Supreme Court rejects Death penalty for raping children

[avatar4321]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080625/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_rdp

Apparently raping children isnt serious enough for death. Who knew?

[red states rule]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080625/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_rdp

Apparently raping children isnt serious enough for death. Who knew?

The liberal wing of the Court makes this ruling, and also says killing an unborn baby is a Constitutional right

Kids are not very important to the left these days

[hjmick]

They were asking for it.

Any violent crime against a child should result in extremely harsh penalties. The death penalty for raping a child strikes me as fair.

[avatar4321]

Child rape is one of the few crimes worse than murder. Anyone saying it isn't proportional has never seen the damage it causes.

Child rape causes reprocussions for generations. It's disgusting.

[avatar4321]

They were asking for it.

Any violent crime against a child should result in extremely harsh penalties. The death penalty for raping a child strikes me as fair.

If you ask me it's pretty light for the crime, there just arent any penalties worse.

[glockmail]

They were asking for it.

Any violent crime against a child should result in extremely harsh penalties. The death penalty for raping a child strikes me as fair. I say just let the kid's dad spend some quality time with the rapist. That would be fair.

[hjmick]

If you ask me it's pretty light for the crime, there just arent any penalties worse.

Short of torture prior to execution, it's all we've got.

Wait, I know...

Since they can't be executed, just slip them into general population.

[Hagbard Celine]

Life in solitary is worse than death. Death is easy compared to that.

[hjmick]

Life in solitary is worse than death. Death is easy compared to that.

Sorry, as a parent of three girls I can safely say that, for me, there would be nothing more gratifying than watching the death of any son of a bitch who hurt them that way.

If you have kids and feel differently, well, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Yurt]

Life in solitary is worse than death. Death is easy compared to that.

so then you are for torture...

why should we waste taxdollars on those scum?

[gabosaurus]

The Supreme Court does not makes laws. The Supreme Court interprets existing laws.

[red states rule]

so then you are for torture...

why should we waste taxdollars on those scum?

The Mafia isn't burdened with bureaucracy, and they don't listen to appeals, and can execute a man for minimal cost. Maybe we should outsource

[hjmick]

The Mafia isn't burdened with bureaucracy, and they don't listen to appeals, and can execute a man for minimal cost. Maybe we should outsource

Can't do that. The Democrats will use it as another example of the Republicans failure to keep jobs local.

[red states rule]

Can't do that. The Democrats will use it as another example of the Republicans failure to keep jobs local.

Tell it to the Judge

[Yurt]

The Supreme Court does not makes laws. The Supreme Court interprets existing laws.

while true in theory, case law is in fact creating law. roe v. wade, creating case "law", this ruling, creating case "law"

its the nature of the judicial system, a balance between "interpretation" and the interpretation becoming "law"... IMO, this should have been a state issue under their police powers, however, a federal constitutional issue was raised, so SCOTUS eventially got it and actually straight jurisdiction over it...by "interpreting" their understanding of existing law, the court has "now" created a new law that says you can rape a child and not receive the death penalty. even if congress passed a law saying the death penalty is ok for this crime, it will be overruled by SCOTUS's ruling, unless the US constitution is amended.

now how is that not, in some fashion, creating law?

[red states rule]

while true in theory, case law is in fact creating law. roe v. wade, creating case "law", this ruling, creating case "law"

its the nature of the judicial system, a balance between "interpretation" and the interpretation becoming "law"... IMO, this should have been a state issue under their police powers, however, a federal constitutional issue was raised, so SCOTUS eventially got it and actually straight jurisdiction over it...by "interpreting" their understanding of existing law, the court has "now" created a new law that says you can rape a child and not receive the death penalty. even if congress passed a law saying the death penalty is ok for this crime, it will be overruled by SCOTUS's ruling, unless the US constitution is amended.

now how is that not, in some fashion, creating law?

My question is for many years everytime Dems wanted to do something they said "it is for the children"

Dems uses kids as political props every chance they get

What gives?

Yet the libs on the USSC tells a state you can't use the death penalty for a child rapist. Now the kids are second class citizens to the criminal

[Yurt]

My question is for many years everytime Dems wanted to do something they said "it is for the children"

Dems uses kids as political props every chance they get

What gives?

Yet the libs on the USSC tells a state you can't use the death penalty for a child rapist. Now the kids are second class citizens to the criminal

its mean to the criminal, can't you see

[Abbey Marie]

The Supreme Court does not makes laws. The Supreme Court interprets existing laws.

