Point/Counterpoint

No death penalty for child rapist

Supreme Court levels proportional punishment

By Andy Nevis
From the September 2008 Print Edition

While most college students were on break this summer, the United States Supreme Court was hard at work. During the last few days of June, justices engaged in their version of finals week by handing down numerous decisions on legal disputes affecting the nation. Some of the many edicts presented by the court involved the affirmation of gun rights, protections for suspected terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay, and limiting the ability of candidates to solicit more campaign contribution if their opponent chooses to fund his or her campaign out of their own pocket.

However, the one case that presented perhaps the greatest legal and moral dilemma involved Patrick Kennedy. In 1998, the Louisiana resident was arrested and convicted for the rape of his eight year old stepdaughter. Under state law, he was sentenced to death.

Of course Kennedy appealed his sentence on the grounds that the death penalty in such a situation was a violation of the eighth amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment.” The state disagreed, arguing that the death penalty is appropriate for the heinous crime of child rape. After many state court rulings, the case was accepted by the United States Supreme Court.

The court split five to four in favor of Kennedy, sparking a great deal of outrage. The decision was condemned by both Barrack Obama and John McCain. However, we should not be so quick to condemn the court’s decision and endorse the idea of the death penalty in such cases. The philosophical underpinning of the argument is based upon the idea of proportionality. Very simply defined, proportionality is the principal that a punishment should be enacted in accordance to the severity and nature of the crime committed. In other words, the more severe the crime, the more severe the punishment. This also means that in order to be just, the punishment must not be more severe than the crime itself.

This is very logical to us in modern society. For example, if your roommate steals a single Snickers bar from you, the punishment would likely be no more than a reprimand from the Resident Assistant. If however, the item stolen was your laptop, and the roommate then proceeded to place it under the wheel of a bus in order to destroy it, a much more severe punishment would be in order. Depending on the exact nature of the situation, criminal charges involving jail time could easily be justified.

These punishments could not be reasonably reversed. It would be absolutely nonsensical and unjust to place a person under arrest and file criminal charges for the theft of one Snickers bar. Similarly, it would be just as ridiculous to simply give a reprimand to a person who stole and destroyed a laptop-- hence the principle of proportionality.

So the question then becomes is the death penalty a proportional punishment for the rape of a child?

The rape of a child is certainly a heinous crime. It involves irreplaceably stealing one of a young person’s most precious assets – his or her innocence. Many victims are never able to fully recover from the crime, and the effects often carry over into adulthood. A most severe penalty is certainly in order. Perhaps shipping the perpetrator off to the north of Alaska to force him or her to shovel snow all day while eating only spinach and green beans for the rest of their lives would be appropriate.

However, society must recognize that there is a bright line between crimes that cause or intend to cause the death of the victim(s) and crimes that do not. Death is something that is irrevocable. No matter what medical, physiological, or other attempts are made, that human being will never come back in any form. Their families will never again be able to enjoy any time with their loved one.

On the contrary, crimes that do not cause death do not have this irreversible result. Through the use of medical or physiological expertise and time, it is possible that a victim of a non-lethal crime will be able to enjoy some semblance of their previous life. There may still be many lasting effects of the crime, as is certainly the case with child rape or any kind of sexual attack, but at least the victim will be allowed to continue living.

Thus the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for a crime that is not intended to result in the death of the victim. A better sentence is the one now declared the greatest possible by the courts, life in prison with few freedoms and no special privileges. That is the only just way to penalize such a heinous crime.

Respond to letters@californiapatriot.org

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot