not in a popularity contest, so...

Here are the two things I was talking about yesterday, since no one took me up on wanting to guess. To start:

Roe v. Wade, case decided in 1973 by the U.S. Supreme Court. Along with Doe v. Bolton, this decision legalized abortionoin the first trimester of pregnancy. The decision, written by Justice Harry Blackmun and based on the residual right of privacy, struck down dozens of state antiabortion statutes. The decision was based on two cases, that of an unmarried woman from Texas, where abortion was illegal unless the mother's life was at risk, and that of a poor, married mother of three from Georgia, where state law required permission for an abortion from a panel of doctors and hospital officials. While establishing the right to an abortion, this decision gave states the right to intervene in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy to protect the woman and the "potential" life of the unborn child. Denounced by the National Council of Bishops, the decision gave rise to a vocal antiabortion movement that put pressure on the courts and created an anti-Roe litmus test for the judicial appointments of the Reagan and Bush administrations (1981–93). In a 1989 case, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, the court, while not striking down Roe, limited its scope, permitting states greater latitude in regulating and restricting abortions. Then in 1992, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court reaffirmed the abortion rights granted in Roe v. Wade, while permitting further restrictions.

See N. McCorvey with A. Meisler, I Am Roe (1994).

---

(1973) Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that established a woman's right to have an abortion without undue interference from the government. A Texas law prohibiting abortions was challenged by an unmarried pregnant woman (pseudonymously named Jane Roe), and the court ruled in her favour, finding that the state had violated her right to privacy (see rights of privacy). Harry Blackmun, writing for the seven-member majority, argued that the state's legitimate concern for the protection of prenatal life increased as a pregnancy advanced. While allowing that the state might forbid abortions during a pregnancy's third trimester, he held that a woman was entitled to obtain an abortion freely, after medical consultation, during the first trimester and in an authorized clinic during the second trimester. The Roe decision, perhaps the most controversial in the Supreme Court's history, remains at the centre of the issue of abortion rights. Repeated challenges since 1973, such as Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, have narrowed the scope of Roe but have not overturned it.

--

Now, regardless of anyone's personal views on abortion, it is NOT against the law. The SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, a government agency, says it's LEGAL. The HEAD of the Federal Court SYSTEM says it's okay. It's been OKAY for the last 36 YEARS. WHY it's even still on the table for debate is beyond me, but that's a whole other issue.

For those that don't think it should be legal, ask yourselves this: Would you find it reasonable for it to be a felony and would you be willing to put any woman that went for an abortion under arrest and then throw her in prison over it?

No female ever makes this choice lightly and no female that makes this choice is exempt from living with it.

Overwhelmingly, the opposition to this issue seems to be solely moral...and if you've read me at all, you know that I don't think morals should have any part in the making of laws... laws should simply be about the betterment of society in my opinion.

So, explain to me WHY on earth, no Federal health insurance plan will cover abortion.

I want to know.
Because I don't get it.

Again, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT deems it LEGAL.
THE HIGHEST POWER IN THE LAND WE LIVE IN deems it LEGAL.

Let me further say that... Planned Parenthood, you really piss me off when it comes to this issue.

It does not make sense to me.

I, without question, hold nothing against anyone that doesn't like the idea of abortion. Can I see how it's seen as unsavory? Yes. Would I absolutely support any friend of mine that made the decision to go forth with a pregnancy even under horrendous circumstances like rape? Yes, because that's my job as a friend.

That said, even financially - does the state see it better to pay a couple of hundred dollars for an abortion or possibly have to pay the next 18 years of health care, food stamps, welfare, etc, etc. Not that most abortions are even from lower class economics, but really - getting down to facts and figures, what makes more sense.

With the horrendous rate at which women are raped in this country, should they then have the added bonus of having to go into debt to pay for an abortion on top of it? God Bless the morning after pill (RU486 - which had to be fought for as well for some ridiculous freakin' reason) - but how many cases go unreported?

With the horrendous rate at which women are subjected to verbal, emotional and physical violence at the hands of their partner - only made WORSE and at a HIGHER RISK of DEATH when they become pregnant as seen here, here and here, where it lists that up to 25% of pregnant women are abused and sometimes killed...

