Is 100 years a life sentence? According to this, there is apparently some debate.
More specifically: a minor cannot be sentenced to life without parole, because of the supreme court case Graham v. Florida, which held that such a punishment would be cruel and unusual, violating the 8th Amendment. But can they be sentenced to, say 10,000 years in prison without the possibility of parole? Maybe, it turns out.
Because some of the people on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (and the Supreme Court) among others, are fatuous, self-important idiots. "But where oh where can we draw the line?" they ask rhetorically while ringing their hands in their wood paneled chambers. John Rodgers, one of the aforementioned idiots, is quoted as saying that applying the ruling to sentences that are not explicitly "life without parole" would "lead to a lot of questions."
What is the function of our judicial system if absurdly educated and powerful people cannot see that sentencing someone who is 16 to 89 fucking years is the same thing as "life"? Chaz Bunch, who received that sentence, will be 16+89=105 when his sentence is up. Which means, with a high level of statistical confidence, that HE WILL BE DEAD. Can a state that bars the death penalty sentence people to be thrown from a plane into the North Atlantic, because that isn't explicitly a death sentence? If I call my beer a barley soda, can I drink it while I drive to work?
This is ridiculous, pompous, semantic bullshit, and the judges engaging in it should be ashamed of themselves.
So this is to you, you clucking chickens wearing black robes: This isn't an essay question in your graduate law class. You are forcing a 28 year old person to die in a cinder block cage, some time in the next 75 years, against the clear-as-day intent of law that prohibits that from happening. You are pretending that your little thought exercise is more important than upholding the law, and certainly more important than protecting the people it was written to protect. You are spineless, brainless douchebags who are willing to throw away another person's life over a question so simple an 8 year old child could answer it: is 100 years a fucking life sentence?
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Fuck the Police
Fun times.
So, you're drunk at work and decide to sexually harass someone from your car. They walk away, so you point your gun at them out the window. When their friends follow you in their car, you shoot at them, causing the driver to duck and rear end you. At this point you get out of the car, jump up on their hood, and fire five bullets though the windshield, hitting three of the people but miraculously killing no one.
Your penalty: 3 years probation, a $150 fine, and 100 hours of community service.
Because you're a cop and the people you harassed and shot are trans women.
Fuck the police.
So, you're drunk at work and decide to sexually harass someone from your car. They walk away, so you point your gun at them out the window. When their friends follow you in their car, you shoot at them, causing the driver to duck and rear end you. At this point you get out of the car, jump up on their hood, and fire five bullets though the windshield, hitting three of the people but miraculously killing no one.
Your penalty: 3 years probation, a $150 fine, and 100 hours of community service.
Because you're a cop and the people you harassed and shot are trans women.
Fuck the police.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Voter Fraud: Jim Crow in 2012
Many states require some form of identification to vote: http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id-state-requirements.aspx.
At first glance, presenting a driver's license to vote might like a reasonable requirement. You have to present ID for all kinds of things, so why not voting? Also, this should prevent people who are not authorized to vote from doing so, just like it prevents people who are too young to drink from buy alcohol, right?
No. For several reasons. To wit:
First of all, buying alcohol and getting into R-rated movies are not cornerstones of modern democracy. Voting is among (or perhaps the) most important rights of an adult American citizen. Anything that makes voting even slightly more difficult for registered voters should be viewed with extreme skepticism. How many times have you or someone you know forgotten an ID at home or in another pair of jeans? Lost one? Had one expire at an inconvenient time? These things are annoying when you can't buy a six pack, but they should never prevent someone from voting.
