I recently wrote about how judicial activists have created
a constitutional right for the most brutal and depraved criminals to commit new
brutality free from any punishment whatsoever, precisely because they
are the most brutal and depraved.
For select miscreants already serving life sentences, the death penalty for new crimes – with the exception of first degree murder in some states – has been rendered unavailable by unaccountable high court justices. For example, the U.S.
Supreme Court has effectively decreed that escapee Ehrlich Anthony Coker had a “constitutional
right” to rape Elnita Carver, under threat of death, with no punishment at all,
three weeks after she gave birth.
The Court bestowed this right upon Coker as a
reward for his having committed prior violent crimes including rape, attempted
murder and actual murder. Since he was already serving a life sentence and the
death penalty for rape is too harsh for the moral sensibilities of justices, no
further penalty could be imposed. The Supreme Court and other
courts have even ruled that some convicted murderers could torture and murder fellow
inmates and prison guards without punishment.
citizens might think that those with the worst
records and crimes should and do receive the harshest sentences. Clearly, that
is not the necessarily the case. Something is painfully wrong when a person with
no prior record can receive a harsh sentence because he is not already
incarcerated, but someone serving life cannot be penalized for the most barbaric new
crimes because he is already serving life for the worst depravity.
little basis for confidence in the judges who have given us this criminal “justice” system. These individuals or the people who appoint them should
be held accountable in elections. The next election will be critical in this
For more on
this subject, please see my article originally appearing here or here.
Labels: Activism, Sentencing, Supreme Court