In a world that is slowly progressing toward abolition, America was poised to take a step backwards. The prospect of regressing to a situation of allowing the death penalty to apply to non fatal crimes was a very real one. Indeed, with Scalia and Alito sitting on the bench it was thought that the decision could very easily fall in favour of the Louisiana legislation.
For those who don't know, the Louisiana legislature enacted a bill that allowed for the execution for the crime of rape of a child under the age of 13.
I've touched on the issue of child rape and the death penalty in this blog before. It came up as an issue because the Supreme Court of the United States had granted certiori to hear the case of Kennedy v. Louisiana. I was in Louisiana while the Capital Appeals Project was preparing their submission to the court and I saw first hand the incredible amount of work that Jelpi Picou and others were putting in to it.
I've touched on the issue of child rape and the death penalty in this blog before. It came up as an issue because the Supreme Court of the United States had granted certiori to hear the case of Kennedy v. Louisiana. I was in Louisiana while the Capital Appeals Project was preparing their submission to the court and I saw first hand the incredible amount of work that Jelpi Picou and others were putting in to it.
It seems like a relatively peripheral issue, the question of what sort of crimes deserve death. An abolitionist would counter that no crime deserves death, and to compare the suffering of victims is a fruitless task. However, in the case of Kennedy the question is solely whether or not a non-fatal crime warrants death, and so capital punishment applying to murder cases must be accepted as the "standard". Clearly, in the case of Kennedy v. Louisiana, the interests of abolitionists were on the defensive, and an unfavourable verdict stood to set back national values by almost have a century. However, by taking a step backwards and accepting that "death is different", the lawyers for Kennedy were able to consolidate the present position of the death penalty in America.
The decision highlights a shifting climate in America, as more and more states abolish the death penalty, retentionist states find their system falling into disrepair and being without purpose. Louisiana, who had sentenced two men to death under the law in question, has not held an execution since 2003. California are reporting their system costs almost twice as much as a life sentence. There are some states, however, that continue killing fervently, with Texas leading the way.
The issue of paedophilia has been all over the news. From the confiscation of Bill Henson's art to the international horror at the discovery of Hans Fritzl's dungeon. Our obsession with sexual deviants is obvious, and our hatred of them makes for a sort of morbid fascination.
To even consider punishing this sort of crime with the death penalty shows just how much some legislatures in America have been influenced by the outcry of certain vocal public groups. I realise that a child rapist is someone who preys on the vulnerable, causes life long and irreparable damage to the victim and has a high tendency of reoffending, but to call for their death simply doesn't make sense.
These are cases where very often the strongest evidence will be the testimony of the child. Criminal trials are incredibly traumatic for victims to undertake in regular circumstances, and so for a child these must be horrific. Defense attorneys are requried to cross examine victims as diligently as possible, but with the utmost sensitivity and compassion. Imagine now that you are a defense attorney and your client's life is on the line depending on how effectively you cross examine this child. This issue was raised by a defense lawyer in Texas, who claimed that he would "rip the kids apart" and ensure that he was as brutal to the victim as the state of Texas was prepared to be to his client. At first this approach caught me off guard, but I realised it was more hyperbole than anything else. This defense lawyer is confronted with an impossible situation, his compassion for the suffering of a young girl, and his obligation to stop his client from being murdered.
Then there is the public humiliation of sex offenders. During my time in the U.S. I was amazed by the insensitivity with which child sex offenders were dealt with. There was a section in the newspaper where they were forced to announce any change in address, with a photo of their face and an announcement of the crime they were convicted of. The sort of ignorance, intolerance and hatred this must expose them to would be no doubt overwhelming. Having some form of rehabilitation or community support is exactly what people in this position need. Sadly, further isolation and persecution is likely to aggravate their problems and put them at greater danger of offending again, perhaps even more violently.
Rather than executing those in our society who fail to respect the rights of children, we should consider what can be done to help prevent this sort of behaviour from manifesting itself. This would not only go towards curbing recidivism, but also in preventing any initial crime from ever occuring.
Quote of the day:
"Society has erected the gallows at the end of the lane instead of guideposts and direction boards at the beginning."
- Edward George Bulwer-Lytton