Secondly, individual voter fraud is, from a statistical point of view, NONEXISTENT. The number of actual cases of a person who is not registered to vote doing so anyway is vanishingly, insignificantly tiny by the estimation of any reliable study or unbiased organization:
Last, and most important, these laws are obviously enacted in bad faith. Let's not mince words. The politicians who support these restrictions are Republicans. They know (or should know) that individual voter fraud is not a problem. But they also know that their core supporters are much less likely to be affected by these restrictions. Groups of voters who typically turn out for the Democrats, including language and racial minorities, low-income voters, and disabled voters, are disproportionately likely to be prevented from voting by these laws, according to any reasonable analysis (see the links above). The politicians who enact these policies do so not to solve an actual problem or because of honest principles. They create these restrictions in a blatant, transparent attempt to disenfranchise a percentage of their opponents and gain a political advantage.
This is not a conspiracy. The people who propose and enact these laws stand to gain from them directly. They use ungrounded fears of mass voter fraud by illegal immigrants and progressive organizations to create popular support for measures that do nothing besides help them get reelected by taking away people's voting rights.
And before you say something like "You shouldn't be allowed to vote if you can't remember your ID..." remember this: voting is a right. In a democracy, you don't get to vote only if you're smart enough or educated enough or responsible enough. Because who would be the judge of those things? The U.S. has a long and sordid history of using tests and other qualifications to prevent minority groups from voting, and these laws are just another way to accomplish the same thing. They are the cynical grandchild of Jim Crow, and they are being used to disenfranchise eligible voters in 2012.
At first glance, presenting a driver's license to vote might like a reasonable requirement. You have to present ID for all kinds of things, so why not voting? Also, this should prevent people who are not authorized to vote from doing so, just like it prevents people who are too young to drink from buy alcohol, right?
No. For several reasons. To wit:
First of all, buying alcohol and getting into R-rated movies are not cornerstones of modern democracy. Voting is among (or perhaps the) most important rights of an adult American citizen. Anything that makes voting even slightly more difficult for registered voters should be viewed with extreme skepticism. How many times have you or someone you know forgotten an ID at home or in another pair of jeans? Lost one? Had one expire at an inconvenient time? These things are annoying when you can't buy a six pack, but they should never prevent someone from voting.
Secondly, individual voter fraud is, from a statistical point of view, NONEXISTENT. The number of actual cases of a person who is not registered to vote doing so anyway is vanishingly, insignificantly tiny by the estimation of any reliable study or unbiased organization:
- http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_the_truth_about_voter_fraud/
- http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/us/justice-dept-blocks-texas-photo-id-law.html
- http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2010/10/right-warns-of-voter-fraud-but-do-their-claims-have-merit/22519/
Last, and most important, these laws are obviously enacted in bad faith. Let's not mince words. The politicians who support these restrictions are Republicans. They know (or should know) that individual voter fraud is not a problem. But they also know that their core supporters are much less likely to be affected by these restrictions. Groups of voters who typically turn out for the Democrats, including language and racial minorities, low-income voters, and disabled voters, are disproportionately likely to be prevented from voting by these laws, according to any reasonable analysis (see the links above). The politicians who enact these policies do so not to solve an actual problem or because of honest principles. They create these restrictions in a blatant, transparent attempt to disenfranchise a percentage of their opponents and gain a political advantage.
This is not a conspiracy. The people who propose and enact these laws stand to gain from them directly. They use ungrounded fears of mass voter fraud by illegal immigrants and progressive organizations to create popular support for measures that do nothing besides help them get reelected by taking away people's voting rights.
And before you say something like "You shouldn't be allowed to vote if you can't remember your ID..." remember this: voting is a right. In a democracy, you don't get to vote only if you're smart enough or educated enough or responsible enough. Because who would be the judge of those things? The U.S. has a long and sordid history of using tests and other qualifications to prevent minority groups from voting, and these laws are just another way to accomplish the same thing. They are the cynical grandchild of Jim Crow, and they are being used to disenfranchise eligible voters in 2012.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
I've Got a Brand New Blog!
This blog is dedicated to reasoned commentary and interesting ideas, from the perspective of a person whose point of view is already massively over-represented on the internet (and even more so in the physical world). Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)