Double Jeopardy?

Legal situations are always touchy. Especially as an outside person looking in. Especially when I am the outside person. Now, this article could just be shoddy journalism (lord knows there's a ton of that on CNN.com), but my mind chooses to give the author the benefit of the doubt (something I know I shouldn't do) and take what's there at face value.

Read this.

Note especially where, when, and for what he was convicted.

Feel free to correct me, if you want. I don't really care. But, to me...it seems this man's had some basic Constitutional rights violated, here. Namely, Double Jeopardy as seen in the following:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The way this particular article reads, it looks like the civilian court and the military court found this guy guilty of the same crimes. I can understand why they'd want to try him twice--he raped and killed a civilian and raped and killed/attempted to kill a couple of Army personnel. According to the article. That's three people. If you re-read the first part of that article, the civilian court convicted him on two counts of murder and five counts of rape (which is impressive for having three known victims). Then the following year, a court martial also found him guilty of two murders, one attempted murder, and three rapes. That equates to the two military personnel and the civilian.

Now, don't get me wrong. Y'all should know by now how I feel about murderers and rapists and the death penalty. But, I'm also a very big supporter of the US Constitution. It's there for a reason. It's there so the government can't tell us to just bend over and take it--even though they try. The government can get away with a lot. Know why? Because they rely on the fact that Americans, as a whole, are uninformed. With the way trends are for the education of the youth of America, I'd say the government is trying to make it so that very few are even literate in this country. That way, when the citizens willingly give up their rights because they don't know any better, the power-hungry Federal Government will just pat them on the heads and send them on their merry little way.

I, for one, don't plan on allowing that to happen. What am I going to do about it? I'll write my congressmen. I'll petition Mr. Obama. I'll even run for office, if I have to. Ooooh...yesh, I said it. I'll run for OFFICE, if I have to. I'll make sure my Libertarian view of government gets broadcasted the world over. So, if you don't like the fact your rights are slowly being stripped from you, do something about it.

READ the Constitution.

KNOW your rights.

WRITE your congressman.

Don't settle for the standard answers. Make them accountable for their decisions. Let them know they can't just make arbitrary decisions that affect your life. Let them know that they can't just overwrite the Constitution. And I'm not talking about minority groups here. I'm talking about US CITIZENS. I'm talking about reading the articles of the Constitution of our country and the Amendments. Know them. Understand them. That way when someone says to you, "Hey, don't you think Schwartzenegger should run for President?" You can say (with confidence, knowledge, and accuracy), "Yes, but sadly, he can't. He doesn't meet the qualifications. Neither does RA, but give her a few years and she'll be a-okay!"

Vote RA/Cthulu in 2012! You'll be glad you did.

Who's the Pig

I'm not usually in agreement with PETA. In fact, PETA, to me, means "People Eating Tasty Animals." But, sometimes they do things that make sense and you can really get behind. Like the concept of putting infertility drugs in bird seed so that the pigeon problem slowly disappears. Good idea.

And like in this case...

I'd like to meet the man who thinks it's really okay to shove a metal rod up a sow's rear when she won't move. I'd like to meet the man who thinks it's really okay to beat on a pig because he's upset with the world. I'd like to meet the man who thinks it's really okay to treat a pig like it can't hurt or feel or anything.

Because if I meet that man....I'll shove a metal rod up his rectum, beat him senseless and let him know it's okay because ... he's stupid. I'm toning down the language for this blog. I'd like people to be able to read it during working hours.

Just because a pig can't talk doesn't mean it can't feel. And any person who thinks it's okay to hurt an animal just for fun or just because "it's better than hurting a human," really needs psychiatric help.

I love the part where the undercover PETA agent is asked if he knows who PETA is... Yeah, you're gonna have to follow the link on this one, babies. There is so much in this story that makes me mad that I can't make a cohesive rant out of it.

Stupidity.

Cruelty.

