home

Obama Disagrees With Supreme Court Ruling Requiring a Death to Invoke the Death Penalty


Where is Sen. Barack Obama on the death penalty? With Justices Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Here is what Sen. Obama had to say about today's excellent Supreme Court ruling striking down a state statute allowing the death penalty to be imposed for crimes where no death occurs:

When asked about Supreme Court ruling against the use of the death penalty in instances of child rape today at a news conference in Chicago, Obama answered, “I disagree with the decision. I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for most egregious of crimes. I think that the rape of a small child, six or eight years old is a heinous crime, and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances, the death penalty is at least potentially applicable. That does not violate our constitution.”

He continued, “Had the Supreme Court said, ‘We want to constrain ability of states to do this to make sure that it's done in a careful and appropriate way,’ that would've been one thing, but it basically had a blanket prohibition and I disagree with that decision.”

He sounds just like John McCain: [More...]

McCain’s Senate office sent out a similarly worded statement: “As a father, I believe there is no more sacred responsibility in American society than that of protecting the innocence of our children. I have spent over 25 years in Congress fighting for stronger criminal sentences for those who exploit and harm our children. Today’s Supreme Court ruling is an assault on law enforcement’s efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime. 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.”

Disappointing? Yes. Predictable? Also yes.

I wonder whether this means that the pro-death penalty stance John Kerry insisted be removed from the Democratic party platform in 2004 will be making a return. I don't doubt it.

Obama mischaracterizes today's decision as a state's rights issue. It's not. It's an 8th Amendment issue of cruel and unusual punishment in which the evolving standards of decency of a civilized nation must be taken into account. The Supreme Court ruled based on such standards and its own precedent:

The constitutional prohibition against excessive or cruel and unusual punishments mandates that the State’s power to punish “be exercised within the limits of civilized standards.”

....Evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society counsel us to be most hesitant before interpreting the Eighth Amendment to allow the extension of the death penalty, a hesitation that has special force where no life was taken in the commission of the crime. It is an established principle that decency, in its essence, presumes respect for the individual and thus moderation or restraint in the application of capital punishment.

...As it relates to crimes against individuals, though, the death penalty should not be expanded to instances where the victim’s life was not taken.

< LAPD Policy Banning Citizenship Inquiries Withstands Challenge | Supreme Court: Second Amendment Conveys Individual Right to Bear Arms >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    This is always a tough one because it (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:50:13 PM EST
    is easy to understand both sides, but you cannot undo death....

    The death penalty at all. (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:25:25 AM EST
    jeeeeez. So backwards.

    [ Parent ]
    True (none / 0) (#66)
    by coigue on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:44:06 PM EST
    there is no room for error.

    also, who wants to be responsible for daddy's execution...no matter what he did to you? Ick. It's a really hard issue.

    [ Parent ]

    I dislike your example.... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by jerry on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:31:19 AM EST
    "also, who wants to be responsible for daddy's execution" -- it's not just the fathers.  And I am sure that this death penalty was not there for parents but for the strangers....

    One statistic though, my understanding is that regarding the fathers, is that it's far more common for "mom's new boyfriend" to be the person "in the family" harming the kids than anyone on dad's side.

    As a parent, I can certainly understand the desire to in act this revenge on people that would harm children.  But I still think the Supreme Court decision was the correct one, and the moral one, for many reasons.

    [ Parent ]

    In this particular case. . . (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:44:07 AM EST
    the crime was committed by a step father.

    And, when you think about it, child rape is more likely to be committed by a person known to, and with responsibilities towards, the child -- simply because the amount of contact a child has with strangers is limited.

    It might not be the father, but could easily be an uncle or cousin, or a clergyman.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, why am I not surprised? (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:59:48 PM EST
    I guess Obama doesn't want to become the next Michael Dukakis.  He wants to be seen as more macho than thou, not afraid to put a heinous criminal to death.

    Maybe Obama (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:36:04 AM EST
    saw that spot on his "not tough enough on the war on gangs so how will he be tough on the war on terror" video that is on YouTube.

    [ Parent ]
    But wasn't that Dukakis' problem? (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by ineedalife on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:04:34 AM EST
    He took the ride in the tank to remind people he was in the Army. If people see this as an overstatement by Obama to compensate for a weakness, it backfires and re-enforces the underlying concern.

    Siding with the likes of Alito, Scalia, and Thomas sort of undercuts the Supreme Court guilt-trip his supporters lay on undecideds as well. He may decide abortion is a "states-rights" issue as well.

    [ Parent ]

    Remember (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:56:29 AM EST
    that's part of why Clinton had to vote for the Iraq War Resolution.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't worry, Obama wouldn't (3.00 / 2) (#44)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:27:53 PM EST
    touch braised endive with a 10 foot pole. He's an arugula and $100/lb. Spanish ham guy, himself.

