Hate Crimes

There is now a law making it illegal to commit a crime against someone based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. These crimes are called hate crimes. One of the most well-known hate crimes is the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., which enacted a hate crimes law centered on crimes based on race, color, religion, or national origin. The measure that passed in Congress was based on the murder of Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming college student 11 years ago.

T0 make sure this bill is passed, Democratic supports attached the measure to a must-pass $680 billion defense policy bill, which was approved by the Senate and House earlier this month. Many Republicans voted against the defense bill because of the hate crimes provision. Conservatives also oppose the measure because they believe it created a special class of victims and that it could silence clergymen or others opposed to homosexuality on religious or philosophical grounds.

I feel like this law is appropriate and good. So many gay people get hated on- physically and mentally- so I feel like a measure to prevent hate crimes against them is necessary. It does create a separate group of victims, but creating a measure to prevent hate crimes against black people is creating a separate group of victims too.

132 Years in Prison- Cruel and Unusual or Necessary and Just?

Angel Cabanillas's life is pretty much ruined. He was just sentenced to 132 years in jail and he's only 18 years old. In 2006, Cabanillas, 14 years old at the time, shot and killed Manuel Rayas in Modesto, CA. Cabanillas leaned out the window of a car with a rifle and shot Rayas, an innocent bystander.

"Stanislaus Superior Court Judge Timothy Salter said the circumstances of the shooting ruled out leniency" the article said. Cabanillas was fully aware of what he was doing and should be punished for being a fourteen year old kid with a gun, purposefully shooting and killing an innocent man. Martin Baker, the defense attorney, called the 132 year sentence "cruel and unusual punishment".

The issue of cruel and unusual punishment roots back to the Constitution. The eighth amendment states, "excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." But what qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment? The issue of whether a juvenile can be sentenced to life in prison without parole is currently in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that juvenile death penalty is unconstitutional.

I think that what Cabanillas did is awful and inexcusable, but I do think that 132 years in prison is cruel and unusual punishment for a young teenager. I believe that since he was only 14 at the time he committed the crime, he was young enough to get psychological help while still serving some time in jail. Teenagers are still learning, growing, and changing, and I think it is unfair to give such a harsh punishment to a kid that has the potential to change. The court does not agree with me, so it looks like Cabanillas will be spending the rest of his life locked up.

The Right (or not) to Bear Arms

Does the Second Amendment apply to states, or just to federal enclaves, such as Washington D.C.? This is a hot topic right now and there are many disagreements on gun control and the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So does this give the individual the right to bear arms or just the militia?

Since the crime rate in Washington D.C. is so high, a law was enacted that made it illegal for individuals to own a handgun. The Supreme Court over ruled this decision and decided owning a gun was allowed again. Then, the city of Chicago attempted to enforce the same law Washington D.C. tried to enact. The National Rifle Association said "no way" and tested that this law was overturned in D.C., and should not be enforced in Chicago. NRA Executive President Wayne LaPierre said, "'Without the court's review, millions of Americans may be deprived of their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms... I have every confidence the Supreme Court will say that it is a freedom to be enjoyed by the entire American People, not just those in federal enclaves'".

A "freedom to be enjoyed"??? I don't believe owning a gun and putting so many people's lives in danger is something to be enjoyed. There have been so many stories about a parent or child accidentally shooting him/herself or another member of the family, or even someone shooting another on purpose. It is so dangerous to own a gun and I don't understand the logic of owning one for "protection". Owning one just puts you in a position to hurt or kill another person. I do not know how the writers of the Constitution meant for this amendment to be interpreted, but I think that only militia should be allowed to have the right to bear arms.

Church and State Belong Light-years Apart

There is a big problem going on in Lodi, a small city usually not attracting much attention. The problem: "Should the City Council allow invocations that call on Jesus at its public meetings?" The opponent of the prayer is the Freedom From Religion Foundation and the support comes from the Alliance Defense Fund, the defenders of religious liberty. A member of the Alliance Defense Fund said of the Freedom Foundation, "'Their organization is on a search-and-destroy missions for all things religious... For whatever reason, they have targeted one of our oldest and most cherished traditions, the opening of public proceedings with prayer, which dates to the Continental Congress.'"

Really? The most cherished tradition is praying? What about the people who aren't religious? That is most definitely not the most important part of a public proceeding regarding politics. The Continental Congress was also almost 300 years ago. Times have changed. The United States is meant to have separation of Church and state, so this is completely contradicting the way we are trying to live.

I'm Jewish, and although I'm not a practicing Jew, I still respect my heritage and know the beliefs of my family. I don't mind prayer at school because I go to a Catholic school. Prayer is part of life there. But to go into a city council meeting and be slammed in the face with an invocation that calls Jesus just is not okay. Jews don't even believe in Jesus the way Christians do.

Robin Rushing, a Lodi resident, feels similar to me. "'I was fooled last night in praying for Jesus Christ. I was fooled into standing for that. As a Buddhist, I kind of resent that. I mean no disrespect. But I do feel that is a political (forum).'" Religion and prayer should be saved for trips to church or temple or in the privacy of your own home.

Unfortunately, the decision was ruled to keep prayer during the meetings. Hopefully some sense will be slapped into these people when they realize what they are doing is unconstitutional and idiotic.