Theoretically.

[Hagbard Celine]

My question is for many years everytime Dems wanted to do something they said "it is for the children"

Dems uses kids as political props every chance they get

What gives?

Yet the libs on the USSC tells a state you can't use the death penalty for a child rapist. Now the kids are second class citizens to the criminal

"Second class citizens?" God you're retarded. No, it simply states that death is an unproportionate punishment if the victim didn't die.
That sixth commandment sure is negotiable when it suits you isn't it? :poke:

[red states rule]

"Second class citizens?" God you're retarded. No, it simply states that death is an unproportionate punishment if the victim didn't die.
That sixth commandment sure is negotiable when it suits you isn't it? :poke:

Libs like you are soft of terrorists , so why not soft on crime? Show mercy to the child rapists, while not giving a second thought to unborn kids who lives are snuffed out via abortion

[theHawk]

Another victory for liberals. Their quest to protect the scum of the earth is coming along just fine. First the terrorists, now the pedophiles. I hope this wakes America up and gets everyone to realize how fucked up the liberals on the SCOTUS are.

[red states rule]

Another victory for liberals. Their quest to protect the scum of the earth is coming along just fine. First the terrorists, now the pedophiles. I hope this wakes America up and gets everyone to realize how fucked up the liberals on the SCOTUS are.

I do not believe for a minute thuis is the "change" the voters want

Can you see the Judges a liberal moonbat like Obama would appoint to the USSC

Bill or Hillary perhaps?

[Yurt]

"Second class citizens?" God you're retarded. No, it simply states that death is an unproportionate punishment if the victim didn't die.
That sixth commandment sure is negotiable when it suits you isn't it? :poke:

you should read the bible more, this crime would be punishable by stoning to death

[avatar4321]

"Second class citizens?" God you're retarded. No, it simply states that death is an unproportionate punishment if the victim didn't die.
That sixth commandment sure is negotiable when it suits you isn't it? :poke:

It really isnt proportionate, death is too easy for them. but its the most appropriate comparison short of raping them repeatedly.

The sixth commandment forbids murder. The killing of innocents. It doesn't apply those guilty of capital crimes. It never has been. Try reading sometime.

[actsnoblemartin]

that does it, the supreme court is mentally retarded :drillsarge:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080625/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_rdp

Apparently raping children isnt serious enough for death. Who knew?

[actsnoblemartin]

The supreme court and common sense, guess which one is common sense

:banana2:

[My Winter Storm]

This was a good decision, and I can't for the life of think why no one else seems to agree.
Having the death penalty for child rape gives the rapist more of an incentive to kill the child - they'd have nothing to lose. They would be facing the death penalty for rape, and they'd be facing the death penalty for killing the child, so with nothing to lose they'd be more likely to kill the child.

[diuretic]

This was a good decision, and I can't for the life of think why no one else seems to agree.
Having the death penalty for child rape gives the rapist more of an incentive to kill the child - they'd have nothing to lose. They would be facing the death penalty for rape, and they'd be facing the death penalty for killing the child, so with nothing to lose they'd be more likely to kill the child.

Exactly. I don't understand why such a simple point is lost on so many otherwise intelligent people.

[Nukeman]

Exactly. I don't understand why such a simple point is lost on so many otherwise intelligent people.
Maybe.... just maybe.... It would be because WE don't think like a criminal who would RAPE children. I am not saying this is the case with You and Sharon but the leap from rape to murder is a substantial one.

I will grant you that it does give them (rapist) incentive to go that extra bit, but me not being one I really couldn't tell you what goes thru their minds....

[avatar4321]

This was a good decision, and I can't for the life of think why no one else seems to agree.
Having the death penalty for child rape gives the rapist more of an incentive to kill the child - they'd have nothing to lose. They would be facing the death penalty for rape, and they'd be facing the death penalty for killing the child, so with nothing to lose they'd be more likely to kill the child.

I've been hearing the argument all day. It's one of the dumbest Ive ever heard.

First, criminals dont think they will get caught. If they did, they wouldn't commit crimes.

Second, They'd have a hell of alot to lose. It's a heck of alot easier to prove you killed someone than raped them as a child. It's also a heck of alot more noticiable. If they were actually concerned about geting caught, why the hell would they commit the crime that leaves more evidence simply because the penalty would be the same?

I mean criminals are stupid, but if they are smart enough to realize what they are doing is wrong, they are not dumb enough to compound it unecessarily and make it 400 times more likely for them to be caught.