Does it make sense to have someone in a domestic violence situation and then not afford them the means to sever the ties with their abuser because their insurance, that they pay thousands of dollars a year for, says no.

Two) Give citizenship to everyone already here. Just do it already for cryin' out loud! Wave your magic wand and make it happen.

If this health care option isn't going to cover undocumented people - make them documented. This country was built on IMMIGRANTS. It's the very fabric of our existence.

Costs are forcing hospitals to close all over the place, especially in Florida and California due to them not being able to handle the charges wracked up by people who can't afford to pay.

If you're going to make it a LAW that EVERY American citizen has to carry Health Insurance, just like you have to carry car insurance - that's fine with me. Got it. Understood. That doesn't answer for the costs incurred by those that are here illegally and are not required to carry health insurance.

You also can NOT have those people dying in the streets either or afraid to go to the hospital and then DIE AT HOME.

Estimated 11.9 million illegal immigrants - that's 11.9+ MILLION illegal immigrants that will what? Be required to stay healthy? Die? What?

Blanket statement!
You're all now citizens!
Prove who you are, get your citizenship certificate.
Welcome to America.
Now go get some health insurance.

I say this for another reason too - I dislike the idea of American companies exploiting illegal immigrants. What the hell is that?! You don't get to do that. Stop it. Right now.

Anyone that you hire has the right to minimum wage - and trust me on this one, no one is getting rich off of minimum wage. I don't even know how most people can even live on minimum wage. That is, however, the LEAST anyone should expect and the least you can legally do. The ONLY people that get around that is the food industry where they STILL have a mandatory minimum.

The LEAST.
"I would pay you far less if I could legally get away with it!"..."Gee, thanks"...
COME ON!

It's a LAW.

Wow...look at that... another law... we don't ignore this one in a wide sweeping blanket though, do we? There is not one company that would come out and say, "Well, you can work here, but we don't like that law and we're going to IGNORE IT. We find it immoral."...or even better... "Fine, we'll allow you minimum wage, but because we find that law immoral, we're not going to offer you workman's comp over it if you work for the government."

Side note: Grant just came over to see what I was typing and said, "You don't really want to put that on your page, do you..."

OF COURSE I DO! When you see something that looks fundamentally wrong, you say something about it.

Grant: "Abortion is a hot topic..."
Me: "I know."
Grant: "Do you REALLY want to throw that out there on your page?"
Me: "YES!"

The day I have to start censoring myself, is the day I stop having a journal...

And really, it's NOT even about abortion. That's been ruled LEGAL. That's not up for debate. What IS, is it's legal. The ISSUE I'm debating is WHY then, isn't it covered by the very same system that MADE it LEGAL.

And that, is my rant, for today.

inspired

Since I got out my frustration over the stupid half question in my last post, I was laying in bed trying to sleep (to no avail, obviously) and one thought lead to another in my mind and next thing I know - I was up to another example of calling things exactly how they are, and how that's a GOOD thing.

That may very well be the longest, most convoluted sentence ever written. Read it a few times if it didn't make sense the first time around, because I assure you that it will eventually.

You were forced to do sentence breakdowns with charts and lines in school.

I know you were!
You can do it!
I have faith!

Here's a Cliff Note example of how my mind works:

"Man, I feel so much better after writing that bitch about that stupid, moronic, half full/half empty question on my journal. I've been meaning to say that to the general public for a long ass time.

I should tell Brian that when he comes over tomorrow too; he'd appreciate my little theory on that. He's all about calling things out for what they really are. I suppose that's why he was a kick ass Cop.

Being a Cop would be a pretty cool job. They have to see things in terms that are very black and white. Their job is to take the law and arrest someone that breaks it and then turn it all over to the D.A., Judge and/or Jury for them to interpret the law as they see fit.

If I could take orders, I would have loved to be a Cop!

Wait a minute, who in the hell am I kidding - I could NEVER be a Cop. I've made that declaration a few dozen times. I know it's true. I'd make it on the streets for about 5.5 hours before I took the law into my own hands and shot some jackass who was doing something so fundamentally wrong that it violated my senses.

