The Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to sentence a child rapist to death. Patrick O. Kennedy raped his 8 year old stepdaughter and blamed it on two neighborhood boys. When questioned by the authorities, the girl lied, just as she was coached to do. I heartedly disagree with the Editorial Board, Daily Illini’s opinion that the Supreme Court was being responsible.
The Supreme Court is supposed to be the ultimate upholder of rights and liberties; and, in this case, they have failed. By deciding that Patrick O. Kennedy would not get the death penalty because it was “cruel and unusual punishment,” the Justices have set a precedent that rapists, who don’t murder their victims, will receive something less than the death penalty. Even Barack Obama and John McCain came together in disagreeing with the rulings; this could be considered political posturing due to the proximity of the election, however. By coming out against the likes of Patrick O. Kennedy, they cover themselves politically against charges of being weak on crime and punishment.
Personally, I believe that murder can be in self defense, rape cannot. You can’t just decide “Oh, that child was trying to hurt me, so I raped him/her.” Child rapists are a waste of life, and keeping them alive is a waste of tax dollars, as well as a risk to society given the possibility of their release on “good behavior.” It takes a truly sick and twisted person to murder someone in cold blood. Rape, however, though it might not lead to murder, isn’t any less sick or twisted; it’s simply disturbing in a different manner.
As such, the fact that the Supreme Court ruled in Kennedy’s favor, is basically a slap in the face of Justice. This man raped a child, his own stepdaughter no less, and is getting away with his life, if not his freedom. Now, other rapists can and will use this case as precedent to get away with at least their own worthless life, while they leave their victims often times as mere shadows of their previous selves. So, while rapists are getting easier sentences, their victims spend years recuperating and rebuilding their lives. I see no “cruel and unusual punishment” in death.
The Editorial Board states that the death penalty is too “civilized” a punishment. And perhaps they are right. But at the moment, the only thing that many people see is that a child rapist is getting away with a lesser sentence.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Guns, guns, guns
This comment was in response to Laura's (Politically Provoked) "Supreme Court Rules in Citizens' Favor" post. The Supreme Court recently upheld in a 5-to-4 vote that the Constitution does not allow “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," which invalidate a ban on guns that was in effect in Washington DC.
It’s good to hear that the Supreme Court is upholding our constitutional rights. The right to bear arms is a right protected by the Bill of Rights, and must be upheld at all costs, regardless of personal beliefs or otherwise. What people don’t seem to realize is that a ban on guns, besides being unconstitutional, will not decrease crimes. As Laura said, those who follow the ban are law-abiding citizens, but criminals have easier access to firearms in the black market. How are people supposed to protect themselves against a gun, if they have no gun themselves? I don’t know about you, but my skills with a kitchen knife aren’t that great, and I certainly don’t have the range that a gun does.
How I see it is that if someone was interested in robbing a house, and yet nearly every home was known to have someone who owned a gun, then that thief would most likely be discouraged from entering those homes. Bearing arms in and of itself does not increase gun-related crimes. In fact, it should decrease gun-related crimes, because the criminals would be more wary of attacking someone. How are they to know who can fight back effectively and who can’t?
It is the right of the government, state or federal, to require certain qualifications however, before allowing a person to own a weapon. As such, they can require backgrounds checks, certification courses that teach arms bearers how to properly use a gun, as well as safety issues, such as storage, among other things. It’s important to allow only educated and non-criminal people owning guns, for obvious reasons. No one wants a mentally unstable person or someone with a history of violence with an armed weapon in their home or on their person. Also, people uneducated in proper gun usage, and without proper technique training, are mostly likely to be a danger to others as well as themselves, whether intentionally or not.
Whether to own a gun or not is a personal choice, and as such a ban should not be allowed. I, along with everyone else, have the right to feel safe and protect myself, especially in my own home.
It’s good to hear that the Supreme Court is upholding our constitutional rights. The right to bear arms is a right protected by the Bill of Rights, and must be upheld at all costs, regardless of personal beliefs or otherwise. What people don’t seem to realize is that a ban on guns, besides being unconstitutional, will not decrease crimes. As Laura said, those who follow the ban are law-abiding citizens, but criminals have easier access to firearms in the black market. How are people supposed to protect themselves against a gun, if they have no gun themselves? I don’t know about you, but my skills with a kitchen knife aren’t that great, and I certainly don’t have the range that a gun does.
How I see it is that if someone was interested in robbing a house, and yet nearly every home was known to have someone who owned a gun, then that thief would most likely be discouraged from entering those homes. Bearing arms in and of itself does not increase gun-related crimes. In fact, it should decrease gun-related crimes, because the criminals would be more wary of attacking someone. How are they to know who can fight back effectively and who can’t?
It is the right of the government, state or federal, to require certain qualifications however, before allowing a person to own a weapon. As such, they can require backgrounds checks, certification courses that teach arms bearers how to properly use a gun, as well as safety issues, such as storage, among other things. It’s important to allow only educated and non-criminal people owning guns, for obvious reasons. No one wants a mentally unstable person or someone with a history of violence with an armed weapon in their home or on their person. Also, people uneducated in proper gun usage, and without proper technique training, are mostly likely to be a danger to others as well as themselves, whether intentionally or not.
Whether to own a gun or not is a personal choice, and as such a ban should not be allowed. I, along with everyone else, have the right to feel safe and protect myself, especially in my own home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
