Obama's response to the Supreme Court Death penalty decision
By John Amato Wednesday Jun 25, 2008 3:00pmHere's Obama's response to the Supreme Court decision which struck down the death penalty for the rape of a child.
Democrat Barack Obama says he disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision outlawing executions of people convicted of raping a child.
Obama told reporters Wednesday that he thinks the rape of a child, ages six or eight, is a heinous crime. He said if a state makes a decision, then the death penalty is potentially applicable.
I get why he said it. Everybody's petrified of being "gotcha'd" like Dukakis on the rape question. But this one isn't hard. All he had to say was that as a father he would certainly want to kill anyone who did such a heinous thing with his bare hands, but as a public servant and legal scholar he knows that the death penalty should be reserved for people who kill...read on
It seems to me that he's running much farther to the right then he has to. I know he doesn't want to be portrayed as "soft on crime," but he could have approached it in any number of ways other than disagreeing with a wingnut Supreme Court that voted against this.
If we're going to have a death penalty, and if the death penalty is reserved for the most heinous crimes, then rape should be punishable by death. Does Obama think that the rapists who sodomized prisoners at Abu Ghraib with chemical lights should be put to death? Given his views on child rape, I should hope so. Consistency requires him to call for the executions of the American soldiers who committed these crimes. If he's not serious about putting all rapists to death, he is trivializing rape by calling for the death penalty only for those who rape children.
If you're going to support the death penalty for child rape alone, you need to explain why child rapes are so morally special compared to the rapes of adult human beings.
The only morally consistent "law and order" position for Obama would be to assert that rape should be punishable by death, across the board...read on
If they killed all the pedophile rapists, there would be no Christian priesthood left and few -- if any -- Republicans.
Isn't this the same Supreme Court that said torture is dandy?
This is starting to feel like the same-old Democratic strategy:
Win the primary by stating what you believe and staying true to your convictions.
Once the nomination is sown up, act as RIGHT WING as you possibly can because only Republicans are strong on security, and being too liberal is obviously a weakness.
By next week, Obama might be heading out on a hunting trip with Cheney.
The death penalty hasn't stopped anyone from committing murder; never has never will. Nor will it stop people from raping children. If we claim to be a civilized society, we've got to get away from barbaric means of punishment.
I don't get Bernstein's argument. It's logically consistant to state that the death penalty should be applicable to rape only if the victim is a child.
Obama is preempting right wing talking points.
If you're looking for ideological purity - check out Nader or Barr.
Pillow Pants @ 2:
And aren't the repigs the ones who think it's a great idea to crush a kids testicles to force his "turrist" father to tell them what they want to hear?
What a death penalty would do: Make child molesters more likely to murder their victims.
I miss John Edwards.
Who cares what this lying sack of shit has to say about anything? He is not to be trusted and his massive flip flop on FISA and warrantless wiretapping is proof that he is a lying, scheming, manipulative son of a bitch that is not worth one additional cent, much less a vote in November.
It's too bad Obama plays the politics game like this when he doesn't even need to.
I think the difference between child rape and adult rape is that, in the former case, you're doing an incredible amount of emotional and physical damage to a person who is not even mature enough to deal with it. That doesn't make the latter situation better or right, but there's at least a possibility of the person in the latter situation being able to recover from it. But again, I think it's dumb that they get spared, and a guy like Tookie Williams gets lethal injection. Either the rules apply, or they don't apply at all; don't tell me that such-and-such individuals are excluded.
The only morally consistent “law and order” position for Obama would be to assert that rape should be punishable by death, across the board…
Darn it, Lindsey Bernstein took all the gray out!
In fact, if "heinous" is the key qualifier for which our government should stick a needle in your arm and inject you with poison, then what about torturing prisoners? Wasn't that heinous? What about lying to start wars that kill thousands or millions of people? What's more heinous than that? Innocent little girls in Iraq have been bombed and shot since 2003 because of lies from Bush and his cronies. Shouldn't they be tried, convicted and put to death?
Oh, and what about politicians that accept bribes from corporations to subvert climate scientists trying to warn us of global disasters that will kill billions of human beings? Isn't that heinous?