I could never do that job. I know my limits. Oh, you want to be a rapist - well, it just so happens that I have a few bullets in this gun - and look at that! One of them has your name on it! Today is your lucky day! Sort of...

"Okay, motherfucker!
Time to die!
Make your peace with God while you can!"

Speaking of which, I should watch that movie, "Black and White" again with Gina Gershon. I love that movie. My favorite part is when she's got the guy in her target and she just SNAPS and she's all like, "Go ahead! You shoot him, I'll shoot you - it'll be FUN!"

Erm... and that's the basics of why I could never do that job, because I would be JUST LIKE HER in that scenario.

Yeah, I could see it now - Internal Affairs would have my number and the number of an Arraignment Judge on speed dial. Then I'd have to figure out how to convince a jury of my peers that the guy actually fell on the bullets six times because he's a klutz.

"How is that MY fault, your Honor?!"

Even I'm not sure I could sell that one. Wow though, if I could - what kind of freakin' win would THAT be. Come to think of it, I bet I might be able to sell that story! If someone can actually get away with a "Twinkies" defense... oh my God, what the hell am I going on about... sheesh... next...

I think one of the best compliments I've ever gotten from Brian is him saying that if we were in the Army together and in War, he would trust me to have his back. That's a huge compliment.

Not that I could ever be in the military either - with my whole lack of, taking orders, thing. It was still a good thing to say.

He's right though, oh my God, if someone took a shot at him I'd go insane and that person would have to pay. I told him that I'm the only one allowed to kill him. NO ONE GETS TO TAKE THAT AWAY FROM ME!

I'd give that guy part of my liver if he needed it.

I'm never going to get any sleep this way. I should just get up and get some coffee and write or read or plot. Whatever. Something.

...it goes on and on and on like that.

That's not even scratching the surface, but it should be enough of an example to give you a little insight.

Anyway, in the midst of my silent tirade in my head while laying there, things somehow worked its way around to measuring people with their own measuring sticks.

Not mine.
Theirs.

I'm fairly cool with a large, large number of things. You want to be a polygamist, more power to you. You want to marry your own sex, knock yourself out. You want to tell me flat out that you're a womanizing asshole - okay.

I could, and ironically, have had the following conversation:

Womanizing Dickhead: "I think it would be good to tell you that I'm a bottom of the barrel, womanizing dickhead - all in the name of fair play. Oh, and by the way, I'm 100% against animal cruelty. People that hurt animals should be shot and then subsequently dragged behind a bus doing 45 down a dirt road."

Me: "Okay. Noted. Thanks!"

I'm actually happy for you that you know yourself well enough to understand that about yourself and your sense of honesty made you say that to me. We're cool. I will NOT be surprised when I see you doing your thing. I won't get all moral on you. I won't lecture you. Good for you for doing some soul searching and coming to some kind of conclusion about yourself.

I don't really care.
I've been warned.
Fair enough.

Granted, I won't be dating you. I won't introduce you to any female that I even remotely know and if you look sideways at my sister - I may gouge your eyes out with a fork.

In the vein of keeping even, I feel that that's necessary to say to you so we're both on the same page.

Noted as well?
Good.
We're cool then.

I value direct honesty and I have a huge fear of being misunderstood and there's no point in mincing words.

This in no way precludes us from being friends.
I'm sure you must have some good qualities too.
Even if you don't, you still get credit for being honest with me.

Really, we're cool.

Now, you can try to lay every female with a pulse around me and I'll ignore you and you're totally safe as long as you don't try to involve me. Have at it. I'll even try very hard not to laugh and roll my eyes. It effects us, not at all. Don't worry your pretty little head over it for one second.

If you try to involve me or get me to vouch for you being a good, caring, one-woman man sort - I will totally blow you in in no uncertain terms and then go back to whatever it was that I was doing. So, you know, you probably don't want to involve me.

But we're OKAY!

You be the best bottom of the barrel, scumbag, dickhead womanizer you can be, honey!

You can tell me all about it later when you're done doing what you're doing.
We'll have coffee or something.

This is where the problem comes in...

If I see the same guy outside kicking a dog - that's a BIG NO!

