Multi-Gunshot Suicides Soon to Be On the Rise
So says the Supreme Court.
There is a macabre old urban legend that has floated around for years in which an exceedingly bad person—a wife-beater, a child-abuser, or other such societal dreg—is found perforated with bullets, and knowing local law enforcement officials note that the miscreant's death was a serious suicide, where the deceased if found having shot himself in the head and/or back multiple times, in some variations even taking the time to reload an empty weapon and fire again. Such stories, of course, are told with a knowing smile. We find before us—and perhaps a bit beneath us—a Supreme Court of the United States that in this session has found more sympathy and more previously unknown rights for suspected terrorists and child rapists than it has for the average American. From Bagram to Baltimore, expect to hear some names and dates begin to be associated with this and similar urban legends. It is a truism of the human experience that when a people sees their system of justice fail due to inequities in the judicial process, they will find justice on their own.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:06 PM
Comments
1
Can a modern day country survive when the only justice is that which you take yourself? I've watched several cases of late that were decided by 'liberal' judges that made me say to myself 'if one of my family members was involved there is no power on earth to stop me from taking revenge', on the killer/rapist and the so called judge. That's what the socialist/communist/democrat party has brought you.
Posted by: Scrapiron at June 25, 2008 02:14 PM (I4yBD)
2
With their "decision" (it really wasn't, was it?), I think The Gang of Five has just unwittingly passed the "Community Vigilante Enabling Act of 2008."
Then again, I've got a better idea: work for legislation that will require child rapists to remain in general prison populations once incarcerated.
The good news for these evil excuses for human beings is that they won't officially get the death penalty. Unfortunately, the bad news will be that their fellow inmates will quickly pass their own judgments upon them.
Then again, I've got a better idea: work for legislation that will require child rapists to remain in general prison populations once incarcerated.
The good news for these evil excuses for human beings is that they won't officially get the death penalty. Unfortunately, the bad news will be that their fellow inmates will quickly pass their own judgments upon them.
Posted by: MarkJ at June 25, 2008 03:30 PM (ZFVlP)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 25, 2008 05:54 PM (dcqty)
4
A town bully terrorized residents of a Missouri town over a decade ago. Someone got tired of it, and the man died. I don't believe the murder was ever solved.
I think lenient courts have caused other examples of secret vigilanti justice.
I think lenient courts have caused other examples of secret vigilanti justice.
Posted by: James at June 25, 2008 06:04 PM (3S/2Y)
5
The concept being what, O purveyors of Justice in Your Own Minds? You're going to break into prison and execute those filthy criminals that the cout didn't have the courage to kill?
Or, even more ridiculously, are you arguing that failing to kill them through the power of the state is tantamount to releasing them back into society? Perhaps it's time to put down the phony outrage, folks. It's starting to get a little threadbare.
Or, even more ridiculously, are you arguing that failing to kill them through the power of the state is tantamount to releasing them back into society? Perhaps it's time to put down the phony outrage, folks. It's starting to get a little threadbare.
Posted by: Officious Pedant at June 25, 2008 06:05 PM (688sS)
6
You're going to break into prison and execute those filthy criminals
No need. They get shanked by the other prisoners once the nature of their crime is discovered.
No need. They get shanked by the other prisoners once the nature of their crime is discovered.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 25, 2008 06:25 PM (dcqty)
7
With their "decision" (it really wasn't, was it?), I think The Gang of Five has just unwittingly passed the "Community Vigilante Enabling Act of 2008."
Typical idiotic wingnut response. Please provide information about incidents of this in each of the 46 states that don't execute child rapists.
Typical idiotic wingnut response. Please provide information about incidents of this in each of the 46 states that don't execute child rapists.
Posted by: slammin' sammy at June 25, 2008 06:32 PM (wQLtx)
8
OK, so let me get this straight. Conservatives are OUTRAGED by this ruling. No one has been executed in the US for anything other than murder in over 44 years. Only one state out of 50 has recently expanded its death penalty to include rape of a child. Two people out of approx. 3500 on death row nationally were scheduled to be executed for child rape, and they were sentenced to death only recently when said state changed its statute.
