41 Comments

• 1. Eric T  |  June 26th, 2008 at 7:29 am

  “This ruling also provides us with another strong reason for voting for John McCain in November”.

  Mark, I can’t agree with you more. I wasn’t able to find out how each judge voted except one.

  In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote “the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child,” despite the horrendous nature of the crime.

  I just can’t agree with this guy. Death Penalty will deter child rape.

  Our country can do better than this, some of these liberal judges go way too far to the left.
  In My state it cost about $30,000 per person a year to keep someone in prison. When people prove they can’t function in society, and are a danger to others. There is no reason to soak the taxpayers to keep these people in prison for life. I really think public executions would drastically reduce crime. And the prisoners who are non violent offenders should be working on the farms and doing the work those illegal immigrants are doing, to help pay for what they are costing the tax payers.

  Visualize after watching Jepordy on T.V. A new show appears ” Wheel of Misfortune” the convict comes out explains to the audiance why he is no longer deserves to be a part of society. Then spins the wheel- on the wheel, the options of- the noose, electric chain, firing squad, guilteen, lethal injection.

  I’d be willing to bet that crime rates would be greatly reduced.

• 2. Zach  |  June 26th, 2008 at 8:48 am

  I just shake my head about this…

  I believe that the death penalty is disproportionate to the crime because it is not harsh enough. The damage that these people do to young girls and boys is catastrophic.

  When I see people oppose Jessica’s law, and oppose being able to sentence rapists to the death penalty, it makes me unbelieveably pissed off.

  Either put them in solitary in Alaska for the rest of their lives…Or give them the axe.

• 3. Some Assembly Required  |  June 26th, 2008 at 8:59 am

  “Either put them in solitary in Alaska for the rest of their lives…”

  Completely agree with this. Or ship them off to Siberia. But I’m against the death penalty for anyone. Personally, I think it’s the easy way out for some of these sick people. Throw them in solitary for the rest of their life. Add a Co*kmeat sandwich on Thursdays and penetration demonstrations on Tuesdays. They deserve no less. The same goes for terrorists.

• 4. extramedium  |  June 26th, 2008 at 9:04 am

  “America does need a large dose of ‘mind your own business’ education.”

  I’m encouraged by this and agree 100%. If people would just mind their own damn business and stop telling everyone else how to live, we’d all get along a lot better. Can we stop telling other states whether they can let gay people get married now? Or whether people can own guns? Or whether or not people can have abortions? Or pray in their schools?

  Over time, we’ll simply migrate to states which are a good fit for our values, and we’ll all be happier. The Left - are you in? The Right - are you in?

• 5. Zach  |  June 26th, 2008 at 9:27 am

  Siberia would be nice too!

• 6. hermie  |  June 26th, 2008 at 9:37 am

  Obama can claim he doesn’t like the ruling, but he has already said he would appoint Judges that would interpret the law along the lines that the Left wants.

  The same thinking that let terrorists have the right of going through criminal trials, and allows for child rapists to be punished only by methods that 5 members of the SCOTUS approve of.

  But it’s a no-brainer for Obama. He’s not going to side with child rapists. But let’s pin him down on capital punishment…Is he for it or against it?

• 7. Retired Spook  |  June 26th, 2008 at 10:34 am

  More Supreme Court news. Color me shocked (and pleasantly surprised).

• 8. clark smith  |  June 26th, 2008 at 10:48 am

  I’d like to remind everyone that I am an opponent of the death penalty - killing the SOB who raped a child won’t actually help the raped child and by putting the criminal at risk of death for rape we merely, in my view, increase the risk that it will be a rape/murder in order to dispose of the prime witness to the crime. Should such a proposal come up here in Nevada, I would work against it and vote against it […].

  I disagree strenuously with Mark Noonan. The death penalty is the only just punishment for so heinous a crime. Anything less is a blot upon our judicial system and society, and a grievous miscarriage of justice.