    [ Parent ]
    Why is the US such a primitive nation? (5.00 / 9) (#6)
    by cymro on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:03:14 PM EST
    Killing people in cold blood is murder, and one murder does not justify another. I was always taught that "an eye for an eye" was the logic of the Old Testament and the dark ages, not of enlightened modern cultures. But my teachers were Europeans, not Americans, so what did they know?

    Europeans (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by bocajeff on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:22:17 PM EST
    Between all the killing in WWI and WWII, not to mention genocides (even in the 90's in Yugoslavia), I think the Europeans are really good teachers about enlightenment. I can't wait until they start practicing it.

    [ Parent ]
    Europeans do not have the death penalty (5.00 / 15) (#43)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:27:52 PM EST
    They won't extradite to this country unless death is off the table.  They cannot imagine why we still have it.  European press gives more coverage to our death row and executions than our own press. Not only is the death sentence immoral, it is unjustly applied and very costly.  

    [ Parent ]
    Well said (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:09:07 AM EST
    and true.

    [ Parent ]
    Where does the uninformed anti-European nastiness (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by Mark Woods on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 03:55:30 AM EST
    come from? If you want to live in a decent society, move to most of Europe or Canada, not the U.S.

    I've lived in both and I know the difference. I guess this is another argument for sending more U.S. students abroad, so they can learn that the death penalty is not considered 'civilized' or moral outside the U.S. borders, except in similarly backward and brutal places, like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

    [ Parent ]

    Anti-European Rant (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:40:28 AM EST
    Rush Limbaugh was ranting on Europe yesterday.  That post was almost a direct quote...

    [ Parent ]
    No... (2.00 / 1) (#157)
    by bocajeff on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:07:40 AM EST
    I hate when one region points to another and says they are unenlightened when their own history (recent) is vile.

    Yes, we have the death penalty and they don't. Okay. Does that make them more enlightened?

    However, Europe in the past century between the world wars, genocide, gulags, etc...isn't the most enlightened either. Is it enlightened to watch Yugoslavia commit genocide and does nothing about it 10 years ago while the United States executes a few people a year for committing murder?

    [ Parent ]

    bocajeff- YES it does make them more enlightened (5.00 / 3) (#181)
    by kenosharick on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:19:26 AM EST
    And your arguments are nonsense. Deliberatly putting your own citizen to death versus committing your nation's soldiers to war in order to stop deaths in another country? Also- if you wat to complain going ack to WWI, what about this nations genocide against Native-Americans and African Americans?

    [ Parent ]
    Yugo is not part of the EU (none / 0) (#229)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:10:15 AM EST
    Infact the EU is someting of a miracle in regards to jurisprudence.  You won't find supra national agreement on things like the DP anywhere else.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (none / 0) (#228)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:08:17 AM EST
    Yes it does.

    [ Parent ]
    There are practicing it while you type n/t (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by bridget on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:42:07 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Oh yeah, especially in Belgium. (none / 0) (#67)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:44:21 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    fwiw My comment is a response to above post: (none / 0) (#79)
    by bridget on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:57:35 PM EST
    "I think the Europeans are really good teachers about enlightenment. I can't wait until they start practicing it."

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, so was mine. (none / 0) (#186)
    by MarkL on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:37:20 AM EST
    Belgium had a notorious child rape/murder ring in the 90s, including policemen.
    Western Civilization is still a good idea.. and only an idea, so far.

    [ Parent ]
    How are WW1 and WW2 related to ... (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by cymro on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:51:43 AM EST
    ... capital punishment? You seem to be confused about the subject of this thread.

    [ Parent ]
    enlightenmnet (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by bocajeff on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:10:31 AM EST
    we are talking about enlightenment.

    And actually there is somewhat of a connection, albeit a loose one. After seeing all the devastation during the past century on their own land, their people, etc...I'm sure this has had a tremendous effect on the mindset of most European cultures toward violence, war, crime, etc...

    [ Parent ]

    See, For Example (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by The Maven on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:52:40 AM EST
    James Sheehan's book released earlier this year, "Where Have All the Soldiers Gone: The transformation of Modern Europe".  While the focus is on the continent's move away from war primarily because of the wars they endured, the same trend can be seen in the distaste for state-sanctioned violence in other forms.

    [ Parent ]
    the religeous wars of past (5.00 / 4) (#174)
    by hellothere on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:00:05 AM EST
    centuries in europe has also resulted in today's governments for the most part in europe being rational and separate from religeous institutions.

    [ Parent ]
    The enlightenment (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:28:26 AM EST
    is the work of, Europeans mainly.

    [ Parent ]
    eff off (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:26:32 AM EST
    As if the US isn't built on a few displaced peoples and conquests.

    That the death penalty exists in the US is bad enough.

    [ Parent ]

    Does someone think the death penalty (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:04:40 PM EST
    provides a "closure" or some kind of end to the suffering of the victim of rape as a child? I think it's time our Change and Hope candidate comes up with a program that would actually help the children.

    Even survivoring family members of a murder victim often state they got no "closure" from the death of the murderer, though they had thought they would have.


