An Argument That Proves Too Much

Today, a Florida Circuit court judge sentenced John Evander Couey to death for kidnapping and raping 9 year old Jessica Lunsford then putting her into a trash bag and burying her alive. What struck me, however, was an argument made by Couey's attorney. From an AP story, "Lunsford Killer to Die for His Crime": "

The public defender representing Couey had asked for a life sentence instead of capital punishment, arguing that Couey is mildly retarded. A 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling prohibits the execution of mentally retarded people.

A judge, however, ruled earlier this month that Couey was not mentally retarded and was eligible for the death penalty. At today's hearing, Howard again batted away the arguments that Couey's mental aptitude had prompted his uncontrollable behavior."

I'm not going to argue whether Couey had a reduced mental capacity because I don't see how it matters. Even if true, why should that reduce Couey's sentence from death to life? If he is really mentally retarded then why not ten years. But wait, he's mentally retarded so why not, five years. Again, Couey is mentally retarded.

The attorney's argument proves too much. Intellectually consistentency demands that Couey shouldn't be held at all because, after all, he is mentally retarded. But even his attorney wouldn't argue that. Why? Because Couey is guilty and freeing him denies justice.

Couey took an innocent child from the safety of her own bedroom, used her for his own pleasure, then buried her as if this innocent, defenseless human being were trash. His life should be forfeit.

To allow him to live - albeit denying him freedom - trivalizes the dignity and worth of another human being ... in this case, Jessica Lunsford.

It's time to take out the true trash.

Disrespect in a Sexually Saturated Culture

Several weeks ago, Faith Hill verbally reprimanded a female fan who grabbed her husband Tim McGraw in the crotch at the Louisiana stop of their Soul2Soul tour. According to E! Online, Hill admonished the fan from the stage,

"Somebody needs to teach you some class, my friend," a finger-wagging Hill told
the woman. "You don't go grabbin' somebody else's, somebody's husband's
[privates], you understand me? That's very disrespectful!"

Good for Hill for saying something. I would add that you don't grab anyone's private area unless - perhaps - you are married to them and they are willing to have that type of attention.

But both McGraw and Hill wear outfits that accentuate their physical handsomeness and beauty. Sex sells. McGraw wears pants that emphasis his backside and his "privates". Or his shirt unbuttoned to show his chest hair.

Hill's photo layout for her album "Breathe" shows her reclining against a wall, with a seductive glance, one part of her sweater falling off her shoulder exposing her bra strap while the sweater front is strategically opened in the front to show the top of her laced-bra covered breast. The black sweater fails to cover most of her legs.

Does Hill not care about "grabbin' somebody else's husband's mind"? Now, there is a huge chasm between what Hill does to sell albums and what the female concertgoer did to McGraw. In fact, I think the fan should be charged. After all, what would have been the result had a male fan let his fingers do the walking on Hill?

In our sex-saturated culture, what Hill does is pretty tame. But, to say it doesn't have any affect on men, putting images into their heads - images of one man's wife into the heads of other women's husband - is foolish. That is, after all, what it is designed to do.

Hill is not physically accousting men but she is mentally accousting them. I have to wonder why that, on some level, isn't also considered "disrespectful".