Friday February 17, 2012

Obama disagrees with Supreme Court decision outlawing death penalty for child rapists

World ( 40 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Back to top

Order by Time Order by Popularity

40 Comments

Login to comment

  • 0

    nisegaijin

    Never thought I would say that, but I agree with Mr. Obama on this one

  • 0

    kinniku

    Mr. Obama is increasingly looking like a very interesting candidate.

  • 0

    SezWho2

    Obama is an interesting candidate, yes, but not exactly the straight shooter that Bush is. I almost invariably disagree with what Bush says, but to his credit, you know where he stands.

    Obama's comment:

    I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 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 that does not violate our Constitution.

    I'm guessing, but I think people who object to capital punishment tend to support Obama. I'm also guessing, but I think that many of those people--such as myself--will give Obama a pass on this on account of the vagueness of his language and on account of the revulsion which attends the rape of a child. Sooner or later, though, he'll be required to take real stands and not rely upon ifs, careful definitions and potentials.

  • 0

    Sarge

    I'll bet if some scumbag raped Michelle, Obama would approve of the death penalty for him too.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    "“I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime."

    That's the 'Dad' in him speaking.

    Sez - "I almost invariably disagree with what Bush says, but to his credit, you know where he stands."

    As do the rest of us - we all know Bush stands with his head buried deep in the sand, shrieking about the "Reality" he is constantly shielded from by his advisors.

    Not that I've got anything against Mr. Bush....... :-)

  • 0

    SezWho2

    Sarge,

    I don't know if that's true or not, but it strikes me as being pointless. We make laws and mete punishments so that individual feelings do not bias our judgment.

    If you are advocating capital punishment for all cases of rape, that is a different thing. I wouldn't support that idea but it at least takes us out of the personal. If not, there are any number of men who would "approve" the death penalty in the event that their wives (or children) were raped.

    In my own case, I have difficulty imagining how I would feel. Knowing myself, I would probably like a few minutes alone in a room with the rapist, with the rapist in restraints and me with a sharp razor or a power drill. That is not to say I would avail myself of that expedient if offered.

    In the case of the egregious crimes that Obama is referring to, there are no punishments that get us even with the perpetrators. That is why I do not support the death penalty.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    I wonder what Obama's opposition - Sen. McCain - thinks about this?

    Forsome reason, I think Sen. McCain is more involved in the unwitting, unfortunately killing of Iraqi children with his plan to keep U.S. forces in Iraq indefinitely.

    A good move from Obama.

  • 0

    skipthesong

    any man, who rapes a child, does not deserve life at all. I would welcome the most medieval form of punishment before putting him to his then welcomed death. Better yet, if my kid was to be raped - actually at any age, I would request the authorities to allow me to take the matter into my own hands.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Skip - technically that would make you a murderer, unless the State sanctioned you taking the matter into your own hands.

    Perhaps that's why we have laws and a justice system?

  • 0

    Zen_Builder

    Skip.

    Nice ideas but laws like that are already in effect it is called "Sharia Law".

  • 0

    skipthesong

    Perhaps that's why we have laws and a justice system?" Well look, if laws are going to go counter to what they are supposed to accomplish, why have them?

    Sushi, you think I am the murdering type?

    Zen: it is called "Sharia Law"" No, its called justice!

    Lately, the supreme court isn't making any sense. Why can't WE the people vote these justices in?

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Skip - "Sushi, you think I am the murdering type?"

    You tell me. :-) I have to say your words do not give me a great deal of confidence to think otherwise.

    As I said, perhaps that's why we have laws and a justice system?

  • 0

    skipthesong

    sushi: what if someone hit up on your kid and I took justice into my own hands, would you thank me or would you be one of the advocates to put me to death?

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Skip - what you are advocating is the start of a slide back to the law of the jungle, which the laws that have been enacted in civilized countries like yours are aimed at preventing.