From that point on, you will forever be known as the jackass dog kicker and I don't even want to know your name now. You have violated your own honesty and now you're nothing but a real asshole that I want nothing to do with.

Me: Hey, you - LYING lowlife animal kicker, there's a bus outside waiting for your ass! I hear he's taking the back roads to his next stop! He's got a gun in his glove compartment too. Hurry!"

You broke your OWN rule.
I have no use for you.

No one else put that rule on you, that's something you came up with on your own. If you didn't want to be held to it, you never should have said it to me!

No sympathy.
None.

If you were a dog kicker, you could have just said, "Oh, yeah - and in my spare time, I like to kick animals."

Sure, I would sit there and stare at you to see if you were serious or not. I'll probably suggest a new hobby, like, watching paint dry or sniffing glue - but I'll take you at your word.

I won't be shocked if I see you do it then either. I'll stare again, and possibly throw a rock at you - but I will be forced to say to myself, "well, he DID tell me... I can hardly say I wasn't warned..."

I don't personally know any dog kickers, but my point remains the same...

Say what you mean, mean what you say - and expect that I'll hold you to it.
Otherwise, really, what's the fucking point.

1-2-3

I've been brainwashing my kids for a long time now. They are *not* living in my basement at 40. Forget it. That's just not going to be happening.

So these are the rules:

You *will* graduate from high school.
Period.
After that, you have three choices:

College - if you're in college, you will be going to the one my ex-husband works at. It's one of the Top 10 colleges in America. Your tuition is free because he's staff. They have a phenomenal program in place - they're connected with close to 160 other colleges that they'll cover tuition for after you get a couple of years of schooling under your belt.

The stipulation from the college is that you have to be a dependent. You will still be a tax deduction. Therefore, I still own you. The rules of the house still apply. How lenient they become depends on your GPA - just like elementary, middle and high school. You should have the hang of it by this point.

If you don't wish to go to any of these schools, you better get some full scholarships because I'm not paying for any other school. Hell, at 40-50K per year, I couldn't afford to pay for this school if my ex-husband didn't work there. The books at this college alone are going to kill us. You are allowed to live on campus and leave all your crap here. This is still your home.

As long I stay married to my ex-husband (for this journal's purposes, I refer to him as my ex-husband since we haven't been together for the last two years and he lives somewhere else - however, we are still married because of the kids), you can go to college for free. The college extends this until the age of 30. You could conceivably walk out of school with a couple of Ph.D.'s worth close to a half a million dollars, if you apply yourself. I know you don't understand exactly what kind of tremendous opportunity he has ensured for you. You're going to have to trust me on this one.

I'm not entirely sure I like the idea of a career student. Pick a direction and work towards it. I'm all for bettering yourself, but you have to have some focus. You've got a year and a summer to get a grip on what that direction might be. Choose...something. You're not living here for 30 years, nor will you want to. Believe me.

Though, I go back and forth on this one...If you find you're exceptional at something and really want to go to school for years on end so you can specialize in it, we'll see about trying to buy a rental home by the campus where you can live and still benefit. I'll have to see if it's allowed. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. It better be something worth-while though, no basket weaving specialist or anything like that.

Military - if you don't realize the opportunity in front of you as far as college goes and you want to join the Military - that's fine. The Military automatically emancipates you in the eyes of the law (just like marriage).

You can get your mail here, leave your stuff here and come home whenever you get leave. This is still your home. Subject to change should you decide to make the Military your career. You're not living here for the next 20 years.

Full time job - if you've decided to wave either of the above options, you've got one month after you graduate from high school to get a full-time job. This is what my Mom did with me. I'm passing it along to you. Congratulations.

You will not even entertain the idea of getting a job that doesn't offer medical insurance. You won't believe this is important, but I'm not playing with you. I will sit down with you before you go on your interviews and discuss the things you should be looking for. I don't expect you to just know.

You will pay rent. The rent you pay, I will let you believe is gone after you give it to me. What will actually happen is that I'll put it into an account for you. At some point you're going to want to buy a house and it'll be a nice portion towards the down payment.