• 9. Tractatus  |  June 26th, 2008 at 11:32 am

  the Supreme Court has ruled itself smarter than the people of Louisiana in this matter.

  Is that your stock phrase for anytime a court overturns a previous decision? Or is that just your stock phrase you trot out when a court overturns a previous decision you agreed with? Smart money’s on the latter.

• 10. OhioOrrin  |  June 26th, 2008 at 11:34 am

  the logic of the SCALIA court was that no one has been executed IN OVER 40 YRS w/o the victim being killed.

  I agree w this logic as horrible as child rape is.

• 11. Republican minds want to know.  |  June 26th, 2008 at 12:09 pm

  There are two reasons why people are sentenced to punishment for breaking the law: rehabilitation and retribution. In a civilized society I think that rehabilitation does have its place, there are people that screw up, serve there time and are then allowed a second chance. Then there are people that commit acts so heinous that the American people demand, and are justified in demanding, retribution.

  As much as I would love to believe that the death sentence deters others from committing the same crime, the stats just don’t back it up; bad people do bad things regardless of consequence. The bottom line truth to the matter is I want these people to suffer the death penalty because it makes me feel better knowing that the people that commit crimes of this nature are just simply dead. As much as anyone would like to dress this up in politics I think you would be hard pressed to find a parent anywhere who, after taking just a couple of seconds to think of what it would be like if it were their child, wouldn’t agree with this.

• 12. Zach  |  June 26th, 2008 at 1:07 pm

  I agree Republican Minds.

  I’m not saying that every rapist should ge given the death penalty. I can see both sides to this arguement, sometimes my emotions about people who commit crimes like this overides my ability to consider smarter solutions. I think the death penalty should always be at least something that is on the table when dealing with child rapists. Period.

  I’m all in favor of harsh manditory minimums, hard labor, no chance of parole. And I’m serious about my earlier comments about solitary in the middle of Alaska somewhere, or evern Siberia as SAR opined.

  On the flipside of that though, I get frustrated to think that my tax dollars are being used to keep scum like that alive and healthy.

• 13. Dasein Libsbane  |  June 26th, 2008 at 1:49 pm

  There are two things to consider with this ruling; the first being the right of the Supreme Court to apply standard other than the Constitution, rule of law or precedence to their ruling and the other is the right of the people of a State to determine when penalties are appropriate. The “right or wrong” of the death penalty is not the issue here.

  In the majority opinion Justice Kennedy offered two reasons for the decision, 1) the disproportionate penalty and 2) the “consensus” of States do not apply this penalty to this crime. Therefore, the punishment falls under “cruel and unusual.”

  Disproportionate is neither a Constitutional ruling, nor based on precedence; there is no prohibition on punishing a criminal greater or lesser than a victim; and by what standard is the Court deciding that the punishment is disproportionate, “An eye for an eye”? If that be the case should we rape the rapist, mutilate the assaulter, or kill everyone that takes another life regardless of the circumstances? That application simply does not exist within the Court’s prevue.

  The “consensus” argument is predicated upon the idea that abandonment of a punishment the Justices find distasteful or even objectionable is an enlightenment and maturation of society. Consider the arrogance of this logic, five individuals have determined that theirs is the correct opinion and only those that agree have grown and matured as a society. By their very argument they are flawed because it was by consensus that Louisiana wrote the legislation codifying this penalty. The justices are now in the position of declaring theirs is the enlightened and pontificates to the people the error of their ways; this is also not within the authority of the Court.

  This will be revisited by another Court and the next time the decision will be different; like Kelo, Dred Scott, and Plessy v. Ferguson, this decision cannot stand forever.

