1

Leconte
Camille Leconte

Professor Abad

POLI 4023

7 October 2024

Writing Assignment One

It is typical for people to respond emotionally and want offenders to face the worst

punishment when sexual offenses are involved. Due to the horrendous nature of the crime, the

death penalty is up for consideration. Louisiana still maintains a statute that anyone convicted of

raping a child under the age of thirteen would be eligible for the death penalty. The statute

upheld in Louisiana produces an ethical and legal concern on whether the death penalty would be

appropriate as it pertained to non-homicidal rape. An infamous Supreme Court case, Kennedy v.

Louisiana (2008), decided that capital punishment was unconstitutional whenever the child did

not die. Yet, the death penalty remains a subject of debate.

In this paper, I will determine if it is necessary to apply the death penalty in this case by

comparing arguments that are pro-death penalty and anti-death penalty in crimes where the

victim was not killed. Because the crime is of a severe and devastating nature, I believe that the

death penalty would be a fitting response. Life imprisonment offers a solution that does not truly

benefit the victim in any capacity, while a rapist is allowed even to continue living their life as if

they didn’t take away another person’s chance to live out their life as they should have.

As aforementioned, Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008), ended in the Supreme Court ruling that

any death penalty for child rape was unconstitutional. The court upheld its opinions based on the
2
Leconte
standards of human decency, the risk of dehumanizing punishment, and the risks of

endangerment to the victims. As it pertained to human decency, the court determined that

criminals must be punished according to their “dignity” and the punishment must match their

crime. They also determined that there is a risk of brutality uprising as the law continues to

punish those who have committed crimes to death. Finally, the court maintained that there is a

risk of endangering the victims mentally by forcing them to restate their ordeal, and physically as

the State may observe more rape-murders due to the risk of perpetrators being prosecuted by the

death penalty.

Considering these points, the Supreme Court’s stance against the death penalty aligns

with international human rights perspectives. According to research from Monash University,

there is an international human rights law in which the death penalty is restricted to serious

crimes, and those crimes are the ones in which ‘there was an intention to kill which resulted in

the loss of life’ (Why Capital Punishment for Rape Is a Regressive Step for Women’s Rights,

2023). This research further analyzes how the death penalty punishes those who rape because of

property violations because there is a deep-rooted idea that women and children are possessions

of men. This ideal implies that punishments are only about destroying men’s “property” rather

than the crime of rape itself. Such a view reduces the humanity of the victim, and the research

implies that this diminishes the chance for a proper pursuit of meaningful justice. The research

also argues that “killing rapists is not the appropriate response to address the needs of

victims/survivors.” Rather, survivors wish for “speedy trials, certainty of conviction, sensibility

and accountability from the criminal justice system, and change in attitudes of society and

community” (Why Capital Punishment for Rape Is a Regressive Step for Women’s Rights, 2023).

Those against the death penalty believe that focusing on these measures ensures that the justice
3
Leconte
system supports survivors. According to them, giving life in prison a higher priority than the

death penalty would be a recognition of the seriousness of the offense and would be in line with

the demands of the survivors to establish a just and compassionate legal system.

While opponents of the death penalty contend that it is unfair in rape cases, others concur

that rape is a heinous crime that, especially in instances of the victim being a child, warrants a

more severe punishment. Those select few believe that the death sentence is a fitting reaction to a

crime that causes lasting harm to innocent children and that the capital punishment reflects

society’s rejection of rape. In my opinion, many of the arguments against the death penalty seem

to diminish the inhumane act of brutally raping victims because they did not die. According to

Coker v. Georgia (1977), the death penalty could not be imposed on the 16-year-old because she

did not die. However, in the case of children under 13, raping a child is just as profound as taking

their life. For younger victims, the crime follows them throughout their lifetime and robs them of

a normal life. It’s understandable how people would resort to calling out the patriarchy but this is

beyond a “property” issue. It is important to establish a child as an individual human being with

rights. The notion of a child being someone’s property is not why rape is a heinous offense. Rape

is a heinous offense that ruins lives and strips away a child’s innocence while forcing them to

confront the harshness of adulthood sooner than they should. This violation leaves scars that last

throughout the victim’s lifetime.

The trial process is grueling and demands a lot from the victims. While I agree that it is

important for victims to achieve closure swiftly, there are additional factors that need to be

considered. Some opponents believe that life imprisonment is the most just sentence for rapists,

as it allows victims to leave their harrowing situation behind them once the offender is jailed.

Unlike other crimes that result in life sentences, rape stays with the victims emotionally, which I
4
Leconte
believe warrants a more severe punishment like capital punishment. It is questionable that a

person may be sentenced to something as severe as life in prison for a drug charge, but another

who strips away a child’s innocence by raping them would be considered for a lesser sentence

than capital punishment. This disparity calls into question the integrity of the justice system. It

harshly punishes crimes that do not end with death while allowing those who have destroyed the

possibility for children to live life normally to continue living their own lives unchanged.

Although it may demand a lot from the victims, I believe going through this process is important

because the offender should not be let off easily and face a severe punishment. In my opinion,

the perpetrator had no sympathy for harming the permanent psyche of their victim and extended

no grace in committing brutality against the victim. Why should the victim be expected to make

the case easy for them? Accountability is necessary for justice, and the seriousness of the crime

calls for a strong reaction that takes into consideration its terrible toll on innocent lives.

In conclusion, the controversy surrounding the death penalty in child rape cases

highlights how difficult it is to create a balance of morality, justice, and victim impact. There is

irreversible harm done to child victims and there should be an irreversible punishment for the

people who take advantage of these children by raping them. The death sentence would be a

powerful deterrent to perpetrators against similar crimes in the future in addition to serving as a

symbol of society’s disapproval of heinous crimes of the same nature. Children’s innocence and

welfare are the top priority. The criminal justice system needs to be more victim-centered and

criminals need to be held responsible for their actions. The principles of our society and the

lengths we go to protect and defend the innocent are reflected in my argument. As important as it

is to uphold the law, it is equally important to consider the death sentence to make a clear

statement to perpetrators about protecting the defenseless by utilizing capital punishment.

Works Cited

Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977). (n.d.). Justia Law.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/433/584/

Death Penalty Information Center. “Excerpts from the Supreme Court’s Ruling Barring the

Death Penalty for Non-Homicide Crimes Against Individuals.” Death Penalty

Information Center. 25 Sep. 2024 https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/excerpts-from-the-

supreme-courts-ruling-barring-the-death-penalty-for-non-homicide-crimes-against-

individuals Accessed 09 Oct. 2024.

Kennedy v. Louisiana. (n.d.). Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-343

Why capital punishment for rape is a regressive step for women’s rights. (2023, July 19).

ELEOS. https://www.monash.edu/law/research/eleos/blog/eleos-justice-blog-posts/why-

capital-punishment-for-rape-is-a-regressive-step-for-womens-rights