Two supreme court rulings against children in one week. First, the supreme court has determined that the death penalty may not be used for convicted child rapists - in short, no death for any criminal whose victim did not die.
How many ways is this wrong?
1) It only applies to criminals whose crime was against individual citizens. Traitors and spys can still be put to death even if they did not kill anyone. A ballistic missile is more highly valued than a child.
2) In saying 'death only for death', the supreme court is narrowing the definition of "proportionate" by effectively replacing it with "equivalent". The punishment for rape will never be equivalent to the crime, and I don't believe the supreme court even considered what a truly proportionate punishment would be. The majority justices in this case cannot consider a proportionate punishment unless they understand the severity of the crime, and it seems clear to me that they don't.
3) Has "cruel and unusual" been usurped by proportionate and/or equivalent? Unless the supreme court has their own private dictionary, these are not the same thing. I am not all that clear on my own position on this one, perhaps that's why I'm an engineer and not a judge or a lawyer. But these words have very different meanings, and the people who set the standards for the law in our country SHOULD be clear on what that standard is!
4) The last sentence in the second bullett deserves it's own bullett: The majority justices in this case cannot consider a proportionate punishment unless they understand the severity of the crime, and it seems clear to me that they don't. When a victim of rape commits suicide after a decade of mental anguish, then the punishment for the rape must also be adjusted.
5) The day after reducing the maximum sentence for one violent crime, the same supreme court ensured increased proliferation of primary tool of violent crime in our society - guns.
The last bullett is the second court ruling against children - no blanket bans on guns.
How many ways is this wrong?
1) The first 4 words of the second amendment are "A well regulated militia". The 'big question' is whether this amendment pertains to an indiviual's right to bear arms or the collective right to bear arms - it seems to me the 'big question' is answered in the first noun: MILITIA. But the supreme court has determined that an individual can constitute a militia.
2) This is why my children are not allowed to play with toy guns, ever - if their friends play with toy guns, they are likely to mistake the real thing for a toy when they find it in a closet or a drawer. I don't want my children in the room when that happens. I found my father's gun once, luckily I was old enough to know that it wasn't a toy.
3) The intention of the second amendment is "the security of a free State" - "self defense" is NEVER mentioned. Indeed, "self defense" is low on the totem pole in terms of ACTUAL gun use, regardless of the owners' intentions. My father took his gun out of hiding for self defense when there was an intruder one night. He got rid of the gun the next day - the intruder was me.
4) The supreme court has supplanted the definitions of "militia" with "individual" and "security of a free state" with "self defense". They have not yet redefined "well regulated", they've simply ignored it. WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO REGULATE GUN-OWNERSHIP AT LEAST AS MUCH AS CAR-OWNERSHIP. HOW MANY MORE VIGINIA TECH'S WILL IT TAKE FOR US TO LIVE UP TO THAT RESONSIBILITY???
The stories of my father's gun ended well. I was lucky. My husband's cousin - not so much. Our cousin's older son used his gun to kill himself when he couldn't bear the humiliation of being thrown off the football team for getting caught with a beer. Two years later our cousin's younger son killed himself because he couldn't bear his older brother's death. I believe he used the same gun. I've been told that I'm too close to such a tragedy to have an objective opinion, and that our stories are too unusual to be considered typical. Someday I'll write a more reasoned argument to that criticism, but for now, go fuck yourself. Better yet, go shoot yourself - it's your right.
It's a few days later now. Turns out I don't have to write a more reasoned response, someone else beat me to the punch! The full article is at http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-gun-deaths-suicide,0,703027.story , but here's an exerpt:
"Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation's nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
There was nothing unique about that year -- gun-related suicides have outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the last 25 years."
