Reigning in capital punishment, again

The U.S. Supreme Court, by the customarily narrow margin of 5-4, drew a line in the sand on the death penalty, rejecting laws that allow judges to sentence child rapists to death.

The issue at hand was a case in Louisiana in which Patrick Kennedy appealed the death sentence handed down after he was convicted in the rape of his 8-year-old stepdaughter.

The court ruled that the sentence was excessive and violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

The court went beyond the question in the case to rule out the death penalty for any individual crime — as opposed to “offenses against the state,” such as treason or espionage — “where the victim’s life was not taken.”

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said there was “a distinction between intentional first-degree murder on the one hand and non-homicide crimes against individual persons,” even such “devastating” crimes as the rape of a child, on
the other.

I am a death-penalty opponent, as readers of my blog and columns know, and I would have prefered that the court finally toss out capital punishment completely. But I’ll have to settle for this.

As for how the decision will affect my presidential vote (ha ha) or the vote of the nation, consider these disturbing and disappointing responses from the two men who are vying to take over the nation’s highest office:

Both presidential candidates criticized the death penalty decision. Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, said: “That there is a judge anywhere in America who does not believe that the rape of a child represents the most heinous of crimes, which is deserving of the most serious of punishments, is profoundly disturbing” He called the decision “an assault on law enforcement’s efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime.”

Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, said, “I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime, and if a state makes a decision under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances, that the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that does not violate our Constitution.” He added that the Supreme Court should have set conditions for imposing the death penalty for the crime, “but it basically had a blanket prohibition, and I disagree with the decision.”

Author: hankkalet

Hank Kalet is a poet and freelance journalist. He is the economic needs reporter for NJ Spotlight, teaches journalism at Rutgers University and writing at Middlesex County College and Brookdale Community College. He writes a semi-monthly column for the Progressive Populist. He is a lifelong fan of the New York Mets and New York Knicks, drinks too much coffee and attends as many Bruce Springsteen concerts as his meager finances will allow. He lives in South Brunswick with his wife Annie. View all posts by hankkalet