Anticipating the day the U.S. Supreme Court would strike down the death penalty for child rapists, District Attorney Walter Reed always refrained from seeking an execution for such a crime, his office said Friday.

“Even though it’s been enforced statewide for some time, it’s been widely believed it wouldn’t stand the test of the courts, so we never sought it,” Reed spokesman Rick Wood said.

In a 5-4 decision Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court solidified Reed’s prediction. It ruled execution was confined to those attacks that take a life and is “not proportional punishment for the rape of a child” despite the monstrous nature of the crime, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote. The ruling erupted debate throughout America last week and reversed laws in 44 states allowing the death penalty for those guilty of raping a child.

The court’s ruling centered on Patrick Kennedy, a Louisiana man accused of raping his 8-year-old daughter. The attack was so brutal surgery was required afterwards.

Former Louisiana Rep. Pete Schneider, a Republican from Slidell, authored Louisiana’s 1995 law that gave courts the authority to seek the death penalty for those who rape children under 13. On Thursday, Schneider said he was outraged over the “unconstitutional” ruling.

“The Supreme Court didn’t have the courage, the fortitude or the insight to protect our children or grandchildren in America,” Schneider said, almost yelling through the phone while visiting Europe. “I am extremely disgusted.”

He said he would love to “look them personally in the eye” and ask why the court ruled against execution.

Child rapists “butcher the child’s soul,” Schneider said. “That soul is torn apart. That’s the most horrible thing you can do to a child.”

“I believe in my heart the appropriate punishment is to sentence these people to die,” he said.

That sentiment has brought many other politicians into the fray. Some, such as Gov. Bobby Jindal, vowed to keep writing laws that condemn to death child rapists despite the court’s ruling.

“One thing is clear: the five members of the court who issued the opinion do not share the same standards of decency as the people of Louisiana,” Jindal wrote in a statement. “One justice said that ‘the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child.’ That is incredibly absurd. The most repugnant crimes deserve the harshest penalties, and nothing is more repugnant than the brutal rape of an eight-year-old child.”

Jindal called the ruling “dead wrong” and later vowed to “evaluate ways to amend our statute to maintain death as a penalty for this horrific crime.”

U.S. Sen. David Vitter, R-Metairie agreed.

“The rape of a child is undoubtedly a heinous offense and one that is unfathomable for most Americans to even comprehend,” Vitter said. “Such a crime causes irreparable damage to children and has a lifelong impact on these innocent victims and their families.”

Meanwhile, Reed, the district attorney for the 22nd Judicial District which covers Washington and St. Tammany parishes, seems to agree with the court’s ruling. No child rape case under his tenure has been heinous enough to seek the death penalty, Wood said.

“It’s a death for death issue,” Wood said, adding Reed’s office believes executions are for murderers, except for extremely “heinous” child rapes that haven’t occurred in his district.

Also, most child sexual abuse victims are abused by a friend or relative, and that child doesn’t want to be responsible for sending a grandparent, uncle, father or stepparent to die, Wood said.

“A lot of times (the choice to not seek the death penalty) was a consideration of the family members who didn’t want to go through the case again,” Wood said.