HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017248.jpg
2.04 MB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Book manuscript / legal history narrative
File Size:
2.04 MB
Summary
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript (possibly by Alan Dershowitz, given the context of such document dumps) discussing legal history. It details the 1963 Supreme Court dissent in *Rudolph v. Alabama* regarding the death penalty for rape, specifically focusing on Justices Brennan and Douglas. It highlights the media backlash, specifically an aggressive editorial from the *New Hampshire Union Leader* accusing the justices of encouraging rape.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| William J. Brennan Jr. | Supreme Court Justice |
Agreed to join a dissent regarding the death penalty in Rudolph v. Alabama.
|
| William O. Douglas | Supreme Court Justice |
Signed onto the dissent regarding the death penalty.
|
| Arthur Goldberg | Supreme Court Justice |
Mentioned in the New Hampshire Union Leader editorial as part of the 'trio'.
|
| Rudolph | Defendant |
Black man convicted of raping a white woman in Rudolph v. Alabama.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. Supreme Court |
Judicial body involved in the Rudolph v. Alabama case.
|
|
| New Hampshire Union Leader |
Newspaper that published a criticism of the Supreme Court justices.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Source of the document (indicated by stamp).
|
Timeline (1 events)
1963
Denial of certiorari in Rudolph v. Alabama and subsequent dissent by Justices Brennan and Douglas.
U.S. Supreme Court
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of the legal case Rudolph v. Alabama.
|
|
|
Location of the newspaper Union Leader.
|
Relationships (2)
Both signed the dissent in Rudolph v. Alabama.
Grouped together by the New Hampshire Union Leader as the 'trio'.
Key Quotes (3)
"U.S. Supreme Court Trio Encourages Rape"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017248.jpg
Quote #1
"These fiends, freed from the fear of the death penalty for their foul deed, . . .will be inclined to take a chance."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017248.jpg
Quote #2
"at least three members of the Supreme Court are now out to encourage rape."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017248.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,648 characters)
4.2.12
WC: 191694
WC: 191694
Justice Brennan had agreed to join a short dissent from the denial of certiorari in Rudolph v.
Alabama (1963)—a case involving imposition of the death
penalty on a black man who was convicted of raping a white woman. Justice William O. Douglas
signed on as well. The dissenters invited the bar to address the following questions, which they
deemed “relevant and worthy of argument and consideration”:
Alabama (1963)—a case involving imposition of the death
penalty on a black man who was convicted of raping a white woman. Justice William O. Douglas
signed on as well. The dissenters invited the bar to address the following questions, which they
deemed “relevant and worthy of argument and consideration”:
1. In light of the trend both in the country and throughout the
world against punishing rape by death, does the imposition of
the death penalty by those States which retain it for rape violate
“evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of
[our] maturing society,” or “standards of decency more or less
universally accepted”?
world against punishing rape by death, does the imposition of
the death penalty by those States which retain it for rape violate
“evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of
[our] maturing society,” or “standards of decency more or less
universally accepted”?
2. Is the taking of human life to protect a value other than human
life consistent with the constitutional proscription against
“punishments which by their excessive…severity are greatly
disproportional to the offenses charged”?
life consistent with the constitutional proscription against
“punishments which by their excessive…severity are greatly
disproportional to the offenses charged”?
3. Can the permissible aims of punishment (e.g., deterrence, isolation,
rehabilitation) be achieved as effectively by punishing
rape less severely than by death (e.g., by life imprisonment); if
so, does the imposition of the death penalty for rape constitute
“unnecessary cruelty”?
rehabilitation) be achieved as effectively by punishing
rape less severely than by death (e.g., by life imprisonment); if
so, does the imposition of the death penalty for rape constitute
“unnecessary cruelty”?
As soon as the dissent was published, there was an immediate reaction. Conservative journalists
had a field day lambasting the very notion that a court could strike down as unconstitutional a
long-standing punishment that is explicitly referred to in the Constitution.
had a field day lambasting the very notion that a court could strike down as unconstitutional a
long-standing punishment that is explicitly referred to in the Constitution.
One extreme criticism appeared in the New Hampshire Union Leader under the banner headline
“U.S. Supreme Court Trio Encourages Rape”:
“U.S. Supreme Court Trio Encourages Rape”:
In a decision handed down last week three U.S. Supreme Court justices, Goldberg,
Brennan, Douglas, raised the question of whether it was proper to condemn a man to
death for the crime of rape if there has been no endangering of the life of the victim. This
incredible opinion, of course, can serve only to encourage would-be rapists. These fiends,
freed from the fear of the death penalty for their foul deed, . . .will be inclined to take a
chance.
Brennan, Douglas, raised the question of whether it was proper to condemn a man to
death for the crime of rape if there has been no endangering of the life of the victim. This
incredible opinion, of course, can serve only to encourage would-be rapists. These fiends,
freed from the fear of the death penalty for their foul deed, . . .will be inclined to take a
chance.
Thus, not content with forbidding our schoolchildren to pray in school, not content with
banishing Bible reading from our schools, and not content letting every type of filthy book
be published, at least three members of the Supreme Court are now out to encourage rape.
banishing Bible reading from our schools, and not content letting every type of filthy book
be published, at least three members of the Supreme Court are now out to encourage rape.
The editorial did not mention that New Hampshire had abolished the death penalty for rape
generations ago and had one of the lowest rates of rape in the country—far lower than states that
still executed convicted rapists.
generations ago and had one of the lowest rates of rape in the country—far lower than states that
still executed convicted rapists.
161
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017248
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document