Not a fan of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court set two landmark rulings this week, both of which I disagree to some degree.

The first is the the right to carry hand guns. I would like to first say, I have a valid FOID card. I believe in the rights afforded to me by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and it's Amendments. However, I also believe in my own personal safety and the safety of others.

The Second Amendment allows for a "well regulated militia". If that's the case, then there should be also well regulated laws in place for those carrying those guns. I have no problem with a well trained, calm, rational, person owning a gun. However, I do have a problem with a punk-ass gang banger outside my school shooting. And I know you don't want me to get on the soap box about my biological father!!

I can see that criminals are carrying guns, and using them. Therefore, this case would allow me to carry a handgun for my own personal protection (much more intimidating than my mace--Thanks Jack!). In theory, it's a nice idea. Make it legal for me to fight back...I dig it. The problem arises that I would need this weapon in the neighborhood where I teach. It would not be appropriate for me to bring a gun to work. Who's going to argue for having a hand gun in school? Not me! And besides, if my cell phone and digital camera were stolen, what's to stop my hand gun from also being taken. It would not be safe to leave a loaded weapon in my car. If my car was stolen or broken into they would also have the weapon, thus putting a lethal weapon in the hands of yet another criminal.

The point of this ruling was to say that the amendment was written with the individual rites of the person in mind (don't forget the amendment was written 200 years ago!). I appreciate that my individual rights are being protected, but where is the line? We have laws and punishments in place because people cannot handle the freedoms afforded to them by our country. If this ruling eradicates the handgun ban in the city of Chicago, I expect much severe laws to be placed on the books AND ENFORCED. More freedom goes hand and hand with more responsibility. I hope that this responsibility takes into account the general safety of others.

Besides this, what training is there in place for those carrying the guns? Getting a FOID card requires no more than $5, an application and a background check. What about if I wanted to actually go out and get a gun? I have no training. Sure, I'm a responsible person, and if I wanted a gun, I recognize the safety issues and would be trained on how to use it. Not everyone has this sense of responsibility!

The second landmark ruling was that the use of capitol punishment for the rape of a child was a violation of the 8th Amendment. I'm sure you can see that I'm at a struggle with the last ruling. I'm stuck between my personal safety and my personal freedoms. This second ruling pisses me off. There are sooooo many things wrong with this ruling.

First of all, you can see that I am in favor of capitol punishment. I can say this because with all the checks and balances in place, a person can be on death row for years before they are executed. The laws are written in such a way giving the criminal the benefit of the doubt. The law would rather have a guilty person go free than imprison an innocent person. Furthermore, it irritates me that a convicted felon in prison is afforded more luxuries than I have as a free woman. My tax dollars pay for free education, free cable, 3 squares a day...sure there is the threat of being made someone's bitch...but it's a trade off.

On a slight side tangent, it irritates me that there is no reform for a criminal in the prison program. It seems to be a revolving door of many of the same persons going in and out. With reform programs we'd have less criminals and a better society as a whole. Sure, not everyone can be helped, but I'm sure it would help more than it hurt.

Back to the issue: If the law allows an "eye for an eye" so to speak, on murder cases how is it fair for a child rapist to be simply imprisoned? That child has to live the rest of its life with the scars of the memory of the incident. If it was a recurrent abuse case this compounds the situation. Our children are precious impressionable beings. I can see the result first hand of children being raised in less than desirable situations. It isn't easy to have a child succeed if they don't see the possible successes they can achieve. A raped/abused child, with out proper counseling (and possibly even with it) may not stand a chance at a normal life. That rapist has taken that child's innocence and childhood. I understand it's possible for a child to recover, but it's not easy. How is it that child pedophiles, abusers, and rapists are let off in this manner?

By the law, the accused has the right to a trial by a jury of his/her peers. If the jury of their peers finds the defendant guilty, they should have the option to give a sentence of capitol punishment. Have you ever served on a jury? Do you know how hard it is to get 12 people to agree? Even with the "open and shut" case that I was on, there was still some dissent on the wording of our verdict. If 12 jurors can agree to a capitol sentence then it should be enacted. I guarantee that there will be at least one person on that jury that does not take that sentence lightly.

I agree that a punishment should fit the crime. I simply don't see the reform or justice by a life sentence in prison. In my opinion, Child rape and abuse is one of the most heinous crimes one can commit. It is disgusting and despicable. With capitol crime, I'm not certain that the punishment is a deterrent. The average person has a sense of right and wrong. The punishments in the case of capitol offenses are not only to punish but to keep the deviants out of society and people safe. Until the reforms for rehabilitation in the prison system are in place I will stand behind that statement. With that being the case, the death penalty ensures that no person will have to suffer at the hands of a repeat offense. Isn't that what we're looking to happen? Capitol punishment ensures it.

I believe that the rights, freedoms, and pursuits of happiness should be held higher for the common good of people rather than for criminals. Criminals have the rights in place for fair and speedy trials, and also an abstention from cruel and unusual punishment. Were they not criminals, they wouldn't have to worry about having their rights violated. Upon the completion of their sentences, reforms should be in place not only for a smooth transition to society, but also to keep that person from falling back in to their prior pattern of crime.

Shame on you, Supreme Court for ensuring better treatment for the criminal, rather than for vindication for the innocent.