Tex, where do you draw the line? Do we just use the "stomach factor" to determine which crimes are worthy of capital punishment and the ones that really make you sick get the heave-ho?

I think life without parole would be appropriate here.

You can't set policy based on the most egregious facts.

Did you read the definition of aggravated rape according to the Louisiana statute, Indy? There are 5 other states with child-rape-death-penalty laws, have you read any of those? Putting on my amateur legislator's hat, I'm truthfully not sure how I would legislate this, but I find the Louisiana statute to be reasonable.

I also find this specific case to be worthy of such a penalty. Are you suggesting that in order for my position to be sound, the phrase "the entire perineum was torn from the posterior fourchette to the anus" needs to be in the statute?

As I said before, the second point here is whether or not the Court's reasoning is sound. You're making an argument they did not make. They based their decision on their assessment that a "national consensus" exists opposing this practice, nor in line with "evolving standards of decency." Are you comfortable with them being the judge of what constitutes a national consensus or standards of decency, or do you simply like their ruling because you agree with it, for your own reasons?

I'm not advocating that. But we've already got hypotheticals expressed in this thread when no one is dealing with what actually happened. Forget policy for a moment ... read what happened to this girl. If the option were available to you as a juror, would that enough for you?

Tex, what if there was no physical damage/injury. Would you still advocate the death penalty?

Have any of those laws been subjected to Supreme Court scrutiny yet?

I don't know. I'm not an expert enough in these matters to write my own law. I only know I disagree with the ruling in this case, based on the law as written and the facts as we know them.

I believe this ruling overturns them all. Are you going to answer my questions?

I don't need to answer your questions and I'm not offering a legal opinion.

You asked me where I draw the line. Is that not a legal question?

But okay, if you want to talk from a strictly moral perspective, I still can't imagine a more appropriate penalty for this man. What he did is, in my moral opinion, worthy of death. Millstone around the neck and all that ...

A bright line for no execution where no death results is sensible to me. Rape is terrible but usually life is not ended. This result does not trouble me.

In assessing the Eighth Amendment, the justices are trying to act as social weather vanes. It is a troubling manner to adjudicate matters, but as a pragmatist the result seems fair.

No life to be taken where no life was taken.

Don't worry, Tex. I hear there's a decision on a 2nd amendment case coming down this week. I suspect you'll get your beloved conservative SCOTUS back then.