Earlier this week, the US Supreme Court banned states from killing kids. It struck down state-implemented murder (better known by the euphemisms 'capital punishment' and 'death penalty') against people who were juveniles when they committed their crimes. Or were convicted of such crimes anyways. I have to include that qualifier considering the large numbers of not guilty people who were on death row before being exonerated... as well as those not guilty people who weren't so lucky.
I haven't read the decision and, from what I've heard, there are aspects of the Court's reasoning which I may not entirely agree with. I have to read more before commenting. However, I can't say I will shed any tears for the demise of this practice. And I'm sure anyone who dares call himself pro-life will agree with me.
Simply put, the state has a responsibility to protect its citizens, not to kill them... even the scumbags. Think of it this way: if one gang member kills another gang member, should he be prosecuted? Or should we say that the victim was a scumbag and the state has no duty to protect scumbags, therefore the killer should remain free to roam the streets?
Committing first-degree murder is not a legitimate function of a legitimate government. No demented definition of 'due process' can make it so. It's really that simple. Do you want me to put faith in a state that lowers itself to the mentality of a common thug?
State-implemented murder against adults remains legal in most states, but at least states can no longer kill kids. It's a small step in the right direction toward a more civilized government.
No comments:
Post a Comment