A victim’s view on death penalty for rape

June 26, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The media and the general public are still buzzing about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Wednesday to overturn a death sentence for a Louisiana man convicted of raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter. News reports have discussed whether someone can be put to death when a murder wasn’t committed, but a story from ABC news gives a different perspective on the issues in the case.

Jody Plauche is the 36-year-old man who was raped and kidnapped as a child and was interviewed for the ABC story. He explained that often the offender is someone the child knows and children may mistakenly believe the reason the rapist is being executed is because the child reported the crime, not because of the crime itself. The weight of knowing someone died because the child told on the offender could end up being worse on the child’s psyche than the rapist sitting in prison for life.

What do you think? Did the Supreme Court get it right in overturning the sentence or does child rape warrant a death sentence? Are you surprised some child rape victims agree with the majority of the court?
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Hey,

    I think this topic needs to be discussed and I applaud you for bringing it up!

    When I have more time I will comment more on this story. I will explain why I believe what I believe.

    Jody Plauche\'
    Baton Rouge, LA
  • Here is a link to a radio interview I did out of Birmingham, AL...I get a chance to explain myself pretty well.

    http://www.960werc.com/cc-common/podcast.html

    Jody Plauche\'
    Baton Rouge, LA

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT