Search This Blog

Followers

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

FREEDOM WITHOUT LAW IS NOT POSIBLE




SHOOTING A MAN IN COLD BLOOD AND THEN THIS :


BUT ? :




WHILE AT THE HOUSE IN SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO, AT THE BEGINNING OF THE HEARINGS DUE LEGISLATION, NEW AND OLD IDEAS FOR BUDGET AND THE STATES FUTURE AND WELL BEING, A GESTURE IS MADE WITH THE RIGHT HAND AFTER THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. THIS IS FOR THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO.
THE ‘BLASPHEMOUS ‘ IDEAS ALL THOSE YEARS AGO, AND BODILY FLUIDS. I REMEMBERED.

I WILL ATTEND AGAIN SOON.

WHILE WRITING THE LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, I WENT ‘ THROUGH ‘ SO MANY ‘ REWRITES,’ ‘ NEW BLOGS,’ ALL TRYING TO KEEP A BALANCED STAND, NOT TO THE ‘ FAR RIGHT,’ THE INSANITY OF ABSOLUTE RACISM. THOSE PEOPLE WERE VERY ‘ SMART,’ AND I MIGHT ADD NOT ALL ‘ WHITE.’ SOME WERE BLACK, A FEW ‘ BROWN.’ SOLDIERS AND BUSINESSMEN.
MANY, NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS.

OUTSIDE OF WHAT PATRICK K. WARE STATED OF THE ‘ GAMES ‘ THAT WERE PER-CURED ( RADIO WAVES ACROSS THE ' RANGE ' ) AGAINST THE IRAQI PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF ‘ ORDERS ‘ WITH ELECTRONIC PHYSIOLOGICAL WARFARE AND ‘ STATEMENTS ‘ THAT FRANK GARCIA MADE ‘ OUTSIDE ‘ OF HIS KNOWLEDGE OF HIS SISTER’S EXPERIENCE IN ARMY INTELLIGENCE AND ‘ EVERYTHING ‘ DOWN TO THE DOG, A VARIANCE OF JESUS, ARE ALL INDICATORS OF SOMETHING GONE HORRIBLY WRONG.
FROM SCANNERS WITH MY NAME ‘ BANNED ‘ AT A UNM LIBRARY, TO TREATMENT AT HOSPITALS AND WARNINGS FROM THOSE WHO HAVE PROMISED LIFE TO COUNTRY.

THE FIRST WE PROTECT IS ‘ OUR FAMILIES; CHILDREN.’ THIS IS PARAMOUNT. THIS IS FIRST, THIS WAS THE SOUL REASON FOR THE DEPARTURE FROM TYRANNY. ‘ IDEALIZED FREEDOM AND LIKENESS OF MIND.’

THIS WAS NOT POSSIBLE IN BRITAIN; SLAVERY AND SERFDOM. YET BRITAIN CAME UP WITH THE FIRST CHILD WORK PLACE PROTECTION LAWS AND HAVE LEAD THE WAY SINCE.

WHO ‘ ARE WE ? ‘

Prohibiting the Death Penalty for the Rape of a Child While Overlooking Wrongful Execution: Kennedy V. Louisiana

By Minor, Kelly J.

Article excerpt

I. INTRODUCTION
When the first colonists arrived on North American soil, they permitted the death penalty for the rape of an adult or a child. (1) However, as the colonies developed, each promulgated its own rules to determine an appropriate punishment for rape. (2) In 1972, Furman v. Georgia (3) nearly halted the use of the death penalty as a punishment for the rape of an adult or a child. (4) The Court held that death constituted a cruel and unusual punishment when applied to the crime of rape, since the crime did not necessarily result in a death. (5) Though the majority of states do not permit the death penalty for the rape of an adult or a child, five other states--Georgia, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas--followed Louisiana's lead and enacted statutes allowing the death penalty for the rape of a child. (6)
In deciding whether the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for the rape of a child, courts have placed great emphasis on the Eighth Amendment's guarantee that punishments not be cruel and unusual. (7) The Framers intended to prevent "tortures" and "barbarous" methods of punishment. (8) Today, courts look at legislative enactments as well as the appropriateness of the punishment in relation to the crime committed to determine whether the death penalty should be permitted as a punishment for a particular crime. (9) Ideally, this determination requires that the death penalty succeed in meeting the two goals of punishment: deterrence and retribution. (10)
In June 2008, in Kennedy v. Louisiana, (11) the United States Supreme Court overturned the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision to sentence Patrick Kennedy to death following his conviction for the rape of a child. (12) Kennedy held that a death sentence as applied to the rape of a child, a crime not resulting nor intending to result in death, violates the Eighth Amendment. (13) The significance of this holding remains to be seen; however, the Court's decision rests firmly on the belief that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the death penalty as applied to the rape of a child, because it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. (14) In so holding, the Court recognized the possibility of wrongful execution, yet placed little emphasis on its significance or the great probability of its occurrence, especially in cases when child victims testify. (15)
This casenote will address the impact of relying on child testimony in applying the death penalty to perpetrators who rape a child. It will begin with a review of the facts and procedure of Kennedy v. Louisiana, (16) examine the history of the death penalty as applied to rape, (17) and analyze the effect of relying on child testimony in applying the death penalty to the rape of a child. (18) It will also look at the importance of societal opinions and the national consensus regarding the death penalty when applied to crimes not resulting in death, specifically rape of a child. (19) This note will then recognize the possibility of the arbitrary and capricious application of the death penalty and present necessary steps to avoid it. (20) In addition, it will analyze the goals of punishment and determine whether these goals are met when the death penalty is applied to the rape of a child. (21) Finally, this note will focus on the possibility of wrongful execution and the effects of relying on child testimony. (22) The Supreme Court in Kennedy was correct in holding that the death penalty should not be permitted in cases of child rape not resulting in death; (23) however, the Court should have prohibited the death penalty as applied to rape of a child not because it would constitute a cruel and unusual punishment, but because of the fallibility of child testimony and its effects on convictions. (24)
II. FACTS AND PROCEDURE
On the morning of March 2, 1998, an innocent child became a victim of an indescribably brutal rape. (25) Justice Kennedy appropriately acknowledged the impossibility of giving a full account of the crime which occurred, stating that "[p]etitioner's crime was one that cannot be recounted in these pages in a way sufficient to capture in full the hurt and horror inflicted on [petitioner's] victim or to convey the revulsion society, and the jury that represents it, sought to express" in punishing the offender. …



No comments: