Today's Lubbock Avalanche-Journal carries an OpEd by Texas Tech Law prof Arnold Loewy, "Death penalty should not be applied to cases of child sexual assault."
Kennedy v. Louisiana, the recent Supreme Court decision outlawing the death penalty for convicted child rapists, has upset many politicians and much of the citizenry as well. For example, Sen. John McCain was quoted as calling the decision "an assault on law enforcement's efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime."
Whatever else might be said about the decision, it does not prevents the state from punishing child molesters. Life imprisonment without parole is hardly a pleasant prospect for anybody. But child molesters are not well-liked in prison, and from what I understand, those who believe in "an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" form of punishment could not imagine greater retribution than life imprisonment for a child rapist.
And:
This brings me to my final concern. The death penalty may well deter children from reporting the rapes against them. It is one thing to send Uncle Charlie away for a long time because of what he did to the child. But to kill him because of a little girl's testimony is a lot to put on the head of an already abused and traumatized child. Surely she does not need to go through life thinking that her testimony killed her uncle (or in the Kennedy case, stepfather), about whom she most likely had ambivalent feelings.
For this reason, the National Association of Social Workers feared allowing capital punishment would make it less likely that young rape victims and their families will report the rape to authorities. If so, there would be less rather than more punishment of child rapists.
For all of these reasons and more, the Supreme Court rightly held that the death penalty for child rapists is cruel and unusual punishment, and, as such, has no place in any state in this great country. For that, the court should be applauded, not condemned.
My commentary on Kennedy v. Louisiana and Texas lawmakers is here. Earlier coverage of the case and ruling is here.
Comments