Posted by Benjamin on: 06.26.2008 /
Two decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court this week made headlines.
In the first, the justices declared that it was unconstitutional for states to execute individuals for the rape of a child, claiming that
A review of the authorities informed by contemporary norms, including the history of the death penalty for this and other nonhomicide crimes, current state statutes and new enactments, and the number of executions since 1964, demonstrates a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape
Meanwhile, the U.S. ranked number 5 on the number of executions carried out in 2007, behind China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and just ahead of Iraq.
Here’s a New York Times article about the decision.
In the other decision, the Court decided to reduce punitive damages against Exxon in the Exxon Valdez oil spill from approximatly $5 billion to approximately $500 million, a reduction of 900%. The original oil spill occurred in 1989, and had devastating and long ranging consequences for Prince William Sound and the entire surrounding ecosystem. It’s interesting to me that the jury which awarded the large punitive damages was located in Alaska, whereas the court which overturned those damages was located thousands of miles away in Washington D.C. ExxonMobil posted profits of $39.5 billion dollars in 2006.
What are your thoughts about the reduction of the punitive damages?
Leave a Reply
Comment by: Jason Horton
1 06/26/08 5:21 AM | Comment Link |Intellectually I’m happy that the state is restricting the death penalty and even that this includes the most horrible of crimes. Emotionally and as a father I’d want to kill a child rapist myself. Failing that I want the state to exact revenge on my behalf.
As I mentioned over at Conversations on the Edge there are three purposes to punishing crimes.
1) Protect society from further harm by the criminal.
2) Provide a means of rehabilitating the criminal so that they no longer pose a threat to society.
3) Punish the criminal for the harm that they have done to society.
The punishment is a form of revenge. Executions ignore the possibility of rehabilitation. It is saying that this person is irredeemable and will never be able to be a productive member of society. Intellectually that’s a horrible possibility. What sort of society produces people that are so vile that we must kill them to protect ourselves from their ilk?
How do the punitive damages against Exxon measure up to the three criteria that I’ve mentioned?
Do they protect us from further harm? Perhaps the threat of such a large fine might force them to improve safety measures and a reduction in the fine might signal to them that the costs of prevention can be reduced.
Do the damages provide a moral lesson in the responsibility of their actions? Does reducing these damages signal that they have learned that lesson or that the issue of responsibility is no longer important?
As a revenge punishment reducing the damages reduces the impact of the punishment. As I’m not particularly enamoured with the idea of retributive punishment then I’m not overly concerned that it has been reduced as long as the other two factors still remain in effect.
I’m assuming that the punitive damages are in addition to other financial costs to repair the environmental damage and compensate those who suffered from the oil spill?
Comment by: Rachel
2 06/26/08 11:23 AM | Comment Link |I agree with you, Jason. My gut reaction is to want to exact terrible revenge on anyone who would harm a precious child. But I am morally and religiously opposed to the death penalty under all circumstances, so I must approve of the Supreme Court’s decision.
I saw a gentleman on the news who is an victim’s rights advocate and himself a survivor of child rape. He is opposed to the death penalty for child rape for a couple of reasons. First, he is concerned that it puts a great burden on the child. The large majority of rapists are known to the child and are often close relatives. The child may face a great deal of internal guilt and conflict, as well as intense pressure from other family members not to testify, if the child knows their testimony could lead to the perpetrator’s execution.
This advocate also fears that if the penalty for child rape and for murder are identical, the perpetrator will have no motivation for allowing their victim to live and that more child rape victims will be murdered to prevent them from identifying their attacker.
Comment by: martin gugino
3 06/27/08 12:22 AM | Comment Link |I hardly trust the Supreme Court after their recent decision that detainees held at Guantanamo Bay have a constitutional right to challenge their detentions in federal court. I agree with the decision, of course, but it was a 5-4 decision, with some justices appalled at the outcome, Roberts included. Pathetic.
Re Exon - this will teach the juries and the state that they better find a way to start collecting damages from the day the verdict is handed down.