A bill by State Rep. Matt Simpson (R-Daphne) permitting the death penalty for child sex offenders is heading to the Alabama Senate after clearing the House of Representatives on Tuesday.
House Bill 49 (HB49) would require that a person 18 or older convicted of rape in the first degree or sodomy in the first degree, when the victim is under 12, be given a death sentence or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. If the offender is under 18, the sentence is life imprisonment without parole or life.
The bill cleared its first committee hurdle last week and received a full floor vote from lawmakers, who overwhelmingly voted in favor of it. The original bill had the age barrier for application at six years old. However, the House approved a committee substitute raising the age to 12.
The bill received some pushback from Democratic lawmakers, but the debate took roughly 30 minutes.
State Rep. Neil Rafferty (D-Birmingham) was first to the podium opposite Simpson, pronouncing his revulsion at the crime of child sex abuse but still stating he would vote against the measure, citing his "moral conscience" and "strongly held belief against the death penalty."
Several other House Democrats questioned the bill's morality regarding the death penalty in general. State Rep. Phillip Ensler (D-Montgomery) was the first to question its constitutionality.
The U.S. Supreme Court determined that capital punishment in cases where another person was not killed is unconstitutional, based on the "cruel and unusual punishments" clause in the Eighth Amendment in the 2008 case of Kennedy v. Louisiana. At that time, only six states had provisions offering the death penalty for non-murder offenses.
"Isn't your bill unconstitutional?" Ensler asked. "Hasn't the United States Supreme Court ruled that you can't impose the death penalty unless someone has actually died in the crime?"
According to Simpson, since the Kennedy ruling, Florida and Tennessee have enacted identical legislation, making a challenge to the Supreme Court precedent very likely. He argues that a law could no longer be deemed "unusual" if more states enacted similar statutes.
"What the Supreme Court ruled was, based on the fact that it was considered unusual, because only six states used it at the time, so, therefore, they said it violated the cruel and unusual clause of the Eight Amendment," Simpson responded. "However, there is a national push to change that rationale."
He said that Florida would likely be the state challenging the law in court, but Alabama's enactment of the statute would aid them and other states that passed the law.
Ensler rebutted by asserting that the state would likely be sued for passing the law, leading to lengthy and costly litigation for the state.
"Put aside the constitutional issue for a second, it seems fiscally irresponsible to pass something that we're going to ask taxpayers to have to defend yet again when people are having a hard time, at least in my district, they're having a hard time paying for eggs, paying for gas, paying for milk. We haven't seen those prices gone down. So, I would think our taxpayer dollars should go towards helping people with affordability, with their pocketbook issues, instead of defending a law that the Supreme Court has said is unconstitutional."
Simpson responded sarcastically, pointing to Ensler's perceived lack of interest in inflationary price woes during the Joe Biden presidency.
"That's an awesome point," Simpson said with a smirk. "And I don't remember you being here the last four years, complaining about the prices increasing [and] inflation. So, it's funny how we have a change in administration, and now, all of a sudden, you're worried about the price of eggs. But that's interesting."
Simpson then posited a theoretical question, asking Ensler if the same would apply to the previous efforts to challenge segregation-era Supreme Court precedent, referencing the landmark case of Plessy v. Ferguson, in which the courts ruled that racial segregation did not violate the Constitution. The decision was later challenged in several Supreme Court cases, which rendered Plessy essentially impotent.
Simpson's civil rights reference gained him applause from other lawmakers, seemingly approving the reference. Ensler reiterated his concern and then abdicated the podium.
State Reps. Patrick Sellers (D-Birmingham) and Juandalynn Givan (D-Birmingham) were the only Democrats openly supporting the bill, although several others voted in favor.
The bill passed the House by a vote of 86-5 with nine abstentions. It will now go to the Senate for deliberation.
To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email craig.monger@1819news.com.
Don't miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