    Pure vengeance (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:46:39 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Which would explain that sense (none / 0) (#71)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:49:56 PM EST
    they didn't get what they wanted from it.

    [ Parent ]
    My Less Than Thorough Research Says.... (5.00 / 6) (#76)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:52:42 PM EST
    Having never been in the situation I could never say for sure, but I suspect the quest for death by a victim's family puts off the actual mourning period while their lives become totally enmeshed in vindictiveness. From what I gather, if the execution ever takes place, emotionally they find themselves right back where they were the day of the crime.

    They seek closure, but the result leads to...now what?

    [ Parent ]

    Bingo (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:17:19 AM EST
    I think you have it exactly right.

    A branch of my family I'm not close to quite a few years ago found itself in the center of one of those "missing white women" frenzies when their 20-something daughter disappeared.  A year or so later, a body was found and identified as hers.

    A completely unreliable jailhouse snitch reported another inmate had confessed the crime to him, and although the investigators were never able to turn up a shred of evidence he had anything to do with it, the family zeroed in on this guy and has been obsessed with him ever since.

    It's totally understandable emotionally, but I've always thought their focus on this man in many ways served as kind of a welcome distraction and certainly prevented them from having a "healthy" grieving process and moving on, to the extent you can ever move on when even a grown child is murdered.

    Well, easy for me to say.  It's never happened to me.  But I suspect the folks who aren't able to work through this kind of horror to some kind of "closure" would be unable to do so whether the perpetrator is put to death or not.

    [ Parent ]

    From personal experience (5.00 / 4) (#155)
    by stxabuela on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:48:59 AM EST
    15 years ago, a close friend's only child was murdered in a convenience store robbery.  No question of the killer--it was recorded by the surveillance camera.

    That was the only trial I ever attended from beginning to end.  This was in TX, so it was a capital murder trial.  The killer was sentenced to death (and has since been executed.)  I was already ambivalent about the death penalty, but right after I heard the sentence, I realized that what I thought would be justice was actually revenge.  We just took someone else's son away from them.  

    I am now firmly opposed to the death penalty in all cases.  Unfortunately, I understand why Obama would release a statement in support of it.  Most Americans are in favor of the death penalty.    

    [ Parent ]

    similar experience (5.00 / 5) (#163)
    by NJDem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:20:35 AM EST
    (though not personal like your--sorry to read that horrible story)

    I was always back and forth about capital punish--understanding both sides.  But on the day of Timothy McVeigh execution, they showed the families of those wanting the execution--and they were still so angry and just thirsting for blood.  

    Then they showed the much smaller group of those that lost loved-ones in the bombing, but were against capital punishment, even for McVeigh.  Well, those people were calm, collected, and generally seemed much more at peace with their loss.  

    That's when I knew I was against the death penalty (though frankly I have no problem with a family personally seeking revenge--just not the government doing it).  

    [ Parent ]

    Going by (5.00 / 4) (#147)
    by Nadai on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:07:44 AM EST
    the two people I've known who were murdered, "closure" is a myth.  People go on.  They don't get over it.

    Getting the person who did it - whether that means jailing or executing or whatever - can make the survivors feel better, but it isn't closure.  It's just a very small Band-Aid pasted over a very large wound.

    [ Parent ]

    this idea of closure rings false with me. (none / 0) (#175)
    by hellothere on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:01:42 AM EST
    i have to say that i haven't been in that situation and have often wondered just how i would feel if i were the relative or friend of someone killed under those circumstances.

    [ Parent ]
    Again, just personal experience (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by stxabuela on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:56:44 AM EST
    Closure can only come from within.  I already knew that, but it took some time and a lot of determination to convince my gut to let go of the anger.  

    [ Parent ]
    JavaCityPal, you are arguing ... (none / 0) (#194)
    by Tortmaster on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:16:14 AM EST
    ... for a death penalty for child rape, apparently, based upon some type of "closure" for the victim?

    As much as I'm against the death penalty, and opposed to Obama's views on it, at least his statement was in line with your silly argument.

    Will you say anything to see Obama not get elected?

    [ Parent ]

    I never expected Obama to run as the (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:09:08 PM EST
    anti-death penalty candidate. Indeed, it might be political suicide for him to. I am ambivalent on the subject myself. If ever there were a situation where it seems applicable, child rape would be one. Of course, there are sticking points. It would obviously be wrong to execute a 25 year old for having sex with a 17 year old. I would be wary of pushing this too far.

    As a matter of constitutional law, well, I'm not competent to address that.  

    The Death Penalty is barbaric (5.00 / 10) (#82)
    by bridget on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:00:56 AM EST
    it is immoral

    and should be abolished.

    Law has nothing to do with it.

    [ Parent ]

    That's an opinion I respect (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:03:05 AM EST
    and that I'm not far from. My point is that, if you're going to have a death penalty, it's hard for me to see how a crime as heinous as child rape could be excluded.

    [ Parent ]
    it's excluded (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:10:31 AM EST
    only if no death occurs. It's not excluded if the victim dies.

