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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT