Does the Death Penalty Make Sense?

The Supreme Court ruled this week that regardless of how young the victim is, rape crimes can not command the death penalty. The ruling--like most controversial issues--was 5-4, and it has sparked a lot of heated debate. The issue came before the Supreme Court because two men in Louisiana are on death row for raping and 8 year old and a 5 year old. Many people--including McCain and Obama--disagree with the decision to completely rule out the option of death for what many consider to be a more egregious crime than murder. Is their outrage justified? Should the government kill criminals for crimes that didn't take the life of another? Ironically, the Justices in favor of life in prison over death apparently have no problem with the death penalty for treason. Is treason really worse than raping a child? And if the reason for prohibiting the death penalty in the case of child rape is that crimes outside of murder can't command the death penalty, then how do they justify the death penalty for treason? Certainly treason in numerous ways has the potential to lead to many deaths, but in and of itself, it isn't murder. The same can be said of rape--rape of children and adults--that it also can lead to death through suicide and violence committed by the victim, but it also lacks the direct result of the loss of life, unlike murder. The issue of the death penalty also receives questioning--should any crime, even murder, justify an eye for an eye approach by the government? If the government has the right to inflict death for certain crimes, then why can't a victim kill the perpetrator? If someone rapes my child, I am going to take care of things on my own, and if I do, should I face murder charges? Viewing the issue of justice from a philosophical point of view, does an entity like government have more of a right for retribution than the individual--or the individuals family members--against whom a horrific crime is committed?

I personally disagree with the death penalty for any crime--rape, murder, treason--because I don't believe the government has the moral authority to enact such a punishment. Life in prison should suffice, and if more punishment is to come, leave that to God. For cases where guilt is indisputable, make the life imprisonment very uncomfortable--humane--but uncomfortable, and I believe that is more punishment than the death penalty. Death for certain crimes seems like the easy way out, and having to endure daily punishment--with potentially much more to come in the afterlife--is much worse. Prison is not a vacation--even in the most lax prisons--and if a new approach is taken for crimes that deserve the worst punishment possible, prison could get much more uncomfortable--We could make prisoners watch re-runs of the same Barney and Tele-Tubbies episodes every day--for the worst criminals. It is highly hypocritical to respond to violence with violence, and it ultimately takes away the moral high ground an entity may have in enacting punishment. As hard as it is to view things from the perpetrators point of view, it is necessary to consider the wide range of mental illnesses that may not put someone in a mental institution, but that are bad enough to severely effect ones ability to reason correctly. People that commit horrible crimes have malfunctioning brains, one way or another, they don't work correctly, they don't respond the way a normal brain does. Does that justify criminal behavior? No. But it also doesn't deserve to be completely discounted, so at the least, we as a society can take the moral high ground and stick to punishments that don't undermine the entire justice system. Rage at child rape is justified, but murder in response to that rage isn't. The Supreme Court made the right decision, and now, they need to extend their ruling to the death penalty as a whole, eliminating it's stain from our legal system.

Joke-ovic Choke-ovic

Wimbledon kicked off on Monday, and most pundits picked Roger Federer to lose to Novak Djokovic or Rafael Nadal. Actually, it wasn't just the pundits that picked the Fed express to lose, Djokovic himself declared Federer vulnerable, and suggested that he--Djokovic--could very well be the one to knock him off. Well, Fed won his 2nd straight match in straight sets and Djokovic got worked in straight sets. Interesting, Fed loses in the Final of a major to the best clay court player ever, and all of the sudden he's a has-been, never mind the fact that he's played in 16 straight semi-finals in major tournaments--the record by far--and he's been in 14 of the last 16 finals, winning 12. Djokovic on the other hand, wins 1 major and considers himself the man. Good job Djokovic, way to get your A kicked by the 75th ranked player in the world after talking smack about the greatest tennis player ever. Fed will win his 6th straight Wimbledon--an all-time record--and if Nadal is lucky enought to make the final, he won't make it 5 sets like last year. Federer has won 62 straight matches in a row on grass--a streak going for over 5 years--for a reason and chumps like Djokovic should cork it until they actually dent Fed's armor when it counts.

McCain needs a 6 month stint at Guantanamo

The Supreme Court just ruled that detainees being held in Guantanamo prison camps have a right to challenge their imprisonment in Federal Courts (it was a 5-4 ruling). This is the right decision and it was long overdue, but not everyone agrees with it. I think the most obvious display of political pandering in the Presidential election is the following statement by John McCain: “The United States Supreme Court rendered a decision yesterday that I think is one of the worst decisions in history". This is coming from a former POW, one who got the crap kicked out him for 5 years, one who until recently, strongly disagreed with the Bush administration's policies at Guantanamo. McCain even advocated shutting down Guantanamo--that is, he did until he decided to sell out his convictions in a lame attempt to pacify that far right radicals. Any thorough examination of the prisoners being held at Guantanamo shows that most of them aren't "high risk", rather, they were scooped up on a battle field and thrown in prison, preferably forever if Bush had his way. They were fighting invading forces, defending their way of life, their families, often times coerced to fight or they would be killed by the Taliban or Al Qaeda. If the US government knocked on my door and said they would kill my family unless I went to fight an invading army, I would fight. Not only that, but for fighting their families get taken care of, so it is difficult to understand how locking these detainees up indefinitely, beating them, and refusing to tell them what the are being charged with is somehow going to keep America safe.

The fact that 4 out of 9 Justices voted in favor of Bush's detainment policy is disturbing, but it is more disturbing to see McCain support indefinite detention. His flip-flopping isn't good for the straight talk express--he's in need of some moral viagra--and the fact that this flip-flopping actually convinces anyone is sad. Imprisonment policies that allow indefinite detention, without ever bringing charges, and without ever showing evidence may seem less threatening when they concern detainees in Cuba, but allowing the government to do things like this might someday apply to detention policies of American citizens. Bush, Cheney, and McCain deserve to spend 6 months in Guantanamo, actually, they should be put there indefinitely and see how that feels.

Vice President Predictions

I am ready to make my VP picks, even though the secrecy behind these choices is air-tight, I think I've read enough to make a good guess. I think Romney will be McCain's choice for Veep--with the economy becoming more of an issue than anything other than Iraq, Romney shores up McCain's weakness with the economy, and Romney was rallying the conservative base right before he dropped out, making him the most satisfying choice for most hard-core conservatives. Until recently, I didn't think Romney had a chance due to the animosity he had with McCain, but ultimately, issues like Mormonism and campaign insults take a back seat to issues like the economy. Not only that, but because Romney helped pass health care legislation in Massachusetts, he has a greater chance of drawing independent voters that make health care a top concern, cutting into a democratic stronghold. Romney has shown an ability to connect with liberals--he was elected in the bluest state in the country, and he has the ability to change his mind often, and for the most part, be fairly convincing about it.

If Obama doesn't choose Clinton--and I don't think he will--I think he will choose Jim Webb. He is a senator from Virginia, a former Republican, and he was Secretary of the Navy for Ronald Reagan. He also happens to be a very outspoken critic of the war, and he has the credentials to do so, considering he was one of the 5 highest ranking military officials in the country. He has the ability to deliver some key states that normally vote Republican--like Virginia--and he has the ability to counter McCain on security issues. Webb has strong appeal with Independent voters, and he also has strong, favorable appeal with older voters.

I could be way off with these picks--it's like playing pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey drunk--so if I'm wrong, oh well, and if I'm right I'm a genius.

Nadal isn't nice

Nadal is a bully; he didn't have to abuse Roger the way he did, he could have given Roger a few games and still blown him out. It's amazing what a difference the surface can make--Rafa can't be beat on clay, he's good on grass, and he hasn't made a major final on hard court, but when it comes to clay, he could beat anyone even if he gave them a 2 set lead to start the match. In the entire tournament, Rafa didn't lose a set and only had 1 set even go to a tie-break, and to top it all off, he gave Fed the biggest beat down of his career. Fed can safely make the claim that he's the 2nd best clay court player in the world, but as long as Nadal is around, he doesn't have a chance in hell of winning the French Open. Maybe the military could have a "training excercise" go wrong and accidentally nuke Miorca (Nadal's island). Nadal probably uses horse steroids, beaver tranquillizer, and who knows what else; that's the only explanation for his dominance. It is impossible to hit a winner on clay against him, he can chase down anything. It's scary to think that he's only 22 and that he'll have at least 4 more good years. Anyway, Nadal is just plain mean and Kimbo Slice needs to take him out behind an alley and take care of things.