You can do this for approximately a year. At which point, I expect you to be bright enough to think to yourself, "I'm paying rent and still have rules - why in the hell don't I pay rent on my own and not have rules?". I have faith in you.

---

Regardless of which option you choose, I expect you to do the best you can to think over the choices of your life. You will be picking your own branch of the Military (if you fail to make a choice, I will sign you up to the Army). You will be choosing your own classes and major. You will be finding your own job. Do your research.

I always said that you would each get a used car for your high school graduation present. Something checked by our mechanic and that I trust won't break down on you. I'm not asking your opinion on color or type. You get what you get. Be happy you're not riding the bus and you don't have payments to make on it.

You will be responsible for taking care of the maintenance on your car and your car insurance. We will pay for AAA. You will be less likely to be a jackass driving if you're paying for it.

You will be allowed one credit card that's solely in your name and you will take it out from your own bank. There will only be a $250-300 credit limit on it. We'll see how long it takes for you to fully understand, 'only use in case of an emergency' - you will screw it up, undoubtedly.

You will have your own savings and checking accounts. You should know how to manage your money by now, however, for the first few months, I'll sit down with you and help you with your bills/schedules so you don't do what nearly everyone else does and fuck your credit the first year you get it - which you probably will anyway.

If you are overseas, I will handle your car and finances for you until you get back to the United States. I'll also give you all the details about everything I did for you to double check to make sure there isn't something else you owe that you forgot to tell me about.

Do not ask me for a cellphone. I am not putting you on our plan. Neither of you can be trusted with a phone. My suggestion for you is to get a pre-paid deal until you can learn the value of minutes. There's a reason why I don't let you touch mine.

If you lose your mind and plan on getting married at an early age, you better make sure you have a home set up. If you can't handle things on your own - you should take this as an indication that you have no business getting married yet.

If you are really sick, have been in some sort of accident or are pregnant (being diabetic) - you are more than welcome home. I will take care of you.

You can always turn to me for anything. This does not mean that you'll get exactly what you want though. My job is not to become an enabler. My job is to guide you into becoming a decent, responsible and productive human being - one that I'll want to have dinner with out in public. I'm your Mother. I'll always help you in some way. It just might not be in a way you expect though. That's all I'm saying.

I recognize that you have to make your own mistakes. Trust me, you will. It's inevitable. I'll let you, too. Oh, I'll make a few remarks here and there to try to prevent you from doing whatever stupid thing you're about to do, but don't expect me to prevent you. Some things you just need to experience to get. This is a waste of time, but you'll do it anyway because you're young.

That said, if I don't see you correcting the problem and instead find you digging a deeper hole - I will be likely to step in and verbally smack you in the back of the head until you see what you're doing.

If you continue on with said stupid thing after I point it out to you - you're on your own. I will have done my part as your Mother. You can come tell me I was right later in life.

Welcome to adulthood.
Fun, isn't it?

one down, one to go...

jury duty

I'm scheduled for jury duty starting Monday.

I've been selected 6-7 times in my life and it's always the same thing.
Selected, not required to show up.

I did get an extension that led to this time around. I got the notice back in May when I had my ruptured disk and I told them that there was no way in hell that I could sit in a hard wooden chair for 8 hours a day for 5 days.

Wasn't happening.
I offered to show them my MRI as proof.
They didn't care.
They just rescheduled me for now.

So either one of two things are going to happen.

1) I won't be called to go in.
2) It will be the second coming of an O.J. trial and I'll be sequestered for a year and a half.

That's the ONLY way my life would go.
All or none.
Not at all or I'll have to bring a sleeping bag.

Welcome to my world...

toothfairy

This is a conversation I had with my daughter that she reminded me of tonight...she was 13 at the time...

The Girl: Hey Mom, I finally lost that tooth.
Me: Good deal. Seven more to go.
The Girl: Yeah, about that... I haven't seen the tooth fairy in a long time. She's been slacking...

stare

Me: The tooth fairy doesn't get paid until Friday.
The Girl: Doesn't the tooth fairy have to pay interest if she's late?

twitch

I know damn well this child knows the tooth fairy isn't real, we just went thru something similar with Santa Claus...which she won't flat out admit to not being real either because while she might be smart, she's also not willing to screw herself over either

Me: I'll have a talk with her and see what I can do.
The Girl: Cool. Thanks!
Me: It's time for bed...

she stands there and I can hear the wheels turning...this is rarely good, but almost always funny...

