After reading an article about the sentencing of minors who have committed murder, a few thoughts ran through my head. Why would a crime of murder be considered less if it were committed when the criminal was less than 18 years old?
I am having trouble understanding how someone can justify a murder simply because it was done by a teenager. Apparently the attitude is, "oh they can't control their behavior like an adult can." Tell that to the victims families. Obviously we are not talking about a toddler accidentally grabbing daddy's gun and pulling the trigger. I am talking about anyone who is able to make a rational decision.
Obviously, most humans make a lot of "mistakes" when they are in their teenage years. It's part of growing up and thinking you are invincible. At the same time, we should all know (at least I hope) right from wrong. When I was a teenager, of course I took risks. I also knew there was a consequence to my action. I knew what could happen when laws were broken etc. I chose not to commit any serious crimes because I knew it wasn't right.
It seems courts and judges are having a hard time sentencing minors to life sentences for murder cases. I think when it comes to first degree (pre-meditated) murder, that individual has crossed a line in which only severe punishment by the law should follow. It would be silly to say, "they were just being high schooler's." Taking a life would be making an "adult" decision and therefore should always be handled with adult laws. It is actually quite scary what "teenagers" are capable of. The Dnepropetrovsk maniacs comes to mind. They are three teenagers from Russia who grew up in privileged households and one summer decided to murder 20-30 victims and videotape it simply because they were bored. I don't think putting them in Juve for a year and giving them probation would teach them a lesson.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Preserving Freedom of Speech
Many questions and thoughts arise after reading about the latest actions done by those of the Westboro Baptist Church. For those who don't know, the Westboro Baptist Church is an independent church led by Fred Phelps. They are mostly known for their anti-gay message, and their disgusting habit of picketing funerals of fallen U.S. soldiers in which they hold signs with messages such as "Thank God for 9/11," "You're going to Hell," and "God Hates F*gs." In some twisted way, the WBC believes that God is punishing soldiers because they are fighting for a Country that has has a tolerance for homosexuality. Who could imagine that people could have such indecency to disrespect those who are trying to mourn over a loved one. At the same token, we live in a country in which we have freedom of speech. When do these picketers cross the line? Can our laws do anything to about this behavior without going against the constitution? Can we create a larger "buffer" zone that prevents protesters from disturbing funeral goers?
A recent story might bring up some answers to these questions. Albert Snyder brought the WBC to Supreme Court claiming that when they picketed at his sons funeral, he became ill, became depressed, emotionally distressed, and his diabetes worsened. He is claiming that their actions crossed the line from a protest to a personal attack and harassment. Snyder was awarded five million dollars in damages but the federal court appealed the decision. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court looked into the case again in which Snyder is trying to file suit for emotional distress. The case is ongoing.
USA Today expressed their opinion on the matter in this article. It seems pretty evident that the writer neither agrees with the Westboro Baptist Church's message, nor tries to justify their message. Just in the second sentence, the editorial board labels the WBC members as "a handful of insensitive bigots." Kudos to them, because the words I would label the WBC members is very much beyond "Rated R." The editorial, while not extremely long, does a good job of quickly summarizing the events of Albert Snyder's case as well as giving a detailed enough background on the WBC and their intentions. I would say the audience targeted from this article would be anyone who is interested in constitutional rights as well those who would debate ethical matters vs. freedom of speech. The article is not about whether what the WBC does is right or wrong. It simply sparks the thought that by allowing damages to be paid because others were exercising their freedom of speech, that it could change the way we look at and define that very freedom. They point this out clearly when making the statement, "The essence of free speech is people can say things that are unpopular, not just what the government lets them say. To deny that right for one person is to threaten it for all." I have to agree with this statement because while I may not agree with what someone might say, it is a great privilege that we have the freedom to express ourselves freely.
I think what we will find with this case, is that the courts will make stricter laws on how close protesters can act around private funerals, and will produce stricter penalties if those laws are broken. I agree with the article because they are standing on the idea that freedom of speech must be protected. It is sad and disgusting that such people have to abuse this right to gain attention for something so absurd, but under our constitution, it's hard to say it is wrong (freedom of expression).
