WTMA commentary broadcast 6/27/08:
The decision this week by the U.S. Supreme Court declaring that states cannot execute child rapists is troubling for a number of reasons, both constitutional and moral. For example, according to the ruling, the death penalty can still be applied in cases involving “treason, espionage, terrorism, and drug kingpin activity, which are offenses against the state,” but, “as it relates to crimes against individuals… the death penalty should not be expanded to instances where the victim’s life was not taken” said the court.
But why would we execute traitors and spies? Or terrorists? Or drug lords?  - many of whom have never taken lives, at least directly? Because the gravity of their crimes damage and further endanger the well being of the American public, or at least this is the court’s logic.
But what about a grown man who forces himself sexually upon a child? In some cases multiple children, multiple times?
The irreparable damage done psychologically and physically to the child is without question. As the most innocent among us, the first and most important protectors of children are not and have never been the courts – but their parents. In an earlier era, parents and their neighbors would have known exactly how to handle such a crime, and if you thought our ancestors were hard on horse thieves, just imagine what they might do to those who robbed children of their sanity, self worth and soul.
But today we have courts to handle such matters, and in declaring the death penalty improper for child rapists, our court system has stated emphatically that it will not seek proper justice for both the victims of child rape and their parents.
As goes the cliché, if you want something done right, you do it yourself, and this is often true. If I were to hire someone to do a job and he was incompetent, no one would be surprised if I decided to sidestep the employee altogether and do the job myself. Possible vigilante action against child rapists would be no different – and if the courts can’t insure justice, parents certainly can and might, I wouldn’t blame them one bit, and shame on any court that would punish them.
The question of the death penalty has always inextricably also been a question about the role of the state, and many of my libertarian friends are opposed to the death penalty precisely because they believe it gives the government more power than its citizens. This is a good and valid point.
But if the people willingly relinquish the dispensation of justice to their government, as we have in the form of a court system, why would we deny the courts the right to dispense the ultimate justice? In some cases, anything less than execution is not true justice. Child rape is certainly one of those cases, as it is essentially a crime against humanity in individual form and should be punished with the same severity.
But for libertarians or anyone else concerned about intrusive and overpowering government, it might be worth noting the importance courts place on crimes against the state, as opposed to those against children. Crimes like treason, espionage, terrorism and drug trafficking can occur without a single life being taken, and yet the government still considers each worthy of the death penalty. But not child rape. Why? What makes offenses against the government more heinous than offenses against children?
If David Koresh of Waco, Texas was indeed molesting children, an allegation that remains questionable to this day, then he should have been executed. As it turns out he was executed anyway, as were the children themselves, but not for rape – for crimes against the government, in the form of unregistered weapons. What kind of logic is this? To paraphrase conservative writer Joseph Sobran, if I had to choose between the dangers posed by a man who thinks he’s god and a government that think it’s god, I’ll gladly choose the cult leader.
With this week’s decision, the Supreme Court effectively declared our government incompetent and inept in giving child rapists their just due. And when such a crime occurs again, we shouldn’t be the least bit surprised if parents decide to go into the justice business themselves, even if illegally, in order to do the job American government won’t do.


6 Comments
I agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case. It’s logic is infallible. The life of the child was not taken, so the rapist should not have to die. Regardless of how reprehensible the crime, and how horrific the damage inflicted on the victim, the fact remains that she still lives and has hope of a better life. If she was my daughter, I would no doubt seriously consider taking justice into my own hands. Whether I actually would or not is a moot point.
“By declaring the death penalty improper for child rapists, our court system has stated emphatically that it will not seek proper justice for both the victims of child rape and their parents.” That is your opinion, Jack, not a statement of fact. Being a conservative, you base your model of justice on the old biblical system of “an eye for an eye”. Our nation was as much, if not more, a product of the Age of Reason as it was of Christian values. Our Founding Fathers, particularly Thomas Jefferson, valued reason, rationality, and sane thinking over knee jerk emotional reactions in all areas of our government, especially the court system.