The Girl: Tell her I think I should get compensated for PAIN & SUFFERING too.

smart ass

Me: That is NOT a compensable damage. Now GO TO BED!

Here's a little tip: If you're going to study the law, don't share it with your kids. One of them might actually be listening and try to use it against you.

laws and morality

I love the law.

Well, to be more accurate, I love the law as it applies to other people - but again, that's a whole other post...

For four years I studied profiling.

I'm completely fascinated by anyone that can look at a crime scene and determine, sight unseen of the perpetrator, what type of person committed the act.

That's nothing short of brilliant to me.

If you want a perfect example of what I'm talking about, go rent the movie, "Citizen X". It's a true story about a Russian serial killer. It's done accurately and brilliantly. It doesn't glorify serial killers or candy-coat any aspect of trying to find one.

For logical, practical and mom reasons, I was unable to join the FBI to pursue it as a career before the age cut off date.

That lead to studying the law.

I've completed 6 of my 10 sections on getting my paralegal certificate. The more I thought about that, the more I disliked the idea. Why would I spend all my time doing the grunt work without ever being eligible to try a case in court? It also binds my freedom of being able to advise anyone legally as well. That, coupled with it not even being a necessary certificate in this state equated to wasting time to me.

...and we all know how I feel about that.
So I took other law related courses in college instead.

Now, about court. There is NO bigger high to me than when I'm in a court setting. To actually be able to try a case so important that it could save someones life, well, that's the pinnacle to me.

Sign me up.

I've never tried crack, but I can't conceive of even crack producing a better high than me being in court.

Not to imply that I'm against the death penalty. I do think that's warranted at times, just not as often as it's handed out. I'll get to that though.

It bothers me when extra laws are added to the books. Extra laws are added to the book every single solitary DAY.

Do we need a law that prohibits people using their phone while driving? No. We already have existing laws that say if you're acting reckless driving, for WHATEVER REASON - you will be pulled over and can be either fined or jailed.

For those that know how to walk and chew gum at the same time, this is just unnecessary. There are people that can do two things at once and there are those that can't. You know who you are. If you can't, you should know better than to be on the phone while you drive.

Does it lower your defenses?
Yes.

We haven't outlawed singing to the radio or having conversations in your car with people. What's the difference? There isn't one.

We don't need a law that says, "it's against the law to drive recklessly" and a separate law that states, "it's against the law to drive recklessly because your dumb ass was on the phone and you can't do two things at once."

Really.
It's not necessary.
Simply enforcing the laws that already exist is enough.

Laws should also not be based on morality.
since I'm on a morality kick this week...
Laws should be based on the betterment of society.

Did you know that until 1984 it wasn't against the law for a man to rape his wife?
1984.
In America.
A m e r i c a.

That's pathetic.

A stranger on the street was afforded more consideration that you were, as a woman, in your own home.

There's something wrong with that picture.

A marriage certificate is a legal and binding contract with the state. At no time should a contract between parties result in ones loss of basic human rights - and it be deemed legal and binding.

What the fuck is that shit?

If some stranger is raping you and trying to beat you to death in your own house, you have a right to defend yourself. You even have the right to defend someone else. It's called, aptly, "Defense of others."

Sure as I'm sitting here though, if you killed your husband for raping and beating you in your own home before 1984 - you had very little recourse. Those women are probably still sitting in prison.

Again, what the fuck is that.
I end that with a period because it's not really a question.

There was no real reason for me bringing that point up, it's just something I learned recently and it still pisses me off every time I think about it.

Going back to morals, laws and the betterment of society.

In my never very humble opinion because I think that concept is over-rated, laws should not be based on morals. Morals change. Constantly.

Instead, I propose that laws should be based on what is better for society.

Is it better for society that we have a bunch of pedophiles running around getting 6 month sentences for raping a child? No. We are well aware of the studies that show that violence and molestation literally changes a persons DNA.