Obama is a smart politician. He figures that since he has the far left sewn up, all he has to do is cater to the center and right wing and he'll be president. It's all tactical. Far too many of his supporters thought he was gonna move mountains and part the red sea, but at the end of the day, he's just another slick politician. Get over it.
Inflict your righteous mob anger on the child rapists all you like, but please leave pedophiles, most of whom are non-violent, out of this.
For those who support the death penalty in cases of _child_ rape, please define child. Is a 16-year-old a child? Seventeen?
We allow people to vote and sign contracts at 18. We don't allow them to drink until 21. In some states it is Ok to have sex with someone 16, in others 18.
This just feels like too much emotion spilling over into the law. Why are cops and children more important than the rest of us?
As to Barack, we're all going to find out he's not as liberal as he came across in the primary. I'll still vote for him when given the choice between him and McCain, but he's much closer to Bill or Hillary than to the more left side of the party.
jimbo92107 @ 12:
And where do they stop with the definition of "heinous"? There are plenty of foam at the mouth right wing nutjobs who would be very happy to define being liberal as a heinous crime, just as long as they could get someone else to do the dirty work for them.
tiballou nails it.
Yeah, uh, look, Barack? Could you just not talk to me for a couple of days, okay? I mean, y'know, we're still friends and everything, but I kinda need a little alone time, okay? Thanks.
If you offer up the death penalty for a crime in which no [physical] death occurs, the perp might as well kill the victim...no witnesses, less chance of getting caught.
And the death penalty is 1st degree murder, no matter how you slice it. It is a violent act committed by the state with malice and intent, with planning, against a human being.
This isn't likely to be a popular position to take here, but I think Obama might be playing it smart on this one.
I'm sorry but I don't agree with LB that you can reasonably take any kind of absolutist position on this, because real-life voters are always ambivalent and conflicted about emotional topics like the death penalty. They'll concede on the one hand that "date rape" is reprehensible and should be punished, but not by death. But the rape of a child is such a horrific act that I'd bet most people, parents especially, would support going that far.
Obama might actually be speaking to his true principles here, which is always a good thing for his credibility and resonance with voters. It makes him human.
anHeronOwl @ 14:
Active pedophilia is by definition violent. If you're stuck with an attraction to children that you never, ever act on, then you might have my empathy. But approaching children in that way is not acceptable or tolerable, and is abusive and damaging.
I'm with Digby on this one, both on why Obama said this (Dukakis) and what he could have said. I'm not terribly surprised, though.
Honestly, Bernstein seemingly has no idea what she's talking about - It's not a matter of supporting anything, it's a matter of acknowledging space for a legislature to act on the specific issue - it goes no further than that.
The case is also kind of uniquely legal - in that its kind of human to want those kind of people dead, its kind of a legal interventionalism against our worst instincts, that kind of argument is rough to make in a general election - you'd see ads "Obama supports child rapists" - and that would be pretty devastating
miss_kitty @ 19:
But at least they're ever so careful to make sure they've got the right guy before the kill him. /snark
Really though, Obama's spurious pronouncement on this issue does make me wonder if he's got sufficient wisdom to be a good president. Where is the calm, philosophical reflection we saw when he was defending himself against Republican smears and insults?
Does Barack Obama reserve all his best lines for self-defense and self-promotion?
An unfortunate choice by Mr. Obama. America is generally more interested in vengeance than the religious faith it pretends to espouse. If one believes that God is capable or redeeming the lost, then do we have to right to deny God that opportunity by taking a life in the name of the ("God blessed") state? Lock 'em up and throw away the key, sure, but don't deny the possibility of that life being redeemed and becoming a blessing to others. Most "mainline" Christian denominations have official positions against the death penalty, but you won't hear it preached from many pulpits...
This CFR ringer is rapidly making himself irrelevant in my book. At this point the only thing I 'm considering about voting for him is if he would nominate Supreme Court justices any differently than would, say, HRC, which is to say any differently than would Joseph Lieberman. I'm seriously considering voting with my feet.
it's amazing that in a country of freedoms,
that more people are in prison for minor crimes
than all the rest of the western civilizations.
rape is a serious crime, but the death penalty
is outrageous as punishment. it will soon
be a death penalty for just criticizing someone.
dadams @ 28:
Start reading here and follow the thread. Very enlightening...
