June 25, 2008
SCOTUS strikes down child-rape death penalty
In a 5-4 split along predictible lines, the Supreme Court has struck down a sentence of execution for a man convicted of raping his own 8-year old stepdaughter.
Let's be clear: this conduct is reprehensible. Also, as anyone who knows me can tell you, I'm generally in favor of the death penalty. I have problems with the procedures used to apply it, but I think it's the most just response to egregious homicide.
That said, I'm of two mines about this opinion. I really want to side with the majority in this case, because executing rapists violates eye-for-eye. Outside multiplicative compensatory damages, which are clearly supported in Scripture, outright punishment for personal injury should not exceed the injury intended. If the prosecution cannot prove that a rapist intended to kill his victim. . . I don't think execution should be on the table.
On the other hand, I find Justice Alito's legal argument quite persuasive. The holding and dicta Coker are broad enough that states quite reasonably believed that the Supreme Court would take a dim view of any attempt to execute rapists. I'm not at all convinced that there is a "national consensus" against such executions. And as I don't think the Court is supposed to dictate such consensus, as it seems to be doing here, I think the correct legal result would probably have been to uphold the sentence.
I probably would have filed a concurring opinion. I think the majority's legal reasoning is weak, even though I agree with the result.
Moral proclivities aside, the decision makes sense from a technical standpoint. Otherwise, I find it very difficult to swallow. And I'm no advocate of the death penalty.
Mass politicization of this case in 5...4...3...2...1...
I'm pretty much on Alito's side for this one. There are several instances in which Scripture itself goes beyond an eye for an eye (which was intended as a limit on personal vengeance) in its justice codes. Among these are prescriptions of death for sexual crimes such as adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality. I suspect that, in these cases, the perpetrator rarely intended the death of his victim. Perhaps you could argue that these are all part of the Mosaic theocracy and, therefore, not applicable to contemporary jurisprudence; unlike the death penalty for murder that was part of a renewed creation mandate after the flood. Even so, I wouldn't find that strong enough reason to object to a society (Louisiana, in this case) executing child rapists if it wanted to.
Posted by: Kevin at June 28, 2008 3:20 PMKevin, that's largely it. There are many things which would merit the covenant death penalty--actual execution in the Old Testament, excommunication in the New--which do not merit such from earthly governments.
I really am of two minds about this. I'm equally dissatisfied with either outcome.
Posted by: ryan at June 29, 2008 2:55 PM