Well, in about an hour, we will all have our answer. I'm not predicting a solid majority opinion -- like I wrote yesterday, expect a plurality opinion by Justice Scalia, joined by Roberts, Alito, and Thomas, and a concurrence from Kennedy. All others dissent.

quote:

Originally posted by jagmqt:

quote:

Originally posted by bamawrx:
Ok, so this thread got a little off topic, but on the new topic of death sentences for child rape...While the decision is terrible, the idea of a death sentence for child rapists could have the unintended consequence of the rape victims being killed by the rapist to help cover up the crime due in part to no additional punishment for the added crime of murder.

Can't wait until the morning so I can find out how 9 freeking lawyers in robes decide what my rights are.

bama...the decision did not include instances where the victim was also killed...rape and killing still can be punished with the death penalty...just not rape alone...

Tomorrow should be an interesting day...

jag

No, I was saying that with a death penalty for child rape, some rapists might just kill the kid to get rid of the witness. While I think the death penalty is just fine as a punishment, I'd hate to see kids getting killed after the rape as a result of the law.

Okay, it does kinda make sense, in that respect. If a child rapist knows he can be executed if he's convicted just for the act of the rape, he might as well go ahead and kill the child, making the chance of conviction that much less. There's no downside for him to kill the child.

This thread changed from guns to the SCOTUS decision prohibiting execution of child rapists...

An interesting twist...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/washington/02scotus.h...ink&exprod=permalink

The majority stated that there isn't any state or federal law permitting the death penalty for child rapists...

The majority made a factual mistake...the militray law permits the death sentence for child rapists...

Law10...why didn't we catch that?

jag

quote:

Law10...why didn't we catch that?

I think the natural inclination is to look outside of the UCMJ for guidance in these areas. I certainly wouldn't have thought about looking there.

But it does bring up an interesting question -- do we want our civil law to be informed by military law? I wonder if the oversight was due to the fact the Court recognizes the dichotomy between military and civilian law. Regardless, they could have written something along the lines of "the principle advocated for finds support only in military law. We are not willing to extend our military law into civilian life."

quote:

Originally posted by lawstudent10:
But it does bring up an interesting question -- do we want our civil law to be informed by military law?

Technically, though, isn't military law passed through the congress? Federal Code?

I guess it's more of a big mis-statement...I don't think it would have affected the majority ruling...I think you're spot on there...

jag