The United States Supreme Court recently gave Texas and other states the go ahead to continue its’ “death machine” with its holding that the current method of lethal injection does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment… What remains to be seen is whether Texas will be the anomaly in its willingness to inject more lethal drugs as nationally executions overall dropped in 2007. Some states are banning executions all together coming to their own determination that lethal injection has its issues.

Is this a social conscience moment towards abolition of the death penalty or just as short lived “point in history” reprieve for those awaiting execution until we find a more uniformly “humane” way of killing…..? Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens stated that while he agreed with the majority that the current version of lethal injection was constitutional, he felt the death penalty in itself was unconstitutional. Is it just a matter of time before the right case comes up before the court to strike down the use of the death penalty forever?

My home state of Texas certainly has no problem executing the guilty and probably even some of the innocent when you look at the fact that it has the highest rate of convictions overturned by DNA evidence in the nation.

People try to complicate the death penalty debate into so many different “pigeon holes’ that the arguments become uncontrollably blurred. You can do it under these circumstances; you can’t do it under those….. Is it not simpler than that? Either you believe the state as the right to take a life in exchange for a life or you don’t. Either you believe the state is entitled to exact “revenge” for the victim or you don’t…. It certainly is not about deterrence. The states are clear that the death penalty does not deter crime.

It is actually more complicated than that. I for example have no problem with the concept of state sponsored revenge. I am not ashamed to say that the fact that there might be a little pain involved in the process does not bother me either….

I however have a real problem with the fact that one innocent person could be executed. The system has proven time and time again to be very fallible.

Let’s say for instance that a child molester has been convicted of raping and killing a little girl. He is sentenced to death. You win the “kill him now” national lottery and are chosen to “pull the switch”. Just when you are about to pull the switch you are told that there is a 1 and 10 chance the person is innocent. In other words there is a 90 percent chance he is guilty. What if you are told there is a 1 in 100 chance he is innocent? You see my dilemma….. At what point is it ok to say he might be innocent but let’s kill him anyways….

What is the acceptable margin of error for a human life? In my opinion anyone who believes that an innocent person has never been executed in this country is very naïve or simply delusional. We say sorry and “that really sucks” and move on to the next bad guy…..

Just something to think about…..

The death to all pedophiles freight train sweeping the nation has stopped at the door of the United States Supreme Court in the form of Kennedy v. Louisiana which will address whether an individual can be executed for the rape of a child that does not cause the death of that child. The case was argued today before the United States Supreme Court.

My home state of Texas has joined in arguing for the states right to determine its own capital offenses and against such punishment being “cruel and unusual punishment” Texas was the latest state to come up with a far reaching bill that would allow for capital punishment in certain circumstances where the rape of a child is concerned.

The last time the U.S. Supreme Court came close to addressing this issue was the 1977 case of Coker v. Georgia in which the court basically stated that the death penalty amounted to cruel and unusual punishment with regards to the rape of 16 year old adult women.

Here are some of the point-counterpoints on the issue with my take…

ANTI DEATH PENALTY FOR CHILD RAPISTS

1 Execution is “cruel and unusual punishment” when applied to child rape cases because the Supreme Court already ruled that it is excessive in rape cases when the victim was not also killed.

I believe that this will be an almost impossible hurdle to overcome and the law will be struck down on this basis. The Supreme Court has ruled on this and I believe that any argument that because the case involved an adult women and therefore leaves open the possibility that death is ok for a child rapist is “wishful spinning” I do not believe the court was making an age distinction here. They were simply addresses the crime and the punishment. They were saying we don’t execute rapists of any kind if a death did not result. If the court would hold otherwise would be to basically say that the rape of an adult is less serious than the rape of a child…. I think adult rape victims would disagree….

2. Executions for child rape mean the penalties for rape and murder are the same so an offender may be more likely to kill a victim.

I don’t believe the court will give much weight to this argument. It is the same as arguing that capital punishment reduces the murder rate which is not true…. This would be an argument based on comparative statistics and I don’t think it was presented to the court in that way…

3. Executing child rapists may make it more likely for some child sexual abuse to go unreported.

Again this is a statistical argument that I don’t think will be given much weight by the court.

4. Louisiana’s law, the subject of the case being argued today, is too broad because it could apply to any rape of a child under 12, not just the most egregious.

