Blunt weighs in on case that could impact “Devlin’s Law”
Gov. Matt Blunt has entered the debate in a U.S. Supreme Court case that could decide whether the next Michael Devlin gets the death penalty.
Blunt’s office announced today it has filed an amicus brief in Kennedy v. Louisiana, the case of a man sentenced to death for raping his eight-year-old stepdaughter at their home near New Orleans.
The case would have broad implications around the U.S., and particularly in Missouri.
After Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby were rescued from their captor last year, State Sen. John Loudon announced he was sponsoring legislation that would make the kidnapping and rape of a child a potentially capital offense.
At issue in Kennedy- and in Loudon’s “Devlin Law” - is a fundamental constitutional question: Does enforcing the death penalty for a crime other than murder violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban against “cruel and unusual punishment?”
The Louisiana Supreme Court believes it doesn’t, saying in its lower-court ruling that “if the court is going to exercise its independent judgment to validate the death penalty for any non-homicide crime, it is going to be child rape.”
Blunt, essentially, makes the same argument in a press release today.
“Violent sex offenses against children are unspeakable crimes, crimes so horrific that they defy comprehension and demand harsh punishment,” Blunt said. “Crimes like these deserve the most serious punishment we can possibly deliver.”
The opposition will most likely rely on an earlier decision, Coker v. Georgia, which said that while rape is a heinous crime, only murder meets the criteria for the state’s highest penalty.
Oral arguments in the Kennedy case are scheduled for next month. It’s unclear how the timing of the case will effect the bill in Jefferson City.
If the Supreme Court strikes down the Louisiana law, it would seem to doom Loudon’s bill as well. But, knowing how deliberate the Supreme Court will be with this case, it’s unlikely a decision will come down before the legislative session ends.
Case could mean death penalty for crimes like the ones committed by Devlin
Are we letting our indignation and disgust trump the safety of the children involved?
If this law is in place, what prevents a rape from becoming a murder? Doesn’t a law like this actually encourage the criminal to kill the best (and maybe only) witness while he can?
I’d like to see some proof that this will work better, not worse, before we proceed.
Mr. Walsh, I can see why you might speculate about rapist turning into killers in order to “kill the witness.” Let’s think about that.
First, a killer is a killer. A rapist may or may not be a killer.
If the perp is caught, any way you slice it the fact that you kidnapped and raped a small child means you are going away for a long long time. If you are not inclined to kill, it is hard to really imagine that the threat of the death penalty alone is going to turn you into a killer. To assume that it would is to acknowledge that the death penalty is in fact a deterrent insofar as criminals would alter their behavior based on avoiding it. This may or may not be true.
The key issue here is very basic. Having the death penalty available serves two purposes. First, it offers comfort to the victim. We ought to care about that. If Josh Hornbeck wants Devlin dead that ought to be at least a possibility.
Secondly, if the prosecutors had the death penalty available, then they could have charged him with that and then offered a plea to Devlin of life w/o parole without having to go through the silly exercise of charging him with something like 30 life sentences. That trivializes the process.
I think Blunt and Loudon have this one right.
Anyone who kidnaps a kid off the streets for sexual gratification and puts a child and his or her family through that kind of living hell deserves death. Period.
Then why not make all rapes capital cases? Isn’t it tragic for every victim? Yes, there is something to be said about the defenselessness of a child. But what about the elderly? The physically disabled? The mentally disabled? Are they not all, on some level, just as defenseless?
I think this is a slippery slope when adding what types of cases can be capital cases. Not even all murders are up for consideration of capital cases.
Michael is right when he says that the death penalty is not been proven to be a crime deterrent. However, he is wrong with his analogy of giving prosecutors a bargaining chip. We should not be making laws with consideration of how we can bargain away a reduced sentence. With that methodology, we are saying that a reduced sentence is appropriate. And if that is the case, then why make this a capital crime?
The fact of the matter is in the legal system you can never avoid the plea bargaining system; it goes with the territory and we would not be proposing laws with the intent of how to gain a reduced sentence-just changes what type of reduced sentence is available. That is just a by-product of the judicial system that will never be altered. Michael is correct in how he stated that adding the death penalty to these crimes will give juries more freedom in granting appropriate sentences.