"Jindal urging death penalty for child rapists," is the title of a Sunday article in the New Orleans Times-Picayune.
Gov. Bobby Jindal said Saturday his administration is working with prosecutors on a bill that would reinstate the death penalty for rape in limited cases, especially for "monsters" who prey on young children.
"If there is any crime (other than murder) that merits the death penalty, it is rape," Jindal told applauding delegates to the 71st annual meeting of the Louisiana Municipal Association, a statewide organization of mayors.
After his speech, Jindal told reporters that besides asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider its 5-4 June ruling throwing out the death penalty law in a Jefferson Parish child rape case, his staff is researching ways to craft a new law that would meet constitutional muster. >
The next time the Legislature could take up such a bill is likely to be in the April regular session, a meeting geared mainly to tax and fiscal matters, although each lawmaker can file five nonfiscal bills.
If Jindal calls a special session before then, he could include a new capital-punishment rape law on the agenda.
And:
Jindal said the high court "made an awful mistake" in striking down the law.
He told reporters that his executive counsel, Jimmy Faircloth, has been meeting with district attorneys and others on ways "to craft legislation we think will stand their (the justices') scrutiny." One factor being examined, he said, is the age limit of the victim. The old law allowed a prosecutor to seek the death penalty for anyone convicted of raping a child younger than 12.
In some twist of morbid irony, the Springfield News-Leader reports, "GOP lawmaker accused of sex with minor supported death penalty for child rapists."
State Rep. Scott Muschany, a Republican lawmaker from suburban St. Louis who was indicted Wednesday for having "deviate sexual intercourse" with a 14-year-old girl, was among 28 Missouri lawmakers who pushed for the death penalty for child rapists.
In March, Muschany signed on to a U.S. Supreme Court brief filed by Gov. Matt Blunt urging the high court to clarify whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits the death penalty for child rapists.
And:
A Cole County grand jury in Jefferson City indicted the 42-year-old Muschany for allegedly sexually assault a minor girl on May 17 — a day after the Missouri General Assembly concluded its 2008 session.
Associated Press reporter Chris Blank has a full story in today's News-Leader about mounting calls by Republican leaders for Muschany to step down.
Muschany abruptly decided on May 20 to take his name off the ballot and not seek re-election, telling The Associated Press, "There's no scandal as far as I'm aware of. My wife and I just decided it wasn't the right time to continue."
St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter Tony Messenger, the former News-Leader editorial page editor, broke the story on Wednesday.
The article notes that in spite of the governor's advocacy for the bill, it did not reach the Missouri Senate floor and companion legislation was not introduced in the Missouri House.
Sunday's Fort Worth Star-Telegram carried the editorial, "Death penalty ruling should be reviewed."
A criminal conviction must be based on valid evidence. Likewise, a legal interpretation that says a constitutional right trumps the state’s authority to enforce a democratically enacted law must be based on valid considerations.
The court might come to the same conclusion after reconsideration, but it should arrive there after assessing accurate information.
The Star-Telegram Editorial Board has repeatedly argued for restricting capital punishment for the worst of the worst and suspending its application in Texas until serious problems with the system are addressed. Even those who would limit — or abolish — the death penalty can’t be pleased with a key court ruling that’s based partly on a false premise.
On Saturday, the Wall Street Journal ran the OpEd, "The Supreme Court Can't Ignore the Facts," by New York attorney Stuart A. Smith.
Fifty years ago, in Flora v. United States, the court considered whether a taxpayer could bring a tax-refund suit in a federal district court if he did not first pay all of the taxes sought by the Treasury. Initially, the Court held 8-1 (with a short dissent by Justice Charles Evans Whitaker) in favor of the government, that full payment was required.
The Court relied upon its understanding that there was no case in which a taxpayer attempted a refund suit without paying the full amount the government alleged to be due. It was wrong. Tax lawyers around the country soon came forward and reported that they had brought such refund cases. The taxpayer, Walter Flora, thereupon sought a rehearing.
The Court granted the rehearing, and Justices Felix Frankfurter and John Marshall Harlan switched their votes, making the rehearing vote 5-4. They, together with the newly-appointed Justice Potter Stewart, joined Justice Whitaker's expanded dissent after the rehearing.
While the court ultimately upheld its initial decision, Justice Frankfurter's separate opinion has particular resonance with Kennedy v. Louisiana. "Once the basis which for me governed the disposition of the case was no longer available," he wrote, "I was thrown back to an independent inquiry of the course of tax legislation and litigation for more than a hundred years, for all of that was relevant to a true understanding of the problem presented by this case." He added, "This involved many weeks of study during what is called the summer vacation."
The five justices in the majority in Kennedy v. Louisiana should consider Justice Frankfurter's words -- and spend at least a part of their summer vacation reconsidering the basis of their decision.
Comments