This is an argument that Texas will be paying a lot of attention to. In my opinion the wide discretion prosecutors will have to seek the death penalty in a case not involving death is a fatal flaw in Texas own Jessica’s law which allows for capital punishment in certain rape cases. This can and will also give rise to claims that the law is being applied disparity to various minorities in ethnic groups which is a huge no no…. I believe that the cruel and unusual punishment issue aside, if Texas version of the law is unconstitutional, it is in this area.

PRO DEATH PENALTY FOR CHILD RAPISTS

1. Execution is not necessarily barred by previous rulings as excessive for all rape cases, merely for the rape of an adult woman.

This, in my opinion is a ridiculous argument. That is not what the court said or implied in Coker v Georgia. It is an argument hoping that the court is looking for a way to sanction child rapist executions….

2. Violent rape of a child is particularly egregious and shows “a degree of manifest evil, that is qualitatively” different from other rapes.

I agree it is a particularly heinous crime mandating a special place in hell for such rapists. It still does not matter. Who decided what is heinous enough for death? The prosecutor? Way too much discretion. Supreme Court won’t go for it.

3. Society’s moral standards are evolving to recognize the horror and damage caused by child rape and impose stricter punishments on perpetrators

Again, I agree but not the death penalty. Too much discretion involved. Won’t fly.

Don’t get me wrong. I am all for tougher sentencing for certain types of child molestation crimes and repeat offenders. My concern is the situational morality.

I certainly want death if it’s my child but if it’s your child, maybe death penalty is too harsh for the crime. That is situational morality.

Trying to legislate the latest horrific crime of the day we see on CNN.com. Situational morality cannot dictate justice. The rule of law dictates justice. The Supreme Court said that many years ago when the southern juries imposing their own situational morality said they would only execute African-Americans for sex crimes. No whites would be executed. Situational morality this year mandates we execute the guy who molests your daughter. Situational morality in 10 years may mandate we execute the drunk driver who kills your daughter. Situational morality in 10 years dictates we execute you when you have one too many and kill someone in an accident.

That is not justice or the rule of law. In this country, as much as we hate or want, we do not take a life where a life has not been intentionally taken or taken with such complete disregard for the risk of death that it raises to the level of intent. That rule of law applies to the scum sucking pervert who molests your child, the drunk driver who kills your child, the shoplifter, the jaywalker. It applies to me. It applies to you….

I do want all child molesters off the street. I personally have no moral dilemma executing them. I however don’t want to look for the Constitution of the United States floating in the same sewer they are hiding in……

That’s my take and opinion. One guy in Dallas, TX.

Texas Law and the U.S. Supreme Court are coming together in a timely fashion to determine my right to blow your brains out…..

The Dallas Morning News published an interesting piece the other day about Texas new “Castle Law“.   Without going into details, this law significantly broadens the circumstances under which a homeowner or vehicle owner can use deadly force to protect his/her home or vehicle.   There is now a broader “presumption” that under certain circumstances the use of deadly force is reasonable.   This will certainly make it easier for a grand jury to say “but for the grace of god” and let someone walk…….

I share the concern of Dallas prosecutors that it will de-criminalize acts that should be classified as murder but then again I have never been the victim of a home invasion. (Knock on wood).   I have no doubt I would feel differently if I had…..

This article is also a timely intersects with the argument about to take place before the U.S.  Supreme Court interpreting the “right to bear arms” provision of the Second Amendment of the Constitution.   They are being asked to determine whether the right to bears arm as outlined in the Second Amendment is an individual right or a collective right. Arguably one of the most important  and polarizing cases before the court since the Constitution was drafted….

We have now shifted from “What’s mine is mine” to “What’s mine is mine and by the way… F***K you!”    I am not going to going into the specifics of the law but the laymen’s version for me to know and for the next person who I catch trying to steal my IPOD out of my car is that law under certain circumstances now gives me a much broader presumption that   I was acting properly when I put one between your eyes to protect my 400 dollar IPOD.  

 My prediction is that we are now going to have roving groups of what I will call “IPOD VIGILANTES”  who will  park their vehicles  in high crime areas with their pricey electronics gadgets in the front seat  laying in what for that unsuspecting music lover to attempt a snatch…..  

I wonder if Ben Franklin hid with gun waiting when someone tried to steal his fife off his horse….

What good is the right to bear arms if there is no right to pop a cap in someone as I see fit?