Well, the
Chronicle's
Cragg Hines is wearing a smug little smirk on
his enormous face today, as he ponders the
expressions of dead judges:
Somewhere William J. Brennan is smiling. Not a face-splitting beam, you understand, because four members of his beloved Supreme Court still believe it's just fine to execute 16- and 17-year-olds.
Whoops! That sentence pegged my Lie-O-Meter. You see, no one is trying to execute 16- and 17-year-olds. This case centered around Christopher Simmons, who is
28 years old. Not 16 or 17.
This is
a monster who decided to rob a neighbor, beat her, tie her up with tape, and toss her over a bridge. She drowned. The scumbag's rationale? He could "get away with it" because he was a juvenile. Cragg aims to prove him right. But I digress. Back to Hines' screed:
As a leader of the American Psychiatric Association, one of several medical groups that favored banning juvenile executions, noted Tuesday, the decision acknowledges "that the brains of adolescents function in fundamentally different ways than the brains of adults."
Whoa, Cragg! Hold it right there. Would this be the same American Psychiatric Association who
opposed parental notification for abortions, on the grounds that young girls can make life-or-death decisions?
The arguments for mandatory parental notification or consent are that women, or girls, below the age of majority, are not mature enough to decide to terminate pregnancies without the involvement of their parents, that parental involvement is necessary for medical follow-up, and that mandatory parental involvement enhances family strength. However, there are several problems with these arguments.
Cragg's not quite done looking foolish, though. Now he argues against representative government. (I know, what a shocker!):
I'd hesitate to see that proposition brought to a vote in the Texas Legislature as currently constituted.
Oh, yes! God forbid! An elected body creating public policy by
voting on it? We couldn't let that happen!
No comments:
Post a Comment