertaining).

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I am still waiting for some explanation as to this statement, Tex. The fact that 6 states decide to do something makes it a "judgment call" that the Supreme Court can't overturn? What a bizarre conclusion you have reached. What do you think the Court should review in determining if a punishment is "unusual?" Should it not consider that 44 states don't see fit to extend the death penalty to rape?

I didn't want to specifically respond to this little beauty of a distortion until a I had a few more facts. The truth is it's not that 44 states "don't see fit" to do this, but merely that they haven't. We don't know why. Have they considered it and rejected it? I don't know, do you? Perhaps many of them don't have a child rape problem in their states, and thus are motivated to solve other more pressing challenges. Do you know? I don't.

I did see this from James Taranto, however:

Like the Brezhnev doctrine, however, the "evolving standards of decency" doctrine applies only in one direction: toward more leniency. In Kennedy, Kennedy acknowledged that the number of states allowing the death penalty for raping a child has increased by 500% since Louisiana passed its statute in 1995. But this growth cannot continue under today's ruling, which strikes down all those laws.

Blogging on The Volokh Conspiracy, Jim Lindgren looks at public opinion and casts further doubt on the court's claim of a national consensus. In a 1997 Time-CNN survey, 65% supported the death penalty for molesting a child, compared with 75% who supported it for murder and 47% for rape (not specifically of a child). Six years earlier, a Star Tribune poll found that 47% favored capital punishment for sexually abusing a child. At least in the 1990s, then, public opinion was evolving toward harsher punishments.

Again, one wonders how it is that Anthony Kennedy is so finely attuned to the nation's pulse that it is he alone, along with his 4 cohorts, who can declare "national consensus."

Their ruling is a facade for the activist judge credo: "the Constitution means what ever we think it ought to mean."

http://online.wsj.com/public/article...762007463.html

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I didn't want to specifically respond to this little beauty of a distortion until a I had a few more facts. The truth is it's not that 44 states "don't see fit" to do this, but merely that they haven't. We don't know why. Have they considered it and rejected it? I don't know, do you? Perhaps many of them don't have a child rape problem in their states, and thus are motivated to solve other more pressing challenges. Do you know? I don't.

They can adopt those laws if they want to. Regardless of the reason (they don't care enough, they don't like it, whatever), they haven't provided that the death penalty is appropriate for rapists. Hence, "unusual...."

I did see this from James Taranto, however:



Again, one wonders how it is that Anthony Kennedy is so finely attuned to the nation's pulse that it is he alone, along with his 4 cohorts, who can declare "national consensus."

Now this is just funny. An increase to a total number of 6 states who execute rapists shows a huge trend because it is a "500% increase since 1995!" Please excuse me while I laugh for a minute.

If there was one state, and one more joined in, should we decide that there was a huge national consensus in favor of those two states' legislation (it is a 100% increase!!!)? Don't be silly. There are 6 states. 6. Out of 50.

Their ruling is a facade for the activist judge credo: "the Constitution means what ever we think it ought to mean."

And you still haven't bothered to say how the Court should decide what "cruel and unusual" means without the "finger to the wind" formula.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

They can adopt those laws if they want to. Regardless of the reason (they don't care enough, they don't like it, whatever), they haven't provided that the death penalty is appropriate for rapists. Hence, "unusual...."

The word "unusual" is not synonymous with "unpopular".

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Now this is just funny. An increase to a total number of 6 states who execute rapists shows a huge trend because it is a "500% increase since 1995!" Please excuse me while I laugh for a minute.

If there was one state, and one more joined in, should we decide that there was a huge national consensus in favor of those two states' legislation (it is a 100% increase!!!)? Don't be silly. There are 6 states. 6. Out of 50.

And who knows how many more would've adopted such laws had SCOTUS not intervened. Indeed, who knows how many were chilled from passing such laws, waiting for this case to be adjudicated.

The point, a justice is not in a position to make that determination.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

And you still haven't bothered to say how the Court should decide what "cruel and unusual" means without the "finger to the wind" formula.

Read Sam Alito's dissent.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

The word "unusual" is not synonymous with "unpopular".

It is synonymous with "not used normally." 6 states, Tex. Not normally used. And also unpopular. Go figure.

And who knows how many more would've adopted such laws had SCOTUS not intervened. Indeed, who knows how many were chilled from passing such laws, waiting for this case to be adjudicated.

The point, a justice is not in a position to make that determination.

lol! A justice is in precisely the position to make that determination. That's why they did make that determination. The states have had over 200 years to get a law on the books like the one you support. It isn't like the death penalty just came up for discussion. In the article you cited, it noted Louisiana adopted their law in 1995.

Read Sam Alito's dissent.

Read it, not persuasive. When are you going to make your own argument? I can read other people's arguments in any number of other forums.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It is synonymous with "not used normally." 6 states, Tex. Not normally used. And also unpopular. Go figure.

And I maintain that's a silly and unreasonable interpretation. By your reckoning, any form of punishment must poll with a majority nationally or be majority implemented to be constitutional.

That's an argument not even your 5-4 SCOTUS judges are making.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

lol! A justice is in precisely the position to make that determination. That's why they did make that determination. The states have had over 200 years to get a law on the books like the one you support. It isn't like the death penalty just came up for discussion. In the article you cited, it noted Louisiana adopted their law in 1995.

Wow, that's some circular logic if I ever heard it. "Judges are in a position to do that, because they did it!" Okaaay.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Read it, not persuasive. When are you going to make your own argument? I can read other people's arguments in any number of other forums.

I wish you'd post more there too.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

And I maintain that's a silly and unreasonable interpretation. By your reckoning, any form of punishment must poll with a majority nationally or be majority implemented to be constitutional.

That's an argument not even your 5-4 SCOTUS judges are making.

Did you and logic officially part ways? I suggest getting back together.

We are talking about whether or not a punishment is "unusual" and cruel. Are you actually arguing that something must occur a majority of the time or it is "unusual?" There is a pretty significant difference between your understanding of the word and common usage. 6 states is "unusual." 49 is not.

At least try to improve your logic in your next post. You could upgrade from brain dead to ridiculously stupid. At least you could then tout a 500% improvement in your posting quality!

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Did you and logic officially part ways? I suggest getting back together.

We are talking about whether or not a punishment is "unusual" and cruel. Are you actually arguing that something must occur a majority of the time or it is "unusual?" There is a pretty significant difference between your understanding of the word and common usage. 6 states is "unusual." 49 is not.

At least try to improve your logic in your next post. You could upgrade from brain dead to ridiculously stupid. At least you could then tout a 500% improvement in your posting quality!

If there were only one way to interpret the word "unusual" (yours), we wouldn't have a billion court cases arguing over it. Pretending yours is the only one is neither reasonable nor "logical."

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

If there were only one way to interpret the word "unusual" (yours), we wouldn't have a billion court cases arguing over it. Pretending yours is the only one is neither reasonable nor "logical."

I'm not pretending mine is the only definition for the word. There are lots of possibilities. I am stating that your definition isn't one of those possibilities.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I'm not pretending mine is the only definition for the word. There are lots of possibilities. I am stating that your definition isn't one of those possibilities.

Ah, well this should be good: please identify where in this thread I defined the term "unusual."