I, for one, was heartened by the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the limit that states may only apply the death penalty in response to crimes that result in death. As an Obama supporter, I am disappointed that Obama disagrees
:
"I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes. I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime," he said, adding that if a state determines the death penalty should apply in such cases, they should be allowed to impose it.
Apparently, his disagreement arises from the view that killing is a form of self-expression :
he supports capital punishment in cases "so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment."
In contrast, I think that the act of destroying a life should be taken a little more seriously (or perhaps, I think that temper tantrums should be taken less seriously). When I remember Newt Gingrich's call to make drug dealing a capital offense, or the attempt of the Illinois legislature to make gang activity a capital crime , I'm glad that there is a Constitutional prohibition on expanding the use of the death penalty.
Virginia Sloan of the Constitution Project says it well:
That the rape of a child is a horrific crime that deserves a firm and swift punishment is not in doubt. But expanding the list of crimes eligible for the death penalty to include non-homicide crimes would have undermined the long-standing principle of civilized societies that reserves the ultimate penalty for those who commit the most heinous murders. Anything less than categorical exclusion of non-homicide crimes would have provided too great an opportunity for the unconstitutionally overbroad, random, arbitrary, and capricious application of the death penalty.
We are not the property of the state (or "the community"), and there must be a limit on what methods the government can use to coerce us for its ends.
__________________________
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was
made a man." --Frederick Douglas
With this decision
The rape of an actual child, will result in the same punishment as the man watching such an event on his computer. Yes, the punishment for mere position of child porn (not being involved in production or distribution) has been affirmed to be life imprisonment, or more accurately 200 years.
Either one is too much or the other too little. I will not discuss the issue of the death penalty in this comment. But the concept of draconian punishment for users, whether of drugs or pornography has shown not to wipe out the underlying crime.
It simply creates less respect for the very concept of justice. And BTW, the Supreme Court affirmed the 200 year punishment.
wow! 200 years?
Here's the most recent report that I found:
US court won't review 200-year child porn sentence
The gist is that Arizona has mandatory minimum sentences, which added up to 200 years for this guy--just for possession. It didn't seem to even matter if he had paid for them or not (thereby rewarding their production). Federal charges would be 5 years.
The SCOTUS allowed the decision to stand without review. That does seem to be inconsistant with today's ruling. Personally, I think that prison time is unreasonable for any victimless crime.
__________________________"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was
made a man." --Frederick Douglas