How the HELL does this ruling change anything for you death penalty enthusiasts?
If you want to expand the death penalty so much, advocate China's execution policies, why don't ya! Embezzlement, drug trafficking, government bribery acceptance? All punishable by death.
I don't think you want to go down the slippery slope of death penalty expansion. It would include too many people beloved by conservatives.
How the HELL does this ruling change anything for you death penalty enthusiasts?
If you want to expand the death penalty so much, advocate China's execution policies, why don't ya! Embezzlement, drug trafficking, government bribery acceptance? All punishable by death.
I don't think you want to go down the slippery slope of death penalty expansion. It would include too many people beloved by conservatives.
Posted by: Ted at June 25, 2008 07:02 PM (9g+PP)
9
I don't think you want to go down the slippery slope of death penalty expansion. It would include too many people beloved by conservatives.
I find your views intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
I find your views intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Posted by: toby928 at June 25, 2008 07:14 PM (PD1tk)
10
Sort of like the way that Jeffery Dahmer was left alone with a known homicidal lunatic for just a few minutes and was unofficially executed.
Posted by: Shoprat at June 25, 2008 07:20 PM (FkH+p)
11
"How the HELL does this ruling change anything for you death penalty enthusiasts?"
Think. Use some logic here.
The five justices decided this case not on the plain language of the Constitution nor on existing case law. Their decision was not based on an established standard of jurisprudence but on where they felt public opinion was evolving.
IN short, they circumvented the will of the people as expressed by the lawful democratic process based on their own suppositions of what the public thought on the matter instead of what the law said.
That has implications that extend far beyond the death penalty. I am sure that such an outspoken member of the "reality-based community" can apply cool reason and extrapolate what some of those consequences might be.
Think. Use some logic here.
The five justices decided this case not on the plain language of the Constitution nor on existing case law. Their decision was not based on an established standard of jurisprudence but on where they felt public opinion was evolving.
IN short, they circumvented the will of the people as expressed by the lawful democratic process based on their own suppositions of what the public thought on the matter instead of what the law said.
That has implications that extend far beyond the death penalty. I am sure that such an outspoken member of the "reality-based community" can apply cool reason and extrapolate what some of those consequences might be.
Posted by: Jimmie at June 25, 2008 07:39 PM (scM9Z)
12
IN short, they circumvented the will of the people as expressed by the lawful democratic process based on their own suppositions of what the public thought on the matter instead of what the law said.
Ken Lay, executed. The Dukestir? Executed. Jeff Skilling? Gone. That's where it will lead: back to execution for theft, feeding a fugitive, etc, etc, all of which used to be common practice in this country.
You really want to go down this slope?
Anyway, the conservative outrage is hilarious on its own. SCOTUS makes a ruling conservatives love: good jurisprudence and adherence to the Constitution. SCOTUS makes a ruling conservatives hate: absolute violation of the will of the people and adherence to arbitrary standards.
Just shut up the whining.
Ken Lay, executed. The Dukestir? Executed. Jeff Skilling? Gone. That's where it will lead: back to execution for theft, feeding a fugitive, etc, etc, all of which used to be common practice in this country.
You really want to go down this slope?
Anyway, the conservative outrage is hilarious on its own. SCOTUS makes a ruling conservatives love: good jurisprudence and adherence to the Constitution. SCOTUS makes a ruling conservatives hate: absolute violation of the will of the people and adherence to arbitrary standards.
Just shut up the whining.
Posted by: Ted at June 25, 2008 07:45 PM (9g+PP)
13
SCOTUS makes a ruling conservatives love: good jurisprudence and adherence to the Constitution. SCOTUS makes a ruling conservatives hate: absolute violation of the will of the people and adherence to arbitrary standards.
Yes, and? Would you have us applaud violations of the peoples' will? Or, lament good jurisprudence? I don't quite see where you're going here.
Yes, and? Would you have us applaud violations of the peoples' will? Or, lament good jurisprudence? I don't quite see where you're going here.