    [ Parent ]
    Understood (none / 0) (#89)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:12:06 AM EST
    I'm unconvinced that's the right distinction, if we're going to have a death penalty.

    [ Parent ]
    If justice were perfect (4.75 / 8) (#95)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:23:26 AM EST
    at establishing the truth, I'd honestly rather see the DP for child rape than for murder.

    I think it's bad for our souls to kill people through the state, so I'm agin' the DP across the board.

    But it sure would be easier to win the DP argument if we actually had a "life without parole" option that really meant what it said.  Actual child rapists (not, as you say, a 17-year-old having sex with a 16-year-old girlfriend and that sort of thing) are essentially incurable and need to be permanently separated from the rest of society.  

    I'd be perfectly happy to pay for them to live in luxury for the rest of their lives as long as it was in inescapable and permanent confinement from the rest of us.  It is, IMHO, the absolute vilest of crimes one human being can do to another.

    [ Parent ]

    See, I disagree with the DP for child rape... (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:40:21 AM EST
    ...for a host of policy reasons. And I oppose the DP across the board for the reason you mentioned.  However, I also believe that, contrary to popular opinion, not all child rapists are incurable recidivists.  I've worked on cases where the individuals involved suffered from addictions to narcotics or alcohol, had become sexually compulsive and took advantage of children, but otherwise lacked any history of child sexual abuse.  Additionally, of course, there have been plenty of cases involving people who repeatedly engaged in such acts, with or without compulsive sexual disorders.

     In any event, most of the defendants you refer to will not see the light of day, with the sentencing reforms in place now.  In addition to criminal sentencing, they also face civil commitment as sexually violent predators.  

    [ Parent ]

    I'm talking (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:25:07 AM EST
    pre-pubscent child rape.  To my knowledge, nobody does that who isn't permanently fixated sexually on children, not because they've been drinking or doing drugs or any other excuse, although those things may help to remove inhibitions on acting out.

    [ Parent ]
    That is why taking it off the table (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:59:31 AM EST
    altogether is the only answer, IMO. No one has the right to decide who deserves to die.

    [ Parent ]
    he's a pragmatist. (none / 0) (#203)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:30:36 AM EST
    Not much of an idealist. i can't blame him for it. You run with the public you have not the public you'd like to have.

    [ Parent ]
    You are off-topic, Riddler (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:09:14 PM EST
    this is not about Hillary. You are violating the site rules.


    I've deleted three of his comments (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:15:00 PM EST
    in this thread about Hillary. One more and he's banned.

    Hillary has nothing to do with this thread. She is not our nominee. Her position on the case, if she had one, is irrelevant.

    Off topic comments will be deleted. The topic is today's ruling and Barack Obama's reaction to it.

    [ Parent ]

    OH, I;m banned, sorry Jeralyn (none / 0) (#31)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:15:41 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    not yet (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:26:47 PM EST
    But stick to the topic or you will be. This has nothing to do with Hillary and if you keep going off topic you will be banned.

    [ Parent ]
    If it's about what I think it's about (none / 0) (#45)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:28:08 PM EST
    Ben Masel's comment below is disgusting.

    And off topic.

    [ Parent ]

    I just deleted (none / 0) (#59)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:38:00 PM EST
    Ben's comment. It was off topic and a gratuitous slam at a different politician, having nothing to do with today's decision or Obama's statement about it.

    [ Parent ]
    Understood, mostly. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:22:43 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Having been inside the judicial system (5.00 / 14) (#18)
    by differnet on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:10:47 PM EST
    I cannot support the death penalty.  Occassionally an innocent person is convicted.  More often, the death penalty is applied unfairly.  If you have enough money, you will never see the death penalty.  I find it very confusing that a black man is supporting the death penalty, when black men are the ones that most often get the unfairly weighted judgement of justice.

    Also, this is a man who has wrapped himself in Christianity (I consider a person who has to wear their faith publically to be dangerous.  Christ himself said to beware of this type of righteousness).  I don't understand how anyone of the Christian faith can endorse the death penalty.  In full disclosure, I am a practicing Christian.  I find the death penalty to be completely at odds with the doctrines of my faith.  

    Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. (5.00 / 5) (#121)
    by cymro on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:06:52 AM EST
    That's one "yes" for every sentence I agreed with in your response.

    In fact, you scored a perfect 10 on my scale.

    [ Parent ]

    And in this particular case... (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by ineedalife on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:16:15 AM EST
    it is an issue. If the perp had been white would the death penalty had even been considered?

    [ Parent ]
    Christ had his opportunity to ... (none / 0) (#204)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:32:23 AM EST
    decry capital punishment and he failed to make a talking point out of it. What a flip flopper he'd be if his religion was to suddenly...woooops.

    [ Parent ]
    When voters are given a choice (5.00 / 11) (#20)
    by Pacific John on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:12:30 PM EST
    ... between voting for a McCain, or a Democrat who acts like a McCain, they'll vote for the McCain every time."

