leticia: (Default)
1) The murder of a popular, beloved, easy to get along with cute blond with lots of photogenic grieving family is no worse a crime than the murder of that sullen lonely laundromat attendant that no one actually remembers the name of.

2) Being related to the victim of a murder gives no one magic insight into who actually dun it, especially if they were in another state or country at the time of their murder. Their knowledge of previous interactions with the deceased might be helpful to investigators, but even clear records of previous antagonism doesn't prove murder. In the case of near random encounters, family has -nothing- to offer in terms of proving guilt, unless they actually witnessed it.

3) "Victim Impact Statements" regarding murders have no place in the courtroom, no place in determining guilt (especially in determining guilt, since "my poor babies have no mommy now!" doesn't prove any statement about who did it one way or the other, SEE POINT 2) and no place in sentencing, since SEE POINT 1.

4) No matter how many people are convicted of the crime, and how brutal their sentences are, the dead will still be dead. Convicting the innocent is not going to bring the dead back. Putting a possibly innocent man on death row and even executing him - or even an extremely guilty one! - will not bring the dead back. Jailing everyone who was connected with the murdered person even peripherally will not bring the dead back. And if your grieving process requires blood, innocent or not, to soothe your soul, you need to see a counselor. Vengeance is not justice. Justice is not vengeance.

5) Innocent until proven guilty should not mean "Innocent until someone more white (wealthy, well-connected, privileged, fill in the blank) wants someone to blame to soothe their grief."

In other words, I am so -sick- of hearing 'statements of the family of the victim'. Shut up. Go to the funeral. Help the police if you can. But justice is not and should not be about you*. And if the deceased is dead, quite frankly, justice isn't about the dead, either. Justice is about the living and protecting society - including innocents who may be accused in a mad frenzy for closure. (Hint, you'll get better closure from not having to stick your fingers in your ears and go "I DON'T BELIEVE YOU" and then forever ever after wondering if the REAL killer is out there laughing at you somewhere.)

*Addendum - I do believe the -government- should provide some reasonable financial recompense to the victims of violent crime, or the survivors thereof, especially in the situation where the victim of a murder had dependents who have lost an income. I would consider that a part of -true- justice. But that has nothing to do with prosecution.

38 years...

Feb. 9th, 2011 06:27 pm
leticia: (outsider)
38 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman had a right to rule her own body.

That it took a Supreme Court decision is disturbing; that we still have the kyriarchy hedging in on that right every time they can is disgusting.

So many of these so self-righteous oppressors of women start with "It's about the value of human life."

The value of human life has no relevance. Given that anti-abortion political views are highly matched with anti-single-payer-health-care or even basic-health-care-access-reform political views, we can make a mockery of it right there.

But even more.

In the United States, the sale of body parts for medical reasons is forbidden. You can't sell a kidney. You can't sell your dead grandpa's liver. You can't even sell your -blood-. (You can, however, be compensated for your time while donating plasma/blood. It's a dodge. But it illustrates the essential point.)

There's a reason for that, and it's not to drive down health care costs. The reason is to ensure no one can be coerced by financial causes into sacrificing their body.

We have no laws requiring you to be an organ donor, nor benefits for being one. (Despite the fact that people die for lack of donated organs - actual, real people who have names and personalities!)
We have no laws requiring you to be registered to donate marrow or a kidney, nor penalties for not.
We have no laws placing financial duress on those who do not choose to give blood.

The law does not even require a mother to give a kidney to an ill minor child! (Much less a father.)

Yet across the nation, there are a plethora of laws doing just that to force women to give up the control of their womb to an uninvited invader.

The fetus is a -trespasser-. If the fetus is, in fact, a human life, it still has no right to my blood, my body, my home, my food, any more than a homeless man freezing to death in the park does. If a fetus is a full 'person', I should be able to get the police to serve a trespassing complaint on it, and remove it from the premises. Those premises, by the way, are my body, and the removal is what we call an 'abortion'. If a fetus is a person, rather than a part of my body, the government -owes- me an abortion same as it owes all tax paying citizens a police response to a prowler.

I clearly fall under another line of thought - the fetus is a part of the woman's body and the woman has the right to dispose of it as she will.

We admire people who give their kidneys, or their blood, or open their homes to the needy. But we do not codify it into law. Why are women expected to sacrifice control of -their- bodies, and their long term health (pregnancy is hard on the body, make no mistake, even without complications; it drastically increases the chances of a number of later life health problems) to an unwelcome individual?

38 years ago, and they're still pussyfooting around trying to apply at least financial coercion to women in need of protection.
leticia: (Default)
Lesson on cause and effect:

If you barge into a family home in the middle of a night looking for a murder suspect and manage to shoot the seven year old girl sleeping on a couch, her peers will ALSO grow up to not trust police and authority figures because they know the murdering thugs police can be.

Seven year old girls are never acceptable collateral damage. Yes, yes, you were looking for a very dangerous murder suspect. You sure stopped him/her from murdering anyone else BY MURDERING A SEVEN YEAR OLD GIRL IN THE PROCESS.

And teaching another generation of her classmates that -cops are not your friends-.

And then you'll wonder how come they run and claim it's suspicious behavior and harass and hassle them and give them harsher sentences and wonder how come

it all

If you want the moral high ground, you have to stop killing children and other innocents. You have to ask the questions before you shoot. You have to take the risks. That's what moral high ground is - doing the thing that's right, even if it's not 'safest' or 'easiest' for you personally. Am I getting through here? Do you not understand this concept? You barge into a family home in the middle of the night and you'd better damn well be in control of your guns. Accidental discharge my ASS. Accidents like this SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. And if it had been one of the black residents of the house whose gun had accidentally killed the poor girl, they'd be charged with manslaughter. Chances of any charges on the idiot who DID shoot her?


leticia: (Default)

April 2017

161718192021 22


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 24th, 2017 12:07 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios