And Justice For All?

Patrick Henry once proclaimed before the Virginia House of Burgesses: "Give me liberty...or give me death". Not to take this out of context, but now, convicted murderer Simon Rios can claim the former of Mr. Henry's time-honored statement.

Rios was sentenced to life imprisonment without any chance of parole PLUS 100 years by Allen County courts, and the same but with PLUS 50 years in Delaware county for the murders of his wife, 3 daughters, and Alexandria Gutierrez. And while we know with all certainty that Rios will NOT see the light of day outside of the prison he will die in, he HAS been given a modicum of liberty in the form of being spared the death sentence.

And the question I just HAVE to ask at this point is: Were Rios's family and Alexandria granted the SAME accords? The answer would have to be NO.

Sure Rios will have the rest of his pitiful life to "think" about what he had done to those 5 people (as well as their families)...snatching their lives from them without their consent. And shouldn't Mr. Rios be given the exact SAME consideration he gave TO those 5 people?

Now we can debate the entire death penalty issue until the cows come home, and we will, in all likelihood never reach a consensus that satisfies the masses. But given the heinous nature of the crimes perpetrated by Rios, should we not take into account those whose lives were taken BY Mr. Rios? Many will argue we have done so, and that the "punishment" fits the crime.

I beg to differ.
Putting Mr. Rios to death would only tip the scales for ONE of the five people murdered, and that leaves the other four unable to balance the scales of justice.

But I would still like to see SOME measure of capital punishment attributed to Simon Rios. If it were MY daughter...or YOUR daughter, would you not seek retribution other than "death by old age"? Will Rios use the rest of his life to the betterment of society?

It's highly doubtful.

Will he be remorseful?

Not hardly.

And unless he's deeply cloistered away in some penitentiary, I wouldn't be surprised if he dies at the hands of another inmate for the crimes he committed. And that (IMHO) would at least be more compensation than the inexcusable sentences for life without parole that he received. And that brings me to the crux of the matter. Do we make the punishments fit the crimes these days? From what I see and read, I have to say a flat-out NO.

We have laws for people who go against the current of human evolution; those who would do anything and everything to another person because they can. Laws are created and enforced to PUNISH the law-breakers, and PROTECT the law-abiding. It doesn't get any more simpler than that.

I've always admired the laws in Turkey...you STEAL something...they cut OFF your hand! And that it makes it REAL easy to spot a "former offender" in that aspect. So either you DON'T steal, or you get accustomed to being called "Lefty". Used to be if you lied, they cut OUT your tongue. Now we, in our "uber-civilized" country can't fathom that manner of punishment. We like to think we're so much more "above" that type of reactionary behavior. Still, I would wager that CRIME there is a LOT lower in Turkey, knowing the severity of the consequences. So maybe we could use some of that here.

One thing we HAVE done in OUR society over the decades is make the LAW (whatever the law might be) so much less BLACK and WHITE. We've "traded up" for a more "civilized" assortment of GRAYS.

Our lawmakers have decided (for us) that to blur the lines of right and wrong makes it better for everyone. Well, that's just wrong on SO many levels. When you DENY justice to the innocent, you have empowered the guilty. You've emboldened them on a level unrivaled in human history.

When Socrates stated that "Democracy is but one step ABOVE anarchy", he wasn't just screwing around. He KNEW damn well what he was saying, and wasn't just blowing smoke out his arse to please those that followed his writings. And how THIN we make the line that divides democracy FROM anarchy will be measured by not only how we "reward" the law-abiding, but how we "punish" the law-breakers. Think of this as trying to balance barefoot on the edge of a razor-sharp sword. If you look at the statue of justice, not only does she hold the scales in one hand, but she wields a sword in the other. That should speak volumes to every one of us.

Now I'd be the first one to tell you that we surely don't need anarchy (although in some areas, it looks like we've got it already). But by the same token, we're much too close to reaching it to make me feel all that warm and fuzzy. "An eye for an eye" sounds good when you say it, and looks damn fine when written, yet how often is this actually practiced by the judicial system? And if not, why not? Don't the VICTIMS of crime deserve (by our own laws) the justice they deserve anymore? Don't the perpetrators of crime deserve whatever punishment is befitting them?

We're on a very slippery slope when it comes to JUSTICE these days. And if we're not willing to put to death those we KNOW deserve it, we must be willing to PAY their way for the remainder of their pathetic lives in whatever facility they find themselves incarcerated.

These criminals are still committing crimes (against the taxpaying populace) every day they are allowed to live. It's called THEFT. They've already stolen lives of innocent people....and now they will get to steal from YOU, as you pay for them to be confined, away from the general public, having all that time to ponder the actions that brought them to their jail cell in the first place.

Justice for ALL? Justice for SOME? Justice for ANY?

Like I say....it's going to be a LONG debate over this.