Jordan Brown, the 11-year old boy accused of fatally shooting his father's pregnant fiancee back in 2009, is being tried as an adult and faces the possibility of life without parole:
Prosecutors allege that Jordan Brown, now 13, shot and killed 26-year-old Kenzie Houk as she slept in her home in Lawrence County, near Pittsburgh, in February, 2009. Houk was pregnant with a nearly full-term child at the time. Brown was charged with two counts of homicide.
Pennsylvania's laws on juvenile trials are among the least accommodating in the country, with juvenile suspects in homicide cases automatically tried as adults, unless a judge decides otherwise (see note below)......[H]uman rights group Amnesty International said that Brown is the youngest person the international organization knows of anywhere in the world facing a life sentence without possibility of parole (emphasis added).
I find this so upsetting that it is difficult for me to articulate any coherent thoughts other than, "I'm moving to Canada."
Houk's murder is a tragic, tragic thing. Yet we stand poised to compound this tragedy by imprisoning an obviously troubled boy until the day he dies. It is unfathomable to me.
Note: if you are interested in reading the judge's decision to not remand Brown's case to juvenile court, you can do so here.
Things That Make My Heart Hurt, #2
Last week, the House GOP introduced legislation, the "No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Bill," that drastically narrowed the type of rape and incest for which impregnated victims can receive federal assistance for abortion services to include only forcible acts -- until the enormous backlash prompted the bill's sponsor, New Jersey Rep. Chris Smith, to walk back the "forcible rape" exemption:
The fact that Smith relented offers me little solace. Feminist scholars and activists have been working for thirty years to abolish the idea of "real rape" (you know, stranger assault by an armed, Black man against a defenseless white woman). The fact that the "forcible rape" exemption was even included in the House bill in the first place suggests that we still have work to do.Last week, Mother Jones' Nick Baumann broke the story on Chris Smith's "No Taxpayer for Abortion" Act, which would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape. For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. But Smith's bill contained a provision that woudl [sic] limit the rape exemption to "forcible rape," ruling out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases—such as statutory rape—in which force was not involved or could not be proved. "It is absolutely outrageous," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.). "I consider the proposal of this bill a violent act against women."
Now, Smith has retreated, excising the "forcible" rape language from the bill, reports Politico. "The word forcible will be replaced with the original language from the Hyde Amendment," Smith spokesman Jeff Sagnip says, referring to the ban on the federal government paying for abortions that's been in place since 1976.
The GOP effort to rewrite the meaning of rape incited a Twitter campaign of protest (using the hashtag #dearjohn). Editorial pages and columnists protested. Progressive groups initiated a crusade to kill the bill. MoveOn.org launched a petition against the bill, saying Smith's legislation would "set women's rights back by decades…As far too many women know, bruises and broken bones do not define rape—a lack of consent does." EMILY's List, issued its own petition, declaring war on the bill and one of its most prominent proponents: Speaker of the House John Boehner. Its website, BoehnersAmerica.org, urged "Boehner and his cronies to stop using rape victims as political pawns." The group said, "it was known from the beginning that Boehner and his boys would fight to take away women's freedoms whenever possible."
Smith's bill did unsettle some GOPers. Differentiating between types of rape, Politico reports, befuddled Republican aides. "Such a removal would be a good idea, since last I checked, rape by definition is non-consensual," one GOP aide says.
Please, someone offer me some good news to lift my spirits today!
Posts
1 comments:
The case of Jordan Brown will be interesting and important to follow. I really haven't followed the case much, but there will be a few big milestones to track such as what the judge decides on the waiver, what plea deals (I suspect a plea deal will be offered) are offered, and what he is ultimately charged with. I cannot fathom someone spending their life in prison for what they did as an 11 year old.
I have followed #2 a bit. I think you are not completely being fair to the "forced rape" issue. Part of that is to distinguish it from statutory rape. That is a good part of the intent, or at least from what I see. I did see something in an article that tries to distinguish “forced rape” from other forms of assaultive rape but it does not elaborate so I am not sure what is intended – I suspect, maybe “date rape?” To the dgree that the distinction is based on the distinction with statutory rape, I believe it is notable and appropriate distinction. To the degree it is intended to make a distinction between other forms of rape such as date rape, I too share your disgust.
It is, however, hard not to point out the irony in the postings. The first pleads that children should be given allowances because they are so vulnerable and that society should protect them even when they do something heinously wrong. The second, however, implies it is a fundamental right to murder children who have done wrong except exist. Moreover, this right to murder can be perpetrated by the person singularly most responsible for their protection, their mothers. It is hard for me to reconcile those two perspectives. My heart aches about number 2 also, but for different reasons.
I have a hard time not pointing out the irony in the collective
Post a Comment