• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Kennedy v. Louisiana: No Death Penalty for Child Rape, Even When Violent

Heyo

Veteran Member
I see capital punishment as constitutionally allowed.
But I oppose it because it's irreversible...a problem
for such a flawed justice system.
We agree 100%. It is constitutional - because the constitution is missing what the Declaration of Independence promised.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
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?
In today's day and age, there simply is no reason to have capital punishment and then somehow think we're being "pro-life". With jails and prisons, we can both remove the person from society while recognizing that life is important. And in Biblical times, just a reminder that there were what are called "sanctuary cities", which pretty much are open-air prisons.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
In today's day and age, there simply is no reason to have capital punishment and then somehow think we're being "pro-life".
In any day and age, there simply is no reason to have capital punishment and then somehow think we're being "pro-life".

Unfortunately, Republicans don't understand the concept of hypocrisy.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
In today's day and age, there simply is no reason to have capital punishment and then somehow think we're being "pro-life". With jails and prisons, we can both remove the person from society while recognizing that life is important. And in Biblical times, just a reminder that there were what are called "sanctuary cities", which pretty much are open-air prisons.
This is to erroneously take "pro-life" literally.
The term generally refers to innocent lives, particularly
fetuses. One can be that kind of "pro-life", yet still
be OK with the death penalty for heinous crimes, &
with killing the enemy in war.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
This is to erroneously take "pro-life" literally.
The term generally refers to innocent lives, particularly
fetuses.
You could also say those people are "anti abortion" and it would be more accurate. "Pro life" is an euphemism, a rhetorical device intended to hide or sugar coat the true meaning. Sometimes the use of an euphemism backfires as with the use of "pro life", where it doesn't convey a positive message of a negative stance but highlights the hypocrisy of the position.
I call this kind of word play male bovine manure (not because I want to use the euphemism but because I'm not allowed to speak my mind).
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
You could also say those people are "anti abortion" and it would be more accurate.
I not only could, I do.
"Pro abortion" & "anti abortion" are the labels I apply.
"Pro life" is an euphemism, a rhetorical device intended to hide or sugar coat the true meaning.
As is "pro choice", which avoids saying exactly what
the choice is about.
Sometimes the use of an euphemism backfires as with the use of "pro life", where it doesn't convey a positive message of a negative stance but highlights the hypocrisy of the position.
I call this kind of word play male bovine manure (not because I want to use the euphemism but because I'm not allowed to speak my mind).
In my experience, Democrats are not big on allowing choice.
They like micro-regulation of our lives, eg, telling me what
color I can paint my house (Columbia MD) or what kind of
front door I'm allowed (Ann Arbor MI). They know what's
right, & demand that we comply.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
the issue remains that taxpayer money is still used to keep such lost causes alive. I don't know what the best solution to that would be, though,
Here in the USA, the marginal cost per inmate is rather small. The overhead costs, like buildings and guards, are most of the expense. The system for determining guilt, sufficiently for a capital case, flawed as it is, is still much more expensive than life in prison nearly always.
Tom
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Capital punishment here is also inherently cruel in that
it inflicts great pain unnecessarily. Society is so squeamish
that it cannot tolerate a hint of apparent violence. So we
eschew firing squads, which could instantaneously and
painlessly end the condemn prisoner's life.
Instead, we use electrocution, gas or injections, all of which
show signs of great stress & pain.
Ref....
Autopsies Show Inmates' Lungs Filling With Fluid As They're Executed

If I had a choice of method for my execution when my
dictatorship is ended in a coup, it would be to go skydiving
without a parachute. One final great ride, with a painless
& certain merging with the infinite.
 
Last edited:

ecco

Veteran Member
This is to erroneously take "pro-life" literally.
The term generally refers to innocent lives, particularly
fetuses. One can be that kind of "pro-life", yet still
be OK with the death penalty for heinous crimes, &
with killing the enemy in war.
Pro-life is pro-life. Those who apply it exclusively to fetuses and are OK with the death penalty for heinous crimes are hypocrites.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Pro-life is pro-life. Those who apply it exclusively to fetuses and are OK with the death penalty for heinous crimes are hypocrites.
f
It seems unfair to apply your very strict definition to a
term that other people see having a different meaning.
But if reading terms literally & universally as you do....
Are "pro choice" people in favor of all choices?
 
Last edited:

ecco

Veteran Member
f
It seems unfair to apply your very strict definition to a
term that other people see having a different meaning.
But if reading terms literally & universally as you do....
Are "pro choice" people in favor of all choices?
I am pro-choice, I choose to not answer.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
Capital punishment here is also inherently cruel in that
it inflicts great pain unnecessarily. Society is so squeamish
that it cannot tolerate a hint of apparent violence. So we
eschew firing squads, which could instantaneously and
painlessly end the condemn prisoner's life.
Instead, we use electrocution, gas or injections, all of which
show signs of great stress & pain.
Ref....
Autopsies Show Inmates' Lungs Filling With Fluid As They're Executed
I don't know what literature you've been reading but being shot to death is neither painless nor instantaneous.
 
Top