The correct argument to support the decision is that making it a Capital Crime increase the likelihood the rapist will kill the child to get rid of the only witness.
And if the rapist is a family member, a child may be less likely to testify if they knew it could mean sentencing that family member to death, thus reducing the number of victims willingto come forward.
The argument should NOT be because "we should only kill killers". That's dumb.
Pillow Pants @ 2:
Actually they said that torture as a punishment is bad and unconstitutional... But if you're being tortured during questioning before trial then you're not being punished for anything yet because you haven't been convicted so that's just fine and dandy.
Tequila @ 11:
chazzan @ 26:
Indeed, the blood lust runs strong.
Obama is showing his rookie ways. He didn't need to say a thing about the decision. Man, he has this election locked. Don't try to screw it up now.
He's not "running to the right" He's returning to where he was before the primary.
"I agree with Sen. Clinton on 95...more like 99% of the issues."
It might be a shock to Obama Nation but not to anyone who was paying attention.
1st I support the Death penalty as long as everything possible is done to get the right person but I don't get the reason they said Child rapist can't get death.The last time I heard these are the crimes that can get the Death Penalty -Murder. Kidnapping with or without any fatalities,Treason with or without any fatalities and Espionage(spying) with or without any fatalities.So way can't Child Rapist be Executed.The only good reason given was that it would give the Rapist more reason to kill the child and so for that reason I would be against the Death Penalty for Child Rapist that's also why I'm against the Death penalty for Kidnappers also.
I disagree with the quoted statement. I can easily see an argument for why rape of children is worse than other forms. I'm not certain I agree with it, but I can see it.
Mugsy @ 30:
That's what I thought too. Besides, Obama is correct. It's a state decision.
With the supreme court ruling about guns he should have said that he was pro guns for children against rape.
It's Lindsay Beyerstein, not Lindsey Bernstein.
Mr.Cynical @ 13:
Agreed to some extent, but it's also important to understand that nothing he does now is going to move even a molehill. He needs to get elected first.
Even though I'm a Independent, I consider myself a progressive. Since Obama has gotten the Democratic nomination, he is starting to disappoint me. Along with this topic, is his stance on FISA.
One reason I still can't register as a Democrat.
Officially Barack Obama is for the death penalty under special circumstances. Rape is a heinous crime, certainly and much worse wehn done to a child, but i can't agree it is deserving of the death penalty.
This is the most left wing radical in Congress?
I can't tell. Along with this and FISA i am having some serious doubts about him.
If the argument for the death penalty is that the rape of a child leaves the victim emotionally scarred for life then what about cases of severe child abuse that don't involve a sexual component? Lots of people have been permanently damaged by an abusive parent. How about abandonment? Where do you draw the line?
Albatross @ 21:
Albatross....I think anHeronOwl was attempting sarcasm...if not...then EEEWWWW!
Albatross, most sex offenses involving minors are not violent. There is plenty of data to back this up. One can argue that they are abusive and damaging, but they are rarely violent.
There is no such thing as 'active pedophilia'. Pedophilia is not the name of a crime, it is the name of an orientation. There is active child molestation, but pedophilia and child molestation are not the same thing.
You seem to be quite misinformed about pedophiles. You probably don't know any. I do.
liberalDAPofJUSTICEmoderation @ 45:
And stay the hell away from my family too!
John said, "It seems to me that he’s running much farther to the right then he has to."
Maybe. But it has occurred to me that he is in fact much farther to the right than he has been portrayed
by the left.
Fredric L. Rice @ 1:
PWND!!
anHeronOwl @ 46:
anHeronOwl @ 46:
Ok....creeepy...it still don't make it right Hoss!
Barry Halpern @ 41:
How many supporters is he going to lose as he moves to the extreme right? I haven't made up my mind yet and with every new flip it gets harder to even think about voting for him.
John Kiel @ 49:
I know that's shit's GOLD right there! Solid fuckin GOLD I tells ya!
To be fair, the original case being presented was regarding an 8 year old, whose bowels were so damaged she had to be surgically operated on, then given gallons of stool softener in a feeding tube so she could use her bowels again. That's not a typical rape. Most adult women can live through a rape without this type of damage.
