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.

Voting's not that important anyway, right?

First if you were a muscular, Austrian actor you were qualified to be governor of California. Now if you are a billionaire CEO who never voted until 2002 you're qualified. Meg Whitman, the republican former chief executive officer of eBay, is running for governor of California.

Proof has been found that Whitman has never registered to vote before 2002. When called out on this, she tried a new approach, claiming she "had been a registered 'decline-to-state' voter since 1998." Then Whitman press secretary Sarah Pompei said "she misspoke, and it was wrong." Shot down.

Not being registered to vote until only seven years ago and now running for a major state office shows lack of interest in politics and where her priorities are. Billionaires such as Whitman have people do things for her such as get you out of speeding tickets and make dinner reservations. However, these "people" can't do everything, such as vote. It is Whitman's responsibility to take the time to learn the facts, pay attention to news and politics, become well-informed, and to do the best job being a governor as possible. Her lack of involvement in politics and voting worries me and other voters.

I'm not interested in having a filthy rich republican governor who has barely ever voted and has no experience dealing with a struggling state.

Lobbying= Bribery

California is in a deep recession, we're talking billions of dollars, yet lobbyists are pulling thousands of dollars out of their pockets to give to legislators and the legislator's families to get them to vote for their way.

From January 2008 through June 2009 lobbyists gave legislators and their co-workers and friends approximately $610,000 worth of gifts. Lobbying is legal, but there are restrictions. Legislators are allowed to receive only $420 in gifts from a single organization, but there is no limit on how many gifts the leader's and friends and relatives may get. This comes in handy when little Susie wants to go see "Disney's High School Musical: The Ice Tour". Daddy the legislator and 17 of his co-workers and his family get to come along too at the expense of AT&T. It has been reported that lobbying organizations have given $34,000 in gifts directly to the spouses and relatives of legislators and their staffs during the last 18 months.

Another example, a group of lawyers from the California Department of Insurance took a trip to Las Vegas, paid for by the insurance companies they regulated. The company paid $2,268 to lodge the lawyers, $1,300 to feed and transport them, and $1,076 worth of meals, drinks, and spa treatments to one of the lawyer's wife.

A database shows lists of all the gifts, including Britney Spears concert tickets, 424 meals at Spataro restaurant, kegs of beer, free travel to Hawaii, and hundreds of King's tickets, which I don't understand because the Kings are no good now.

In my opinion, that is messed up. This extreme lobbying is like (barely) legal bribery. Not only are these companies spending money on useless things when our state needs the money the most, but they are using material goods to influence the leaders who make the decisions that effect us. I think laws should be made about restrictions on lobbying because the level they have taken it to is not okay.

No home, no sympathy

California has its fair share of problems right now. One of them, specific to Sacramento, is homelessness. Sacramento has a large homeless population, and no room for it. Mark Merin thought he had the solution. The Sacramento attorney is the owner of a vacant lot on C street. Merin has been letting homeless people sleep on his property for the last 10 days. This has been great for the homeless people, but it hasn't been such a hit for Merin's neighbors and the police.

Last Wednesday the police showed up to the C street lot with a search warrant, issuing citations against illegal camping. The police came in response to calls from neighbors who claims the campers insulted them, left trash in the neighborhood and disrupted their lives. Although the neighbors believed this to be true, the homeless people were mainly just showering or having breakfast at Loaves and Fishes homeless complex down the street. The police seized 32 tents, sleeping bags, and cots.

Merin plans to take action on this issue with the support of Loaves and Fishes and dozens of members of religious and advocacy groups. He has vowed to go to court next month to challenge a city ordinance that prevents people from camping in non-designated areas for more than 24 hours at a time.

The government needs to do something about the homeless people. It's not fair to leave them to fend for themselves then kick them out of any place they try to sleep. However, I do understand where the neighbors on C street are coming from. I wouldn't really want dozens of homeless people residing a few yards away from my family and me. But what should the government do? Should they be responsible for providing food, shelter, and healthcare to them? It's an issue.

In times like these, homelessness is becoming a bigger problem. With more and more people losing jobs everyday and homes getting foreclosed, people around the country are becoming homeless. Something needs to happen to solve this problem.

Since when is staying in school a political issue?

On Tuesday, September 8 President Obama is making a speech about education directed towards students. Unfortunately, hundreds of thousands of them won't be hearing it because of their nut-job parents. School administrators and parents have objected to the showing of this speech in school. Originally, lesson plans sent to schools suggested the students write letters to themselves about "what they can do to help the president." The harsh feedback caused the wording to change and say the student's letters should focus on ways to achieve their educational goals.

Many people are concerned that Obama's speech is going to be about his policies and Republican parents don't want their child to be exposed to other views, especially not our own African American democratic President's views. People need to chill out. Obama plans to challenge students "to work hard, stay in school and dramatically reduce the dropout rate. This isn't a policy speech" said White House spokesman Tommy Vietor. The stubborn parents and administrators who do not want their own president to speak about a cause important to so many because of dislike or fear of what he's going to say, needs to rip off the blindfold over their eyes and realize he is our president and he's not trying to indoctrinate children! The Republicans are using this speech as a political issue, trying to turn people against Obama by using children as their weapon.

Let's think back to 1991. President George H.W. Bush addressed the nation's students on live television. No problem. Why is there such a problem now? Sure the times are hard but that shouldn't effect this. I support a positive message about education, whether it's coming from Obama, Bush, or Truman. Barack Obama is the President of the United States. It's ridiculous to hide your child from everything he's saying and doing, especially from this speech, which is not even about policy, but about trying hard in school. People amaze me with how ignorant and stubborn they can be to what is around them. It's important to open your mind and be welcoming to other views. The irrational administrators and parents are the ones who should watch the speech because God knows they are the ones who need the education.