[diuretic]

Maybe.... just maybe.... It would be because WE don't think like a criminal who would RAPE children. I am not saying this is the case with You and Sharon but the leap from rape to murder is a substantial one.

I will grant you that it does give them (rapist) incentive to go that extra bit, but me not being one I really couldn't tell you what goes thru their minds....

If the death penalty is predicated on the idea of deterrence then it assumes the rationality of the would-be criminal. If the idea of the death penalty is only about revenge then that's another matter which I'll try and get back to in a moment.

Now, assuming that the offender who rapes a child is rational (I mean in the legal sense) then it's clear that the threat of a lengthy term of imprisonment hasn't deterred the criminal. I'll put this idea, I'll suggest that the rapist didn't think they would be caught. But let's say they are caught and let's say they're put to death. Guess what? The next "rational" child rapist is going to work out that the penalty for raping the child and the penalty for murdering the child are the same. They'll work out that their chance of not being caught (I need to emphasise that) might - just might - be enhanced by murdering the child victim. Since the penalty is the same they may as well murder the victim.

Tell me I'm wrong, please.

[diuretic]

I've been hearing the argument all day. It's one of the dumbest Ive ever heard.

First, criminals dont think they will get caught. If they did, they wouldn't commit crimes.

Second, They'd have a hell of alot to lose. It's a heck of alot easier to prove you killed someone than raped them as a child. It's also a heck of alot more noticiable. If they were actually concerned about geting caught, why the hell would they commit the crime that leaves more evidence simply because the penalty would be the same?

I mean criminals are stupid, but if they are smart enough to realize what they are doing is wrong, they are not dumb enough to compound it unecessarily and make it 400 times more likely for them to be caught.

I'm trying to work my way through this. Yes, criminals do think they're not going to get caught. People who are frightened to commit a crime because they're frightened of being caught are deterred from committing the crime and are, therefore, not criminals.

But on your assertion they have something to lose, I'm a bit lost. Since the penalty is the same for raping the victim as murdering the victim they have nothing to lose. A live victim can give the police a description of the offender. It might be "Uncle Bob raped me". If Uncle Bob is going to be executed for rape then Uncle Bob may as well be executed for murder.

[Kathianne]

What was done to this child can be found on pg 7 of the document. It's interesting that no mainstream media bothered to put the details out that Kennedy did:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-343.pdf

The bolded perhaps gives some explanation of why the state might see young child rape in a different prism than older victims. Certainly one might convincingly argue that threats of reprisal apply to older, but there are dependency issues regarding the very young:


...…Petitioner’s crime was one that cannot be recounted in these pages in a way sufficient to capture in full the hurt and horror inflicted on his victim or to convey the revulsion society, and the jury that represents it, sought to express by sentencing petitioner to death. At 9:18 a.m. on March 2, 1998, petitioner called 911 to report that his stepdaughter, referred to here as L. H., had been raped.

He told the 911 operator that L. H. had been in the garage while he readied his son for school. Upon hearing loud screaming, petitioner said, he ran outside and found L. H. in the side yard. Two neighborhood boys, petitioner told the operator, had dragged L. H. from the garage to the yard, pushed her down, and raped her. Petitioner claimed he saw one of the boys riding away on a blue 10-speed bicycle.

When police arrived at petitioner’s home between 9:20 and 9:30 a.m., they found L. H. on her bed, wearing a T-shirt and wrapped in a bloody blanket. She was bleeding profusely from the vaginal area. Petitioner told police he had carried her from the yard to the bathtub and then to the bed. Consistent with this explanation, police found a thin line of blood drops in the garage on the way to the house and then up the stairs. Once in the bedroom, petitioner had used a basin of water and a cloth to wipe blood from the victim. This later prevented medical personnel from collecting a reliable DNA sample.

L. H. was transported to the Children’s Hospital. An expert in pediatric forensic medicine testified that L. H.’s injuries were the most severe he had seen from a sexual assault in his four years of practice. A laceration to the left wall of the vagina had separated her cervix from the back of her vagina, causing her rectum to protrude into the vaginal structure. Her entire perineum was torn from the posterior fourchette to the anus. The injuries required emergency surgery.