• 14. JustAnotherTaxpayer  |  June 26th, 2008 at 2:17 pm

  To all,

  There is more than meets the eye, here. Much more.
  Here you liberals, religious and secular, go again.
  Noonan, representing the old testamenters, says this is wrong because the wrong verdict was reached, and that therefore, this is the product of juducial activisists going against the constititution.
  The secularists, or perhaps, new testamenters, believe that further violence will not help the situation. Asserting your position is definitley the braver stance, certainly not the most easily defended position in this circumstance.
  I say the 10th amendment has been trampled on once again. The rights of a state to adjuctate what the founding fathers had thought the proper buisiness of the people of the several states has once again been trampled upon. If the people of Louisiana had been left to decide the matter for themselves, one more monster would have been on their way to the judgement seat.
  Just as when the justices inserted themselves into the electoral process in 2000, the court has once again asserted that a single standard trumps the federal system established by the founding fathers, and further eroded the right of the people to have things decided by their elected officals.
  The court could have tossed the election back to the elected officials of the state of Florida, or congress, and simply ordered the judiciary, state and federal, to stay out of it. Since the Florida state house, and Congress were both dominated by repubs, Bush would have been elected. But the US supreme court was suddenly turned into a tool of partisans on the court, leaving many to ask, what would have happened if it was Gore and Bush position were reversed? Would the court have found “irreperable harm to the country” Scalia cited in his majority opinion if it were the dem position? Doubtful.
  And by inserting itself into this morass, the court has sullied itself, perhaps beyond redemption for several decades to come.
  The founding fathers for practical, and philisophical reasons, looked to vigorous federal system of laws, where the fed mostly acted as an arbiter of interstate disputes.
  The practical reason, as at the time of the founding of the republic, was that most of the power, miltary, economic, etc resided with the states. There would have been no US if something like the Bi-cameral legislature we now have where one house is represented by pop, and the other is represented by state, 2 senators per, so the rights of all states, big and small might be respected.
  The philisophical reason, and the genius behind the founding fathers reasoning for structuring the balance oif power btween the fed and the staes as they did, was that they realized that were real differences between the various states and the regions states reperesented.
  Different histories, cultural mores etc , and different ways of approaching problems that each state or region would embrace. Allowing each state or region to decide on how best to approach problems, while the feds acting as a mediator between these various states and regions would get these states interact with each other in a harmonious, however, uneasy fashion.
  In addition, the founding fathers hoped that change could be brought about peacefully as those states that proved dmost prosperous would inspire emulation from those less prosperous. As these states grew in influence, they would, of course, dominate and bring about change on the federal level. Thus, economic and social progres could be accomodated with in the union.
  With secession, Lincoln found himself in the unenviable position of trying to figure out how to keep two regions of the country so different in culture and history together in a single effective Union. Lincoln genuinly felt that the best hope for all future generations was Union. At any cost. The only course left to him was force of arms.
  The court left him no choice, as its intractable majority lead by chief Justice Taney, made the abysmally reasoned Dred Scott decision, left the court with no authority, indeed appearing not to be wanting any authority outside the south, or rather, in the eyes of northern abolitionists, to make the importation of Southern culture acceptable to all parts of the Union.
  He, of course, failed miserably, and rightly so. However, by advocating for a single standard when there so many ready to take up arms to defend another standard, the court helped precipitate a war.

  More later

• 15. Dasein Libsbane  |  June 26th, 2008 at 2:36 pm

  The court could have tossed the election back to the elected officials of the state of Florida, or congress, and simply ordered the judiciary, state and federal, to stay out of it.

  They did, in Bush v. Gore by a vote of 7-2 the SC declared that SCFla overstepped their authority (violating the Equal Protection Clause), and the legislature of the State of Florida had the authority and responsibility to set the standard by which they selected their electors. The 5-4 split was on the remedy which SC ruled that there wasn’t time based on the Legislators’ decree for the SC of Fla to author a remedy.

  In essence, the SC did exactly what you accuse them of not doing!

• 16. OhioOrrin  |  June 26th, 2008 at 3:26 pm

  JAT - it is constitutionally proper 4 the SCOTUS to resolve differences bet appelate & state courts.