    You are also implying - very dangerously in my view - that people should have the right to be judge, jury and executioner.

    Then you have to ask - what "crimes" justify the perpetrator being killed?

    Rape? Then what?

    Car theft? You steal my wheels - I kill you?

    Imbezzlement? Your employee siphons off $200,000 from your business - is that justification to 'take the matter into your own hands'?

    Who draws the line? - You or the State?

    Again, this is why we have laws.

  • 0

    RedMeatKoolAid

    Reading some of the comments here about America and the death penalty is as entertaining as observing the frequent and pointless gaijin fulmination over capital punishement laws in Japan, which they are also completely powerless to change.

  • 0

    skipthesong

    sushi: I don't get you, here you are being a proponent for law. But, yet, laws passed not to your liking and you go wild.

    It is not a slide back to the law of the jungle, which I am not overly against. At current, you have people not only raping kids, but killing them too and getting off, but I am suppose to respect that? If you notice, recently, the state hasn't been overly good at representing the people so I say take matters into your own hands, this means if you feel you need to be a killer, or even a terrorist, then so be it.

    Yes, Rape of a child deserves death steal my car, I have insurance, I'll get another one. I won't look for it because people who would steal my car would be more involved in a mob of sorts. My employee embezzles my money, I won't say death, but I would take matters into my own hands on that one too.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    "At current, you have people not only raping kids, but killing them too and getting off, but I am suppose to respect that?"

    No, you are supposed to let the justice system deal with it.

    Otherwise, what is likely to happen? Some girl gets raped, neighbor rushes in and - according to your reasoning - should have the right to kill the perpetrator then and there.

    What if it's the wrong guy? What if it was consensual sex that turned nasty? What if the guy who killed the alleged rapist lives next door to you and your family? Would you be happy there was a killer living over the fence?

    Overall, you seem to be saying let's bypass the collecting of evidence - which in many cases is crucial - let's just be free to enact whatever judgement we believe necessary on the spur of the - very emotional - moment.

    I think Obama has the right idea here, far from "go[ing] wild" as you claim.

    "recently, the state hasn't been overly good at representing the people."

    OK, I don't necessarily agree with you on this.

    Also, if everyone suddenly decides to take matters into my their hands, we would be looking at near anarchy.

    Again, this is why we have laws.

  • 0

    Taka313

    I strongly disagree with Sen. Obama on this topic.
    The intentional taking of a life is a very serious matter and one with irreversible consequences for both parties.

    Taka

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    I am against the death penalty for anything. Would I change my mind if one of mine were raped/murdered? who knows? but I DO know that that wouldn't change the fact that the State is doing exactly what it purports to be punishing.

  • 0

    RedMeatKoolAid

    This is just Obama's handlers talking.

    He himself has a lot of explaining to do as regards his support for infanticide:

    "In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote."http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647

  • 0

    dano2002

    all of you against the death penalty would sing a different song if your child was raped or murdered.

    I suggest two alternative plans. painful execution - hanging is best. or let the person go and provide his/her release information to the public.

  • 0

    Zen_Builder

    If hanging is painful depends on the method used: long drop or short drop.

    In one you slowly suffocate in the other your neck snaps(instant death)it can also rip the head.

  • 0

    Zen_Builder

    AFAIK: Slow and painful execution methods are illegal, as they are considered inhumane. Hence my many states switched from the gas-chamber and electrical chair to lethal injection.

  • 0

    skipthesong

    Hence my many states switched from the gas-chamber and electrical chair to lethal injection." I have a better idea, just drop them off in Union City, West New York, and Little Havana, we don't take too well with pedos.

    Being against the death penalty is be for people who kill. I've lost my dad violently, I've lost others by murder. In all cases, the people who committed these crimes are for the most part, now free. My dad's killer only five years! I am sure even you ultra libs would agree that that is too short of a time for killing someone - hence, if the state is going to go counter my beliefs then its time to take matters into my own hands. Wasn't that what America was founded on?

