No rights to marry for prisoners

Would you marry a man or woman that is in prison for second degree murder and a weapons charge?

Perhaps you would, but that shouldn’t be the determining factor here, because in a situation like this, it is not your choice alone. When there are two people that are free from prison or any other monitoring by state or federal authorities, they are free to associate with whom they wish. If they want to be married, they should be granted that wish by the state or the federal government without question. But, if one of the partners has misused the trust that is held by him or her in a responsible community by committing a major crime, that partner should lose all rights except those that enable him to fight the charge.

A Rochester Hills woman married a man that is in prison for second degree murder and other weapons charges. If he is not granted clemency or parole, he will be there for the rest of his life. He misused the trust of the community by committing these crimes. He should lose all his rights other than those necessary for his defense.

Should we let him out of prison because it is a beautiful Spring day? Or should we let him start a business, an operation that requires a great amount of trust between people? How about voting if he is still in confinement? No, no and no again. All those acts are granted only to those that the community can trust.

So why do we allow prisoners to marry? It is the relationship that requires the most amount of trust between two people.

On another point, the man is convicted of murder. His actions resulted in the death of another person. That person can’t enjoy the coming Spring, can’t get involved in a business and certainly can’t marry. If an individual’s actions have limited or permanently taken the rights of another person you should also not have any rights.

Allowing a person in prison to defend himself is an absolute right. But, once convicted he should have no other rights until he has served his term (by serving, parole or clemency) or, until he is proven innocent.

-----

Short subjects

• Frivolous lawsuits?

Oh, Dennis, have you ever voted to prevent frivolous lawsuits?

Dennis Kucinich is suing the owner of the House of Representatives’ cafeteria. The congressman and one time presidential hopeful, had a sandwich with what was advertised as pitted olives. Well, one of the olives still had a pit much to the surprise of Kucinich. He is suing for $150,000 in damages.

Don’t the members of congress have a great dental plan?

• Parents need to protect their children

It is important to stop the abusers.  It is also important to stop the enablers. The woman in this case needs to go to jail.

A woman, who is not indentified to protect the victims, pleaded guilty to charges of child endangerment and hindering prosecution. Her husband fathered four babies with one of the couples' daughters. If the wife had gone to authorities right away, she could have protect her daughter.

If the father is an abuser, the mother should at least be the defender.

• Keep the news flowing

Reporters would stop informing us about our government if they were afraid of being sued. The Supreme Court understands that. They refused to even hear a case about a media defamation suit against a reporter for accurately reporting the news from court filings.

• Drunk driving in Tennessee

It is very important to get the drunks off the roads forever, but government can’t put someone in jail for an undetermined amount of time. Let’s find another solution. How about in jail for ten years on second time around?

In Tennessee they want to put people that are charged with DUI that have been convicted before behind bars. But, they will be there for as long as a judge believes they are still a danger to the community. The punishment is much to arbitrary.

• Those money grapping politicians! They will do anything for a buck.

Seems that the Hawaiian legislature is going to allowing anyone that will pay $100 to purchase an official copy of President Obama’s birth certificate. While it won’t shut the birthers up, it will raise some money.

-----

Supreme Court Rules about Life Sentence for Children

A child can’t be sentenced to life in prison without a chance for parole for crimes less than murder the Supreme Court has ruled. The court strongly asserted the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eight Amendment in the ruling.

In Florida, Terrance Graham, was 16 when he was involved in a armed robbery while out on parole. The prosecutors rightfully tossed his parole agreement and pursued charges for the armed robbery. The jury and the court found him guilty and he was sentenced to life in prison without chance for parole. He is now 22 years of age. (It is believed that Florida doesn’t have a parole system for any prisoner.)

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that few underage individuals, only 129 in all of American and 77 of those in Florida, were sentenced to life without parole. Most jurisdictions allow a prisoner to demonstrate he has reformed and should be allowed to return to society. Sense there are only 129 cases in the country that don’t allow a chance for review, the court decided it was cruel and unusual. Chief Justice John Roberts agreed with Kennedy along with four other justices.

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented from them majority. They believed, as Thomas wrote, that the court was imposing “its own sense of morality and retributive justice". He believes that states should have the right to impose such sentences as supported by the voters.

During the colonial times, there were forms of punishment that if applied to today’s standards would be judged to be cruel and unusual. Lawbreakers at the time could be whipped, placed in a stockade in the town square or hanged for more than just the crime of murder, in some cases, petty theft. Many representatives that attended the Several States Convention to write a new Constitution in 1787 were concerned that if the Eight Amendment was adopted, many of the punishments that were currently used at the time would be deemed cruel if not also unusual.

To accept the current court ruling as being appropriate, there must be a way to reconcile the Eight Amendment with shifting standards. The answer is embedded in the debate that the representatives engaged in at the convention. They supported a vaguely worded amendment that would allow each generation to apply their own standards of punishment. It wasn’t because they didn’t believed they had the right answers about crime and punishment. It was with the wisdom to know that perhaps better ways could be developed that were less cruel and unusual but still provide the deterrent that is needed. This, of course, would need to be determined by each generation based on the amount of crime and the sensitivities of the public (voters) at the time.

With only 129 children held without parole, it seems that the that voters through their judges, prosecutors and legislative bodies have made their sensitivities about crime and punishment very clear.

The court ruled with a well reasoned opinion that supports the community.

(1) The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Constitution 111 by Jonathan Elliot