• 17. Andrew  |  June 26th, 2008 at 3:37 pm

  I think that despite whatever you may think of the Bush presidency, or Bush himself, his lasting legacy, and the thing that may make him one of the most effective presidents in history, is that he put two conservatives on the supreme court. They will be on that court for the next 35 years. That’s an amazing accomplishment.
  I’ve always said the more interesting debate is: even if liberals are correct in their belief that Bush started the war because he knew it would get him re-elected, and 4000 Americans have died needlessly in the process, wasn’t it worth it, simply based on the fact that by being re-elected he was then able to appoint Roberts and Alito?
  Stated another way, if someone were to come up to you today and say, “if you could get a couple more conservatives supreme court justices on the bench, who would rule in favor of big business and conservative values, in exchange for 4000 Americans (none of whom you really know) dying over the next four years,” would you do it? Would it be worth it? When you throw in the fact that our tax rates would stay down, doesn’t it become a no-brainer?
  I mean, I think I’ve benefited greatly by Bush having been in office, simply based on the tax rates alone. Yeah, in public I’ll talk about how the world is safer and all that, and that he had to start the war, and McCain has to continue it, and we shouldn’t cut and run, etc. But I don’t really believe that. What I really think is that I’ve saved lots of money, and I wouldn’t have if people had been wise enough to see through Bush and his claim that we needed to start the war. In the process, my kids haven’t been drafted, because apparently the war’s not so important that we would draft rich, cute-as-button white girls, like my daughters. 4000 Americans have died, that’s true, but to most of us, they’re faceless, aren’t they? So it seems to me that Mark can talk about patriotism and all that rah-rah stuff, but I would bet that financially he’s making out much better than if a Democrat was in office, and that’s a big motivator for him.
  Also, another thing: is anybody bothered by the fact that McCain, the candidate of the party of family values, dumped his wife because she shrunk?

• 18. js  |  June 26th, 2008 at 4:08 pm

  The execution of a person for a crime is a drastic step. The only difference between death and life in a maximum security prison is cost. America’s jails are full of drug offenders. We would be far better off to remove jail sentences for the use of illegal drugs, and reduce parole release for early offenders, if not totally remove the possibility for parole.

  Putting a 19 year old kid in a jail for selling pot to his friend ruins a life. Save the room and keep the rapists and violent offenders in prison for thier full term, without the possibility of parole.

• 19. Eric T  |  June 26th, 2008 at 4:28 pm

  Andrew-

  What you said about Bush’s judges is right, definately an important piece of the Bush legacy. Think about it with Kerry or Gore, leftists judges would have taken away the 2nd Amendment today!!!! So in a sense you can thank George W for protecting the 2nd Amendment, by installing judges that are pro-freedom, pro-liberty, pro-constitution. Had a the tyrannical big government leftists continued on with the Clinton Gun ban, Waco, Ruby Ridge. We’d be living in a country with a government that resembles Chinese style communism.

  God Bless George W Bush!!!!

• 20. Andrew  |  June 26th, 2008 at 4:38 pm

  So Eric, don’t you agree with me that it was worth the sacrifice of the 4000 minorities and lower class kids who died in Iraq?

• 21. JustAnotherTaxpayer  |  June 26th, 2008 at 4:49 pm

  Weather or not the court could have done anything to prevent the war is debatable. However, the point is, the court did not even make a pretense of trying to do anything but serve southern slaveholders, and, as a result was a contributing factor to the begining of hostilities that may have left the union so exhausted, that by the time of Plessy, when the court could have called for a single uniform standard, instead the court let states rights prevail under the seperate but equal doctrine enunciated in 1896 Plessy vs Ferguson opinion.
  Interstingly, just as with the gun decision today, the court ignored the plain language of the constitution aserting that no constitutional issues had even been brought up. Instead, the court pronounced seperate but equal facilities a mere matter of “public policy” violating the constitution not at all.
  Stupidity, and siliness abounds when people think they don’t have to pay attention to the basic structure of our republic vis a vis the federal system, and instead go searching for the right answer for all.
  When will the court assert it’s proper roll in society as our founders saw it. It maybe a dream to the various parts of the federal system put back into action. But a 20 percentage pt drop in the DOW, and 170 a barrel oil wil finally convince the general populace that the time for the restoration of the federal system is now.

