On the one hand, as I wrote about in my last entry, there seems to be a growing distaste for capital punishment as a form of justice with New Jersey being the first American state to abolish it in 27 years. It goes further with the United States Supreme Court currently considering the constitutionality of lethal injection. In the unlikely event that it will be found too cruel a form of execution, I can only wonder at what possible alternative they could dream up. Whatever the case, the nation is taking note of the Court's pending decision.
The same is also occurring, however, on the opposite side of the coin. Since the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court in 1976 no one has been executed for a crime that was anything less than a homicide. In Coker v Georgia it was ruled by the Supreme Court that the rape of an adult woman could not attract the death sentence because it was not proportionate to the crime. The case failed to address any other offences which were not grievous enough to attract the death penalty, but it would be necessary in the future to show that it is a worse crime than rape.
In 1995 Louisiana enacted a statute under which it was a capital offence to rape a child under the age of 12. This decision effectively found that the rape of a young child could destroy the life of a child and therefore was equally as morally corrupt as murder. The practice of comparing suffering is always dangerous ground, especially something as volatile as rape. The vulnerability of the child is the key issue, and in other states these laws include the rape of elderly persons. A handful of American states have variations, such as the execution of repeat offenders, however the basic premise remains the same, the execution of people who have not committed a crime of homicide.
Two men now sit on death row in Louisiana, Patrick Kennedy being the first to be convicted of the rape of an 8 year old girl, and the second convicted only a month ago.
Personally, I find it difficult to see murder as more deserving of the death penalty than rape, and it seems unhelpful to discuss degrees of what qualifies more for a death sentence when I believe that nothing fulfills such a standard. However, there can be no doubt that an extension of death penalty beyond normal social standards is worrying. Much like the cases of Atkins and Roper, where the executions of mentally disabled and juveniles was found unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, the case of Patrick Kennedy raises similar questions.
Indeed, Patrick Kennedy has been granted Cert to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. If precedent prevails, the question will be approached in the same manner which it was in Atkins and Roper, where the court looked at the national consensus, jury considerations and international trends. There can be no doubt that the vast majority of the country does not feel that child rape warrants execution, and internationally the same standard would seem to prevail. The decision will have far reaching effects whatever way it goes. It could spell the end of executions for non-homicide crimes with the court deciding to set a standard rather than just restricting themselves to the facts of the case at hand. There are still far more hurdles to overcome however.
Child sex offenders are easy targets, they often suffer from psycho-sexual disorders and without the right support are likely to reoffend. I was reading the Times-Picayune the other day and turned to the announcements section. Under the Legal Notices there were the photos of about 8 men, all sex offenders, all forced by law to announce their prior convictions when moving address. That is one way to ensure that a sex offender is unable to reoffend, however it certainly doesn't offer them any sort of social support, infact it likely serves to vilify them and make them victim to hate crimes within their neighbourhood. I'm not saying that communities shouldn't be made aware of when sex offenders move into their area, but it should be done in a way that will discourage any sort of vilification.
The movie Little Children focuses ever so slightly on a man who is harassed by his neighbours for revealing himself to some children. Without spoiling the film, the result of his constant vilification and total lack of social support has serious consequences for both him and his family.
The step towards the execution of child rapists almost seems to draw from the Stalin-esque concept of "No man, no problem." This approach is based on the likelihood of the person reoffending, and so, by simply removing them from existence there is no fear of another child being harmed. This cold and callous approach is indicative of the extent of respect and support that such people receive from a system which fails to rehabilitate them. Either a community can attempt to help these people or they can kill them off.
For me, the right direction seems obvious, but the right answer more clouded. I don't know the most effective systems or methods of support to offer child sex offenders, but I do know the first step is to treat them like human beings.
Quote of the day:
“The guilty one is not the who commits the sin, but the one who causes the darkness.”
- Victor Hugo
No comments:
Post a Comment