At the scene of the crime, at the hospital, and in the first weeks that followed, both L. H. and petitioner maintained in their accounts to investigators that L. H. had been raped by two neighborhood boys. One of L. H.’s doctors testified at trial that L. H. told all hospital personnel the same version of the rape, although she reportedly told one family member that petitioner raped her. L. H. was interviewed several days after the rape by a psychologist. The interview was videotaped, lasted three hours over two days, and was introduced into evidence at trial. On the tape one can see that L. H. had difficulty discussing the subject of the rape. She spoke haltingly and with long pauses and frequent movement. Early in the interview, L. H. expressed reservations about the questions being asked:

“I’m going to tell the same story. They just want me to change it. . . . They want me to say my Dad did it. . . . I don’t want to say it. . . . I tell them the same, same story.” Def. Exh. D–7, 01:29:07–:36.

[diuretic]

Single cases always make bad law, that's why I don't understand the American propensity to pass laws named after individual victims. Anyway, it still doesn't deal with my objections.

[Kathianne]

Single cases always make bad law, that's why I don't understand the American propensity to pass laws named after individual victims. Anyway, it still doesn't deal with my objections.

Well if we are going to have a death penalty which still has the majority of Americans supporting it (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/dailynews/poll000619.html), then it is reasonable to assume it would be applied only with proof of guilt and for the most heinous crimes. This one certainly seems to qualify.

[diuretic]

Well if we are going to have a death penalty which still has the majority of Americans supporting it (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/dailynews/poll000619.html), then it is reasonable to assume it would be applied only with proof of guilt and for the most heinous crimes. This one certainly seems to qualify.

There's never any actual proof of guilt, there's only the meeting of a standard of proof. In the US (and our) criminal justice system it's "beyond a reasonable doubt". It's based on probability because as well all know, humans are fallible. And that's my primary grounds for opposition to the death penalty.

Anyway back to the rape of children. As I said, if the penalty is the same for raping a child as murdering a child then the rapist may well as murder the child. There's nothing to lose. I think that's pretty obvious. If people can't understand that then I have to wonder what's wrong with them - legislatures, Supreme Court Justices and everyone else. If that idea is abroad in America, that it's a good idea to execute child rapists and child murderers alike then I must say, at the very least, I'm surprised.

[Kathianne]

There's never any actual proof of guilt, there's only the meeting of a standard of proof. In the US (and our) criminal justice system it's "beyond a reasonable doubt". It's based on probability because as well all know, humans are fallible. And that's my primary grounds for opposition to the death penalty.

Anyway back to the rape of children. As I said, if the penalty is the same for raping a child as murdering a child then the rapist may well as murder the child. There's nothing to lose. I think that's pretty obvious. If people can't understand that then I have to wonder what's wrong with them - legislatures, Supreme Court Justices and everyone else. If that idea is abroad in America, that it's a good idea to execute child rapists and child murderers alike then I must say, at the very least, I'm surprised.

As for the death penalty, I'm ambivalent, as you say there's been too many cases where finding of guilt did not equate with reality. If there was the 'absolute proof', rule held, I'd probably go in favor of it.

On the other hand, you seem anti-death penalty and that may be coloring your position here?

[avatar4321]

I'm trying to work my way through this. Yes, criminals do think they're not going to get caught. People who are frightened to commit a crime because they're frightened of being caught are deterred from committing the crime and are, therefore, not criminals.

But on your assertion they have something to lose, I'm a bit lost. Since the penalty is the same for raping the victim as murdering the victim they have nothing to lose. A live victim can give the police a description of the offender. It might be "Uncle Bob raped me". If Uncle Bob is going to be executed for rape then Uncle Bob may as well be executed for murder.

It's not really that difficult:

Child rape - easy to hide, hard to get evidence against you
Murder - pretty easy to notice, lots of ways to be sloppy with evidence.

So what you position is, the child rapist is going be afraid to get caught. So rather than leave the child alive where it's unlikely the child will tell anyone and it would be difficult, if not impossible to prove even if the child does testify, You are telling us that the rapist is going to kill the child so that the child can't testify but risking 400 times more scrutiny and a significantly higher chance of proving their was not only a crime, but that you deserve the death penalty for it.

I'm telling you, a criminal smart enough to be worried about whether they will be caught isnt going to be dumb enough to cover up the rape by committing another capital crime that is going to leave a heck of alot more evidence against them then the original crime.

[Kathianne]

Avatar, pretty much dead on. This slimeball not only bathed the child, removing all DNA he tried to pin the blame on some kids. He also got the story down with his step daughter, before calling the police. He was very lucky she didn't hemorrhage to death.