“But if the people willingly relinquish the dispensation of justice to their government, as we have in the form of a court system, why would we deny the courts the right to dispense the ultimate justice?” By willingly relinquishing the dispensation of justice to the court system, we the people are not denying the courts anything. Quite the contrary, we are allowing them to do their job by determining what crimes do and do not constitute capital offenses, regardless of what we think of their decisions.
“Crimes like treason, espionage, terrorism and drug trafficking can occur without a single life being taken, and yet the government still considers each worthy of the death penalty. But not child rape. Why?”
I will venture it is because all the former crimes you mentioned affect the lives of hundreds, if not thousands of our citizens, not just one person.
When Julius and Ethel Rosenberg stole top-secret government information about nuclear weapons and sold them to the Soviet Union, they basically issued in the Cold War. No one person’s life was taken in the process, but it put our entire nation was put in jeapordy of ultimate destruction.
The same applies to terrorism. Over two thousand people died in 9/11. The mastermind behind it didn’t actually kill anyone himself, but ultimately bore responsibility for the tragedy.
And notice the word “drug kingpin” in the Supreme Court decision. Small-time dealers don’t deserve to die. But the kingpin dealers, working for organized crime and who organize the smuggling of huge quantities of heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine into our country, have a part in the death and misery of thousands, if not millions.
All these people rightly deserve the ultimate punishment because of how many people died or were put in jeopardy in this country because of their actions. But I agree with you that the fate of the rapist in this case should have been left in the hands of the prosecuting state, not the Supreme Court.
You make a good point that the government is making a statement that vaguely defined crimes against government are more heinous than child rape.
Obviously, from a constitutional standpoint, the death penalty is state’s rights issue that the Federal Courts should stay out of anyway.
I also agree that no parent who kills the person responsible for raping their child should be punished. If we need a cozy legal justification for allowing this form of vigilantism we should just rubber stamp the temporary insanity plea whenever this happens.
Hi Daniel
Thanks for your input. I agree with you: the death penalty, and indeed many other issues, should be handled at a state level. I see a lot wisdom in the Libertarian philoshopy of much greater state autonomy and much less federal power.
I also agree with you that the laws defining crimes against the state are in large part vague. The examples I gave of the Rosenbergs, the 9/11 terrorists, and the big-time drug lords are clear-cut examples. But I’m sure many if not most of the cases dealt with are not nearly so well-defined.
I don’t have kids. The love of my life is my cat. He was abandoned by the neighbors five years ago. I took him in and have been spoiling him rotten ever since. I’ve grown to really love and cherish him over the years. He’s brought a lot of joy into my life. If I found him skinned alive and still conscious on my front porch one day, I would probably feel similarly towards the perpetretor as the parents of that little girl.
For better or worse, it’s the job of the Supreme Court to make those difficult decisions on controversial, yet constitutionally vague, lower court cases. And many times, I don’t agree with their rulings. But somebody’s got to do it, and I’m glad it’s not me.
I’m new to all this, but I suppose the Libertarians would like to see the Supreme Court abolished in favor of greater state autonomy. I can understnd their reasoning.
It is not a universal truth that the minimum punishment for child molesters/rapists is execution. That is only your opinion. Even most of the undeveloped countries that still retain the death penalty do not classify child rape as capital crime.
Tigranz,
When is it appropriate for the United States to model their justice systems after underdeveloped countries? You have obviously never known someone who was sexually abused as a child. If you had, you would probably understand the severity of such crimes.
You describe child rape as the robbing of sanity, the robbing of self-worth, the robbing of soul and finally as a “crime against humanity in individual form.” With these broad and vague terms it’s no wonder your idea of justice is not recognized or endorsed by a leading government.
One commenter makes the statement “vaguely defined crimes against government are more heinous than child rape”. I don’t see how your descriptors are any better.
Also consider the perpetrators of child rape. It’s been estimated that 77% of reported sexual abusers are parents (the majority male) who are unfortunately the same men and women who are not only a door, but perhaps mere neighborhoods away …living happily and contributing to your community in various other ‘humane’ ways.
I agree with you in principle …but logically it’s a very tough sell.