Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Should Kennedy V. Louisiana be overturned?

A man (Patrick O'kennedy) raped his 9 Year old step daughter so severely that she had to be hospitalized and undergo surgery. The State of Louisiana then sentenced this man to death, by lethal injection. In June 2008, The Supreme court of the United states violated the 10th amendment by ruling this "cruel and unusual". Even our dear leader, President Obama disagreed with this decision, and John Mccain certainly did, calling it

"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"

I think this case must be overturned, the state of louisiana should have him the same mercy he showed his victim.

Anyone who thinks that killing this scum is "sinking to his level" has problems, he hurt the innocent, we are hurting the guilty. There is no comparison

Update:

I think you will find that many, many, people consider an attack on a child a worse crime than murder.

Update 2:

Pluto, you're right! I don't give a damn if they can be "rehabilitated" an eye for an eye

Update 3:

Duke : If the death penalty is the easy way out, why do 95% of those sentenced to die fight tooth and nail to get out of it? Why did this man fight to not be killed if death is "an easy way out"?

Update 4:

strat, the surpreme court considered it cruel punishment becausew the victims life was not taken. No matter how heinous the crime was, if the victim survives, the criminal can no longer be executed

12 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    It absolutely should be overturned, but the court did not violate the 10th amendment because since the civil war and the 14th amendment the 10th does not have as much depth as it once did

    However I applaud any state that enforces or tries to enforce the death penalty to such appalling scum that would rape a child, murder a police or a witness or murder someone in furtherance of a felony

    • Login to reply the answers
  • cryer
    Lv 4
    3 years ago

    nicely, even regardless of the undeniable fact that i'm some thing of a conservative i'm no longer in prefer of the loss of existence penalty. for that reason, i do no longer have faith that Kennedy vs. Louisiana could be overturned. even regardless of the undeniable fact that such an act as raping a new child is an evil act and between the main atrocious issues one would desire to ever do, i think that the 8th modification instruments the point for a manner we could constantly cope with those concerns. consequently, the loss of existence penalty for rape, for my area, may well be merciless and unusual punishment. additionally, Kennedy vs. Louisiana did no longer bypass the Lemon attempt. At one time I completely supported the loss of existence penalty, yet in easy of info i've got replaced my opinion on the problem. besides the undeniable fact that, I do completely help a existence sentence with out the possiblity of parole for all and sundry who rapes a new child.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    If you killed all those committing crimes so heinous as to be kept secret, there would be no people left on the face of the earth. Killing only those whose crimes were leaked won't satisfy any conception of justice.

    "Rehabilitation" whether possible could never be figured out by you - you'd never try it.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    the true purpose of capital punishment is NOT to "get even" , "teach a lesson" or deter others" , rather, it's true intent is to protect the greater part of society from these kinds of criminals.

    given the information laid out i agree, lethal injection suits the crime. the question is WHY? did they overturn this?

    went looking for links and i couldnt find any. any help would be appreciated.

    Source(s): if i understand your respnse: "because the victim's life was not taken" is the reason for overturning the "sentence" and not the "conviction". if this is how it reads, then perhaps their law makers need to amend the law to include such crimes. the OJ thing exposed some of these openings. good lawmakers shoudl be able to close them w/out affecting those following the law. BAD lawmkaers can't do that, so pay attention to who decides "how" to fix this.
    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    I have no problem doing away with scum like him but what may be better is have him be raped the same he did to that little girl and let him know what it feels like these people are the worst of the worst

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    No.

    The good-for-nothing supreme court screws up a lot......

    but for once, they did something right.

    Death sentence for someone who did not kill anyone is considered cruel and unusual punishment.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Yes, he should be put to death. Rape, murder, and treason all deserve the death penalty.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Your question was...?

    It does not matter. The death penalty is not justified. That would be giving that sick, twisted individual an easy way out. Not to mention, it will cost far more to execute him than it will to incarcerate him for life.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    1st degree murder + cruel & unusual circumstances should be the only reason for the death penalty

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    No.

    In order for someone to be sentenced to death..........

    their crime must have been intentional murder of another being.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.