Reading about Coker v. Georgia led me to also read about Kennedy v. Louisiana, where the SCOTUS bizzarely concluded that non-homicidal crimes, including the damage from a violent rape to a child, were "[...] in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public, they cannot compare to murder in their severity and irrevocability."
It is worth noting that Justice Ruth was sadly among those who voted in favor of this morally and logically defective and inconsistent ruling--which still never addressed the death penalty overall anyway:
Kennedy v. Louisiana - Wikipedia
To their credit, Obama and McCain criticized the SCOTUS decision.
How do you personally feel about the ruling that child rape, even when extremely violent as in the case in question, "cannot compare to murder in severity and irrevocability"? Was the SCOTUS spot on or off the mark there?
It is worth noting that Justice Ruth was sadly among those who voted in favor of this morally and logically defective and inconsistent ruling--which still never addressed the death penalty overall anyway:
Wikipedia said:Our concern here is limited to crimes against individual persons. We do not address, for example, crimes defining and punishing treason, espionage, terrorism, and drug kingpin activity, which are offenses against the State.
Kennedy v. Louisiana - Wikipedia
To their credit, Obama and McCain criticized the SCOTUS decision.
How do you personally feel about the ruling that child rape, even when extremely violent as in the case in question, "cannot compare to murder in severity and irrevocability"? Was the SCOTUS spot on or off the mark there?