Judicial Activism & Irrational Sentencing

      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.

      Unsuspecting 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.

      There is 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 regard.

      For more on this subject, please see my article originally appearing here or here.