• 22. JustAnotherTaxpayer  |  June 26th, 2008 at 4:56 pm

  Deleted - off topic.

• 23. js  |  June 26th, 2008 at 5:34 pm

  the apathy people had toward slavery is the same that we see today with homosexuality and abortion

  both of them are wrong, yet, we (in our infinite wisdom) dont stand against what is wrong and let others normalize the inherent anti social behavior associated with what is wrong….and our courts are doing the same today as they did before….appeasing political influence and applying rights where none exist in the natural state of human affairs….

• 24. js  |  June 26th, 2008 at 5:36 pm

  sorry JAT

  you suppose a lie is true, so what use is anything you say on a topic of any real importance?

  the root of the tree is rotten….you have nothing to offer us

• 25. Evergreen  |  June 26th, 2008 at 5:47 pm

  The death penalty should only come into play for political assassinations or the killing of an emergency responder while aiding another individual. Capital punishment should be very rare.

  I have to think of all the rapist and “convicted murderers” that have been let go since DNA testing has been used in the courts. But as the O.J trial proved there are some inconsistencies. First off if you have money you have a better chance of saving your skin. This is were I can’t understand the far right on this issue. To them sacrificing a few innocents is ok by them.

  A child rapist should be put in jail with no chance of parole.

• 26. FmrMarine  |  June 26th, 2008 at 5:50 pm

  sar;

  >>>But I’m against the death penalty for anyone. Personally, I think it’s the easy way out>>>>

  GOOD……then you are ANTI abortion!
  As it has MURDERED 50,000,000 of your fellow citizens.

• 27. FmrMarine  |  June 26th, 2008 at 5:53 pm

  jat

  WHAT a freeking MORON !
  are you a 5th grader or just mentally ill?

• 28. neocon  |  June 26th, 2008 at 6:14 pm

  “So Eric, don’t you agree with me that it was worth the sacrifice of the 4000 minorities and lower class kids who died in Iraq?” - Andrew

  ANOTHER LIBERAL LIE. The military is primary comprised of caucasions.

  Does it matter if they die Andrew?

  And I would definitely support four more years and more conservative judges at the expense of 4000 more lives. Can I choose those lives? Andrew, you’re at the front of the line.

  peace, neocon

• 29. Ricorun  |  June 26th, 2008 at 6:25 pm

  neocon: “And I would definitely support four more years and more conservative judges at the expense of 4000 more lives.”

  Wow, what an “interesting” calculus.

• 30. FmrMarine  |  June 26th, 2008 at 7:28 pm

  rico;

  >>>judges at the expense of 4000 more lives.”

  Wow, what an “interesting” calculus.>>>

  WOW interesting worry about lost lives,
  are you equally worried about these? lets see your calculus

  3424 abortions per day! 1,249,999 a year.
  44 drunk driving deaths a DAY! 15976 a year.
  42.3 MURDERS per day! 15557 a year.
  524000 Americans have died from a 100% preventable disease AIDS.

  so a four year war in two nations 4,000 dead has you wringing your hands while IGNORING the MILLIONS lost to PREVENTABLE causes during the same period??????
  talk about fuzzy math…and fuzzy logic
  jeez what a LOON!

• 31. FmrMarine  |  June 26th, 2008 at 7:40 pm

  Eric t;

  >>>Had a the tyrannical big government leftists continued on with the Clinton Gun ban, Waco, Ruby Ridge. We’d be living in a country with a government that resembles Chinese style communism.>>>

  BINGO…dont forget little Elian Gonzales taken from that closet by HOODED ninja looking warriors in full combat regalia with MACHINE GUNS!
  Thanks marxist rats!
  thanks Klintons!

