Death Penalty
Wow! The US Supreme Court ruled that it's unconstitutional to execute minors. I can't believe that it was ever ok to do so.
Check out the article.
-Jean Chen
posted by flika @ 11:30 AM
8 comments
Pop and Politics Talk Back
It's your chance to speak your mind about what's going on in politics, pop culture, and more. What's pissing you off or rocking your world? (For more inspiration, aggravation, and edu-mi-cation, check out PopandPolitics.com)
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Check out the article.
-Jean Chen
8 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sorry. I disagree. I have no more sympathy for a 16-year-old murder than I do for a 30-year-old murder. I believe the death penalty should be given according to the circumstances of an individual case. For example, say a 17-year-old kills maliciously without remorse and then turns 18 two months later. Please justify to me how 2 months got him off the hook? Serial killers have been known to exhibit murderous behavior since childhood, starting with the killing of animals. I'd prefer the country were not overrun by homicidal maniacs who alluded the death penalty because of age and then alluded life in prison through some ridiculous parole loophole. Let each case be judged on its own merit.
Sorry bub. I don't recall ever mentioning my opinion on the Michael Jackson case. Nor did I mention my opinion on children and abortion, cigarettes, alcohol, child labor, etc. The only thing I addressed was the death penalty. Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
If you know me so well, then you'll know one great thing about me is that I almost never lie. (Although, I might lie to spare someone's feelings. Can't say definitively.)
1. Do you support child labor?
2. Do you support children (13 on up) deciding for themselves to get plastic surgery? Note: The 13 on up is an arbitrary age line.
3. Do you support 13 year old girls being able to marry 40 year old men?
4. Do you support young girls being able to keep abortion decisions from their parents?
5. Should Michael Jackson be on trial right now for having sexual relations with a 13 year old boy?
1.) No, I don’t support child labor for the following reasons:
a. I think children should be able to be children for the short amount of time they have because being an adult can suck.
b. Child labor is generally forced upon the child. It is more like slavery than labor; however, I suppose if, for example, the child had made the choice to work at his uncle’s store to help support his very poor family, then that would be acceptable to me…although, I of course, would wish that a child would not have to do so. I can say that I am also against forcing adults into labor too (i.e. against their wishes) unless they are in prison or its part of a work punishment program.
2.) I would say no. Plastic surgery is a permanent thing. I’ve changed my mind about many things as I got older, including my thinking from when I was 21 and now. I would say a child should have parental consent. In fact, I can answer numbers 3 and 4 also with this answer. I think parents should “parent” their kids. Parents should be responsible for their kids in most aspects and be able to rule in these decisions.
5.) Yes, I think Michael Jackson should be on trial right now. You’re absolutely right that this case rubs me the wrong way. If Michael Jackson did indeed have sexual relations with this boy, then I do see it as immoral. I have to say the situation seems different to me than with the Letourneau case. Although I am not advocating the Letourneau case. I guess it’s the same bizarre doublestandard where a 40 year old man and a 16 year old girl seems more seedy than a 40 year old woman and a 16 year old boy. I know it’s wrong, but I have some trouble getting over that societal doublestandard, as I’m sure many others do too. This case is also horrible, because the parents probably looked up to Michael and thought their kids were safe with him (although I don’t know why…I think he’s creepy) and I’m sure the children themselves looked up to Michael and trusted him. It also seems to me that the children were not consenting, but rather forced into the situation against their will and probably many kept quite about it for the same reason most children, and even adult victims of rape, do…embarrassment, confusion, shame…and the fear that no one will believe them.
I will admit that there is some confusion when it comes to deciding whether or not a child is a child or an adult. Many, many years ago right here in the U.S. girls would get married at the age of 14, often to older men. The same is still true in many other countries. In many other countries children have assumed the role of adulthood much earlier than 18 and done a good job of it. I am not saying that this should or should not happen. I tend to think not, because I think everyone should get a certain number of years to just be a child. But, these facts do add to the confusion of whether or not a “child” is mentally competent and at what age.