Secondly, Obama stated that if the Supreme Court had wanted to narrowly define when a death sentence for rape should take place, he had no problem with that. He is considering it from the lawerly, constitutional point of view, that is, states rights. States usually decide when there is to be a death penalty, or if there should be at all. For those who don't know, murder and rape are usually state crimes, not federal crimes. The only time they are federal crimes is when states lines are crossed. Murder amd rape laws are instituted at the state level, not federal level.
Unfortunately I have to know this because a friend was murdered during a crime that involved crossing state lines. The FBI handled it (very incompetently), and the murderer remains uncharged a year later. You do not want the feds in the state violent crime investigation business, take it from me. The locals are much better equiped to handle local crime, as we learned.
Death penalaty? YOU BET!! Obama is not against the death penalaty - he does not agree with the supreme court (small case letters intended) getting rid of it.
Hey - I am a mother and a grandmother. If anyone harms one of my two children or one of my six grandchildren - [Deleted. Please don't advocate for violence at this site. Thank you. Site Monitor] Nobody - NOBODY - has the right to harm another.
In general, the death penalty is a bad idea due to the number of wrongful convictions.
"We gonna put you to death now."
"But I didn't do it! The DNA evidence--"
"The victim was a child."
"...Oh well then by all means!"
Yellow Elephant Safari @ 44:
I think that's the crux of the argument. Where do you draw the line? I have a hard time with the death penalty in general, especially in light of the reversals of convictions because of new DNA evidence, and (more cynically) because it costs more to allow someone to pursue all of their death row appeals than to keep them in jail for life. I have started to think maybe just serial killers should qualify for the death penalty, that you have to do something truly heinous to qualify. Then again, what is truly heinous?
rain @ 54:
Unless it's you taking vigilante justice apparently.
"It seems to me that he’s running much farther to the right then he has to"
Becoming something of a pattern with him, isn't it?
Albatross @ 21:
PEDOPHILIA IS A VIOLENT ACT!!
rain @ 54:
I was a victim of child molestation in the 1950's and early 1960's. Guess who the perpetrators are? Family members and family friends for the most part. Be very carefull what you ask for or your father could end up on death row for raping your daughter. How much damage can one family take?
Going one step further, if a molestation were to escalate to a rape how much more likely would murder follow in order to cover up a crime that allows for the death penalty? I think children are much safer without the perpetrator resorting to killing in order to avoid being killed.
anHeronOwl @ 46:
No, I just know their victims.
Rationalize me none of your rationalizations. I recognize that pedophilia is an orientation, and I can accept that a pedophile who never acts on their pedophilia is not harming anyone.
If you can uncramp your semantic fingers long enough to recognize that someone who is a pedophile and acts on their desires is an 'active' pedophile, then you will understand that I consider doing so a form of violence. I don't care if they are as sweet and nice and gentle about it as Michael Jackson with Macaulay Culkin, imposing one's urges on a child is damaging and therefore violent.
The decision, and the demagogic replies from the pols like both Obama and Bombin' John, affirms my long-held belief that "child abuse" will soon be a separate class unto tiself od capital crimes.
The idolatrization of "the child" has gotten completely out of hand. "Protecting the children" has become a new psycho-pathology, and a formidable enemy of adult liberty.
Yellow Elephant Safari @ 57:
That's not what Jesus would do, he would turn the other cheek. If it happened to one of my daughters, would I be upset? You bet. But I can't let anger and revenge consume me. I would like to think that I'm a better human being than the animal that harmed my daughters.
ThunderMonkey @ 63:
I suspect Jesus would have gone all money-changers-in-the-Temple on their ass...
Fredric L. Rice @ 1:
Woohoo! somebody gets the obvious!
But threatening to kill pedophiles would not be a deterent. The depth of their depravity isn't going to be slowed by such a threat. These people know their crime is the among the most heinous....unless of course your perspective is the Old Testament...which has nothing negative to say about pedophilia...but death to those who eat shrimp!
So there is really no harm in Obama taking such a position. So, it was good politics...and I think it was also candid. It was a win/win for him.
