On The Law

For several years I have read and listened to the debate, carried on by supposedly intelligent people, over whether or not capital punishment was an effective deterrent. From the bleeding-heart liberal Judges to the modern day T.V. News anchors, many have stoutly proclaimed that it was not effective.

            They and all who espouse this theory are wrong. I propose to prove that they are wrong, and they are going to help me do it. First, some examples of the deterrent measures taken by and readily accepted by society:

            1. The family collie, for no apparent reason kills and eats half of a young child. What happens? The dog is put to sleep. Why? The reason given is to deter him from killing again. After a tame, domesticated animal kills, history proves that it will continue until it is killed. Naturally, this is no object lesson for other dogs, but it does deter that dog.

            2. A woman jogger is killed in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains by a mountain lion. A mother lion protecting her new-born cub. What happens? A search party organizes, then she is tracked down and killed. Why? Is it a deterrent to other lions? No, it is to keep her from killing again. Humans are very protective of their own.

            3. Two young brothers unable to wait for their parents to age and die naturally, shoot them twelve times from behind at pointblank range and claim self defense. What happens? A sick society tries desperately to find some justification for their actions. Why? Because their logic is all screwed up.

            4. History proves that criminals who have killed will kill again, rapists will rape again, and molesters will molest until the day they die. The only action that will act as a deterrent on those future horrible acts is for them to die now. To say that killing a murderer will not deter the next murderer is a tactic in misdirection. At least, the one who is executed is deterred and interred.

In our current sick society, many judges are objecting to California's "three strikes" law, saying they have lost their flexibility to adjudicate cases individually. Under the law, the judges have no ability to tailor the sentence to make it appropriate to the defendant and to the crime.

            For some politically correct reason, the media can't even call a criminal, a criminal; they invariably call him the defendant, even when and after he is sentenced.

These Bleeding-heart, liberal judges don't seem to realize that they are the root cause of our needing such a law. The ugly gray world they exist in, is killing us. People, who live their lives in the black and white world of being robbed, raped, or shot; only know at the end of the day, yes we did or no we didn't, get robbed, raped or shot.

When we finally get smart enough to punish criminals for breaking the law and punish each criminal equally under that law. Only then will our streets be restored to some semblance of order.

 If we allow the courts to be involved with mitigating circumstances, the criminal's childhood abuse, the fact that he doesn't have a job, or suffered a moment of insane rage, we will be entangled forever in endless litigation in our courts and anarchy in our streets.