CNN.com has a single-question poll runling along with the above linked article.

Q: Should the death penalty be used for violent crimes other than murder?

Here are the current results:
66% Yes 68602
34% No 35346
Total Votes: 103948

Does this informal poll constitute evidence of a national consensus?

Well, the Supreme Court considers 40% to be a consensus, so in their vernacular, this shows a consensus against the death penalty for child rape.

As I understand the term consensus, it means near unanimity. I guess that is one of [at least] 987 reasons why I will never be a justice of the Supreme Court.

This is the problem with the consensus test. There should be some more principled way to describe whether something is cruel and unusual.

Shouldn't national polls be considered cruel and unusual punishment?

[This message was edited by David Newell on 04-16-08 at .]

There was a great critique on the use of polls in Ramdass v. Angelone.

66% said "Yes" the death penalty should be used to punish other vilent crimes.

It is clearly not a scientific poll but CNN is mainstream... this isn't from a wingnut web site like dailykos or littlegreenfootballs.

The transcript from the argument is up:

Link

JUSTICE KENNEDY: What about treason? What
about treason? Even the countries of Europe which have joined the European Convention on Human Rights, I believe they make an exception to the prohibition of the death penalty for treason. You can slaughter your fellow citizens, but if you offend the State you can be put to death.

MS. CLARK: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: 17 This case involves the very savage rape of an 8-year-old child by her stepfather. He raped her so brutally that he tore her entire perineal opening from her vaginal opening and to her anal opening. He tore her vagina on the interior such that it separated partially from her cervix and allowed her rectum to protrude into her vagina. Invasive emergency surgery was required to repair these injuries. It is Louisiana's position that the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment does not preclude the State of Louisiana from -

JUSTICE STEVENS: Could you just clarify about the -- were those injuries permanent?

Okay, I only read the first portion of the argument, but it is quite amusing to see a criminal defense attorney proffer Texas' DP law as a more reasonable approach.

Only because they are working from the (incorrect) assumption that Texas couldn't prosecute a DP case under Jessica's Law for at least 25 years (after a defendant was released from his first conviction and sentence under that law). This is all part of the anti-DP game plan: appear to want reform; create barriers that prevent successful prosecution.

It's like Stevens' concurrence yesterday: we improve the DP method until finally the retributive purpose is no longer served and so, it should be entirely abolished. Talk about pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps.

I found that the most absurd part of Stevens' argument. My retributive purpose is met when the murderer is no longer on this earth. I don't care if he's licked to death by puppies to get there.

It's no wonder so many people decry the retributive purpose of capital punishment if they think the only way you can get there is to torture someone.

Does this amount to an alternative that could have been used?

You only have to talk to one parent who has lost a child to a person on DR to know that LWOP is not the same as the DP, as far as retribution.

That parent will say: HE can still see his kids, my child will never have kids. HE can get married, my child will never get married. HE can see his family, I would give anything to see my child again just once. The list goes on and on.

And, of course, he lives to kill again, even if his next victim is inside the prison. And he lives to escape, making his next victim anybody else's kid.

Blunt renews call for execution of those who rape children

By Patrick M. O'Connell
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
04/22/2008

CLAYTON � Gov. Matt Blunt renewed his call Monday to make those who rape children eligible for execution, saying the most heinous crimes deserve the harshest penalty.

Speaking outside the St. Louis County Courthouse, he urged the Legislature to apply capital punishment for forcible rape or forcible sodomy of someone under 12.

Aside from first-degree murder, Blunt said, these are "the worst crimes that can be committed," leaving physical and emotional scars on the innocent and defenseless.

Details.

"Death Penalty for child rape is unconstitutional if the defendants' acts were not intended to cause death." SCOTUSblog, Tom Goldstein, live blogging release of opinions today.

Opinion here, written by Kennedy, Alito-Scalia-Thomas dissenting

Can't wait to read it. We'll see if the majority opinion comports with the "Kennedy Rule", to wit: "If the Court has declared anything unconstitutional, and the vote was 5-4, and the fifth vote was provided by Kennedy, then the case was wrongly decided and the majority opinion was incoherently reasoned."

(This was formerly known as the "O'Connor Rule" according to its originator).

Well, for one, I think it's totally unfair for Kennedy to consider in his "consensus" arguments that "44 states have not made child rape a capital offense." They did this in Roper, too, considering states that don't have the death penalty at all as somehow showing a consensus against a particular type of the death penalty. It's like saying horsemeat should be banned because 100% of vegetarians believe you shouldn't eat it. That just says that vegetarians don't eat meat, not that horsemeat is in some special category all it's own.