Perhaps I am being hypocritical in that I would probably have much more sympathy for a 12 year old murder than I would a 16 year old one. I would probably put a 12 year old in a mental facility for life. Maybe that’s because I tend to think 16 and 17 year olds are a lot more competent than people give them credit for. I’m not so old yet that I don’t remember what it was like being those ages. So maybe if you lowered that cutoff age, then I would be perfectly fine with it. But also, I am not saying all 16 and up murders should be put to death. Certainly not. I wouldn’t say that about 45 year old murders. I think each case is different with different circumstances. For example, I see marked differences in a woman murdering her husband after 20 years of battering as opposed to the BTK killer. That’s why I said each case should be decided on its own merits. Although the justice system is not foolproof, it’s the best we’ve got.
I noticed that in your arguments regarding Priests and choir boys and Michael Jackson and boys, you keep saying that the children were consenting. I'm confused, because I thought it was common knowledge that the children in both instances did not consent. I could be wrong, but I haven't seen a case where the choirboy consented to sexual relations (the same for the Jackson case). So, it’s kind of a moot point.
Anyways, I'm just not swayed by your argument. I'm seeing apples to oranges. In cases of pedophila or child labor we're talking about the minor being the victim. In the other cases we're talking about the minor being the one victimizing. If you want a truly analogous argument, then we should tackle another situation where the minor is the victimizer. If a 16-year-old rapes a woman (woman's age is irrelevant), then should the 16-year-old be punished? If the minor is not capable of knowing what he is doing or capable of fully understanding his actions and the consequences of those actions, then in theory, he shouldn't be punished.
You should also note that the law does acknowledge a difference between say the ages of 11 and 16. If you have sex with an 11 year old, then that is considered molestation/pedophila. If you have sex with a 16 year old then that is considered statutory rape. Perhaps, then the problem is with the line we've drawn with age.
Anyways, I’m sure you’ll call me hypocritical or something worse perhaps (considering how passionately angry you seem to get when there’s an opinion different from your own), but all my answers above are what I truly believe to be right, no bullshit and no agenda. Perhaps if you see a viewpoint that you disagree with, then maybe you should just try to engage the person in conversation and present your argument with supporting evidence in the hopes that you’ll get me, and others, to change our minds. In which case I just might, if your argument is a good one. I hardly think you’ll get anyone to change their minds and see your point of view if you attack them with angry emotion. For example, I am NOT a Bush supporter. I’m a loopy liberal, I guess you could say. But I’ve become friends with a diehard Christian, rightwing blogger on here. Why? Because he comes at me the right way and gives me something to think about.
P.S. I didn’t get the bub thing. Does wolverine say that?
P.P.S. Thanks for reading my blog! =) P.P.P.S. Unfortunately, I am unable to view your blog and learn anything about you.
In case you're wondering why I deleted some comments, it's because I compiled them all into one. I thought it would be better reading.
I see your point on consistency. I think I've been consistent (no pun intended) on judging 16 year olds and up as adults in my arguments. I don't think I would concede that a 13 year old is adultworthy; thus, I am uncomfortable with the trickery in molestation cases. I would have to say I don't see the consent in the molestation cases we have been discussing. Just because one does not struggle and kick when the actual sexual encounter is happening does not mean one consents to the act. Like I said before, victims of unwanted sexual acts do not always protest out of feelings of confusion, fear, and humiliation. In the cases we've been discussing Jackson and the preists used their positions to help coerce their victims. It's very difficult to stand up to someone who is in a position of authority and someone who is respected by others. The fear that no one would believe the victim would be palpable. In any case, that is an argument about the definition of "consent" as applied to these molestations, not the consistency of age.
Another inconsistency in our society would be the fact that 18 year olds can serve in the military and go to war, but they can't drink alcohol.
Anywho, if I say that 16 year olds and up should be tried as adults, then I think I would be inline with consistency. I have to ponder upon the subject some more. There could be some circumstances I haven't considered.
Post a Comment
<< Home