• 32. Some Assembly Required  |  June 26th, 2008 at 8:31 pm

  26. FmrMarine | June 26th, 2008 at 5:50 pm

  You got me FrmMarine. You really do. I mean if your only means for a gotcha is equating an opinion on the death penalty to an unborn fetus then I’ll give you the satisfaction of a job well done.

  You know, the problem with that arguement is that conservatives for the most part support the death penalty… do you see where I’m going with this?

  As for this topic. Handing out the death penalty to rapists would be a mistake. As it stands, if the rapists kills their victim they will get the death penalty. However, if they do not kill their victim there is a possibility of cutting a deal and maybe only getting 10 years, out after 5 with good behavior and being registered as a sex offender. Now, If you make rape a capital punishment crime it will make no difference for the rapist if the victim lives or dies. In fact, it’d make more sense to kill the victim afterwards so there is no witness.

  On the flip side, it would also provide a strong deterrent to rape.

  All in all, I think the court made the right decision here. It was a heinous crime, but from what I’ve heard, prison isn’t exactly kind to child molesters. So he’ll get his (in more ways than one) in the end.

• 33. Eric T  |  June 26th, 2008 at 8:57 pm

  Fmr Marine-

  Clinton years were terrible, everyone just sat around complaining about their taxes going up. Then he started banning stuff like M-1 Garands, SKS’s what an oppressive period in American history. Hopefully people will seek the cure from the leftness that still plagues the country.

• 34. Ricorun  |  June 26th, 2008 at 9:02 pm

  FmrMarine | June 26th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
  rico;

  >>>WOW interesting worry about lost lives,
  are you equally worried about these? lets see your calculus<<<

  3424 abortions per day! 1,249,999 a year.

  How will another 4000 deaths help?

  44 drunk driving deaths a DAY! 15976 a year.

  How will another 4000 deaths help?

  42.3 MURDERS per day! 15557 a year.

  How will another 4000 deaths help?

  524000 Americans have died from a 100% preventable disease AIDS.

  How will another 4000 deaths help?

  Do you see the problem yet? Neocon said he was willing to sacrifice 4000 lives to secure four more years of GOP control and more conservative judges. How will those deaths help secure that objective? I find the whole concept reprehensible. I find it reprehensible that you don’t. I find it even more reprehensible that neocon further to ask if he can choose the 4000. My goodness. And you don’t see a problem with that?

• 35. Ricorun  |  June 26th, 2008 at 9:16 pm

  FmrMarine | June 26th, 2008 at 7:28 pm: so a four year war in two nations 4,000 dead has you wringing your hands while IGNORING the MILLIONS lost to PREVENTABLE causes during the same period??????
  talk about fuzzy math…and fuzzy logic

  I’m not ignoring anything. I just don’t see the connection. It makes no sense at all. So I suggest you’re the one that’s using fuzzy logic based upon fuzzy math. To the extent that you make sense you might find that our opinions aren’t that far off. On the one hand the things you accuse me of not caring about I actually DO care about. On the other hand, the price you (and neocon) suggest requires paying makes no sense to me at all. In fact, that part makes me sick. And if you don’t, won’t, or can’t understand that distinction, I would argue that’s not my problem, but yours.

• 36. Eric T  |  June 26th, 2008 at 9:46 pm

  4000 dead is awful, everyone of them is a hero. Many enlisted to protect the country after the 911 attacks. Saddam defied, what 19 resolutions, making it appear he was hiding something. For all we know he could have had that stuff put on trucks and had it shipped out of there in a day or two, meanwhile our country was going back and forth debating for 9 months about what to do.
  4000 dead is awful, I wish I could bring them back. Those men and women died fighting terrorists. To keep them from bringing more terror over here.

  If a democrat was president during 911, would America have sat idle after the Trade Center was destroyed, The pentagon? What is to say that terrorists won’t attack again if Obama is President. He may have to send troops into battle to protect allies, or our own country.