    What I can't square is that the junior Senator from Illinois is from a state where the Republican governor placed a moratorium on executions because of the error rate.

    I guess Sen. Obama does not think anyone could ever be falsely convicted of child rape.


    in one of the posts I linked (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:30:34 PM EST
    I praised his work for the innocent in Illinois. He apparently didn't read that long section of today's opinion explaining how child rape cases can exacerbate the chance of an innocent being executed due to the problems with child testimony.

    But again, the primary issue is more that we don't put people to death for crimes where no death occurs. It violates the 8th Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment and is contrary to the evolving standards of decency in a civilized society.

    [ Parent ]

    Also wasn't it brought up that (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Rhouse on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:25:21 AM EST
    asking a child to possibly be responsible for the death of a family member ( in this case a step-father ) is also unrealistic and may prove too much for the child to handle?

    [ Parent ]
    It happens (none / 0) (#128)
    by Rojas on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:36:24 AM EST
    in texas

    [ Parent ]
    I support the maximum possible (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:15:46 PM EST
    penalties for pandering on DP issues.
    What would that mean in this case.. Go nader?

    Death Pandering (none / 0) (#56)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:36:29 PM EST
    Pandering by politicians on death penalty issues is so common I have come to expect it. I now try to translate exactly who they are trying to speak to with their tough on crime pro death penalty stances. In this case McCain looks to be pandering to his base while Obama is pandering to the middle.

    Neither of them could ever live up to the standard set by Bush in Texas though. When it comes to death, Bush is in a league of his own. On the topic of capital punishment, questioning the Supreme Court is fluff for votes; as a Governor, you can kill for votes.

    [ Parent ]

    Bush isn't running for reelection (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:40:46 PM EST
    The candidates are Obama and McCain. Both had disappointing but predictable responses today.

    [ Parent ]
    Agreed (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:05:10 AM EST
    I totally agree, but I have come to expect it as part of the tough on crime pandering approach presented by all politicians when they run for office. Don't like it, but we are still years away from a majority being against capital punishment. Until then, pandering to the majority for their vote will be the standard.

    Bob Graham was the first DEM I despised when he restarted capital punishment in Florida. Age has made me realize (but not accept) that I'm still in the minority with my anti-capital punishment perspective, and politicians are politicians.

    [ Parent ]

    As a rape victim and as a person who was sexually (5.00 / 16) (#33)
    by differnet on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:16:41 PM EST
    molested as a child, I wanted to add that in some cases this would actually harm the child more.  I'm so tired of hearing people say things like "her life is ruined" after a rape.  As long as the victim is alive, their life is not ruined.  It is changed dramatically, but it is not ruined.  With the right support, rape can become a source of emotional strength. When the worse thing that can be done to you happens and you are still alive, what is there left to fear?  I've spoken with dozens of other rapes and childhood sexual molestation/assualt/incest suvivors.  I treat each one as if they have won a war.  They are still here.  They survived.  The death penalty is a sop to those who didn't do enough BEFORE it happened.  It's about their guilt and not really about helping the victim.

    I can't tell if you are being (5.00 / 8) (#55)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:35:00 PM EST
    sincere, but I will note the Court opinion today referenced the research finding that having a death penalty for child rape increases the likelihood the child will be killed to ensure the child cannot later be a witness against the offender. It also referenced the research showing that family members would be less likely to report another family member who raped a child if they thought the offending relative could be executed.

    See the opinion -- and my prior post on this at 5280 quoting the experts.

    [ Parent ]

    But you know, Obama, like the general public, (5.00 / 7) (#60)
    by differnet on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:39:04 PM EST
    doesn't seem to like being confused by facts.  There are few child rapes that are committed by strangers.  Most children are raped by relatives and family friends.  Executing that uncle or cousin who raped you will most likelycause additional trauma for the child.  The Supreme Court made the right call this time.  

    [ Parent ]
    I have no doubt about those findings (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:41:43 PM EST
    but I am not sure what they have to do with whether the death penalty for this crime is cruel and unusual under the Constitution.  

    I agree with the conclusion, but think these types of policy discussion dont add much to the constitutional analysis.

    [ Parent ]

    did you read the opinion? (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:51:54 PM EST
    the Supreme Court addressed them.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, but... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:20:50 AM EST
    Whatever balance the legislature
    strikes, however, uncertainty on the point makes the
    argument for the penalty less compelling than for homicide
    crimes.

     I am not sure I agree.  We're now in a situation where life without the possibility of parole is not an eighth amendment violation for possessing a lot of cocaine with intent, but the death penalty is per se unavailable for the rape of a child, regardless of the age? Regardless of an alternative statutory scheme that would permit the weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors beyond the elements of the offense, unlike the LA statute? And at the same time we're going to reserve the question when it comes to crimes, like treason, etc., against the state?

     I am opposed to the DP for everything, mind you, but whether the Court got this particular case right...I dunno.  A more limited decision may have been appropriate. Or, alternatively, a decision that just came out and said "death is different, all the time...don't sweat, drug kingpins, kidnappers and traitors."  