[glockmail]

This was a good decision, and I can't for the life of think why no one else seems to agree.
Having the death penalty for child rape gives the rapist more of an incentive to kill the child - they'd have nothing to lose. They would be facing the death penalty for rape, and they'd be facing the death penalty for killing the child, so with nothing to lose they'd be more likely to kill the child. I actually agree with you on this Sharon, but I still disagree with the decision, since its not the juristiction of the US Federal government to overturn the will of a State Legislature.

[mundame]

I still disagree with the decision, since its not the juristiction of the US Federal government to overturn the will of a State Legislature.


I can't work my way through this whole thread, too awful a subject, but I am interested in the question of whether the Court can (it just did) establish national limits for limiting state definition of capital crime.


So much for states rights.

[diuretic]

As for the death penalty, I'm ambivalent, as you say there's been too many cases where finding of guilt did not equate with reality. If there was the 'absolute proof', rule held, I'd probably go in favor of it.

On the other hand, you seem anti-death penalty and that may be coloring your position here?

No I'm actually able to separate the idea of the nature of the death penalty out of this argument. As I was saying, there's no point in the offender leaving the victim alive.

[diuretic]

It's not really that difficult:

Child rape - easy to hide, hard to get evidence against you
Murder - pretty easy to notice, lots of ways to be sloppy with evidence.

So what you position is, the child rapist is going be afraid to get caught. So rather than leave the child alive where it's unlikely the child will tell anyone and it would be difficult, if not impossible to prove even if the child does testify, You are telling us that the rapist is going to kill the child so that the child can't testify but risking 400 times more scrutiny and a significantly higher chance of proving their was not only a crime, but that you deserve the death penalty for it.

I'm telling you, a criminal smart enough to be worried about whether they will be caught isnt going to be dumb enough to cover up the rape by committing another capital crime that is going to leave a heck of alot more evidence against them then the original crime.

And my position hasn't changed. If the sentence for rape of a child and the murder of a child is the same then there is no deterrence to murdering the child that has been raped.

[My Winter Storm]

And my position hasn't changed. If the sentence for rape of a child and the murder of a child is the same then there is no deterrence to murdering the child that has been raped.

I am in 100% agreement with this.

[avatar4321]

And my position hasn't changed. If the sentence for rape of a child and the murder of a child is the same then there is no deterrence to murdering the child that has been raped.

Fine ignore common sense and believe what you want.

[diuretic]

Fine ignore common sense and believe what you want.

No need to spit the dummy, your effort wasn't persuasive, that's all.

[Sitarro]

And my position hasn't changed. If the sentence for rape of a child and the murder of a child is the same then there is no deterrence to murdering the child that has been raped.

hey....... fine, let them live, but also place them in the prison's general population and let the word get out that they are a child rapist........ he will be taken care of toot sweet by fathers that are serving time.

[My Winter Storm]

Fine ignore common sense and believe what you want.

He has shown common sense and logic, yet you fail to see it. I don't understand your arguements at all.

[actsnoblemartin]

ridiculous, like the child rapist is thinking, ok i wont be killed for raping the kid if i get caught, so ill let him live

ridiciulous, probably will kill the kid, so he does NOT get caught

death to child rapists

[Sitarro]

He has shown common sense and logic, yet you fail to see it. I don't understand your arguements at all.

It's too bad that a child rapist doesn't use common sense or logic.

[actsnoblemartin]

you mean they dont :dunno:


It's too bad that a child rapist doesn't use common sense or logic.

[diuretic]

ridiculous, like the child rapist is thinking, ok i wont be killed for raping the kid if i get caught, so ill let him live

ridiciulous, probably will kill the kid, so he does NOT get caught

death to child rapists

Well yes, the rapist will kill the child so as not to be caught because being caught for raping the child will see him receive the death sentence and being caught for murdering the child will see him receive the death sentence so he may as well murder the child because either way he's going to get the death sentence.

[actsnoblemartin]

i dont mean to be disrespectful but what are we supposed to send out an email to all pedofiles saying, let the kid live and you get a discount, or make the law say less jail time if the kid lives?

Im not trying to be a jerk, but once a kid is raped is he or she really living? or just there


Well yes, the rapist will kill the child so as not to be caught because being caught for raping the child will see him receive the death sentence and being caught for murdering the child will see him receive the death sentence so he may as well murder the child because either way he's going to get the death sentence.

[CockySOB]

From what I can tell, the ruling is not going to have much practical impact anyway. Most sex offenders/child rapists are offered plea bargains in order to prevent further trauma to the child who would otherwise need to appear in court to testify against their attacker. So removing the death penalty from the table probably won't have much effect, at least in my mind.