• 37. Mark Noonan  |  June 27th, 2008 at 1:17 am

  extra,

  There is, though, a caveat - no State has a right to make unconstitional laws; something which directly contradicts the clear meaning of the constitution, that is. As no one may be denied their life without due process of law, no abortion is actually constitionally permissible…Roe, of course, is the prime example of a misbegotten ruling entirely opposed to both the letter and spirit of the constitution.

  Within the parameters of the constitution, the States and the people are to decide - and as the death penalty is clearly permissible under the United States constitution, the only intervention the courts should make in such cases is to ensure that the law is applied equitibly.

• 38. extramedium  |  June 27th, 2008 at 4:32 am

  Mark,

  Agreed, though in the case of abortion, the constitution does not make clear that life begins at inception. If it did, there would be no debate - abortion would simply equate to murder across the land.

  I don’t really mind if they overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states to ban abortion, as long as they don’t equate it to murder. That would require a change in the constitution which made it perfectly clear when life begins.

• 39. Andrew  |  June 27th, 2008 at 8:37 am

  Deleted - paranoid ravings of a liberal “mind”.

• 40. js  |  June 27th, 2008 at 9:11 am

  folks are really clueless sometimes…

  clinton sat in office for ears while saddam hussein thumbed his nose at us and slaughtered 1/2 million children through intentional acts of omission….and diected that another 1/2 million people, including thier families….to be executed to secure his rule…..that was one heck of a price for 8 years with a moron who could not keep his pecker in his pants and do his job right…..so dont contrast human lives that way….its not humane…

• 41. JustAnotherTaxpayer  |  June 27th, 2008 at 6:15 pm

  There is still more here than meets the eye,

  In posts 14 and 21, I laid out the case for the restoration of the federal system. But that is a technical point.
  The point for people closer to the issue is who should take the full blame for what happened. Who is responsible for the child in this case?
  This wasn’t some parolee let lose on the community by indifferent govt buearaucrats who kidnapped an innocent child playing in what loving parents thought was a secure area within their loving home.
  None of that here.
  This was a family member, a part of the victims home, brought in by the mother, and allowed there by the victims extended family.
  I know everyone would like to see the perp punished, and so would I, but punished for his part. I have no problem with surgical castration or execution.
  But what about the mother, or the extended family who was reponsible for keeping the victim safe? It was the mother who brought the perp into her “home” where the perp had access to the victim, and the extended family that let this go on.
  While it is possible that the perp might have gotten access to the victim as a stranger, most perps like this prefer their victims living with them. Most abuse of this type, like all forms of child abuse, occurs within the home.
  According to Bureau of Justice stats from 1976 to 2005, 60% of under 5 child murders were committed by a parent, 23% were killed by a male aquaintance, 7% were family relatives, and only 3% were strangers.
  It is clear that the greatest danger a child faces in the circumstance represented by Kennedy case involves the people who are responsible for keeping the child safe, and is a far more common scenario than the stranger kidnappings that get all the press.
  So how do we punish those who are responsible for giving the perps access to the victims. The state could take the children from these homes, but the foster care system is a failure, with murder sometimes occuring while a child is under foster care after having been removed from a home that has been deemed unfit by the courts.
  So who is going to take responsibility for these children who are in danger, not from the abortionist, but from the care of unfit parents?
  This child included. What did the mother do that gave this perp access to the victim, and what process does she, and the extended family need to go through to assure society that it won’t happen again? Should caregivers be held responsible, and punished for their part in these crimes.
  Even as this post dissapears into the older posts zone, would like to see it continued with anyone who cares to weigh in on the matter.
  This is a delicate and important issue, and I hope it recieves all the serious attention it deserves.
  As satisfying as executing the perp is, it won’t help if the same irresponsible parenting that brought the perp in to the home the first is allowed to the point that possibly another one these monsters is given access to the victim.