     This just seems a little muddy.

    [ Parent ]

    The fact that the victim is NOT dead is a major (4.78 / 14) (#80)
    by differnet on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:58:18 PM EST
    factor in the "cruel and unusual" qualification for the death penalty.  The problem with applying this punishment to rape is that it assumes that the victime just might as well be dead.  It implies that rape makes the victim unredeemable.  It's a hold-over from the paternalistic and chattle treatment of a virginity as property.  A rape victim was "ruined" and no one would ever consider marrying her.  She was looked at as both and object of pity, but also as one of scorn.  

    Rape is NOT death.  Rape is not even soul-death.  It's a horrible, horrible thing that can happen to a person, but it is not death.  

    [ Parent ]

    Good point (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by massdem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:35:04 AM EST
    My first thought upon hearing this decision was that it if an offender did rape a child, and he knew he was then eligible for the death penalty, wouldn't that be an incentive to kill her to keep her from testifying against him later?  

    [ Parent ]
    I really hope (none / 0) (#140)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:19:27 AM EST
    that the Supreme Court did not use that research to form their opinion because it has no bearing on whether these laws are Constitutional or not.

    [ Parent ]
    That's a good point. (none / 0) (#206)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:35:14 AM EST
    A draconian punishment for certain crimes may on balance increase the level of violence.

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you!! (none / 0) (#47)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:29:50 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Will this man stand firm on anything? (5.00 / 7) (#36)
    by FemB4dem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:18:03 PM EST
    Obama from "The Audacity of Hope" in 2006 -- "I believe there are some crimes--mass murder, the rape and murder of a child--so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment."

    Obama today -- "I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for most egregious of crimes. I think that the rape of a small child, six or eight years old is a heinous crime, and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances, the death penalty is at least potentially applicable."

    Uh huh.  So tell me again why we can trust him on anything he says?

    It's bad enough the Democratic nominee is for the death penalty in any circumstances, but that's where we find ourselves these days.  But to come out for it when no one has died from the crime, when such a statement is totally unnecessary and contrary to a position you took earlier?  What is this about, exactly -- is he just trying to prove he's not Mr. "Most Liberal Senator?" Ugh.

    Expression of (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:00:13 AM EST
    community outrage?  Is that what this should be about?

    I reject that idea utterly.  "Outrage" should not be on any liberal/progressive's list of justifications for the DP or anything else, for that matter.

    Yech.

    [ Parent ]

    that is what bothers me so often when (none / 0) (#182)
    by hellothere on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:22:00 AM EST
    i see politicans and even shows on tv regarding the death penalty. i am not an attorney here but aren't the laws supposed to be a barrier to the emotional reactions of the public and or even family and friends?

    [ Parent ]
    No, (2.00 / 1) (#187)
    by massdem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:37:49 AM EST
    not the audacity of hope - it's the audacity of grope (for whatever's politically expedient at the time).

    [ Parent ]
    Fembrdem, if that is your ... (none / 0) (#192)
    by Tortmaster on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:11:26 AM EST
    ... real name, ;), I disagree with Obama's stance on the death penalty, but you are really reaching for something to complain about with that silly argument.

    Are you saying that Obama believed in "A" and "B";

    Then, he gave a statement only about "B" (because "A" was not applicable);

    And the statement about "B" was congruent with what he said before;

    Therefore, he is flip-flopping?

    That's a huge reach. Will you say anything to see Obama not get elected?  

    You can bet that John McCain is going to install the types of justices in the Supreme Court, like Scalia, who will impose the death penalty for as many crimes as possible, who will reverse Roe v. Wade, and who will put a gun in the pocket of every American.

    [ Parent ]

    it'll be interesting to see how obama's comments (none / 0) (#208)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:38:11 AM EST
    poll.  He's a fairly clever and sharp operator.

    [ Parent ]
    Illinois (5.00 / 6) (#40)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:25:09 PM EST
    I'm from Illinois and after all the mess we had over innocent people on Death Row, former Gov. Ryan imposed a moritorium on capital punishment. Obama was in our state Congress at the time and I didn't hear any complaints from him about it then. I have a sick feeling in my stomach that we "progressive's" are progressing the wrong way.