Ideas for how to fix the problem...which I'm sure you probably can guess after reading this article. "It's just an animal!" Yeah? Well, that baby you're torturing is just a baby. "That's different! It's a human!" Really? Then why is it legal to kill them? "It isn't!" I site for you the abortion laws. "They're not human before their born!" Oh? What are they? Animals?

Full circle.

No matter how you slice it...full circle. Humans are animals and some animals are more human than humans. It's not okay to cause pain because you're pissed off at the world and can't take it out on the person you think deserves it. It's not okay to kill babies. It's not okay to hurt animals. It's not okay to kill. If you disagree, check your moral compass.

I say as I know you all are whining, "But you're for the death penalty, RA!" Darn tootin'. If you're stupid enough to kill someone, I believe in an eye for an eye. Forget over-populating prisons. Kill the idiot.

I'll leave you with this fun thought.

I have a friend who told me she disagreed with my ideas on the death penalty. We shouldn't just kill them in the same manner in which they killed someone (which, I think, would be an excellent deterrent). No! We should grind them up in a meat grinder and send the meat to the starving Third World countries. It would solve two problems.

I'm inclined to think she might be right...

Oh, and if they don't move toward that meat grinder, be sure to ram a metal rod up their butts. That should get them to move...and don't worry about the lube.

Life or Death

I'm very much pro-death penalty.

If you do something incredibly stupid like murder someone, you should, subsequently, suffer the same fate. This "criminal rights" crap drives me nuts. Stop victimizing the criminal. Victimize the victim. It was not Paris Talley's fault that her mother is, apparently, a freaking slut who doesn't know the father of her child. It was not Paris Talley's fault that her parents were psychotic and decided to argue over her paternal traits. It certainly was not Paris Talley's idea to be shoved into a microwave and burned to death.

Yeah. I have a suggestion for punishment. I fully believe that the punishment should fit the crime. This "cruel and unusual" crap doesn't refer to gassing someone or lethal injection or electric chair. Or even firing squad. Heck, that stuff's tame compared to my idea of the death penalty. If someone burns a baby in a microwave oven, build a huge microwave and stick the person in it--it's called an incinerator. Do it while their alive. Why? Because that's what they did. To a BABY.

I have better ideas for rapists. And child molesters. I'm a very twisted individual and yet, a rather productive member of society. At least I think so.

Anyway.

Point. The jury in this case couldn't agree on the death penalty for this woman. So... she gets life in jail without parole.

That's more than her one-month-old daughter will ever have. She has no life. She has nothing to look forward to. She'll never go to kindergarten...graduate high school...earn a Master's degree...

Her mother, on the other hand, gets to sit in a state penitentiary and, on the tax payer's dime, earn a college degree through the education program. She gets 3 square meals a day, exercise, and the chance to work. For the rest of her life. Food, shelter, clothing... Sounds like a pretty good deal.

All for killing a baby!

Yeah, that's our justice system. A jury of your peers who don't believe killing you for killing a child is right. If you do the crime, fess up and pay the consequences. If that means you die for it, guess what? You should have thought about that before you killed someone.

And while we're on this topic... Rapists and child molesters. You people get off (no pun intended) virtually scott-free. Yes, yes, you register as a sex offender, but you know what, America? If it happened once, it will most likely happen again. Seven years in jail isn't going to "reform" a rapist. It may a child molester. From what I understand, they become the "wife" of some guy named "Biff." Whether they want to or not. Which is okay by me.

Rapists...they should be castrated. Barring that, they should have a notch made in their penis and then the families of the victims get to take either side and pull--like a wishbone. Oh, and don't let him be asleep for it. He should be awake. Wide awake.

Medieval torture fascinates me. As does Roman torture...It was a long time before I realized Iron Maiden was a rock group... The worst form of torture, however is reading this story. No seriously... read it. You'll come to appreciate torture, I promise. You could always try this version...

Incinerate. Decapitate. Whatever death fits the crime. Do it. It's only cruel and unusual if the murderer himself is creative.