prison archive at Haemet

The Supreme Court released its decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana today. The majority opinion (written by Justice Kennedy, who was joined by the four other liberal justices) stated that Louisiana cannot constitutionally execute a child rapist (even in the case of aggravated rape), as that would be “cruel and unusual punishment.”

Justice Alito, who was joined by CJ Roberts, Justice Thomas, and Justice Scalia, wrote a spirited, tough, and intellectual dissent.

Very quick analysis:

When the Eighth Amendment was written, rape was a capital crime. If the Framers meant to permit only the death penalty for murder, they would have done so.
The Fifth Amendment mentions “capital crime” once, and mentions “depriv[ation] of life” twice. Obviously, the Constitution clearly contemplates a legal death penalty.
The liberals on the Supreme Court use various tests to show that their policy decisions are correct, with little regard for the underlying logic, consistency, or appropriateness of using those tests. Six states (of the 36 that have the death penalty) permit the execution of child rapists. States cannot, as per the 1977 Coker decision, execute those who rape adult women. It is illogical to declare that a substantial minority constitutes something so unusual as to be outlawed. Furthermore, states have begun to consider expanding the death penalty to encompass crimes that do not involve murder, which would show that our all-important “evolving standards of decency” are moving in the direction of greater protection of our children and a greater awareness of the horrors of rape. (Oddly, liberals have just written a Supreme Court opinion which is the jurisprudential equivalent of “If rape is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it.”)
States are meant to be laboratories of experimentation. Policy questions - and empirical questions - about the validity of capital punishment for heinous crimes that do not result in death, or about the deterrent effect of capital punishment - are those best left to the states. We cannot know whether or not the death penalty for child rape will have the desired effect of reducing child molestation, or will have the undesired effect of ensuring that the perpetrator kills the child. We can never find out, however, until such laws are put into place.
Embezzlers, drug users, robbers, prostitutes, johns, and arsonists all believe that child rape is such a horrible crime that it is worthy of death. If those among us who are the least likely to view the strong arm of the law as valid also cry for the strongest possible punishment for this crime, a very clear, universal revulsion of this crime has been established.
It is legal to use deadly force to protect yourself against both murder and rape. While there is always a fundamental distinction between individual and state action, it is ridiculous to state that a governmental body may not impose the death penalty upon rapists, as such is “cruel and unusual,” but that same governmental body ought to allow individuals to protect themselves from rape by using deadly force.
As an aside: conservatives ought to bring this up when told that we only care about children who are in the womb.

Sphere: Related Content

Question: When you think of a facility for sex-offenders which is described as “a structured environment with close supervision by professionals and observation by their peers… a tight web of supervision, treatment, surveillance”, what comes to mind?

Call me crazy, but I can’t think of a better structured environment with professional supervision and surveillance for these disgusting, perverted freaks of nature than a prison.

Well, apparently there is a debate currently going on in Colorado about what to do with sex-0ffenders who have been released from prison but still have high likelihoods of recidivism. This article tells the sad story of five poor little sex-offenders who tried to live together in a Denver suburb.

It all began in 1999 when five men dutifully went to the Lakewood Police Department to register as sex offenders.

Each gave the same address, which grabbed the attention of city officials, who quickly took action to close the house. Soon the City Council passed an ordinance permitting only one sex offender to live in a house in a residential area.

Lakewood’s approach spread like wildfire, with 16 other metro- area cities promptly passing similar regulations.

The citizens of Lakewood were obviously unhappy with the concentration of disgusting, perverted freaks of nature and therefore passed a law restricting said concentration. The five poor little sex-offenders were obviously offended and upset. They were living together for accountability and a stable environment. I’m sure it had nothing to do with the two teenage boys living in the house next door, frequently unsupervised, let alone the other families and children in the neighborhood. So, the five poor, little sex-offenders moved away into a different group home for other disgusting, perverted freaks of nature like themselves.

Here’s the plot twist:

But governments that passed laws over the past few years to keep sex offenders from living in group homes in their jurisdictions may have done so at the cost of public safety.

A number of studies, including one released last month by the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, conclude that restricting where offenders may live does not prevent repeat sex crimes.

Instead, the restrictions encourage sex offenders to “disappear,” blending into communities where they live in the privacy essential to committing new sex crimes, the studies say.

“Frankly, sex offenders like being told they can’t be around other sex offenders,” said Greig Veeder, executive director of Teaching Humane Existence, a sex offender treatment program. “It ruins their privacy. They can’t commit their crimes unless they have privacy.

Moral of the story? The laws against sex-offenders concentrating in residential areas backfired. Studies are now showing that these disgusting, perverted freaks of nature are less likely to re-offend if they live in “group homes” with 24-hour surveillance and staff, treatment, and accountability.

What keeps that from happening is having sex offenders living in a structured environment with close supervision by professionals and observation by their peers, English said.

“Residency restrictions prevent us from having sex offenders living together,” Veeder said, “but 25 years of my experience and significant research all support that the more you can make them live together, the easier it is to control them.

“It’s far better to have snakes in a basket than running around loose in the yard.”

The Colorado research, based on a 2004 survey of sex offenders, found that high-risk sex offenders living in shared living arrangements had significantly fewer probation and criminal violations than those living in other living arrangements.

Violations also were more quickly reported because of the heightened peer and professional oversight. Quick reporting is essential for speedy action to protect potential victims, the study noted.

“Offenders hold each other accountable for their actions and responsibilities and notify the appropriate authorities when a roommate commits certain behavior, such as returning home late or having contact with children,” the 2004 Colorado report said.

Again, call me crazy, but doesn’t that sound a lot like prison? These disgusting, perverted freaks of nature should obviously not be allowed outside barbed wire fences when they have such a high rate of recidivism. Group homes? Warm fuzzies by being accountable to your new best friend forever if you come home late or snuggle with children? Whatever. I say forget the baskets, keep the snakes in the slammer.

Sphere: Related Content