Posted by: toby928 at June 25, 2008 07:57 PM (PD1tk)
14
Yes, and? Would you have us applaud violations of the peoples' will? Or, lament good jurisprudence? I don't quite see where you're going here.
It's hilarious that you think any time SCOTUS makes a ruling you like, it's "good jurisprudence", and any time it doesn't, it's "violations of the peoples'[sic] will". Not sure if you get that though.
Have any of you morons actually read any part of either Justice Kennedy's or Alito's majority or dissenting opinions? They boil down to this:
Kennedy: Execution is not a proportional punishment for rape of a child.
Alito: Yes it is!!
Seriously, he didn't even try to couch it in some constitutional principle, and mentioned states' rights as an afterthought. Alito's main argument was simply that it WAS proportional. So if you want to whine about arbitrary rulings made on the basis of opinion about proportionality, well, just quit whining.
It's hilarious that you think any time SCOTUS makes a ruling you like, it's "good jurisprudence", and any time it doesn't, it's "violations of the peoples'[sic] will". Not sure if you get that though.
Have any of you morons actually read any part of either Justice Kennedy's or Alito's majority or dissenting opinions? They boil down to this:
Kennedy: Execution is not a proportional punishment for rape of a child.
Alito: Yes it is!!
Seriously, he didn't even try to couch it in some constitutional principle, and mentioned states' rights as an afterthought. Alito's main argument was simply that it WAS proportional. So if you want to whine about arbitrary rulings made on the basis of opinion about proportionality, well, just quit whining.
Posted by: Ted at June 25, 2008 08:58 PM (9g+PP)
15
Kennedy: Execution is not a proportional punishment for rape of a child.
Alito: Yes it is!!
Well, the problem is that Kennedy justified that it wasn't proportional based on evolving standards of decency. Given that the trend has been to ADD the death penalty for agg child rape, the evidence is that the evolution points towards a greater acceptance of the death penalty for this crime.
Alito: Yes it is!!
Well, the problem is that Kennedy justified that it wasn't proportional based on evolving standards of decency. Given that the trend has been to ADD the death penalty for agg child rape, the evidence is that the evolution points towards a greater acceptance of the death penalty for this crime.
Posted by: XBradTC at June 25, 2008 09:17 PM (kddTy)
16
Ted, wanna talk about proportionality?
Try this one on for size.
A "proportional" punishment for a crime would be to have the same thing done to the perpetrator. But wouldn't that, by definition, be "cruel," since most crimes are cruel?
Maybe ya really don't want "proportional" punishment, hmmm?
Try this one on for size.
A "proportional" punishment for a crime would be to have the same thing done to the perpetrator. But wouldn't that, by definition, be "cruel," since most crimes are cruel?
Maybe ya really don't want "proportional" punishment, hmmm?
Posted by: C-C-G at June 25, 2008 09:20 PM (Hc4y8)
17
I actually am appalled that the death penalty has been remitted for this man. He was already a child rapist, convicted and released into the public to rape again. I think he should be eliminated. I think the Justices were wrong to limit the death penalty to death and state reasons.
Also I think they are more likely to withdraw those later, based on this one.
But the real problem is they want an "evolving" "public opinion." I want something based on the Constitution. And, yes, I have read Kennedy's piece.
Also I think they are more likely to withdraw those later, based on this one.
But the real problem is they want an "evolving" "public opinion." I want something based on the Constitution. And, yes, I have read Kennedy's piece.
Posted by: Suzi at June 25, 2008 10:51 PM (7bGob)
18
Oops. I read the news and it said "serial child rapist." I assumed that he had been convicted. Actually the person he is accused of raping first did not turn him in. (Very common for rapes by people known to the survivor.)
Posted by: Suzi at June 25, 2008 11:24 PM (7bGob)
19
I actually made the slippery slope argument on my blog and it was pointed out that we carry out a death penalty as punishment and nothing else.
My only question is though, what would be the line and who would decide? The only problem is, I would probably prefer torture to child rapists anyhow...oh yeah, then kill em'.