I'm still reviewing the Kennedy v. Louisiana casework. From what I've read though, it might not be as bad a ruling as some would think. It seems yo me that SCOTUS was more intent on preventing precedent by which the death penalty could be applied broadly and statutorily as criminal punishment.

[diuretic]

i dont mean to be disrespectful but what are we supposed to send out an email to all pedofiles saying, let the kid live and you get a discount, or make the law say less jail time if the kid lives?

Im not trying to be a jerk, but once a kid is raped is he or she really living? or just there

I don't mean to be a jerk either but it if were your kid would your prefer them alive or dead?

[CockySOB]

I don't mean to be a jerk either but it if were your kid would your prefer them alive or dead?

Actually diuretic, SCOTUS didn't even take that argument into consideration in the Kennedy v. Louisiana case, at least not that I read. Frankly, I don't see it as a relevant argument either. You're using the same type of emotional response that everyone else is, only in reverse. Many here (myself among them) believe that the death penalty should be on the table for some of the heinous crimes being committed these days like child rape and elder abuse. Your argument that we should take the death penalty off the table seems more like an appeasement strategy than a criminal punishment.

[avatar4321]

He has shown common sense and logic, yet you fail to see it. I don't understand your arguements at all.

There is nothing logical about the position you are arguing.

When you kill someone, it's very visible. You can't hide it. You are also much more likely to leave lot's of evidence.

You guys are arguing that if child rapists face the death penalty, they will kill the child to silence they only evidence against them because they will face the death penalty regardless.

They only get the death penalty if they get caught and prosecuted. You are arguing that somehow it's common sense for people who commit a crime that is 1)relatively easy to hide that the crime even happened and 2)if they can prove it did, the evidence is flimsy at best; to then turn around commit a crime where it's 1)Completely obvious a crime occured and 2)There is countless evidence against them in a court room.

You are arguing that it's somehow common sense to cover up a crime where it's unlikely to get prosecuted with a crime where it most definitely will be prosecuted.

Any common sense person who is going to commit such crimes is not going to cover up the one crime by committing a crime much more difficult to hide.

[avatar4321]

ridiculous, like the child rapist is thinking, ok i wont be killed for raping the kid if i get caught, so ill let him live

ridiciulous, probably will kill the kid, so he does NOT get caught

death to child rapists

yeah cause the guys going to commit a crime that's pretty easy to argue that it never happened by committing a crime thats impossible to cover up.

Much like it's complete common sense to cover up running a red light by killing the officer who sees them. After all the officer is the only witness against them...

[diuretic]

There is nothing logical about the position you are arguing.

When you kill someone, it's very visible. You can't hide it. You are also much more likely to leave lot's of evidence.

You guys are arguing that if child rapists face the death penalty, they will kill the child to silence they only evidence against them because they will face the death penalty regardless.

They only get the death penalty if they get caught and prosecuted. You are arguing that somehow it's common sense for people who commit a crime that is 1)relatively easy to hide that the crime even happened and 2)if they can prove it did, the evidence is flimsy at best; to then turn around commit a crime where it's 1)Completely obvious a crime occured and 2)There is countless evidence against them in a court room.

You are arguing that it's somehow common sense to cover up a crime where it's unlikely to get prosecuted with a crime where it most definitely will be prosecuted.

Any common sense person who is going to commit such crimes is not going to cover up the one crime by committing a crime much more difficult to hide.

As opposed to......a man is in a state of sexual hyper-excitement. His preferred target for sex is a female child, any female child. He lures one into his car. He sexually assaults the child. His previous state of excitement has now dissipated. In his mind's eye he sees the child crying, he sees her parents call the police, he sees the police showing the child a catalogue of faces of known child sex offenders in the region, he sees himself being interrogated by police, he sees the jury foreperson mouth the words, "guilty, he sees the judge pronouncing sentence, he sees himself waiting for execution.

Then he realises, "well if I kill her I'll get the same sentence anyway". Suddenly the vision of the child crying dissipates. No longer does he see the child looking for his face in the catalogue....

[diuretic]

yeah cause the guys going to commit a crime that's pretty easy to argue that it never happened by committing a crime thats impossible to cover up.

Much like it's complete common sense to cover up running a red light by killing the officer who sees them. After all the officer is the only witness against them...

If the penalty for running a red light was death yes it would make sense. If the penalty for running a red light was a monetary fine, no, it would make no sense.