    Absolutely (none / 0) (#58)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:37:57 PM EST
    It was the Governor of Il, not Obama.  His record as far as criminal justice was all over the place and he, in fact, voted over and over again to increase mandatory sentences.  Despite claiming credit for the legislation for videotaping interrogations, he is a defense attorney's nightmare.  This was his an excerpt of his voting record in IL:

    In an August 19, 2004 entry on Obama's website he bragged about being tough on drugs:
    During 8 years in the state senate, Senator Obama has repeatedly voted for tougher penalties for drug offenders. [HB 3387, 5/13/03; P.A. 93-0546; SB 1793, 3/21/03; P.A. 93-0223; HB 2347, 5/6/99; P.A. 91-0336; HB 3170, 5/7/98; P.A. 90-0674; HB 1278, 5/14/99; P.A. 91-0403; SB 0105, 3/23/99; P.A. 91-0263; HB 2843, 5/20/03; P.A. 93-0596; 93rd GA, SB 2447, 3/25/04; P.A. 93-0884; SB 1578, 3/24/03; P.A. 93-0297; SB1028, 4/2/98; SB 1028, 5/19/98, SC HA1,4; P.A. 90-0775; HB 0070, 5/16/97; P.A. 90-0382; HB 2844, 5/13/03; P.A. 93-0340; HB 3073, 4/4/00; P.A. 91-0802; HB 0252, 5/7/99; P.A. 91-0366; HB 5652, 5/9/02; SB 1332, 2/24/00; P.A. 91-0899; HB 4245, 5/7/02; P.A. 92-0698; SB 0014, 5/20/97, SC HA1; P.A. 90-0397; SB 0003, 4/6/01; HB 2015, 5/9/97; P.A. 90-0164; SB 1011, 4/5/01; SB 1224, 3/24/98; HB 2030, 5/15/97; P.A. 90-0557]

    He also voted "present" for a bill that allowed trying children, age 15, as adults, subjecting them to adult prison.

    To me, Obama is a right winger on criminal law.

    [ Parent ]

    he's not a right winger (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:43:49 PM EST
    but he's not a progressive either. He did do excellent work for innocent in Illinois. But constitutional rights must be afforded to everyone, not just the innocent.

    For a specific and detailed analyis of Obama's views on defendant's rights, it's all laid out here -- with sources.

    [ Parent ]

    thanks for the link (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:38:34 AM EST
    That is certainly the best synopsis I have seen of Obama's many positions on criminal justice.  

    [ Parent ]
    Obama was never a progressive (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by stefystef on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:59:44 AM EST
    and there are more articles talking about Obama moving to the center.

    The progressive tried to co-opt his campaign and Obama used them to get him through the primaries.  Now, Obama's flipping to make the money guys happy and the so-called progressive left is going to have to suck it up.

    Like they tell Hillary supporters,  I'm telling the disappointed Obama followers- get over it and fall in line.  

    [ Parent ]

    he's not much of left winger (none / 0) (#209)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:39:42 AM EST
    he will not go to the end on any big cause.

    [ Parent ]
    As the Democratic (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:51:53 PM EST
    primaries drew to a close, I think we all realized that we had seen the Death of Unity.

    With all the flip flopping and pandering of the last week or two (has a candidate ever performed such acrobatics in such a short period of time? Isn't this the quadruple axle of political turn arounds?), shouldn't we now declare the Death of Change as well?

    Have the media ever let them do it so much? (none / 0) (#211)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:40:59 AM EST
    The rest if the Dem field would have been flayed for similar acrobatic performances.

    [ Parent ]
    What this reminds me of (5.00 / 10) (#93)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:23:02 AM EST
    This will be a long comment.

    I hope it doesn't appear too off topic.

    In some ways this is about how people deal with disagreement and political expedience, and such.  And as much as I really don't want to do this, I will.

    First of all, I don't think Obama is endorsing the death penalty on any particular level.  What he's doing is BUYING A RIGHT WING FRAME on a situation that would never, in all liklihood exist, and he's doing that for the soul purpose of inoculating himself against the accusation that he's soft on, of all things, child rape.

    That is my reaction to his statement on this issue.  Hopefully that keeps this on topic.

    But now I will go on a tangent and address the thing that's happening here in these threads.

    What this reminds me of is one of Clinton's answers on torture.  She was asked, if one could be absolutely sure that crucial information could be obtained that would save 1000s of lives, would she condone torture?  And, to address that "narrow" (note Obama uses the same word) circumstance, instead of giving a long answer about how such a situation would never exist, she said "yes."  Insofar as that hypothetical situation would exist.

    This inoculates her against the accusation that she's soft on terrorism.  

    So guess how the Obama movement responded on that answer?  The spread the lie that Clinton is pro-torture.

    This is why I think the Obamablogs and the movement that Obama embraced is a movement of lies.

    This is why I have continued to keep going back to this theme.  And I would contrast that with what we see here.  If TL, and the good people who participate at TL were TRULY obamablog counterparts, they would not merely be expressing dissappointment and questioning Obama's resolve.

    If TL patron's were truly Obamablog counterparts, TL regulars would be pushing the lie, right here and now, that Obama is PRO-DEATH PENALTY in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.

    So Obama supporters should take a chill pill on this outrage they're manufacturing about how people are too unfair to Obama.

    Besides, given that he did SELL himself as something different, as transformational, so expressing dissappointment, observing that he is NO DIFFERENT AT ALL seems all the more appropriate.  All the more deserving.

    Personally, speaking only for myself, as far as I understand politics and wedge issues, issues we still all care about, I have no problem with Obama's statement today.