I honestly believe that this and many other forms of crimes could be prevented if we took a more proactive approach to dealing with disfunctional and deviant behavior in our society. Litigating it after the fact does absolutely nothing to protect the victims.
Face it, our judicial system isn't structured to address social ills, it's just a big money tit for lawyers.
JUDICIAL REFORM NOW!
i think we have seen what kind of "leader" (see puppet) obama really is
right now obama is ahead in the polls, even in swing states, has a HUGE following, is raking in cash by the bag-full, etc. YET, he is capitulating to the right. from economic issues, to social issues, to privacy issues, etc.
what happens when he is seriously challenged? right now he has the country eating out of his hand and he still has no backbone, no courage and no leadership.
gahd, i so regret that obama won the primary. (not that hillary would be any better, just sayin')
third party candidate here i come
Samson- @ 66:
So you are looking forward to John McCain appointing three more Supreme Court candidates?
You're excited about a third Republican cabinet?
You're happy to have Republican appointees continuing to run the Judiciary and other federal agencies?
That's REALLY what you want?
I'm not happy with Obama either - in fact he and I aren't talking right now - but I'll vote for him. Because while he may not give me everything I want, McCain will give me NOTHING I want...
Even Don Corleone knew that death wasn't the right punishment for rape. "That I cannot do," he told the undertaker who asked him to kill the young men who had gotten his daughter drunk and then "took advantage" of her. It's in the opening scene of "The Godfather."
Albatross @ 64:
I'm not Jesus, I guess I'll have to live with the imperfection of knowing I'd take out the worthless crap that touched my kid.
We're entering the phase of Obama where he tries to be everything to everyone and thwart all potential criticism. Wrong move. He should oppose the death penalty even for killers.
Will he abandon his principles when he is elected?
Probably not.
Will I withhold campaign donations?
Yes. Good luck, jerk.
Albatross @ 29:
Then read this one : http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment
Albatross @ 64:
That's a different case. Jesus was upset that men (moneychangers) were turning the temple into a business. He never harmed another human being, he just drove them from the temple.
Take that and put in a pipe in smoke it Hagee (and the rest of your ilk).
Murkins are, by and large, the sickest phuques on the planet, regarding the death penalty. I read the results from a survey, back in the 90s, which reported that nearly 50 % of Murkins approved the death penalty even if there was a 100 % certainty that some innocent people would be slain by the State.
I put it down to the fact that most (white) Murkins do not--cannot--imagine they themselves will ever end up on the wrong side of the legal system.
obviously, the same people who sabotaged Gore and Kerry are back in charge.
Death Penalty Shmeath Shmenalty.
Calling for the death penalty in the case of child rape is not an extreme right point of view.
Nor is it, obviously, extreme left.
But! Making statements during a campaign that will inspire such sentiments as "He says that because he is a father," will further the image of "American Man" that Obama is showing us to defend against the stupid allegations that he is a Muslim Terrorist Extremist Elitist Martini-at-the-Country-Club America Hater.
The extreme right wants death penalty used quite liberally it would seem.
The extreme left wants no death penalty ever it appears.
Obama is saying "I am in the middle on this." But more importantly, he is saying "I am a father who loves his kids."
Campaign Gold?
If the Supreme Court had ruled yes on the death penalty, it doesn't mean that automatically every child rapist would be put to death.
It means that if individual states had chosen to institute a law granting death penalty to some rapists under some circumstances, they could do so. The individual states could also choose not to do so, just as some states don't have the death penalty for murder now.
Judging from what's on this thread, many states would choose not to have such a law, feeling it to be "cruel and unusual." The legal question was, "Do the individual states have a right to give the death penalty for certain rapes?" not "Should every child rapist everywhere be put to death?" The Supreme Court doesn't have the jurisdiction to write state laws. The only jurisdiction they had here was "Is death for rape "cruel and unusual," i.e, unconstitutional?""
The Supreme Court at this time, at least, doesn't think it has the jurisdiction to rule that death for murder is "cruel and unusual," so they do acknowledge that the state has a great deal of leeway.
The Supreme Court only rules whether laws are constitutional, not whether they are a good idea. Their jurisdiction is limited.