My only question is though, what would be the line and who would decide? The only problem is, I would probably prefer torture to child rapists anyhow...oh yeah, then kill em'.
Posted by: Torino Rossi at June 26, 2008 02:58 AM (KiZW8)
20
Applying the death penalty for child rape is a terrible idea and only serves to encourage child murder.
If the crimes of both child rape and child murder carry the same ultimate penalty, then the rapist has nothing to lose if he proceeds to murder his victim after the act. He does, however, have plenty to gain by murdering his victim - namely the elimination of the most important eyewitness to his crime. If the rapist knows that he won't be put to death for child rape, but will be for child murder, then he actually has an incentive to leave his victim alive, which actually makes it more likely that he'll be caught before he claims a new victim.
If you truly care about the welfare of children, then why would you want to encourage rapists to murder the children they rape? Yes, child rape is a horrific crime, but it's better that the child survive the experience than end up dead. How can you possibly argue that the death penalty for child rape improves things?
If the crimes of both child rape and child murder carry the same ultimate penalty, then the rapist has nothing to lose if he proceeds to murder his victim after the act. He does, however, have plenty to gain by murdering his victim - namely the elimination of the most important eyewitness to his crime. If the rapist knows that he won't be put to death for child rape, but will be for child murder, then he actually has an incentive to leave his victim alive, which actually makes it more likely that he'll be caught before he claims a new victim.
If you truly care about the welfare of children, then why would you want to encourage rapists to murder the children they rape? Yes, child rape is a horrific crime, but it's better that the child survive the experience than end up dead. How can you possibly argue that the death penalty for child rape improves things?
Posted by: Alex at June 26, 2008 10:01 AM (RXsO5)
21
Ted:
One can understand your position supporting the Supreme Courts making up the law out of thin air. Its well known that the people's will is to be disregarded by superior beings above the law and unaccountable to the popular will.
It is understandable that you feel child rapists should be protected. It is clear what your maoral standards are and what your education backgroundf must be to posit that only murder deserves the death penalty.
This will no doubt make those who torture and leave their victims permanently scarred or disabled happy. It will make those who lose their life savings joyful. It will encourage those who plan treason.
Thanks for your intellectual vigor and brillant analysis. I'm sure you're just the kind of candidate Obama wants for the court.
One can understand your position supporting the Supreme Courts making up the law out of thin air. Its well known that the people's will is to be disregarded by superior beings above the law and unaccountable to the popular will.
It is understandable that you feel child rapists should be protected. It is clear what your maoral standards are and what your education backgroundf must be to posit that only murder deserves the death penalty.
This will no doubt make those who torture and leave their victims permanently scarred or disabled happy. It will make those who lose their life savings joyful. It will encourage those who plan treason.
Thanks for your intellectual vigor and brillant analysis. I'm sure you're just the kind of candidate Obama wants for the court.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at June 26, 2008 04:46 PM (LHaZf)
22
Alex, the same argument can be made for punishing child rapists at all. Granting that there is a greater desire to avoid the death penalty, there is still a very strong impetus to avoid any other sort of penalty, such as life in prison without parole.
So the possibility of killing the victim already exists, to avoid imprisonment; especially given the well-known propensity of prison inmates to "take care of" child rapists themselves. I don't see where taking away one form of punishment lessens that risk to the victim by any more than a minuscule amount.
So the possibility of killing the victim already exists, to avoid imprisonment; especially given the well-known propensity of prison inmates to "take care of" child rapists themselves. I don't see where taking away one form of punishment lessens that risk to the victim by any more than a minuscule amount.
Posted by: C-C-G at June 26, 2008 05:49 PM (Hc4y8)
23
The ruling to uphold the constitution on gun ownership should be good for the American Communist party (aka democrats) who are suffering BDS. When President Bush returns to Tx to enjoy life millions of BDS sufferers will be looking for a way out. Legally purchasing a firearm will help them along the path.
Posted by: Scrapiron at June 27, 2008 11:31 AM (GAf+S)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0094 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0052 seconds, 31 records returned.
Page size 19 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.