  • 0

    SezWho2

    RedMeatKoolAid,

    First a vote against the Induced Infant Liability Act is no more support for infanticide than a vote for capital punishment is support for murder. A little less hyperbole, please.

    Second, the topic here is the death penalty in regard to child rape. If you support it, fine, but where will you draw the line? Do you support it in all cases? What is a child? What happens when a child rapes a child? Or will you just naturally know when the death sentence is applicable on a case by case basis?

    We have laws because we know we cannot trust our prejudices.

  • 0

    SezWho2

    dano2002,

    Whether we would sing a different tune when our own ox is gored is not the point. The point is are we willing to sing that same tune every time someone else's ox is gored.

    Death penalties for priests anyone?

  • 0

    Zen_Builder

    Skipthesong:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyphDZaGQ&feature=user

  • 0

    skipthesong

    Zen,

    Sorry, I can't view youtube on this. What was your point?

    Sez, instead of the conversation being on THE PENALTY, why don't we all start figuring out how things that would bring me to an insane point become a thing of the past?

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Sez - "We have laws because we know we cannot trust our prejudices."

    Precisely the point I have been trying to make.

  • 0

    SezWho2

    SushiSake3,

    I thought you made the point rather nicely. I don't think it was your fault that people glossed over it.

  • 0

    Sarge

    Skipthesong - Very sorry to hear about your dad and his killer being freed after only 5 years. His killer should either be in jail or dead, not free. But don't take matters into your own hands and become a vigilante. You could end up ruining your life.

  • 0

    SezWho2

    skipthesong,

    That's a good idea. And I really think we are mostly all trying to get there. Do you have a suggestion?

  • 0

    sailwind

    “I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes,” Obama said at a news conference. “I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 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 that does not violate our Constitution.”

    I agree 100 percent, never knew this about Obama until now. His views on the ultimate penalty are exactly in line with mine. He may not be a a 'bleeding heart' liberal after all but a realist that there are crimes that do go beyond the pale and deserve the death sentence.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Skipthesong, I'm also very sorry to hear about your dad and his killer being freed after only 5 years - that must hurt you really bad.

    But - and it's a big 'BUT' - if you go out there on a revenge spree and for some reason you get the wrong person and are caught and charged, your life **will **be ruined, and who knows - you could even get the death penalty for murder?

    It would be the ultimate irony.

    I'll say it again - this is why we have laws (& not vigilante justice).

  • 0

    usaexpat

    Obama supports the death penalty a very odd stance for a liberal democrat in the first place. I think the supreme court was right in striking down this law. Here are the 2 foremost reasons for this: First children's testimony can be unreliable and without DNA evidence a conviction leading to a death penalty is unthinkable and second since most children are molested by relatives or family friends the victims would be even less likely to report abuse if they knew it could lead to the perpetrator being put to death. The second part was even argued by victims rights groups.

  • 0

    Molenir

    My own opinion of this is that its stupid. Why shouldn't the death penalty be an option for juries to impose? If the crime is heinous enough, then yes, the perp should be put to death, even if he is not guilty of actual murder. Saying that victims would be less likely to report abuse, or that childrens testimony is unreliable are just excuses for doing nothing.

  • 0

    Alphaape

    I find it news that Obama would disagree with this decision. I wonder how he feels about the other decision the Supreme's made concerning the right to bear arms and striking down the D.C. ban on handguns.

    I agree with the death penalty. I am sorry that for skipthesong the penal system has failed him and his family. But when we post comments about how in Japan the J-teens have a lack of respect for elders, teachers and police becuase they know nothing will happen to them, I think the same appies for the criminal element. They know that somewhere, they can find someone that is willing to say that they are not the cause of their life of crime or murder or rape of children, but it was societies fault that made those conditions so that you did your crime, thus relieving you of any responsiblity. I think that is hogwash.