Obama's argument was that this is a states rights' issue, not that he personally wants to put all child rapists to death. He's a lawyer, not a cowboy vigilante with a "wanted: dead or alive" sign. You may be confusing him with someone else.
This one is a no-brainer and I think the extremists are examining this too closely. For the average parent, this is a gut-reaction issue. You do not want to look liberal on penalties for abusing a child. Obama responded with the right answer for our sound-bite-loving nation. I say give him a pass on this one. Don't become one of those "One Issue Charlies".
In easier terms... do you want Obama answer the way you want him to AND lose the general election? Because that's what would happen for sure.
"If you’re going to support the death penalty for child rape alone, you need to explain why child rapes are so morally special compared to the rapes of adult human beings."
What kind of fucking moron would actually believe this? I don't know who Lindsay Bernstein is, but I sure as hell know that he/she is really stupid.
ThunderMonkey @ 63:
I don't have any kids, but I have a niece, a nephew, and another niece on the way...both my sisters were raped, one by a pedophile when she was 10...the other by her asshole boss who slipped her a mickey at a party I have ZERO tolerance for pedophiles and rapists..I'm here to tell you all, I don't care whose kid it is but they get raped by a pedophile, and if I catch 'em...the law won't ever find all their body parts. Them gators in the glades are always hungry. I'd make sure they were alive when the gators start in on 'em too...
Children ought not be messed with like that...that kinda evil shit...just fucks them up forever. My sister, is almost 41 now...she still has nightmares about it.
I bet you start flaying these fuckers alive, and there'd be alot less pedophiles.
Albatross, violence has a dictionary definition. Look it up. Coercion has another definition. Look it up. Violence is a subset of coercion, but not all coercion is violent. The percentage of child molestation and statutory rape crimes that involve coercion is much greater than those that involve violence. Most such crimes do not involve violence. You may wish to redefine violence in an Orwellian fashion to make it mean something it didn't originally mean. You can usually get away with butchering English these days, especially around emotional topics such as pedophilia or terrorism, but not when you are talking to me.
Albatross @ 67:
i am struggling to see the differences, really...
FISA, iran, death penalty, corporate favors, neoliberal economic ideology, centrism (see, lean right), etc.
obama talks a big talk, but the pudding-as-proof looks pretty wishy washy, pretty GOP-leaning, pretty corporate infused.
believe me, i know the risks. i am fucking sick of the dems capitulating to the right, and as long as the dems are sure that liberals/progressives/lefties feel trapped into voting for dem candidates they will continue to use and abuse us.
the dems didn't learn from nader's 2000 run. phhpt, they haven't learned shit.
BaScOmBe hearts Lara Logan @ 74:
i completely agree with that
liberalDAPofJUSTICEmoderation @ 79:
What a 'hero.'
Pillow Pants @ 2:
Meat @ 83:
Ah go piss up a rope asshole
seth @ 70:
Wow, everyone here is a mind-reader and knows exactly what Obama's true beliefs and motivations are.
My wife disagrees with the Supreme Court decision and I feel ambivalent even though we oppose the death penalty under all other circumstances. I don't even like kids and generally disapprove of politicians jumping on the "save the children" side of any issue just to score political points, but there's just something sick beyond repair about someone who could rape a young child.
(And, no, there's no moral inconsistency in applying the death penalty for the rape of a child but not a adult. It's obvious that the rape of a child is a more depraved and damaging crime than the rape of an adult, too obvious to argue about.)
As an Obama supporter I don't care if he's pandering or sincere. The Supreme Court wouldn't reverse itself on this in the foreseeable future even if Obama won the Justice lottery and stacked the court with death penalty proponents. There is nothing to lose and perhaps something to gain politically for voicing disagreement; I be disappointed if he didn't.
Samson- @ 82:
Yeah, that's actually an excellent point.
"Congratulations Mr. Obama, on winning the nomination. Along with leadership of the Democratic party, you also receive the services of these Standard Democratic Advisors who so ably guided Kerry, Gore and Dukakis..."
liberalDAPofJUSTICEmoderation @ 79:
A lot less respect for life than there is now, which isn't much. We could of course bring back the spectacle of feeding criminals to lions.Any lions left?