Some time in 1998, New Orleans police department received a call from a Patrick O. Kennedy that his 8-year old step-daughter had just been raped. He described the attackers as two boys who got away on bikes. However, the police soon discovered that O. Kennedy had raped the girl himself, told her to lie to the police, and called for a carpet cleaner to clean the blood off the floor before calling the police.
Ten years later the case is finally brought up to the eyes of the Supreme Court, and the nine reached a 5-4 verdict that Patrick O. Kennedy will not receive the death penalty for child rape. O. Kennedy was initially set for the death penalty as per Louisiana law, but he and his lawyer argued that the law on death for child rape violates the cruel and unusual punishment ban of the Constitution. The defense garnered data, when they presented that only 0.0601% of the people on death row did not actually commit a murder.
While the defense's argument is solid politically, it is severely lacking in morality. The majority justice was represented by Anthony Kennedy who commented that, while it is true Kennedy did rape the girl he did not kill the girl and so it would be unconstitutional to kill him. Kennedy committed an act that is vilified and for most people straight out of a horror story. Rape victims are usually traumatized, but children who are raped almost never recover from completely from that instance.
It is an ugly thing to say but I am personally split down the middle as what to do with Kennedy. A part of me wants to say that the man fully deserves the death penalty, for destroying much of a young girl's life. But, another part of me feels sorry for the girl, because she was betrayed in a horrifying way by one of the people she thought she could trust. Letting him die would be a devastating experience, because (technically speaking) Patrick O. Kennedy is still the closest thing to a father the girl has had.
Ten years from that incident, the girl has become a young woman of 18 years. While no sites have any report of her side of the story, it is unfair and foolish to assume that she has forgiven O. Kennedy. Thus I want to say that the Supreme Court is right to not compound the death penalty into such a delicate situation.
On the other hand, this case itself brings new light into a strategy that rape committing defenders can use. There are only five states in the U.S. that demand a death penalty for child rape, but even Texas's strict system can be stalled with a good lawyer and references to this case. When will the Justices decide that a death penalty is deserving for a rapist? If it isn't for desecrating an eight year old, then I would very much like to hear their opinion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
As I read “Death penalty, who gets it and who doesn't.” my blood pressure raised, I’m very furious that a man who rape an eight year old girl who saw him as part of her family did not was sentenced to death. I personally think that the person that is capable of raping an innocent person should be sentenced to death. Why allow them to live when their victim is death alive, many of their victims end traumatized and have no more reasons to live. If rapists, are man enough to rape a little girl or even old women then they should be man enough to accept the death penalty. Moreover, if the rapists’ argument is that, he did not kill the girl so therefore he should be given the death penalty then allow me to use that argument against him. If he raped the little girl then lets look for another rapist and then he too can be raped. That way he will not be sentenced to death and its not going to be a cruel punishment either, lets just punish him with the same crime he committed. No matter what perspective I look this case from I think raping is an awful crime but if out there are men sick enough that want to rape little children and women, I said lets give them a piece of their own medicine to see how they will feel about rape once they are the victims
I remember reading about that Supreme Court decision in the newspaper – and it still makes me sick. The Supreme Court is supposed to be the ultimate upholder of rights and liberties. And in this case, they have failed. By deciding that Patrick O. Kennedy would not get the death penalty because it was “cruel and unusual punishment,” the Justices have set a precedent that rapists, who don’t murder their victims, will receive something less than the death.
This is my personal belief: murder can be in self defense, but rape cannot. You can’t just decide “Oh, that person was trying to hurt me, so I raped them.” Rapists are a waste of life, and keeping them alive is a waste of tax dollars, as well as a risk to society if they are released on “good behavior.” It takes a truly sick and twisted person to murder someone in cold blood. But rape, though it might not lead to murder, isn’t any less sick or twisted; it’s simply disturbing in a different manner.
As such, the fact that the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, is basically a slap in the face of Justice. This man raped a child, his own step daughter no less, and is getting away with his life, if not his freedom. Now other rapists can and will use this case as their bargaining chip, to get away with at least their own pathetic life, while they leave their victims often times as mere shadows of their previous selves. So while rapists are getting easier sentences, their victims spend years recuperating and trying to rebuild their old selves, often time through therapy, heartache, and many bitter tears. I see no “cruel and unusual punishment” in death.
But, who knows, perhaps a quick death is too good for them anyway…
I am going to have to side with the Supreme Courts’ majority opinion on this case. I do completely understand the passion that is involved in deciding a case like this. I have a daughter, a sister and a mother, and were someone to rape any of them, I would most definitely want the death penalty for the offender. That said, the law is not supposed to be passionate it is supposed to be blind. Taking a human life, no matter what offence they might have committed, is a grave and serious matter. In this particular case, where one might feel certain that this man is guilty, one might find it easy to decree his execution. Instead, think of a scenario where a man stands accused of a child rape he did not commit. The inflammatory nature of child rape cases often has the accused convicted the instant they are accused. The potential exists that we start to execute innocent people. It is much easier to frame someone for child-rape than it is to frame someone for capital murder. Our system of justice is set up such that we would rather have 10 guilty people walking free than 1 innocent man in prison. It is obvious that the system doesn’t always function as such, but I certainly agree with the philosophy.
Post a Comment