    The penalty should be carried out. Yes a child may not be able to testify as well as an adult, but as the saying went in the old west: "dead men tell no tales." If there is ample physical evidence there, then there is no excuse. A crime such as this one will scar someone (I am not talking out the side of my mouth saying that it is not societies fault, in this case, an innocent child was assualted by an adult, the child had no recourse in this one).

    Now, we will be responsible for caring for this guy for his life sentece. I believe it is about $30,000/year per inmate in Louisiana. The tax payers money could be better spent.

    As far as Obama, mark my words, his true colors will come out soon. If someone can show me where a true "liberal change" has taken place in any government world wide that has not resulted in some sort of armed conflict as the "enlightened" tried to make the "un-enlightened" to the light, without major violence please tell me.

  • 0

    Alphaape

    I find it news that Obama would disagree with this decision. I wonder how he feels about the other decision the Supreme's made concerning the right to bear arms and striking down the D.C. ban on handguns.

    I agree with the death penalty. I am sorry that for skipthesong the penal system has failed him and his family. But when we post comments about how in Japan the J-teens have a lack of respect for elders, teachers and police becuase they know nothing will happen to them, I think the same appies for the criminal element. They know that somewhere, they can find someone that is willing to say that they are not the cause of their life of crime or murder or rape of children, but it was societies fault that made those conditions so that you did your crime, thus relieving you of any responsiblity. I think that is hogwash.

    The penalty should be carried out. Yes a child may not be able to testify as well as an adult, but as the saying went in the old west: "dead men tell no tales." If there is ample physical evidence there, then there is no excuse. A crime such as this one will scar someone (I am not talking out the side of my mouth saying that it is not societies fault, in this case, an innocent child was assualted by an adult, the child had no recourse in this one).

    Now, we will be responsible for caring for this guy for his life sentece. I believe it is about $30,000/year per inmate in Louisiana. The tax payers money could be better spent.

    As far as Obama, mark my words, his true colors will come out soon. If someone can show me where a true "liberal change" has taken place in any government world wide that has not resulted in some sort of armed conflict as the "enlightened" tried to make the "un-enlightened" to the light, without major violence please tell me.

  • 0

    SezWho2

    Alphaape,

    It seems to me that the New Deal was a true liberal change, but maybe that's not the kind of change you had in mind. Incidentally, could you give some examples of conservative change unattended with violence?

    Additionally, you cast liberalization in terms of the enlightened versus the unenlightened and certainly the American War of Disloyalty in 1776 was an outgrowth, in part, of the Age of Enlightenment. That war was certainly attended with major violence. When you look at liberalization in this way, it's good to consider who it was/is that is not in favor of liberalization--dictators, monarchs, theocrats, autocrats, demagogues, totalitarians, and so on. Are you saying that you would prefer to live under one of those systems?

    I think also, that you have rather biased the discussion with your suggestion that liberalizers consider themselves to be enlightened and that they consider those who do not agree with them to be unenlightened. Generally speaking, enlightenment is a good thing but you make it out to be a pejorative. In my view, what most characterizes a liberal is the desire for personal freedom unrestrained by any ideology that asserts without proof that such freedom is bad for society.

  • 0

    Kijimuna

    This is a careful walking on the fence for political reasons. He's trying to avoid his Willie Horton by saying he supports death penalty for child rapists. Then he says that it should be applied "only in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes." This is more of Obama trying to be all things to all people.

    I would respect him so much more if he had said "no, it's cruel and unusual punishment to kill someone for rape, even if the victim is a child. And no, my answer wouldn't change if the victim is my daughter. It's not that I don't love my kid, it's that I fear the state's being given too much leeway with the taking of its citizens' lives. Punish offenders, of course, but I believe that the death penalty is not something we should allow to creep."

Back to top

Login to leave a comment

OR

Follow us

Facebook
Twitter

More in World

View all

View all