    Why I didn't want to do this is because while I have no problem with the statement Obama made today, because I know his campaign, the movement itself spent so much time lying about Clinton, what would make me happy, what I think Obama deserves is for someone to take the statement he made above:

    "I disagree with the decision. I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for most egregious of crimes."

    And do this with it:

    "I disagree with the decision. I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied ..... for ....crimes."

    That would be giving back to the Obama movement what it has given the world.

    A despicable way of talking about politics and the politicians we hope to support.


    yeah it' siilly innit? (none / 0) (#212)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:42:17 AM EST
    Senator are you soft on child rape?

    Why no I think it should apply...

    [ Parent ]

    Why is Obama pandering so hard (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by frankly0 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:23:05 AM EST
    on this issue as well as others, and being so eager to throw out even basic, minimal progressive beliefs -- principles that even a very conservative SC feel must guide their decisions?

    Because, I think, he knows he's in the fight of his life for the Presidency -- a contest that should have been a cakewalk for a Democrat in this election cycle, but which is clearly going to be a great struggle for Obama.

    Adopting this sort of position is what Obama feels he must do because of the great damage that has been inflicted on his image over Wright, Bittergate, etc.

    He knows how much he is regarded as a radical left elitist. This is an attempt to pull his image in the other direction.

    And that's how an Obama Presidency is likely to shape up as well. He will take positions that compensate for his poor image.

    Suffice it to say, those will not be positions progressives will admire.

    I anticipate wild tacking back and forth for Obama for the remainder of his campaign, and throughout his Presidency, should that ever come to pass.

    One way to think of it: (5.00 / 7) (#97)
    by frankly0 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:26:52 AM EST
    if Obama had more personal appeal to voters across the spectrum, he could take more consistently progressive positions and retain his viability as a political leader.

    Because he lacks that appeal with broad swaths of the American electorate, he's going to have to throw all manner of principles (and people) under the bus just to keep his head above water. (Metaphors are more fun when mixed).

    [ Parent ]

    Nail on the head (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:09:47 AM EST
    you just hit.  I think that's exactly right.  The appeal that he's accumulated is there precisely because from the beginning, he very calculatedly decided not to run on actual issues and values, but simply his own personal magnificence.

    I think it's very clear this was the deliberate, thought-out strategy from the very beginning of his candidacy.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, (5.00 / 6) (#188)
    by frankly0 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:38:40 AM EST
    I think you're certainly right that Obama's idea was to run his campaign on personality.

    What I don't think he and his campaign have come to realize is just how limited in appeal his personality really is.

    Certainly there are millions of Democrats -- not to mention Independents and Republicans -- who find him distastefully cold and superior in attitude.

    This shortfall in personal appeal gives his pandering on issues of policy special urgency.

    [ Parent ]

    Iowans are geniuses (none / 0) (#213)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:43:44 AM EST
    yes they are.

    [ Parent ]
    I just deleted another comment (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:01:05 AM EST
    asking about Hillary's position on this ruling. That is irrelevant to this thread which is about the decision and Obama's response to it. Once again, off topic comments will be deleted.

    You (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by Nadai on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:25:04 AM EST
    really have my sympathy for all this, Jeralyn.  Moderating these threads must take up an enormous amount of your time and energy.  Thank you for doing it; the comment threads here are so much better for it.

    [ Parent ]
    hey jer, they are on Auto pilot (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:46:24 AM EST
    I'm guilty from time to time myself of going off without knowing i'm doing it. , but the Obama fans don't realize they have to keep the leftwing happy too.

    Seriously what does Hillary have to do with this?

    [ Parent ]

    WSWS on Obama's attack on Supreme Court decision (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Andreas on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:37:04 AM EST
    The WSWS writes:

    In an action that combines cynical political opportunism and outright reaction, Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, has publicly denounced Wednesday's decision by the US Supreme Court outlawing the execution of people convicted of child rape. ...

    Obama's rush to embrace the right-wing minority on the Supreme Court is a clear demonstration of his political trajectory. Having become the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee--and given the overwhelming popular hostility to the Bush administration and the Republican Party, in a strong position to win the White House--he is moving rapidly to the right, seeking to demonstrate his reliability and fitness to govern from the standpoint of the financial aristocracy that really rules America.

    In this context, the most pernicious role is played by those who bolster illusions in the "progressive" character of Obama and Democratic Party, even as their right-wing orientation is openly displayed.

    Obama attacks US Supreme Court decision barring death penalty for child rape
    By Patrick Martin, 26 June 2008

    Ha! WSWS... (3.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:02:46 AM EST
    has the audacity to say this?

    he is moving rapidly to the right, seeking to demonstrate his reliability and fitness to govern from the standpoint of the financial aristocracy that really rules America.

     The "financial aristocracy" that rules America, i.e., monied interests and their lobbyists, are not primarily concerned with this issue, me thinks.  The socialist desire to transform everything into a class warfare issue is bewildering.  I wonder what they thought of his SF "bittergate" episode?


    [ Parent ]