It changes their DNA.
Forever.

It gives the propensity to serve as a trigger for: repeated violent behavior, antisocial personality disorders, it can lead to a lifetime of physical trauma, difficulty with academic performance, self-control issues, self-image issues, a decline in social relationships, anger, anxiety, poorer cognitive and language skills, self-destructive behavior, hyperactivity, truancy, inability to express feeling, dissociative tendencies, depression, drug and/or alcohol abuse, a predisposition to emotional disturbance, difficulty trusting others and mental illness - to name a few things off the top of my head.

That's just what it can do to an individual.
ONE TIME.
One incident can lead to all of that.

The financial costs are many as well.
The mental and physical ramifications are astounding.

Think about it: therapist co-pays, psychiatric evaluations, medications, hospital visits, police pay, EMT wages, physician premiums, physical therapy costs, welfare and social service costs - to name a few off the top of my head.

I am not saying that people that have been abused are in any way, shape or form - lesser.

They are not.
Nor is it their fault.
Child abuse is not a child's fault.
Never has been, never will be.

This, however, allowed to continue - goes against the betterment of society. And for what? So someone can feel a moment of empowerment? So that ONE individual can temporarily have some self-serving euphoria?

The bad outweighs that person's fleeting sense of entitlement.

All the things that can result from someone abusing a child flies right in the face of something being better for society.

Therefore, it IS and SHOULD be against the law.

The second part to that conclusion of mine is: law sentencing. Does it make any sense to have someone who causes that much damage get as little as 3 months or 5 years of probation? No. That does not serve society.

I haven't worked out my stance on this entirely, but so far I think that sentencing should be based on damage inflicted because when someone has been victimized - everyone suffers for it in some way; not just that individual.

Society as a whole suffers.

The notion that the death penalty is there to serve as a deterrent is just non-sense to me. I've heard that theory time and time again over the years - the whole, "why do we kill people to demonstrate that killing people is wrong?"

We don't.

It's not about that. It's not about bringing closure to anyone either. That's just a side benefit.

Criminal court is about crime and punishment.
Period.

It's not about what you might do in the future.
It's about what you've already done.

If you get the death penalty, it should be solely because after careful consideration - it is deemed that what you did violated our society so badly that there's no turning back. This should also be done on a case by case basis.

This is why it's always the state vs the accused.
It's not the victim vs the accused.

This takes the pressure off the victim as well. The victim is not a part of the deciding verdict. It's out of their hands.

The victim is a witness for the state.

You don't take someone that has been the victim of a crime and then hold them solely responsible for the criminal's loss of freedom. You also don't take the families of a wrongful death and have them walk around with the idea that they are also responsible for sending someone to their death - even if they feel its deserved.

You can't do that to people, they've been through enough.
They don't need that on their conscious.

There has been talk of giving people that rape children the death sentence. At present, the death sentence is reserved solely for 1st degree murderers.

The death penalty is designed for the worst of the worst - and right now, that's only 1st degree murderers. Not all murderers. Not second degree murderers. Not manslaughter; vehicular or otherwise - only 1st degree murderers.

I'm unsure if we should add other crimes to that list.
There is such a thing as a slippery slope.

If it was my child - I would want that person dead.
That's why I shouldn't even be considered.
It would be a conclusion based on my emotions.

and should said person ever see the light of day - he should change his name and move to another country because the courts would be far kinder and more lenient than I would EVER be... and he should still spend the rest of his life looking over his shoulder... he'd be safer in prison... YEAH, I SAID IT!

This is why we have laws against vigilantism, for people like me.

Anyway, some people believe that keeping people alive and letting them think about what they've done for the rest of their life is a better option and more cruel.

This theory is flawed if you're dealing with someone without a conscious. Do you really think that serial killer has any issue sitting around glorifying what they've done in their heads?

One would have to actually be sorry for their crime for that to even be remotely effective. But again, it's not about that - it's not about cruelty. It's about what is best for society.

Passing morals aside, it's not better for society for someone to run around killing people. It's not better for society to have people running around molesting children. The ramifications are far reaching and too high.

The punishments should reflect the damage to all of us.