The Other Supreme Court/death penalty case

Click on the title for a link to the article I reference.

This morning, while driving to the office, I listened to an NPR story about the upcoming death penalty case to be heard by the supreme court. Then, reading the NY Times in the office, I see that there is another case NPR didn't mention.

The Supreme Court is going to hear an appeal from a man who was sentenced to death for the rape of an 8 year old child.

According to the article, the court decided in 1977 that the death penalty should only apply to murder convictions because although rape is horrible, the victim remains alive. However, in recent years and with recent high media cases, a few states have passed legislation allowing for the death penalty upon the conviction of rape of a child under the age of 12.

I personally am conflicted on the death penalty. The young and idealistic part of me thinks that a evolved society shouldn't NEED the death penalty. However, the realistic part of me understands that we aren't there yet. Far from it.

I can see arguments for both sides of the death penalty issue. Although I personally come down to a very practical, economic stance. I would much rather see the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent each year for EACH person on death row go to victim services. I don't quite see the value of spending so much to keep people alive who have demonstrated clearly that they are unwilling to live within the most basic of social rules.

I'm not sure how I feel about the death penalty in child rape cases. I think the easy answer is to say that they should be taken one at a time. Clearly, someone who has raped lots and lots of children is unwilling or incapable of living with larger society . . . and can we really deny services to the victims because all our money is going to support the perp?

Then again, just the thought of the ugly orange jumpsuit and the shame of my family has always been deterrent enough for me.