The Supreme Court ruled this week that raping a child is not grounds for the death penalty, provided the child did not die. The case was brought to the United States Supreme Court after the Supreme Court of Louisiana issued the death penalty on a man who had raped his eight-year-old daughter, overturning that decision.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said that executing the man would violate the US Constitution's Eight Amendment, which forbids "cruel and unusual punishment."

Moreover, this would have been the first time that someone was executed for child rape since 1964, and the death penalty has not been used against rapists of adult victims since 1977.

The overall sentiment of the ruling, and of Justice Kennedy's remarks, was of restraint and caution. He also stressed that when employed, the death penalty should be used with the greatest decency possible.

There were detractors, of course. Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the Court's decision conflicts with Eight Amendment principles, and that it ignores the "moral depravity" of child rape and the "grievous injury" it inflicts on its victims and society at large.

This goes beyond the pro-or-anti debate regarding capital punishment. Wherever you may fall on the issue, this raises a litany of additional questions about the gray area of moral turpitude and fair punishment.

[Image Credit: USDA Photo by Ken Hammond on wikimedia commons]