The end of the editorial does a good job of throwing some other examples of similar situations which gets the reader to question the rights of protesters. As hard as it is to say, I have to agree with the article even though I completely despise everything about The Westboro Baptist Church.
Link to Article - http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-10-06-editorial06_ST_N.htm
A recent story might bring up some answers to these questions. Albert Snyder brought the WBC to Supreme Court claiming that when they picketed at his sons funeral, he became ill, became depressed, emotionally distressed, and his diabetes worsened. He is claiming that their actions crossed the line from a protest to a personal attack and harassment. Snyder was awarded five million dollars in damages but the federal court appealed the decision. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court looked into the case again in which Snyder is trying to file suit for emotional distress. The case is ongoing.
USA Today expressed their opinion on the matter in this article. It seems pretty evident that the writer neither agrees with the Westboro Baptist Church's message, nor tries to justify their message. Just in the second sentence, the editorial board labels the WBC members as "a handful of insensitive bigots." Kudos to them, because the words I would label the WBC members is very much beyond "Rated R." The editorial, while not extremely long, does a good job of quickly summarizing the events of Albert Snyder's case as well as giving a detailed enough background on the WBC and their intentions. I would say the audience targeted from this article would be anyone who is interested in constitutional rights as well those who would debate ethical matters vs. freedom of speech. The article is not about whether what the WBC does is right or wrong. It simply sparks the thought that by allowing damages to be paid because others were exercising their freedom of speech, that it could change the way we look at and define that very freedom. They point this out clearly when making the statement, "The essence of free speech is people can say things that are unpopular, not just what the government lets them say. To deny that right for one person is to threaten it for all." I have to agree with this statement because while I may not agree with what someone might say, it is a great privilege that we have the freedom to express ourselves freely.
I think what we will find with this case, is that the courts will make stricter laws on how close protesters can act around private funerals, and will produce stricter penalties if those laws are broken. I agree with the article because they are standing on the idea that freedom of speech must be protected. It is sad and disgusting that such people have to abuse this right to gain attention for something so absurd, but under our constitution, it's hard to say it is wrong (freedom of expression).
The end of the editorial does a good job of throwing some other examples of similar situations which gets the reader to question the rights of protesters. As hard as it is to say, I have to agree with the article even though I completely despise everything about The Westboro Baptist Church.
Link to Article - http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-10-06-editorial06_ST_N.htm
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
More crime associated with U.S. - Mexico border
Crime continues to rise at the U.S. and Mexico border according to this article at Fox News. This time, deportation issues are to blame. Mexican officials are blaming the rise in criminal activity at the border due to the U.S. not deporting illegal immigrant criminals all the way back to their hometowns, but instead leaving them at the border. It seems to be a hassle enough to deport criminals who have illegally immigrated to the United States, and now we are expected to drop them off at their front doors? One would think that the country of which these criminals came from would take full responsibility in processing the criminals, as well as transporting them to their hometowns. According to Juan Hernandez, who founded the Center for U.S.-Mexico Studies at University of Texas at Dallas, "Mexico believes that individuals who commit crimes in the United States should be prosecuted in the United States and not sent to Mexico to continue their performing of crimes." Sure, that is convenient for Mexico since that means less criminals in their country. It does not seem fair that U.S. tax dollars are spent when these criminals are put through the U.S. federal prison and court systems. In my opinion, the officials in Mexico should be held responsible for putting these deported criminals in the proper place, and the U.S. should not be held accountable for whatever happens with them once they are brought across the border so long as they place them with the proper officials.
There needs to be some major changes with this whole process. I can't say I know the solution, but the U.S. needs to once and for all secure the border, get strict with immigration laws, and improve the deportation procedures.
News Article:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/28/mexican-lawmakers-say-worsening-mexico-violence-returning-criminals/
There needs to be some major changes with this whole process. I can't say I know the solution, but the U.S. needs to once and for all secure the border, get strict with immigration laws, and improve the deportation procedures.
News Article:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/28/mexican-lawmakers-say-worsening-mexico-violence-returning-criminals/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)