January 06, 2008
SCOTUS to review "Jessica's Law"

We knew this was coming at the time the Lege was debating this awful bill, and now here it is.


The U.S. Supreme Court's review of whether the death penalty can be imposed against a Louisiana man convicted of raping a child will reverberate in Texas, which just last year passed its own law targeting those who prey on children.

How the court rules may determine whether Texas can implement the death-penalty portion of Jessica's Law, named after Jessica Lunsford, a Florida girl who was kidnapped, raped and buried alive.

A convicted sex offender was found guilty in Jessica's murder, spurring some states, including Texas, to examine their laws punishing sex offenders.

Texas' law adds the death penalty as an option in cases in which someone for a second time has been convicted of aggravated sexual assault against a child under 14. The other possible penalty would be life without parole.

The Texas law also strengthens other sections of the law against aggravated sexual assault of children, including by providing for minimum sentences of 25 years.

Some worried whether imposing the death penalty against an offender who hasn't committed murder would pass constitutional muster. A clause in the law provides that the rest of it will stand if the death penalty portion is found unconstitutional.

[...]

Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley, who worked on the Texas legislation, considers child rape to be a crime so heinous that the argument can be made that it is more damaging than murder.

At the same time, he didn't support putting the death penalty in the law because he said that could work against successful prosecution. Children most often are victimized by friends or family members, he said, and they may feel intense pressure against coming forward if their testimony might result in the death penalty.

Bradley sees more strength in the rest of the law. He is prosecuting what appears to be the first case in Texas that was brought under the law, but he is not seeking the death penalty.

The prosecutor said it's good that the Supreme Court is taking up the issue before Texas has a death-penalty prosecution under the law.

"It's a very healthy thing for the Supreme Court to take the case," he said.

Jim Harrington of the Texas Civil Rights Project, who favorably cited court rulings narrowing the instances in which the death penalty can be used, said, "It's good timing. We're right at the beginning of the Texas statute. ... It'll be good guidance from the get-go."


Lord only knows what the Roberts Court, which has already shown its willingness to favor partisan ideology, will do with this. StandDown Texas has more.

Posted by Charles Kuffner on January 06, 2008 to Crime and Punishment
Comments

Lord only knows what the Roberts Court, which has already shown its willingness to favor partisan ideology, will do with this.

I'm not sure how you mean that.

Will it be an example of the "partisan ideology" that you don't like if the Roberts Court substitutes its own judgment for the judgment of duly elected popular representatives of the states who enacted these laws, thereby striking some portion? (Anti-Democracy!)

Or will it be an example of the "partisan ideology" that you don't like if the Roberts Court declines to substitute its judgment for the judgment of the duly elected popular representatives of the states who enacted these laws, and refuses to strike down any portion of them? (Crazy Federalists!)

I've only framed it that way because I think it's entirely too easy to cast Court decisions one doesn't like as "partisan ideology." But I really don't think most Court members view themselves as extensions of either party, even though I might disagree with the approaches of individual justices.

Posted by: Kevin Whited on January 6, 2008 9:06 AM

I think he means a Court that would substitute it's judgment over the intent and wording of the Constitution.

Last time I checked, even the will of the electorate, as expressed by their representatives, still must follow our constitution - unless they want to change it.

And there are procedures for doing that. No short-cuts allowed.

Posted by: Dennis on January 6, 2008 10:38 AM

I don't much care what the Roberts Court decides.

I would favor either of two changes to the law.

Conviction of child rape should be punishable either by life in prison without possibility of parole -- and I would include that this should be mandatory on first offense -- or by the death penalty, should the offender be discovered to have raped more than one victim or to have raped the same victim more than once.

A child rapist is like a rabid dog, and should be treated as such.

In fact, I have no sympathy for rapists who prey on adults, either.

Posted by: The_Other_Sarah on January 6, 2008 1:18 PM

Well, I guess that's why we have legislatures and courts, so we don't have to impose criminal sentences based on individual preferences.

And what the Roberts court decides will probably be the final decision on the subject, so I guess we all should care.

Posted by: Dennis on January 6, 2008 1:56 PM